When the debate was adjourned last night, I had been quoting from the record of the proceedings of the Transkeian Territorial authority with the object of indicating to this House the nature of the resolutions and the approach adopted by that body over the three sessions that it has sat. I want to say at once that in making those quotations, I selected examples from what are the majority, but there are naturally also examples of responsible resolutions and there are responsible chiefs and responsible members of that body. What is important for this House to consider is the general picture disclosed by the debates, the subject-matter and the attitude of that embryo parliament as a whole towards the responsibilities of government, because we have to remember that this is the body to which the Government is to hand over self-government and independence, and therefore the attitude disclosed towards the responsibilities of government is of the utmost importance. If this Parliament is to hand over power to a body unqualified to receive and exercise that power, then this Parliament would be guilty of a grievous offence against South Africa. What was the attitude towards the responsibilities of government which these minutes disclosed? In two-thirds, if not three-quarters, of the resolutions, many examples of which I gave last night, the attitude was one of removing restrictions necessary for ordered government, relaxing rules under which people must live if health, agriculture and other services are to be maintained on a proper level, and advantages, higher pay and allowances for those who had the power and were in authority. I say that it is inconceivable that this House should hand over to a body at that stage of development and with that approach to responsibilities, the powers which the Prime Minister has announced are to be handed over and thereafter total independence, the speed and the tempo and the final achievement of which cannot be controlled by this Government once they have embarked on that road. How long does the Government think the Transkeian Parliament would survive? The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) said last night that I was wrong when I said that these minutes indicated an antagonism towards the Bantu Authorities system by the council as such.

What are you quoting to-day?

I am quoting to-day from the debates of 25 April 1961, less than a year ago, and I am quoting resolution No. 53 in which the mover said the following—

Last session I quoted similar words from a resolution one year earlier; that was said by Councillor Potwana. He was seconded and the seconder said the following—

He was supported by another Councillor who said—

The next speaker supported him and was followed by another speaker who said—

It concludes with the next speaker—

The amendment was carried.

What was the amendment?

The amendment was that not only chiefs and headmen but other Bantu as well, recommended by the chiefs and headmen, should be allowed to carry firearms—not the knob-kieries and assegais which the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration issues to his homeguards, but firearms with which to protect themselves. But what is even more significant than the ignorance of the hon. member for Heilbron of the attitude of members of the Transkeian Authority, is the fact that no member on the Government side—and I challenge them to deny it—has read the minutes of the Transkeian Territorial Authority over the last three years. Sir, there is a deathly silence. Not a single member on that side can stand up and say that he has read the Hansard debate of the Parliament to which they intend to hand over self-government and full independence. If ever there was an act of complete and utter irresponsibility, it is the fact that these members are giving their blind support to the handing over of power to an authority when they have not even taken the trouble to find out the standard and the abilities of that authority by following its activities. They have had the opportunity. If any member opposite does not like this, let him stand up and say that he has followed these debates. No, they cannot because they have not read those debates. They do not know what this body has been doing, and yet they are prepared to give it self-government. I challenge any hon. member on the Government’s side to indicate by interjection or by question, which I will answer, that he has any knowledge of the subject-matter discussed.

I know that what you are saying is not true.

I will exclude that member of the Bantu Affairs Commission whose job it is to be there. I am talking about the ordinary supporters of the Government who are prepared to give a blank cheque to the Prime Minister without knowing what is going to be written into that cheque. This independent government is the government with which we in South Africa will have to negotiate, the government which we will have to deal. We will have to go to them in regard to affairs affecting our lives in the remnant of so-called White South Africa. We will have to go to them, for instance, in regard to labour matters. Their citizens will be the labour in our industries. on our farms and in our cities, and we will have to negotiate with that foreign government in regard to the relationship between our employers and their labour. But this body is ahead of us. This embryo Parliament has already considered these question. You will find, for instance, that they passed a resolution last year—

All recruiting agencies! In other words, that they should control all labour upon which our mines and our industries which draw labour from the Transkei are dependent. These members do not know that this Parliament to which they want to give these powers has already thought of these things. There is another resolution dealing with the question of a levy on the gold mines in respect of all Transkeian labour working in the gold mines.

Do you think we do not know about it?

That was reported in the newspapers, but, sir, I notice that this blue book is not issued to Government members; it is not issued to any Member of Parliament. I had to get this out of the library and I had to write to Umtata to get the other two copies because this Government is not prepared to allow its own members to read what is going on in the debates of this Council, because if its own members knew, it would not get the blind support from them upon which it is dependent. But it is not only labour on which the Union is dependent. There is the question which has often been debated in this House of the life-blood of South Africa, the question of water, water on which any country depends for future industrial and agricultural development. The Commission of which the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration was vice-Chairman, went to a great deal of trouble to investigate the water resources of South Africa. A map was drawn up showing “die Bantoegebiede in verhouding tot die waterryke dele van die Unie”. (Water-abundant areas of South Africa.) A study of that map reveals a small section of the Western Province, and the Vaal and Orange River in White areas and all the other major water-abundant areas in South Africa in Bantustans or future Bantustans. The whole of the water-rich East Coast of South Africa, taking in all the rivers between the Fish and (as we understand from the suppressed whispers) the Umzimkulu, and in the north from the Tugela to Mozambique, including the Tugela River with a water capacity of 4.1 million acre-feet;—.1 million more than the Vaal which carries 3,000,000 people. All that is going into a Bantustan. part of the life-blood of South Africa, to be controlled by foreign states. If you study the map of the Transkei issued by the Government it is jammed with rivers from one end to the other, and when you look at what is left to South Africa, you find dry areas with an odd river scattered here and there. But the richest of our water resources, the water resources on which South Africa’s industrial future depends are being handed over by the Government to foreign states. And these members opposite are prepared to back that blindly, and one day they will have to go to some Prime Minister of a Bantustan and say “Please, will you supply us with electricity from one of your hydro-electric schemes”, a hydro-electric scheme probably built with Russian capital, because they can’t stop the Russians giving them capital, or any other foreign and hostile country, to build hydro-electric schemes. In one of the Government’s own publications, published recently, they indicate the potential of a waterfall near Umtata to create a hydro-electric scheme. Are they going to supply the Transkei Government with the money, or are they going to prevent those independent states from getting the money they require. They always hold up Basutoland as an example. Only the other day Sir John Maud addressing the Basutoland Government, dealt with the question of costs of administration and he told them that 36 per cent of Basutoland’s total estimated expenditure would have to be subsidized. That is excluding the money that the Republic of South Africa is providing through the labourers of that territory. So one can go on. There is the question of boundaries and corridors,—corridors which have been one of the primary causes of wars in history, and here we are deliberately creating corridors, corridors of which Durban will form part—a narrow strip squeezed in between two independent Bantustans. Does the Minister believe that those boundaries will be fixed for ever? Does he believe that he can draw a line. The hon. the Prime Minister himself said in this House this year that the boundaries would be a matter for negotiation. But because there is a by-election in Aliwal he had to say “No, we are not going to discuss Harding and Port Shepstone coming into the Transkei”. They had to give an assurance to the people of Kokstad and Matatiele that they were not going to come into a Bantustan. But the Minister said that he was prepared to negotiate with the authority in regard to boundaries. On what basis? Of course when there is an election pending he will have to say to the people in that constituency: “We are not going to put you in a Bantustan”: How then can he negotiate? The Authority itself has asked for it. It is asking for adjoining territories, and that boundary problem is one which neither this Minister nor any government can control once they have created independent states. What is happening is that this Government, as I said at the start, has failed to find a method of governing South Africa in peace and harmony. It is trying to crawl abjectly and grovelling into some little remnant of our country in order to find a foxhole to hide away from its own failure to govern the country as a whole. We on this side of the House have stated our opposition over the years to any breaking up of South Africa, and we shall continue to oppose it, oppose it because it is not only unnecessary, but dangerous both to the Republic of South Africa and to the civilized standards which we are trying to build up.

I want to conclude by quoting words to which the hon. the Minister of Bantu Development and Administration subscribes. He signed a report which said—

South Africa forms the key to the rest of Africa. If Christian civilization established itself in Africa, then

This Minister agreed to that. It is part of the alleged philosophy of the Government, yet here that buffer in which we are trying to create civilized standards and to maintain Christian standards is being broken up, is being disintegrated, and it will be left for those areas which are being broken away from us to develop whatever standards they wish. We on this side of the House are not prepared to subscribe to that. We are not prepared to vote money in order to liquidate the country for which so much has been sacrificed.

Before replying to the hon. member who has just spoken and his colleagues, I just want to prove that the matter under discussion now, viz. the implementation of the policy of the Government and the establishment of a Bantu Government in the Transkei, reflects the consolidated opinion and has the support of all the Prime Ministers South Africa has had from General Botha down to the present Prime Minister, without exception. There is not a single one who did not at a convenient time express the absolute opinion beyond all doubt and held out in prospect that what is happening to-day must happen in the interest of South Africa. I want to state that clearly again. This measure now being discussed enjoys, as I shall prove, the support of the consolidated opinion of all the Prime Ministers South Africa has ever had. Therefore I agree with the quotation made by the hon. the Deputy-Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, when he quoted the opinion of General Botha and General Hertzog. I shall quote what Dr. Malan and also General Smuts said. I will not quote what Mr. Strijdom said because if ever anything was clear in South African politics, it is the policy Mr. Strijdom followed. I will first quote the opinion of Dr. Malan on this matter, which agrees with the quotations given by the Deputy-Minister of Bantu Administration in another debate on the same subject. In a letter to certain church associations in America Dr. Malan, inter alia, said this—

This statement by Dr. Malan leaves no doubt that he stressed the fact that because of these deep-rooted differences, not only differences in colour, is essential for the peaceful continued existence of the people in this part of Africa that there should be separate, difference governments for those races.

No, he does not say that.

I hope hon. members will not try to divert me from what I am going to prove. They are of course afraid of what will come next, because I now want to come to what General Smuts said on the same subject. As early as 1917 General Smuts clearly expressed his opinion, and nobody can deny that every statesman has certain periods in his life when he is at his best, and I think we can all say that in the year 1917 or thereabouts Field-Marshal Jan Christian Smuts was at his best and at his strongest. Then he said—

Just what Dr. Malan said—

Where do you get that from?

Mr. Speaker, there are certain times when I appreciate it if hon. members interrupt me, but we are trying to concentrate because now we are dealing with serious matters. Just endure General Smuts’ views a little longer. Perhaps you can learn from him. In 1945, 28 years later, the same General Smuts stressed and repeated what he had said in 1917 and he did it with so much emphasis that it leaves no doubt in our minds, and let it now also be clear to hon. members over there that it leaves no doubt about it that what we are doing here to-day also had his blessing at that time and all his support. He said—

What are you quoting from?

The hon. member every time studies what I quote. Then he fetches the book and studies it. I am going to give this book to the hon. member because I want him to learn something from it.

Whose speech are you quoting from?

From General Smuts’ speech. I have quoted these things to show that what we are doing here is nothing else but what was the common thoughts and views of all the Prime Ministers South Africa has ever had since 1910. And if ever there was something which could surely be regarded as authoritative and as a guide to the people of South Africa, and particularly to the various political sections in our country, it is that consolidated opinion of all those men who expressed those opinions in the serious times when they had to see the country through its troubles. We can have only the highest respect for their opinions, and I say that what we are doing here we are doing with the moral support of all the former Prime Ministers of South Africa. I do so in the face of all the challenges which are so easily issued over the floor of the House, and I appeal to hon. members to show a little more respect for the views and statements of statesmen of the past who have brought South Africa to where it is to-day. Then they will perhaps also be able to make a contribution towards what we are doing to-day.

I now come back to what various hon. members said in this debate. The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw), inter alia, asked: How long will the Transkeian Government stand? That is one of the questions which no wise man in the world can answer. I am not going to answer it, because that is unanswerable. However, the criticism of hon. members opposite hitherto in this debate is calculated to put the stamp of truth on those things which they have told the world and in regard to which they have blamed this Government. They are trying, if possible, to let matters develop in such a way that later they can tell UN: You see, we were always right. Therefore they do not want these essential matters to be implemented like the establishment of Bantu Governments, where the Bantu will receive all the elementary and civic and political rights which UN may possibly desire people to have in any country in the world. The hon. members over there know very well that White South Africa will never tolerate the implementation of the policy of the United Party. But they see that what the National Party has propagated will be implemented in practice to all the consequences we envisaged in the past. But now I pose this question: Whilst this matter is now under discussion, why were the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his lieutenant, the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) so chary of stating over the floor of this House the policy which the hon. member for Yeoville announced on behalf of his party in the Sunday Times of 3 December last year, when he announced the full policy of the United Party? Of course it had the support of his leader, because a photo of both those gentlemen appears in this newspaper. It almost seems as if they came from a wedding, because they look very nice. But here they stated their full policy, and this was now the time to state it as against the policy of the Government. Why did they not do so? Why did they not now state over the floor of the House the three-stage policy which the hon. member for Yeoville announced at that time?

Let us analyse it a little and it will soon become clear why those hon. members are so chary of doing so. I will analyse a few of the points. As regards the first stage, the hon. member mentions a series of apartheid laws which will be repealed, inter alia, Sec. 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act which provides for job reservation. In this debate we cannot allow this announced policy of the Opposition not to be discussed. We must state it as against what the National Party is now busy doing. Therefore the first stage is to abolish job reservation. Let me remind hon. members who perhaps do not know exactly what it means of what it will mean. If to-day we abolish that only industrial colour bar, apart from Act 25 of 1926, which introduced job reservation in the mines, what happened then? We have a large number of conventional colour bars, but now it seems to me that hon. members are not aware that when they abolish that legal colour bar they would necessarily be abolishing also all those conventional colour bars which exist in the public service, in the Army, in the Police Force, etc. In every respect they would then be throwing open the whole labour market, the professional market, the Public Service, the railways, the Army and the Police Force. According to those hon. members, we must give the Bantu the opportunity to stand shoulder to shoulder with the White man. I say that this can be suggested only by somebody who is in total ignorance in regard to the philosophy of life of the White workers and the professional man in the Public Service. When the hon. members formulated that policy, they were evidently at that time in a frame of mind of which it can be said that those whom the Gods want to destroy they first make mad. Because how can they think of throwing open all these services for White and non-White in South Africa? How could they abolish the colour bar completely in the economic sphere and in the civic sphere and then still expect the White man in South Africa to support them?

Order! There is a motion to that effect on the Order Paper.

Mr. Speaker, that motion has nothing to do with job reservation. But that is one of the stages of the policy announced by the Opposition, and whilst we are busy discussing a policy which is being implemented by the Government I say we must contrast the policy propounded by those hon. members with this policy. But I just want to emphasize the point, because the important aspect is that in regard to the second stage the hon. member mentions what he calls an absolute necessity in the eyes of the United Party—

Do you know what this middle class is to do now? That is what the United Party now proposes in connection with the people who are to be property owners in the White areas, in the urban areas. Let it just sink into the minds of those who have not made a study of their own policy. The hon. member for Yeoville says that this strong, prosperous middle class should now be encouraged to buy land in the White areas, whilst they are compromised by their resolution at Bloemfontein which was the cause of the Progressive Party splintering off from the United Party, namely the resolution not to buy one more inch of land from the Whites for the Reserves. Therefore I say we must analyse their policy now. They do not want another single inch of land to be bought in order to implement the 1936 Act, land we were compelled to buy in terms of that Act. That caused a split in their party. But now they want to allow many inches, many morgen of land, many sites in the heart of the White man’s area, in the industrial areas, to be purchased. You see, the Gods are busy destroying them, because how the hon. members of the Opposition can expect to justify this policy of theirs in the judgment of the people of South Africa, namely not to allow one more inch of land to be bought for the Bantu homelands, whereas they deliberately want to create a strong, prosperous middle class of Bantu who are to own land in the heart of the White areas I really do not know. But that is the policy which the hon. member for Yeoville should now have discussed here. That is the amendment he should have moved against the Government’s policy. Then he would have had the courage of his convictions and would have shown confidence in the policy he announced in the Press, but which he is not prepared to state here as against our policy. Now we can understand why they are so shy of these things, because if we listen to the criticism of those hon. members we see that they are now completely lost. They do not know what to say. Instead of voicing effective criticism, all their actions have the effect of a blunt little blade on a piece of hard steel. One cannot make a mark in that way, and so far those hon. members have not been able to make any impression either. Why? Because the more one analyses their policy and compares it with that of the Government, the more it appears that what they propagate is quite untenable.

I come to the third stage, the Senate Plan stage. The hon. member for Yeoville said in that regard that it would not be a territorial federation but a racial federation. But then he immediately describes how he will have the territorial areas of the non-Whites. Because he begins by saying that the Transkei, for example, very easily serves as a unit, as for example a constituency to elect members, one or two of those eight members whom they want to give to the Bantu. Then he takes the Natal area and describes the position of the Bantu in Natal, and he says that Natal must also serve as a sort of constituency for the Bantu who live there. Then we come to the third point, and he says that the Transvaal can also serve as a constituency for the Bantu, and he says that this also eliminates an impossible task, viz. the consolidation of those areas. Day after day the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) and his colleagues ask: Where are the borders? But here his colleague says that it is an impossible task.

Tell us where the borders are.

We know where your borders are; your borders are all in one large state where the Bantu must necessarily be in the majority and must necessarily predominate and rule, as has repeatedly been explained by speakers on all sides of the House. [Interjections.] Wait a minute, let us continue to deal with these stages, these constituencies mentioned by the hon. member. I have already mentioned three, and now we come to the fourth one he mentioned.

The fourth constituency, according to him, is “the property-owning middle-class Bantu”, which he says he wants to strengthen considerably. He divides the Bantu into four classes, four different territorial areas which must elect eight representatives. Then he expects those eight members to satisfy the world, to satisfy the Bantu. And then hon. members opposite come along and ask how long the Transkeian Parliament will live. How long would this Parliament live if one had to start with eight such members? One would then be giving all the weapons and explosives and all the oil to the world; and if you do that, Sir, if you do what the United Party propagates in this policy, you must necessarily, as I said in the beginning, lend truth to what the hon. members there have been telling UN for ten years already, namely that South Africa stand for a policy of discrimination and oppression of the worst degree. Then the cap must necessarily be put on that and it must be implemented. If you have this racial federation plan, these eight members as suggested by the hon. member for Yeoville, you will necessarily be giving all the weapons to UN and the Afro-Asian countries with which to launch their attacks on South Africa, and then they will have a case; then they will be able to prove to the world that there is discrimination here which cannot be tolerated, not by the Whites because the Whites will gradually see themselves be written off; and not by the Bantu because the Bantu will realize that an injustice is being done to him. That is the essence of the whole matter. But the hon. members did not dare, of their own volition, to mention this announced policy of theirs in this House. It must be dragged in bit by bit; we must refer to it here bit by bit and discuss it bit by bit because they did not have the courage to say that this was now the golden opportunity which they must take to contrast their policy with the policy of the National Party.

No, Mr. Speaker, the irony of this “ordered advance” of the United Party is that it is nothing else but the old, inherited and borrowed system, the imitation of an old system which existed in Europe and in India and which was responsible for the greatest discrimination and oppression, the greatest poverty the world has known in the midst of plenty. If we are to implement this class policy proposed by the hon. member for Yeoville, we will again have that same thing, because if one creates a middle class there must necessarily be three classes. If one has a middle class there must also be a very rich class as well as a poor and oppressed class.

Yes, of course.

And will the hon. member who has just interrupted me go and defend that poor and oppressed class at UN? Is that what they intend doing? No, but the hon. member over there knows that his political days are numbered. Now they do not care how reckless they are and how at this stage they are creating all the ammunition, all the arguments, all the stories and all the propaganda for UN and our enemies abroad. That is why they carry on in this reckless manner. That is why they did not discuss on their merits the measures we are now debating. That is why they are so afraid of putting their own policy to the House, because they know that it is nothing else but a reckless policy. I say that the announced policy of the United Party can only give UN fuel to add to the flames, and to all the enemies who can only fight South Africa with untruths but who could not condemn us in the face of the truth. The hon. members opposite are trying to prepare that ammunition. There are some of them who do so joyfully. In spite of that diabolical smile, Mr. Speaker …

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the expression “diabolical smile”.

I withdraw it, Sir. In spite of all that, we shall continue. We come here with a measure and hon. members opposite behave as if that is the end of the world. We are doing the very things they said last year that we would never do. Every year when the Prime Minister gets up here to make an announcement, they say: This is now the end of everything. When we intend implementing our stated policy, when we implement step by step the policy laid down in various Acts, when we pass Act after Act and systematically apply them in spite of the bogies raised by hon. members opposite, they say we will never do so. They say the country can never bear the cost of it, but now the country is bearing it. They say the people of South Africa will never be prepared to bear it. I now tell you, Sir, that if ever there was a matter which was received with open arms in this country and which will receive the greatest moral and financial support by the people, it is this measure we are dealing with now. We have no fear. There are many people who are frightened. I know that, because the Opposition is out to frighten people from morning to night. You know, when a man becomes old he becomes afraid. I now tell you, Sir, that I am less afraid to-day, having seen how the Government is actually implementing its policy, having seen that the Government intends to do what it stated and that this is not a matter of idle words but one of deeds—I have never in my whole political career felt as strong as. I do now, because I see that we are now going to add the deed to the word. I think I can also talk with some authority as to what the opinions of the people in South Africa are from time to time, and I can give the Government the assurance that this step is one of the milestones which will be written in golden letters in future, that a political party which started small, with a majority of one or two, developed this power. In the days when the hon. the Minister of Education was a Whip, we know that we had a majority of one or two, but we went forward step by step and we built. We did not give way and, Sir, is it not true to-day that the fact that large numbers of us sit with the Prime Minister on this side of the House is the fruit and the reward of a Government which followed a policy and adhered to the course it adopted—which was faithful to the little entrusted to it and therefore was entrusted with much for the future of South Africa?

The speech by the hon. member who has just sat down, has been a desperate effort to try to draw a red herring across the attack on the part of this side of the House on the Government. He has not dealt with the Government’s scheme. He said he was trying to get us to discuss our policy. He will not evade discussion on the Government’s plan by resorting to that subterfuge. When he started his speech I thought that he was going to prove that every Prime Minister in the past had advocated separate states for the various races of this country. It appeared, however, that all he had was a speech made by the late General Smuts somewhere or other in which he advocated a different type of political institution for the Bantu from that enjoyed by the Europeans. That was as far as he went. In the speech which the hon. member quoted there is certainly no justification for assuming that General Smuts at any time advocated the liquidation of the Union as it was then or the Republic as it is to-day.

I am the only person in this House who is directly affected at the moment by the policy of this Government. As the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) said last night, it is easy for persons living far away from the affected areas to be lofty and detached in a discussion of this matter. All Transkeians, White, Coloured and African, are, however, directly affected and have been affected by this policy from the moment the hon. the Prime Minister made his announcement. The other members of our population, Sir, not living on the borders of the reserves, may think that they will escape the consequences of this statement by the Prime Minister. But eventually every person living in South Africa is going to have to face up to those consequences. The hon. the Minister of Lands gave a very apt simile last night. He said that the United Party’s policy, namely, of continually making concessions, according to him, would eventually lead to more and more concessions having to be made and he likened our position to that of the driver of a sleigh who has to keep on casting off a horse to satisfy the wolves that are following the sleigh. Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister is the driver of this sleigh and his team consists of horses from all over South Africa. His sleigh is being followed by wolves, not only Republican wolves, but by wolves from outside the Republic as well. And the wolves are closing in. In desperation he has now cut off one horse, the Transkei, from his team hoping to distract the wolves while he gets away. Sir, he will keep on discarding horses until they are all gone, but the wolves in the form of at least 6,000,000 Africans, according to the Tomlinson Commission, will still be around the sleigh. He will then find himself cut off, isolated, from any assistance from outside.

You are helping the wolves.

I do not have to help the wolves. I am not retreating, Sir; it is the Whip and his party who are in full retreat.

You are instigating them.

I want to make the position of the White man and of the Coloured man in the Transkei quite clear. We do not object to the giving of more political rights to the Africans or to giving them more authority in their own areas, and not only in the reserves but in their own Native townships. We support that policy and that is why the constituency is a United Party seat. We are opposed to and have always been opposed to the denial of all political rights to the Africans. What we are concerned about is the method that this Government is adopting to give political rights to the Africans. What we are worried about is the degree of authority that is being given and the rate of the emancipation. We in the Transkei are prepared to play our part in its development and in the administration of the territory. We are convinced that we can continue to live harmoniously and together if the right approach is made. The impression is created that the Government’s course is to grant more democratic rights to the Bantu than they have enjoyed in the past. But, Sir, they are not being given more democratic rights. I want to remind the hon. the Minister of Finance who is in charge of this debate—the Minister of Bantu Administration will know this—that in the old Bunga they had a system which was more democratic than the new system which is now being applied to the Transkei. But at the time, in 1956, the policy of the Government was to introduce Bantu Authorities throughout the whole Union. The Transkei refused to accept that. The essence of Bantu Authorities was this that there would be no political rights given to any African; it was the restoration of tribal discipline with the authority in the hands of the chiefs and headmen. We were told at the time that was true Bantu democracy. The Transkei would not accept that and the Minister knows what happened. Eventually the principle of Bantu Authorities was accepted because they were given to understand that they would get more authority than they had in the Bunga. Well, Sir, that authority could have been given to them without dissolving the old Bunga and without applying Bantu Authorities to the Transkei. It would have been possible to give them more authority; all it would have required would have been to amend the Bunga proclamation. But that was not done. When the principle was accepted in the Transkei of Bantu Authorities there was great jubilation in this House; there was great jubilation when the telegram was read out announcing that fact. There was a special announcement made by the Minister. But Bantu Authorities did not work. It is idle for any member here, especially the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman), to pretend that Bantu Authorities have been a success. The Government has had to get rid of Bantu Authorities. We are told that they are to have a democratic constitution. The Prime Minister announced that he was going to introduce a democratic form of government for the Bantu.

You are surely not against that.

I am not against it, but this is a complete reversal of Government policy. It started last year with the passing of the Bantu (Urban) Councils Act. That was where it started. Up to last year, Sir, we were definitely given to understand and so were the Bantu that they would have no more political rights in the urban areas. The only political rights they enjoyed were in the Transkei—nowhere else in the Union. And then last year the reversal came. These people who are sojourners were given representation in the councils in the Native areas. That Act has not been applied yet; no Bantu councils have been established yet, admittedly, but the Government has accepted the principle. Why Sir? To placate world opinion more than to placate opinion inside this country. We are told that a democratic form of government is to be given to the Bantu. What is the constitution of this new Parliament to be? We do not know. The Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, in reply to a question put by me, stated that the report which we had seen was not an official report and was not quite correct. But it is quite clear from the report that the chiefs and the headmen are to control this new authority. Not only will they all be represented in the authority, and not only will they be able to nominate a member of this new Parliament for each district in the Transkei, but the urban councils on which the chiefs will have representation and to which the Government will nominate councillors, will also nominate Members of Parliament to this new Parliament. The only form of election which there is to be apparently, will be the election of the 26 Members of Parliament; one to be elected by each district in the Transkei. If this is the answer to the demand for political rights for the Bantu living in the urban areas, it will be a hopeless failure for those living outside the Transkei. What political rights are they going to enjoy? The Government can nominate up to half the members of the urban councils and if the report which we saw in the newspapers is correct, the councils in turn will nominate nine members to this new Parliament. What about those areas where there are no councils? There does not have to be an urban council in every town. What about the farm labourers? How are they going to choose their members in this new Parliament? This is not applying a system of democracy to the Bantu living outside the reserves or to the Bantu living inside the reserves.

The Prime Minister hopes that by giving the chiefs and headmen an overwhelming majority in that Parliament, he will keep responsible government in their hands. I say that he does not know who will take over that authority. Did the Belgiums know what was going to happen when they handed over the authority in the Congo? Did the British know what was going to happen when they handed over authority in Ghana? Who took over? What democratic rights are there to-day? Before authority is handed over to any emerging state, it is essential that we know that they have a sound and efficient incorruptible judiciary and that they have an efficient and well-trained Public Service. To hand over to people who have not been properly trained is to make a fatal blunder. We have pleaded in this House, I especially have, with the Minister to train Bantu magistrates and to build up an efficient administration. We are convinced that the majority of the Africans living in the Reserves are not as much concerned with political rights as they are with better employment, better living conditions. That is what they want. I see in the report of a speech by one of the Minister’s officials in Umtata that 90 per cent of the Africans living in the Transkei have to leave the Transkei to seek work; they cannot exist in the Transkei.

This new plan is going to be put into effect without proper consultation. Only a few chiefs and headmen have so far been consulted. I am sure that the ordinary peasant in the Transkei does not know what is happening. The African property-owner in Umtata who is better off than the average peasant in the Transkei, has not been consulted at all. He has no say whatsoever. In any event, how can there be any criticism of this plan by the people living in the Transkei while the emergency regulations are in force. There is a state of emergency in the Transkei. Meetings cannot be held without the approval of the Native Commissioner. How can there be any discussion amongst the people themselves? The Minister knows what wide powers he gives the chiefs and the headmen. Does he think that any of the tribesmen is now going to get up in the Transkei and criticize what their chiefs and headmen have agreed to when they know that they can be prosecuted by the chiefs and the headmen or even exiled by them? I say if the Minister wants discussion of these plans in the Transkei amongst the people to hear their views, he must repeal the emergency regulations. The chiefs want something other than Bantu Authorities. Bantu Authorities are not popular. We warned at the time that they would not be popular. It is noteworthy, Sir, that the chiefs and headmen who were the strongest advocates of this system of Bantu Authorities, are the men who to-day have the highest number of homeguards. I asked the hon. the Minister a question the other day as to the number of homeguards not only in the Transkei but in the country and from his reply it appears that 370 have been appointed. In five districts in the Transkei falling under the jurisdiction of two chiefs, there are 310 homeguards to guard their chiefs and headmen Sixty homeguards have been appointed for four other districts—four districts outside that area which falls under the jurisdiction of those two particular chiefs. Those are the two chiefs who went all out to support Bantu Authorities and the hon. the Minister will know which chiefs I am talking about. The chiefs have realized that this system of Bantu Authorities is not popular. They want to get rid of this system; they want to get rid of the necessity of having homeguards all the time and so they have accepted this new scheme of the Minister. I say that anybody living in the Transkei will know that there is dissatisfaction over the Bantu Authorities. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Bantu Administration, rather than admit that they have made a mistake and eat humble pie, have now abandoned their policy for something quite new; namely self-government to the Transkei and independence eventually. And the Prime Minister says that he himself chose the moment to do so. He is consulting now but he says that legislation will be passed through this House next year. And next year, of course, is 1963. The Prime Minister held an election last year because he told us that in 1963 there would be a demand for independence. Last year, when the Minister himself was in the Transkei, one of the chiefs demanded that self-government should be given in 1963. He took the Minister by surprise. He warned the Minister of the consequences and of the responsibilities that would fall on the people themselves. And now we are told that in 1963 they are going to get their self-government in the Transkei and later independence. The whole concept of Bantu Authorities, the whole policy of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, is now being discarded and why? We are now told that the Bantu Administration must be democratic. The very rights that were denied by the Bantu Authorities, as I said before, are now given. To justify this approach and to pretend that this is nothing new, the hon. the Minister of Finance entered the debate last week and he said this—the Minister of Finance is in charge of this debate and I hope when he replies he will answer some of the questions that have been put to him—he said “This change in outlook was not something new He felt it necessary to tell the House that, because everybody took it to be something new. He said—

Just over two years ago actually but—

Why did the Government not tell us in 1959 that it had accepted the fact that the franchise could not be withheld from the Bantu? Why did they not tell us then. The Minister of Finance now comes to light with it. Why did they not tell the people that before the last election? We, of course, have been telling them since 1948 that you cannot withhold political rights from certain groups of citizens living in this country. Now in 1959—11 years later—it suddenly dawns upon the Government that we were right. The Minister of Finance also said—

Another somersault, Sir. How often have we not sat in this House and listened to National Party members—I remember a most able speech which the late Otto du Plessis made when he was member for Stellenbosch—telling us that because the United Party accepted economic integration it would mean complete political integration and that the Bantu and the Coloureds and non-Whites would then take over. Economic integration could only lead to political integration we were told. If the Government has now finally accepted economic integration as a fact—which we have—I should like the Minister of Finance to tell us how he hopes to avoid the political integration of the millions of Bantu who will still be living outside the reserves when the Transkei gets its independence? How is the Minister going to avoid political integration if he accepts economic integration? We contend that the splitting of the Republic will not solve our problems while we have Bantu permanently resident outside the reserves and economically integrated into the Republic. The Minister of Finance admits that you cannot deny the Bantu political rights. What rights does he give? In the Transkei they will be able to elect 26 members and the urban Bantu will be able to elect nine. Not by direct vote, Sir, but through urban councils. The hon. the Prime Minister must regret the intervention of the Minister of Finance in the debate last week because this is what the Minister of Finance went on to say—

That is what we have been saying for some time. Our catch phrase of ordered advance has sunk in so well that the Minister now accepts it without thinking. [Interjection.] Our policy is not to split up the Republic. I am talking about the policy of giving political rights to every group of citizens in the country, rights which this Government is trying to deny. I will quote again from what the Minister of Finance said. He said there must be consultations between the Government and the Transkeian authorities on the question of the constitution, on the question of the boundaries and future relations between those territories and the Republic.

Of course.

Of course he said it. Now we know from reports in the paper that the question of the future relations between the two states has been settled. To begin with, we will be in the position of a colonial power, in the same position as the Queen is to the Protectorates. As far as the constitution is concerned, there has been consultation and we have seen reports of what the constitution will be, although the Minister of Bantu Administration says it is not quite exactly like that. But what about the equally important point mentioned by the Minister of Finance himself, the borders? It is no good trying to solve the problem of boundaries after the constitution has been decided on and put into effect. Surely the first thing to decide is for what area the new constitution is being proposed. That is of fundamental importance. To give a practical example, what is to happen to East Griqualand? I mentioned this a few weeks ago. The Minister of Bantu Administration and the Prime Minister assured the people in the Mount Currie and Matatiele districts that those will always remain White areas. Now there have been reports that representations are being made by the people in those areas to be excised from the Transkei and put into Natal. The hon. member for Aliwal North (Mr. H. J. Botha) sent a telegram to the Matatiele Mail saying “Matatiele en Cedarville is en bly Blanke gebied”. I want to ask the Minister of Finance whether that is so. It is time the Minister made an authoritative statement. Have the territorial authorities been consulted? Do they know that rich area, the richest part of the Transkei, is going to be cut out of the Transkei? And what about Port St. Johns? The Secretary for Bantu Administration some time ago wrote to the people there and said they would always remain a White area because they are not surrounded by Black areas and they will never be part of the territory of the Transkei Government. Is that correct? I want to know from the Minister now whether he has told the territorial authority that when they get self-government, Port St. Johns will be cut out. It is important that the people of Port St. Johns should know. The Prime Minister said that in the case of the Transkei there is a special problem, the White spot problem, and he went on to say that portions of the White spots would “continually pass over to the territory of the Transkeian Government” and that in the case of Umtata the problem would be still more difficult. Now there is not much procedural difficulty in transferring trading stations to the Africans, but I want to ask the Minister of Finance, who was responsible for the Group Areas Act, which law is now being applied to all villages and towns in the Transkei. Is the Transkei to be exempted from the operation of the Group Areas Act? I know of a case, the village of Willowvale, where recently Natives wanted to buy plots and the Group Areas Board said they could not because it was a White area. Is the Group Areas Act going to be suspended in so far as the Transkei is concerned? How is Umtata going to grow Black while the Group Areas Act applies? Members of one group can only sell to members of the same group. Therefore I call on the Minister of Finance to tell the Whites and the Coloureds in the Transkei how their rights are to be protected. We know that the Prime Minister said they would have to dispose of their land. The Minister of Finance is the man most interested in compensating people for their losses, and I want to know from him who is going to pay for the land they are deprived of? The Prime Minister told us what he was doing for the public servants. I am not worried about them because they are mainly birds of passage who have a contract with the Government, but I am worried about all the other non-Africans. The Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration said “the White people in the Bantu homelands can depend on it that the Government will review their position with the greatest circumspection and that the best will be done for them and that measures and care will be taken to ensure that their interests, which would be ever decreasing, will be protected right to the end”. Sir, we do not want the protection at the end. When the Prime Minister made his statement, that was the beginning of the end. But the Minister of Finance is the man who must finance any scheme which the Government undertakes, and he must know what plans they have ready. I have asked several times in this House in the past what protection the Government intends giving the White, the Coloured and the Native property-holder in the Transkei. What guarantees have they got that they will be paid out for their property at the true market value? Anyone must know that property values started falling once the Prime Minister made his statement. The Whites, from the time of annexation, have been encouraged to settle in the reserves. Nationalist Prime Minister and other Ministers have admitted that the White trader has played his part and have paid tribute to the useful functions he has performed in assisting the Government in the administration and assisting the Africans in times of drought and starvation. These people cannot be abandoned to their fate. Some property-owners have to dispose of their properties now in deceased estates. Others will have to dispose of them to-morrow, or next month, or next year. With the announcement of the Prime Minister, what market will there be for these properties? What financial house will invest money there, except in the bigger towns like Umtata and Kokstad? The Government has a duty to tell us now what protection it is prepared to give these people. We cannot wait until the end. According to a report in the Burger, the Government was prepared to pay between R4,000,000 and R5,000,000 to the farmers of the Fish River for their properties. The Government came to their assistance because these people were in a bad economic plight. Has the Government any such plans for the Whites and the Coloureds in the Transkei? What will they do for the Transkei where we find ourselves in an economic plight through no fault of our own and not because of the vagaries of nature but because of the deliberate action of this Government?

And what about Zululand?

Places like Umtata will experience a period of prosperity if the Government spends the money it promised on development, but the traders in the small villages are not likely to share in that prosperity and in any event the people of Umtata should be told as early as possible what will be done for them. The Coloureds, too, deserve special consideration. There are hundreds living in small communities in the Native areas. What is to happen to them? It will not avail the Minister of Finance to say that these questions will be answered by the Prime Minister. These two Ministers here are members of the Cabinet and there is Cabinet responsibility, and surely the Cabinet must have investigated the matter fully before deciding on this policy. The Minister of Finance should have been particularly careful before agreeing to a scheme like this. He should have learned to be careful that all the implications are thoroughly weighed up before embarking upon it, because he is the Minister responsible for more trouble in this country than any other Minister as the result of Bills be introduced without thoroughly weighing up the effect, like the Group Areas Act, the Population Register and the Immorality Act. Because he did not give them due consideration, he did not realize what difficulties were in store for him. Has he given due consideration to what is in store for him and for us when giving the Transkei self-rule?

It seems to us in the Transkei that we are to be sacrificed in attaining the ideals of the Prime Minister. His roots, of course, do not go as deep into the country as the majority of ours do. Our forebears made sacrifices and suffered hardships in establishing the Union, which is now the Republic. Whites, Coloureds and Africans resident in the Transkei can also boast of sacrifices by their ancestors, not only as soldiers but as missionaries, administrators and settlers. I was not born in the Transkei, but two uncles of mine were killed in the Kaffir Wars.

You must not say Kaffir Wars but African Wars.

I am talking about the historical wars known as the Kaffir Wars. They volunteerd from the Cape. One was 19 and the other 18, and the eldest 23, and after the campaign the elder boy returned home leading two horses with empty saddles. We have made our sacrifices. It is not only the Voortrekkers and people in the Transvaal or the Free State who made sacrifices. In two World Wars we volunteerd with the Coloureds and the Africans to fight for our fatherland. [Interjections.] I saw Lord Montgomery exhorted us to stand together as we did in the last war. I hope that when his Lordship passes through Cape Town the Prime Minister will take the opportunity to tell him just how close was the co-operation between himself and Gen. Smuts during the last war. We do not mind making sacrifices again to save our country, but what we object to is being the only section of the community called upon to do so, especially when we know that the plan for which we are being asked to make sacrifices will solve nothing.

What distressed me most in this debate was the attitude of the Minister of Lands yesterday. It was obvious that he had been called in to speak at the last minute and was not prepared, but as an old parliamentarian he should know better than to take part in an important debate of this nature without preparing himself. Nationalist members complained about the statement made by the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson), which was not meant in the way in which they interpreted it, and they said it would be used abroad against South Africa. I want to point out that what the Opposition said may be news of some value, but what the Minister says is news of much more value; and this speech of the Minister yesterday will be published abroad. What did he say? He said that the Government was going to continue with this policy and the only way it could be stopped was by military intervention from abroad. That was practically an invitation for such intervention. It is telling the rest of the world that we are not going to divert from this course one bit, and they need not expect any more concessions from us, and if they want to stop it they must do it with military force. How can a Minister in a democratic country say that only a military action will divert the Government from its course? We are a democratic country. What about the ballot-box? Is this notice to the country that no matter what opposition there is it will not avail the people and that no democratic action by the citizens will be allowed to intervene? If that is not so, why was that statement made by the Minister? It is of course because the Minister of Lands knows that the policy is not acceptable to the overwhelming majority of people in this country, not even to his own followers. He need only read the letters in the Burger to see it. The Minister of Finance may laugh, but it is not acceptable to him either. He is trying to explain it away. If it was acceptable to everybody, why was it necessary for the Minister of Finance to get up and give the assurance that the whole Cabinet supported the Prime Minister? It is because of the distress shown by all citizens in the country. Sir, the only hope of relief that we have is that some courageous member of the Cabinet or Nationalist member of Parliament will revolt and tell the Prime Minister that he will not go any further. Unless that happens speedily, it will be too late and we will not be able to retract. If we are to make more concessions, and I am sure there will be more, what other concessions will have to be made? What does the Minister of Finance think will happen? What are the final concessions we will have to make?

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) has done a great service either to his party or to the country; his speech has done a great disservice to the Transkei. There is no doubt about that, firstly, because the hon. member, true to the old traditional policy of his party, tried to instil fear into his own people and to frighten those not outside the Transkei but particularly those inside the Transkei; to develop not only a spirit of defeatism but a spirit of confusion which is certainly not conducive to good relations between the Whites and the Bantu in the Transkei, something which is so necessary to-day. I think if ever there was a time to call upon everybody, particularly in the Transkei, to show a very great sense of responsibility, it is to-day, because I am convinced that it is only by approaching the matter calmly, by having confidence and by co-operation that the Transkei will have a great and wonderful future. But when a campaign is set afoot to sow suspicion and to belittle everything that is done as every member of the United Party has done, a campaign of sowing suspicion against each other, we know what the consequences will be. Imagine yourself for one moment. Sir, in the place of the Bantu in the Transkei and think how you will react to the type of speech we have had in this House since yesterday, particularly to-day from hon. members opposite. Imagine yourself also, Sir, in the place of the White man and of the Coloured man, particularly a representative of the Transkei, when you hear a responsible member sowing this type of suspicion. I think the hon. member has definitely not served the cause of good relationship or the building up of a wonderful future for the Transkei.

There are a few matters with which I want to deal. I shall try to be brief. In the first instance, I want to state to-day that the Recess Committee has finished its task in the Transkei, perhaps not quite but practically, and that a wonderful spirit of confidence and co-operation prevails there. Furthermore, there is very great appreciation for this forward step by the Government as far as the granting of self-government to the Bantu in the Transkei is concerned, and what crowns everything is the fact that a very great sense of responsibility has been revealed in all discussions. As I said in my reply to the hon. member for Transkeian Territories, I cannot at this stage give all the details, but I want to say this very clearly that the major portion of the newspaper reports are absolutely incorrect. They have sucked those things out of their thumbs. That is why I think that once again the Press has done a disservice to South Africa and to the Transkei. On the contrary, we have this phenomenon that they are actually hunting, possibly for facts, not seriously though, to misrepresent those facts and to sow suspicion—the old method of the Press. It is a great pity that was done as far as this important occurrence is concerned. I say very definitely, therefore, that a great many of the things that appeared in the Press have been devoid of all truth. Those people acted with a sense of great responsibility.

In the second instance, I want to deal with this further statement, namely, the allegation that those things have only been done to satisfy the chiefs in the Transkei and to serve their interests alone. That is devoid of all truth. Everybody knows to-day that the people who handle those matters, the Recess Committee … [Interjections]. Let me put it this way. At the recent sitting of the Territorial Authority Council of the Transkei a motion was moved that the Recess Committee should go into the implications connected to such a step. I want to repeat what I said previously, namely that by doing that the allegation that we continually get from hon. members opposite that those people are simply “stooges” of the Government, has once again been disproved. That constitutes one of the big disservices that hon. members opposite have rendered this matter because nobody can deny the fact that the people who serve on that Territorial Authority Council to-day are really the recognized leaders of the Bantu in the Transkei. You find somebody here and there appointing himself as leader, but he does not enjoy the confidence of those people. These are the people who are recognized throughout by the greater majority, 99 per cent of the Bantu in the Transkei, as their traditional and recognized leaders and when they are in difficulty or have problems to solve, those are the people whom they consult and not those loudmouthed persons who run to the Press in season and out of season. That charge should, therefore, not again be levelled at us.

Now I want to say this. Do not forget that this system of Bantu Authorities is the same system that Nigeria follows and I challenge hon. members to deny that Nigeria is to-day the country in Africa that has made the greatest success of her emancipation. Not Ghana or any of those countries where you have all that fuss about so-called democratic systems, but where they do not make a success of them.

Why do you change it then?

I am coming to that. I say that not one of those countries is making a success of it, but in Nigeria, where her whole process of maturing is based on a system similar to that of Bantu Authorities the greatest success is being achieved in respect of her emancipation.

I just want to give the assurance again that the Bantu of the Transkei themselves have accepted this system of Bantu Authorities. They themselves took that decision. It was not forced on to them, and they were not threatened to accept it. All those charges are absolutely untrue. What I am saying here is a fact.

The hon. member asks why we are deviating from that system. Let me first put it this way. We are not deviating from that system. That system as enunciated from the very outset is being carried out. We said that this was a system which was not foreign to the Bantu, a system which had grown from the entire structure of the Bantu and a system which he understood. We have proof of that throughout the Republic where that system has been accepted in a manner in which no other system that we have experimented with over the past 50 years has been accepted. I pointed out on a previous occasion that a so-called democratic system was introduced in 1910 and after 50 years there were 24 councils in the whole Republic and most of them did not function at all. But during these few years more than 400 Bantu Authorities have come into existence. There are nearly 50 regional authorities in the Republic and at the end of this year all the regional authorities will be functioning.

The hon. member now asks why we are taking this further step, why do we not remain where we are. But it has always been our attitude, and I have often said so, that those Bantu Authorities should be established as a basis for the Bantu, a basis which he accepts, and that as he develops and acquires knowledge of good government, he himself should decide how to build on it and how to develop it.

Is it not right to say that the basis of the system of Bantu Authorities was the nomination of the members of the various councils, but with this new development in the Transkei the principle is not to grant them the democratic right of election?

Yes, I have always said, and I also made a statement to that effect in the Transkei, that if they wanted the vote they could introduce it, and it is our wish that the day will arrive when they will introduce a form of franchise, at least for a section. This is no departure from our policy. In addition to that our attitude has been that this was a system of government which the Bantu understood and which was not foreign to him and that it depended on himself gradually to expand that system in accordance with his own development towards self-government, and all that happened is that the Bantu themselves have decided which form of government they wanted They themselves decided on that. Nothing whatsoever was done to influence them in any way. All those statements in the newspapers that they were influenced by the Secretary of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development are, to say the least of it, a bunch of lies. I placed the Secretary of Bantu Administration at their disposal because they asked for it. They asked a few of my officials who are acquainted with this matter, to guide them where necessary, and they were placed at their disposal. When they needed them, they called them in. No pressure was brought to bear on them by myself. What they asked for was practically a unanimous request on their part.

I want to make an appeal to the White people in the Transkei not to allow themselves to be misled by all these far-fetched stories. I think South Africa is sick and tired of all these stories that are sent into the world. You hear that Kokstad wants to secede and then you hear that Queenstown is to be handed over. I merely want to state this fact; the only thing that has happened is that the recognized Bantu areas, as defined in legislation, are today being handed over to the Bantu. As far as the future of the cities in the Transkei is concerned, that constitutes a problem that will be solved over the years.

Who will solve it?

That is a process that will develop by itself. There is no idea, neither on the part of the Bantu nor on the part of the Government suddenly to force the White people out of their own areas. On the contrary, as happened in the past, the Republic of South Africa is still looking after the interests of those in the White areas. They are being looked after in every respect just as in the past. Why do hon. members suddenly ask, on behalf of the White people in those areas: “What is going to happen to us; how will we be compensated?” I repeat that to adopt that attitude is to sow suspicion and to cause hatred, something that will bear evil fruit for the Transkei. It would be better if at this stage we set about things judiciously and very calmly and refrained from this type of talk and allowed this process gradually to evolve itself. That is why I want to appeal to the people of the Transkei, I also want to make an appeal to the people in other areas, not to believe this type of story but to remain calm, in the knowledge that they are citizens of the Republic of South Africa whose interests will be safeguarded just as those of any citizen in any other part of the Republic of South Africa.

Just another small point. The impression has been created that the Transkei will now be cut off from the Republic of South Africa, that it has already happened and that South Africa has already been fragmented. There is not a word of truth in that. All that is happening in the Transkei is that the Bantu of the Transkei, in terms of the promises made by all statesmen of South Africa—and I challenge anybody to deny it—will now get self-government in their own areas. The basis of the policy of South Africa is ultimately to give self-government to the Bantu in their own areas. All that has happened now is that wonderful day has dawned. This Government fulfils its promises. The promises that have been made over the years, promises that many Bantu no longer even believed in, are now being fulfilled and the Transkei is in the process of getting self-government. There is no question of secession. Why do hon. members opposite create that impression and try to cause panic amongst the White people and probably also amongst the non-Whites—and that to gain some small party advantage? I am not even quite sure that they will gain party advantage. No, this Government has too great a sense of responsibility to act irresponsibly, also in the case of the Transkei. This matter has been thoroughly gone into and its implications have been thoroughly investigated. We are not being caught on the wrong foot—not in the least—but we gave our word of honour to the Bantu that he will get self-government there, and in time to come he will also get it elsewhere.

I repeat that I am grateful for the responsible and friendly way in which everything has happened. I am really proud to-day of the manner in which the Recess Committee performed its functions. Why do hon. members get up here and utter belittling words, something which pains me as a White man to listen to and which must be all the more painful to the Bantu to read and to listen to. In this respect I refer in particular to the contemptuous way in which the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) carried on this afternoon and the disparaging way in which he referred to what the Territorial Authorities have achieved. What he read out to us is utter misrepresentation. I challenge any member in this House to attend the meetings of that Territorial Authority. Experts from overseas in the field of government have come here and said that they had the highest regard and respect for the manner in which those people conducted their own affairs. The charge has always been levelled at our heads that we were simply making those people paid agents of the Government. In that respect the hon. member himself has provided the proof that every member puts the proposal that he deems fit squarely before the Council and the Council either accepts or rejects it as it deems fit; no influence of any kind is exercised; there is no intimidation of any kind. Everything is done on a very democratic basis. I ask again: Why spread these disparaging stories about those people? Why should they be presented as people who lack the sense of responsibility to conduct their own affairs? I just want to say this to the hon. member that when I read his speeches, particularly his political speeches outside—I am not even talking about his speeches in this House—I can only come to this conclusion that I have encountered a greater sense of responsibility in the representatives on the Territorial Authority Council of the Transkei than in the hon. member. Let me give one example, Sir. He asked me whether we had armed the various tribal guards there. He only asked that this afternoon. But do you know, Mr. Speaker, what he said in the Free State and other places. There he got up and with his hand on his heart said: “There you have it; the Minister of Bantu Administration is busy arming those Natives; they are given rifles; they are given pistols and some of them are even given guns.” It is a responsible member of this House who said that at a meeting and then he accuses the members of the Transkeian Territorial Authority of a lack of responsibility. No, I can assure this House that we already have there a nucleus, consisting of a fairly large number of persons who are imbued with a spirit of responsibility towards their own form of self-government. These are people who will in future be capable of conducting their own affairs efficiently.

The hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) has made an equally painful speech. He said he had grave doubts and asked: What about the Public Service; look at the vast sums that are to be spent. Mr. Speaker, as far as this matter is concerned, the Opposition has really fallen into a state of confusion. One member gets up and he accuses the Government of being in too great a hurry as far as this matter is concerned; then another member gets up on the other side of the House and he says that the Government is not acting quickly enough. Then a third member opposite rises and he says: Look at the vast sums of money that the Government is spending on the development of the Bantu areas; then a fourth member opposite gets up and he in turn says: Look at these paltry amounts that the Government is spending on the Bantu areas. Another member gets up and he says: Look there, think how the poor Bantu is going to be taxed in order to carry out the task that has been undertaken, because the Government says it believes that people should look after themselves. Then the hon. member for Constantia rises and says: Just think what the White man will have to pay in the form of taxes in order to carry out this scheme of the Minister of Bantu Administration; think about the terrific burden. Let me just say this in this connection: I am really convinced that a government that does not develop economically is a farce, and I agree with the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) that one of our biggest and most important tasks must be the economic development of the Transkei. I really think that many of the White inhabitants of the Transkei can do us a great service in this respect for many years—perhaps for many generations. In this respect they can do a very great service to the Bantu, because there are many Bantu who still lack the necessary knowledge; they will still have to have a great deal of guidance: and I know that they appreciate that guidance. But there is also this underlying factor that the Bantu himself will have to make his own contribution in this respect, no matter in what form, because only then does he appreciate it. That is why I think that we are on very safe ground. If I tell you, Sir, that over the past few years between 8,000 and 10,000 Bantu have been employed by these Bantu Authorities in an administrative and governing capacity, Bantu who are actively employed, Bantu who are being taught from morning till night how to handle matters, how to draw up estimates and how to plan, then you will realize what we have already done as far as this matter is concerned.

The hon. member for Constantia held it against me that I saw my way clear to construct a mile of road in the Bantu areas at a cost of R1,200. He said it would be slave labour. That is where our problem lies. People get up here who haven’t the faintest conception of the political and social structure of the Bantu, who haven’t the faintest knowledge of the background of the Bantu and the way they act. I want to state here that in recent years I have succeeded in constructing several miles of road for much less than R600 per mile. Why? Because we have a community there who says: “Look, a road must be constructed here.” All these roads have been planned in co-operation with the regional authorities, the territorial authorities and even the tribal authorities. They said to us: “Look, we see our way clear to do this and to do that.” These things were planned in co-operation with them. [Laughter.] Hon. members laugh. They can laugh at themselves; I think they deserve to be laughed at.

They are a mockery.

What I am saying here, Sir, is the gospel truth. Mr. Speaker, I can show you a road that a tribe built in Witzieshoek up along the Drakensberg. They themselves decided that instead of doing nothing, instead of sitting idle for days on end, instead of merely sitting and drinking beer, they would build that road and they themselves built it, the Chief together with his people, a road along which I travelled up that mountain with this big car of mine at 15-20 miles per hour, a beautiful road that will ordinarily cost you at least R40,000 or R50,000, if not more. That road, however, did not cost us a penny. All it cost the Department was the contribution it made towards the implements that were delivered there. You should see how proud those people are today, Sir, to travel along that road. As far as bridges are concerned the position is the same. I recently opened a bridge at Thaba ’Nchu of which I am very proud. A Bantu designed that bridge. The Bantu themselves built that bridge and it did not cost the Government a penny. Why? Because you have a community spirit there. You find this wonderful principle of service to the community amongst the Bantu. That is one of the things that has been neglected in the past and which we are again systematically encouraging and look at the results to-day.

Are you going to build all the roads with voluntary labour?

No. The hon. member once again has hold of the wrong end of the stick. We are not going to build all the roads with voluntary labour, but there are many people who make contributions of their own accord. Hon. members will notice that provision is made in the estimates for an amount of over R3,000,000 for road construction—proof that we are not going to build the roads with voluntary labour. On the contrary, those people who think they should be compensated are properly compensated. We have very close cooperation in this respect. The principle of assisting the community and of developing the community is a very important principle in the life of the Bantu; it is a principle that we wish to retain. In this respect we find wonderful co-operation throughout South Africa. But you also have this principle: where you undertake developmental works and you do not make them understand that those projects are really their own, they are doomed to failure. I want to give one example. When I introduced the Bantu Investment Corporation Bill the hon. member for Constantia got up in this House and found delight in ridiculing me. He said that not a single Bantu would invest one penny in that corporation. He ridiculed it, and to-day the Bantu have already invested nearly R200,000 in that corporation and we are only now beginning with our organization on a large scale. There you see the confidence that is being created along this road. I want to say this afternoon that I have unshakable confidence in the Bantu of South Africa. I want to repeat that if the Press would leave us alone and if the United Party acted reasonably, and particularly if the elements that are trying so hard to-day to ruin South Africa were to leave us alone, I have no doubt that we shall make a very big success of this experiment. I think in future we shall have to take drastic action against those elements. As far as I am concerned, I shall not hesitate to encourage the Bantu to take drastic action against them. The time has arrived for the Bantu himself to take action against them and I shall very definitely encourage it. I say that if those elements were to leave us alone and allow the Bantu to go their way, I have no doubt that we shall make a very great success of this experiment. We shall not allow a Congo to develop in South Africa. All those elements that are busy creating a second Congo here can rest assured that I shall do everything in my power to smash them completely. We shall continue with the orderly development of the Bantu areas, something which is in the interests of the whole of South Africa.

In conclusion I just want to say this: I challenge hon. members to prove where, in the whole of my career, I have advocated the idea of separate economic structures. In season and out of season, in this House and outside, I have adopted the standpoint that we in South Africa could not have separate economic structures. We should have one South African economic structure. Why do hon. members opposite charge us with something which is the direct opposite of the actual state of affairs? We have never advocated that. No, what happened was that they manufactured all those things as bogeys to frighten the people, as they did in the case of those maps and in the case of Zululand, which they said had been cut up into small pieces, and I don’t know what else. They think up those things, send it into the world, and the day after to-morrow we get blamed for it. Whenever anything is a success, however, they say: “Look, that is what we did.” Now that we have taken this forward step as far as the Bantu in the Bantu areas are concerned and as far as the urban Bantu Councils are concerned—it is no departure from our policy—and as far as the development of the Transkei is concerned, the hon. member for Transkeian Territories gets up and says: “Look, you have adopted a little bit of our policy after all.” No, our policy is so right and so wonderful that I have no doubt that as it unfolds, everybody in South Africa will ultimately say: Yes, that is our policy.

The hon. the Minister has addressed us for about 35 to 40 minutes but he has failed to answer a number of questions which have been put to him from this side of the House. I think we are entitled to replies to those questions. One of the pertinent questions addressed to him concerned the question of boundaries, but I leave that for a while. The hon. the Minister told us that the reports which had appeared in the Press were completely false and incorrect. As a matter of fact he said that some of them were untruths. But in the course of his speech of 35 minutes the hon. the Minister has given us no lead as to what is true and what is untrue in those Press reports. Sir, we would like to know. We would like to discuss this matter on its merits with the truth before us. Surely with the time at his disposal he might have indicated to us which Press reports represented the truth so that we could discuss the matter on its merits.

But I told you that this Committee must report to the Transkeian authority.

Yes, the Minister did tell us that, but the Press has published certain reports and we have to discuss the matter on the basis of those reports, because we have no other information. If the reports are incorrect, the Minister has a duty to this House.

Another item that was raised by the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) was the question of Europeans within Native reserves. Whether they are reserves in the Transkei or the Ciskei, is the Minister going to keep to himself the right to indicate to those Europeans whether they must get out or not, or is that going to be the prerogative of the Natives themselves, or whatever authority is in power? I want to warn the hon. the Minister that there are thousands of migrant labourers who come from the Transkei who have to be carried by those traders, and no Native organization exists in the Transkei or the Ciskei or any other reserve that is capable of carrying that migrant labour that is so essential for the European areas. Sir, I did think that the hon. the Minister would have answered the one question that was picked up by the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. v. d. Berg) and dropped so fast that one could not help thinking it burnt his fingers, and that is the question of the boundaries of the Bantustans. I make no apologies for raising the matter here. It is a burning question in South Africa, and whether we like it or not, whether the hon. the Minister or the Prime Minister decides those boundaries, does the hon. the Minister think that the Native will acknowledge any of those boundaries? The Native knows no boundaries; he would never accept them. He knows none now. He trespasses wherever he likes. Sir, there is another important matter that I want to deal with at a later stage, and that is with the handing over of the control of agriculture to the new organization of the new parliament. My present problem is that the Prime Minister is going to make territorial drains upon certain areas in South Africa to fulfil what he calls promises made in the 1936 Act, and because certain farmers have dared to criticize the Government for failing to define those boundaries, they have been told that they are agitators. The hon. the Minister might have told us this afternoon what his intentions are; he has not done so. I hope that ere long he is going to do so because it is becoming a burning question.

What a hope!

We are told that we object to the purchase of land, but does the hon. the Minister know that land lies outside of scheduled or released areas? We are accused of breaking promises. An attack was made by his Deputy and also by the Prime Minister on this group of farmers who dared to criticize the Government for wanting to purchase land to add to Bantustans which are independent of the Republic of South Africa. Surely they had the right to object.

May I assume for the purpose of what I have to say that neither the Prime Minister nor the Deputy-Minister of Bantu Administration concerned himself with the facts that prevailed at the time? Did either of them or both of them know that the farmers in the Border had surrendered all but a little of the land that was to be found in the scheduled areas owned by Europeans and to be purchased under the Native Land and Trust Act of 1936? The Minister can tell us why any unbought land that remains in the Border corridor has not been purchased, because it is available to him at any time. I want to say that if we are to be treated in the corridor as Komgha was treated, we are going to raise many objections before he gets any more land from us. In the Komgha district the released area was to create another Black spot within the European area; those farmers got together and they made this offeer to the Native Affairs Department at the time: double the land adjacent to one of the reserves. Well, they accepted and they bought it, and what did they do? They went and picked up 72 families at Chalanga and dumped them in the middle of Komgha. If the Department wants anymore land, is that what it is going to do to us? Because if it does we have a right to object. Sir, one of the most important items that has created difficulties for us there—and perhaps it is the cause of this so-called “opswepery” is this: does the hon. the Minister know that the Bantu Administration is taking options and continues to take options and to hold options on land completely divorced from released or scheduled areas? Does he think it is justifiable? We have a right to ask the hon. the Minister where his boundaries are going to be. There are farms possibly 10 or 15 miles from the nearest released or scheduled area. What is the hon. the Minister doing it for? He knows that it can only become a creeping paralysis if he buys outside these scheduled areas.

Do you still abide by the 1936 Act?

Of course I abide by the 1936 Act and I want to assure that interjector that we will fulfil our promises, but when it comes to that side of the House fulfilling any promises, then it is “die dooie hand van die verlede.”

Do you realize that 2,000,000 morgen must be bought outside the scheduled areas according to the Act?

No.

I thought so.

I did not know, but I know that an extensive area of ground has to be bought. However, don’t let me bother with that. If we have to concede ground, let us know what we have to concede and let it be distributed over the whole of South Africa. That brings me then to the important point in this whole issue. Does the Bantu Administration Department intend to implement the J. P. L. Kruger plan? The hon. the Minister knows it. It was very favourably considered when it was brought out by Mr. J. P. L. Kruger, Chairman of the Nationalist Party in Queenstown. If he intends to implement that, then I want to assure the hon. the Minister that he is heading for trouble. Because, Sir, there are hon. members sitting here who would certainly raise objections, for instance the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker) because it includes Bedford, Fort Beaufort, Adelaide, Queenstown, Cradock, and it takes a line from Kei Mouth to Aliwal North, taking in all the areas referred to by the hon. the Minister this afternoon, and it will then take a line to Hofmeyr and down the Fish River. Sir, the hon. the Minister is in duty bound to tell us what he is going to do about these reserves. If he is going to set up these authorities we want to know when they are going to begin and where they are going to end. I want to warn the hon. the Minister that if there is anything like that, he is setting the sailing of the Europeans out of South Africa at an early date.

There are two other important items, but one does not know whether to discuss them this afternoon, because they may not be correct. The hon. the Minister won’t let us know. Now the first reaction as a result of the statement made in this House by the Prime Minister from the Natives in the Transkei was “We want all or nothing”. I do not think the Minister will deny that. I want to tell him that the Natives in the Transkei want all or nothing, whether we like it or not. The moment that it was suggested that the Republican Government would retain Labour, the request was: We want it. They do want it. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that in their hands it is the most powerful weapon that they can ever get into their hands to bring the White man to his knees. With the whole of their labour under the control of Black unions, that is a powerful weapon and with the strike weapon in their hands, does the hon. the Minister realize what damage they can do to this country? They can hound the White man out of this country within a week under those circumstances.

You are seeing a “spook”.

There is another extremely important item and that is the handing over of Agriculture, to be entirely controlled by the Bantu. Sir, whether you have White leadership under the control of the Natives, we do not know, but is the hon. the Minister where he knows that this country has been ravaged and scarred, prepared to hand that over? Whatever rehabilitation has been done, it amounts to very little. Is he prepared to hand that over to the Bantustans to let the land be ruined and to bring it possibly to a dust-bowl? And what will happen after that? Because that is precisely what will happen. There are 5,000,000 morgen of land capable of five to six times their present production, capable of at least carrying three to four times the present stock. Can the hon. the Minster imagine what will happen to that? Finally I want to tell the hon. the Minister what has happened to the land that has been acquired under the Native Trust and Land Act. It now has within its boundaries some of the major catchment areas on the Border. What will they look like in three or four years time? The hon. the Minister sees them farily frequently, but may I remind him of what the Cwencwe and the Yellowwood Rivers look like to-day, two major tributaries to the Buffalo River?

In these options that had been taken by the Department of Bantu Administration there are sponges, there are mountain slopes and catchment areas on which East London and King William’s Town are entirely dependent for their domestic and industrial water, and on which all the farmers within those basis are dependent entirely for their stock as far as irrigation is concerned. Is the hon. the Minister going to allow that to go on. He is leaving the sword of Damocles over the heads of those farmers. Has he a right to do so? The sooner the hon. the Minister makes a declaration and tells us where those boundaries are going to be, so much the sooner will he stop the uncertainty amongst those farmers in regard to their future. The hon. the Minister owes us a duty to tell us that he is not going to extend those boundaries, bar to round them off and square them off, as the case may be. He knows full well that he has shut off some European areas there where they not even have a corridor. Is that going to continue? Sir, we have surrendered our land.

Is he going to continue with a creeping paralysis and is he going to paralyse the whole of the Border corridor?

The hon. member for King William’s Town will not take it amiss if I do not entirely disagree with him about the buying up of certain farms in his constituency or in mine. I think he will agree with me that it is the duty of all of us who stand by the agreement of 1936, as he says he also does, when we differ in regard to certain places which the Department and the Trust wish to buy up, to go to the Minister and to his Department, as I have often done, and to say, “Please do not buy to the west of the river, or do not buy on this side” and then we would settle the matter there. I do not think that it is a matter of principle which we need discuss here, nor do I think that this is the time to begin to argue about which departments should be given to the Transkei government and how they should be given. The hon. the Prime Minister has told us that those matters are to be dealt with in discussion and by negotiation with the government which is to be established in that region and when those matters have been settled, the Government will undoubtedly make an announcement so that we will know exactly what it is prepared to do and how far it wishes to go, and then we can have this discussion. We cannot anticipate it now. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) also wants to anticipate it. He wants to know now exactly what is going to happen in each area. He wants to know precisely whether White property in the Transkei will be bought up in the same way as that in which the Government bought up farms along the Great Fish River. I would like to remind him that when the Government proposed the establishment of a Bantu Investment Corporation in which money could be invested to enable the Bantu gradually to buy businesses in the Bantu homelands, it was the United Party which opposed it; they did not want machinery to be created to do the very work in connection with which they now want to know in advance whether the Government proposes to do it or not.

Various hon. members, among them the hon. member for Transkeian Territories have from time to time during this debate made the allegation that until this year it has never been said that political rights will be given to the Bantu in his homelands. I do not know whether those hon. members were asleep at the time or whether they are now suddenly starting to suffer from amnesia, but I remember clearly that when we were still sitting in these benches in 1954 I said from this bench that in the Bantu homelands the Bantu must be given his political rights there and that the Bantu in the White area must be given the vote in those homelands in the same way as Italian workers who go to work in Germany retain their vote in Italy.

On that occasion hon. members said that we were imitators of the Government and that we were trying to take over the Government’s policy. They already knew then what the Government’s policy was. I go as far back as 1954, when it was continually said that the Bantu must obtain his political rights in his homelands and not in the White area. If the hon. member for Transkeian Territories were to offer me a pound for every quotation that I can produce from the speeches of Ministers, of Nationalist members of the House and of other leaders of the National Party to show that this policy has been declared for years, I am sure that before to-morrow evening he would have to hand over £100 to me. It is really a case of amnesia as far as the United Party is concerned. In passing I first want to draw attention to this concern about the democratic form which the Transkeian government will take, or about the lack of democracy. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories has made a great fuss about the appointment of certain persons by headmen. The hon. the Prime Minister has stated very clearly that the form of democracy which they will apply there will be left largely in their hands. But what right has the United Party to say that it will be undemocratic if the headmen nominate certain leaders? What do they do in the United Party? When they hold party nominations, the party members no longer vote for a candidate. No, that has been abolished. They have a small body, a small council, which appoints members. They are worse than the Bantu headmen. They even offered the Bezuidenhout Valley seat to the former member for Namib (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) and they went even further. At the moment the democracy in their own party is such that their chief, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, is the man who ultimately nominates candidates. He and he alone decides who is to come and sit with him on his side of the House. Do they still want to talk about democracy? Can they still say that it would be undemocratic for a headman to say: “Give me this man, he is a good man to serve on this or that council?” I often wonder whether the United Party has learned a little from the Bantu in the Transkei or whether the Bantu in the Transkei are beginning to follow the example of the United Party. Because we want to give the Transkei independence and it is on the road to independence, the Opposition talks a great deal now about the balkanization of South Africa. The hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) was terribly agitated and disturbed about the irrevocability of such a decision. It is not a reality yet. The negotiations are still going on. But I want to put this question to the United Party: If they were to come into power to-morrow, would they undo this action which the Government has proposed in regard to the Transkei?

Yes.

I would like it to be recorded that the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) says “Yes as far as independence is concerned, they would undo it. In other words, they would never allow the Bantu to become a free citizen in his own homeland. They would always keep him in a subordinate position. And yet they are the people who are going to free the Bantu! They are the people who represent us to the outside world as the oppressors of the Bantu, but the hon. member has just said that, if they come into power, they will abolish the independence of the Bantu in the Transkei. Mr. Speaker, the other day I had to remind the hon. member of his own poet, Roy Campbell, and of what he said. But I have subsequently heard of another legend, a tradition, which is known in the southern part of Natal, not in the Northern provinces, and that is that it is said that the practice, which still survives in certain parts, is that in every community in which 4,000 male children are born, one is taken and hit on the head with a stick and then they put him aside and say: “He is our future Member of Parliament.”

Hon. members of the United Party, especially the hon. member for Green Point, have spoken loftily about their policy of leadership. They are going to preserve White leadership. Mr. Speaker, there are only three ways in which one can maintain leadership. One can maintain leadership where those who are to be led, in this instance the Black man, say to the White man, of their own accord, “You are the boss and the leader, we will follow you”. I ask hon. members to name one single country in the world where the Black man lives in large numbers and where they are prepared to say to the White man, of their own accord, “You are our superior, you are the leader, we accept you as leader”. There simply is no such thing. There is no country in the world in which the Black man willingly accepts the leadership of the Whites. Therefore that possibility must be discounted. The other possibility is that one can be leader by virtue of the fact that one was chosen by those whom one leads. Are the hon. members going to tell me that the Bantu in South Africa will always choose them or other Whites, whereas throughout the continent of Africa White leadership had been abolished by them, and indeed in the Far East as well. There the leadership of the British has been rejected. The Ceylonese in Ceylon have rejected the leadership of the British, the Indonesians have rejected the leadership of the Dutch. Throughout the world, wherever the non-Whites are in the majority they have rejected the leadership of the White man. There is only one other way in which one can retain leadership and I want to ask the United Party whether they are prepared to do it. One can retain one’s leadership by means of legislation. By means of legislation one can entrench the position of the White man and say that in this area he is to remain the leader. Is the United Party prepared to do that? Is their idea of White leadership that they are going to entrench the position of the White man in White South Africa by means of legislation? And if that is their policy, in what respects do they differ from the National Party?

Various members have contended here that the United Party has an alternative policy. The hon. member for Green Point dramatically called out that there was a third policy, that there was not only segregation or total separation or total integration, but that there was a third policy, namely, race federation. I do not want to talk about that any more, not from that point of view, but I do want to direct the attention of the House for a moment to the ethical basis of the policies of the various parties. I disagree very strongly with the Liberal Party and to a large extent with the Progressive Party, but nevertheless to a great degree the Liberal Party and the Progressive Party have an ethical foundation for their policy. I cannot with a clear conscience say that their policy rests on an unethical or immoral basis. The National Party has a policy according to which the White man will be ruler in his area and the Black man will be given more and more power to rule in his homelands, as far as he can develop. Ethically it is a fair policy. It is a moral policy. Even if you disagree with it you must admit that it is ethically correct and gives effect to the biblical injunction that you should concede to your neighbour that which you want for yourself.

May I ask the hon. member a question? Will he explain how he justifies the fact that Natives who are permanently settled in so-called White South Africa are to be given no political rights?

The answer to the question is not as complicated as the hon. member may think. We have always said that the Bantu must be classified on an ethnological basis and that his ethnological origin must be the criterion, not the place where he happens to be born. There are Afrikaners who were born in America.

Where do they vote?

There is one who until recently voted in Bezuidenhout, Mr Hymie Miller, who was born in Pennsylvania but who lived in Bezuidenhout until recently, voted there and represented Bezuidenhout

Where does he live?

I am talking about birth now. We have said that the classification must be made on an ethnological basis and that they must vote according to their tribal connection, where their homeland is. Just as Britain did in respect of Basutoland. Where do the Basutos live who are not in Basutoland? And has one hon. member stood up here and said that Britain is doing an immoral thing by allowing Basutos who live in another country to vote there?

I have said that the Liberal Party, and to a large extent the Progressive Party, has a policy which is founded on ethics, and the National Policy has a policy founded on ethics. But what about the policy of the United Party? The United Party with their White leadership, which I have already dealt with, is in a different position. What is the ethical foundation of their policy? It is deceiving the White man and the Black man. What is the ethical foundation of the race federation propagated by the United Party, where the leader of the party says that to him it means that the Coloureds should be given back their old political right to vote on the Common Roll and that they should also be allowed to sit in this Parliament if they are elected? I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he is now prepared, when he starts putting the Coloureds of the Cape Province back on the Common Roll, to restore that right to all of them? Or does he still want to retain a qualification in respect of the Coloureds, a qualification which does not apply in respect of the Whites? Is he prepared to give the Coloured women the vote also? If he is not prepared to do so, what ethical justification has he for that policy? Is he prepared to put on the Common Roll all the Coloureds of Natal and of the Transvaal and the Free State, together with their wives? Are they prepared to do that? I cannot get a reply from any of them. But if they dare not even answer the question, what ethical and moral basis have they for that policy? Are they not then promising the Coloureds something which they have no intention of giving at all? Are they not making promises to the Coloureds which in their hearts they know they will never implement? Because they know that if they put the Coloureds in the Cape on the Common Roll and they put all the Coloured women on the Voters’ Roll, the Cape Province would be ruled by the Coloured vote. They know that. Unless they are prepared to do that, what ethical justification is there for that type of policy?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that the Bantu in the reserves must be given rights of government in his own homeland, but he must also have a share in this Parliament. Is he prepared to take into consideration their numbers and, for example, to say in an area like the Transkei: You are 3,000,000, or you are so many millions, and therefore we will give you the same sort of representation as the Whites have? I do not say immediately, but is that their ultimate aim? Unless they are prepared to do that, they are all, like the hon. member for Durban-Point, not prepared to grant rights to the Bantu. Then they intend keeping the Bantu on a certain basis of inferiority for ever! He may have six members here, or he may have ten, but he may never have more. What ethical justification is there for that type of thing?

The urban Bantu, about whom the hon. member for Germiston-District (Mr. Tucker) is so concerned, and who he says were born and live in the White area—I asked the United Party whether it is their policy eventually to give those people the franchise on the same basis as the Whites, or representation in this Parliament? If they are not prepared to do that, there is no ethical or moral basis for their policy.

May I ask a question? Can the hon. member say what the ethical basis is of apartheid in so far as the Coloureds and the Indians are concerned?

I could of course have said that the hon. member should first try to answer my questions before he puts further questions, but the policy of the National Party in regard to the Coloureds has been explained in this House so often already that it would just be a waste of time to go into it again. But if I get another chance to speak, I should like to discuss it for 40 minutes.

I now come to the Indians, whom the hon. members opposite do not want to discuss at all. If the United Party is not prepared in terms of their policy of racial federation to give to the Indians at least what they are prepared to give the Coloureds, i.e. the vote on the Common Roll with the right to come and sit in this Parliament, I say that part of their policy has no moral basis either.

Therefore my conclusion is that there are two directions in our country, that of the National Party which is ethical, and the liberal direction which has an ethical basis, but that the United Party’s policy is a bit of immorality from top to bottom.

In conclusion, I just want to discuss one other point because it has been emphasized so much by hon. members here, namely the sacrifice they are prepared to make in their fight for their fatherland. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) really became emotional about it and even said that he would like to be sentimental about it, about this fatherland for which all the blood has been shed. I just want to ask them this first: When they tell us that, they must first convince us of their earnestness and sincerity, because when the White man in South Africa is reviled overseas then it is their newspapers and their members and their journalists who combine in playing that game. I have here an extract from a letter written almost 130 years ago. It was written by Rev. William Shaw, one of the first parsons of the 1820 settlers. He went back to England after having served in the Eastern Province for many years. Whilst he was there the Sixth Kaffir War broke out. There he wrote a letter to “The Rt. Hon. the Earl of Aberdeen, K.C.B. on the late eruption of the Caffres (1835)”. In the words of my hon. friend from Standerton (Dr. Coertze), I would like to tie this to the ear of the United Party and their satellites and their Press. He writes—

I can well understand hon. members opposite wanting to dispose of this with a joke and a smile, but they remind me of the old smith in “Baas Ganzendonck”, who said of Ganzendonck, because he was a proud man: “Yes, he laughs, but he laughs like a dog with mustard on its lips.”

Mr. Speaker, I also have another judgment here and I want hon. members to tell me whether this is the judgment of Dr. Verwoerd or of the late Mr. Strijdom, or of the late Dr. Malan or even perhaps of the late Gen. Hertzog. It deals with this question or relentless resistance when injustices are being committed against us, the thing an hon. speaker opposite blamed the hon. the Minister of Lands for, when he said that in certain circumstances we would have to defend ourselves. Hon members opposite talk about having fought for South Africa and they boast of it. This judgment reads as follows—

It continues—

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to quote again these words which at the present time are just as true as on the day they were written. This was not uttered or written by any of the leaders I mentioned. It appears in a letter written 120 years ago on behalf of the Repulican Parliament of Natal to the British Government, Napier, and was signed by Joachim Prinsloo, President, and J. J. Burger, Secretary, and it was drafted by Jacobus Nicolaas Boshoff, the subsequent President of the Free State.

That was the language used by our forefathers. This is the language we still use today. We do not wish to use war-like methods; we do not want to start making reproaches or quarrelling, but if we are compelled to defend our own lives, our own rights, our continued existence in South Africa—if these are threatened, no other way remains open to us than again to take up arms and to defend that right. I ask hon. members opposite: Do they not stand with us, those of them who could speak so stirringly about the sacrifices made by former generations? Do they not still stand on that basis to fight the battle together with us?

Listening to the logic and the reasoning of the member who has just sat down, I have come to the conclusion that he is the one man in 2,000. He got a very nasty crack on his head with a knobkierie, if not shortly after birth, certainly later on, because his reasoning is not logical at all. I am not going to react to his speech, Sir. I was very glad indeed to hear that he was prepared to fight for his country should the need arise. It is a pity he did not do that earlier in his career.

I should also like to react to this one insinuation of his, namely, that it always has been the idea that the Bantustans should be sovereign independent states. Neither he nor any other hon. member on that side of the House were prepared to admit that before October of last year.

I am not attempting at this stage to plead with the Government to change its mind as to the course it has set itself. The hon. the Minister of Lands has made it perfectly clear to us that they have taken this course and that they were going to go ahead, and only through military intervention, through military force, will they be diverted.

Will you repeat that please.

Only through military intervention will this Government be …

No, I did not say that. What I said was that South Africa was committed to this policy and I also said that if the Opposition were to govern South Africa they would also have to carry on with this policy, because once having embarked on it we could not return. Then I said the only way in which South Africa would be able to change that policy would be by military intervention. If the hon. member would read the Burger of this morning he would see that their report is correct. The Cape Times is not correct nor is the Argus correct. Further down in the report in the Argus of my speech, the member will see that they give the correct interpretation.

I accept the hon. the Minister’s explanation but it is still the same thing. I only hope Mr. Speaker, that it will never be necessary again in South Africa for us to use military force.

The whole existence and the tradition of the Nationalist Party, the governing party, has been quite different in the past from what we have heard from the hon. the Prime Minister and members opposite during this debate and the debate last week. The very stuff that this party thrived on, grew strong on, have now been thrown overboard by them. They have thrown it overboard for this “hands-up” policy. They have lost confidence in their ability to rule this multi-racial country of ours. They have lost confidence in this young virile South African nation which we are building. We on this side of the House have not lost that confidence. We maintain that we can still save this country. We remember very well that when this Nationalist Party was a small party, a weak party, they talked big, they uttered fighting talk. They were the people who grew on fighting talk. What did they tell their followers in the days when they were in the Opposition?

Here I have a circular issued in 1944 by the Nationalist Party. The subject which is dealt with in this circular is very much the same sort of stuff that we have been discussing here over the last three weeks. They object in this circular to the £16,000,000 the Government of the day paid in salaries to Natives and their families; they object, of all things, to the purchase of 4,800 stud bulls and 400 odd cows for the Natives; they object to the £1,000,000 spent on Native education; they go on to say that the Government has increased Native wages and that will cost nearly £2,000,000—not taken from the mines but from the taxpayer; they go on to object to only 4,300 houses being built for Europeans and say that 31,000 were built for Natives. And now, Sir, at this stage, the hon. the Minister of Bantu Education, quite rightly, comes and tells us how proud he is of what they are doing. That is the policy of that party even now. And the man who issued this circular was no less a person than the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. It is on talk like this that the Nationalist Party has grown strong and big. But what has happened? They have grown into a colossus with cold feet of clay. That is what they are to-day.

If at this stage it is not possible to change the direction in which the Government is going, it is still the duty of this Opposition, as we have done in the past, to warn the people of South Africa of what is entailed in this plan; what they will eventually have to pay. We have not been very far wrong in the past. All things we have warned against have come true. What we are warning against now will also come true.

I should like to say a few words on the situation as far as the defence of South Africa is concerned. Up to now the defence of South Africa has been a comparatively easy task. We have had friendly nations on our northern borders, we have had South West Africa mandated to us and the little trouble we have encountered, the wars we have engaged in in the past, we have emerged from with credit. In the past we have had trouble with White agitators but they were soon put in their places. Up to now, to help us to protect our very long coast line, a coast line so long that the resources of South Africa are inadequate to protect it adequately, we have had the assistance of a very friendly and strong navy. Our standing army was seldom if ever, used in the past. It was only a nucleus and we have regarded it as such.

We are very much stronger to-day in peacetime than we have ever been before. The defence of South Africa, under these different conditions, is going to be very much more difficult, if not entirely impossible.

We have a very small White population. It is our traditional policy that the defence of this country should be in the hands of the small White population. We have extremely long land boundaries; we have a very long coast-line requiring a very strong navy and a very strong air force to protect it adequately.

Since May of last year that position has changed radically. We now have to stand on our own feet. And last week, with the announcement of the Prime Minister, an entirely new situation has been created. I should like to know, Mr. Speaker, how the Government proposes to defend the rest of South Africa after the six or seven Bantustans have attained their independence. Not only the six or seven independent Bantustans, Sir, but the mandated Territory of South West Africa, according to an interjection by the Prime Minister, will also have Ovambustans, Okavambustans, Hererostans, Germanstans and perhaps even Karakulstans. How are we going to defend South Africa with all those various ‘stans’ within the borders of our country?

Let us be quite clear at this stage. When these new states get their independence they will not look to South Africa to assist them with the defence of their own territories. They will not do that. We cannot even expect benevolent neutral people in those territories. We know that they are going to be hostile to us. We know what has happened in Egypt. No sooner had the colonial power withdrawn when all vestiges of that power were swept away and some other power was let in. We know what happened in Ghana. The Congo is very fresh in our minds. We see to-day what is happening in Kenya. The moment Kenya gets its independence it is quite on the cards that all military influence of Britain will be removed from Kenya’s soil. In every case where these states have attained their independence, they have called in other people to help them to organize and to provide them with arms and equipment.

These new territories which we are going to create are not only going to provide bases, jumping off places, for states hostile to us, but they are also going to provide manpower, unlimited manpower, for training by those people. I cannot imagine a hostile country liking anything better than to be allowed into any of these Bantustans, to make use of their manpower, to train them in the use of firearms and to train them in the use of automatic and semi-automatic weapons.

We must remember, Mr. Speaker, that you can teach a person in a comparatively short time how to use those weapons, but you cannot instil discipline in a short time. Even if you instilled discipline, only people who are used to dish out discipline can handle those people. I can very well imagine a foreign power with a foot in the Bantustans training these people and then walking out and leaving them to their own devices. Exactly the same conditions will prevail as those prevailing in the Congo. We must not forget that citizens of these Bantustans will be in the rest of the Republic of South Africa and they will outnumber the citizens of the Republic. What a wonderful fifthcolumn for a hostile power! Right in our midst.

At the moment we do not know what the boundaries of these Bantustans are, but it would appear that there will be quite a few corridors. Durban, for instance will be a corridor and other White spots. How long will those corridors, those White spots last? What does history teach us? We remember, only a short time ago, in our lifetime, the trouble caused in Sudetenland: we remember Danzig before the last war. We remember the Polish corridor. How long will these corridors last? They won’t last at all.

Mr. Speaker, strong military forces can control this situation but only for a time, not indefinitely. We have the position in Algeria going on to-day. France has waged a war for five years in Algeria. She is employing 400,000 trained French troops in Algeria and they cannot control the insurgent forces there. Why? Because these rebels—call them what you like—get assistance from territories adjacent to Algeria. That is where they draw their weapons and equipment from. And what are we doing in South Africa with this new policy? Are we not creating those very conditions which obtain in Algeria to-day? Are we not creating bases and facilities for people hostile to South Africa. Goodness knows, Sir, we have very few friends.

This idea of independence for the Bantustans, this idea of—as it looks to me—“one chief one vote” is completely unrealistic. It is outright dangerous. I hope that the Government will still, at this late hour, change its mind. Another way must be found to solve our difficulties. Another way must be found to keep this happy land or ours happy.

Race federation.

Another way must be found for all in South Africa to live in this land of ours. As has been suggested so often, Mr. Speaker, the solution lies in the suggested idea of a race federation. Even without these Bantustans South Africa is facing difficult times. We have it from the Government benches time and time again. The fact that we are building up our defence force is witness to the fact that we are expecting difficulties. Why must we go and complicate matters at this stage? The Government is creating a position which is absolutely impossible, and then they try to build up military forces to control that impossible situation. That is what is happening. May I, with all due respect, say that, from a military point of view, what this Government should do, is not to continue to expand their military forces but to try to find friends for South Africa. People who will stand by us when we are in trouble. When we can get that into their thick heads, then we can go places. Not before. What was known in the past as “kragdadigheid”, force cannot solve human problems any more. Those days are past once and for all. The solution to our problem, Mr. Speaker, must be sought along other lines.

Mr. Speaker, I think it would be fitting on this the occasion of my maiden speech to pay tribute to my predecessor, Capt. Strydom, better known as “Oom Kappie”. Oom Kappie was a member of this House for 23 years and I do not think there is a single person on both sides of the House who cannot say that if Oom Kappie could do him a favour he neglected to do so.

Now, I think I must be feeling to-day as my opponent felt during the recent election. When he had to talk politics he spoke about wool. I do not want to talk about wool or politics to-day but I would like to discuss the distant parts of the Eastern Cape, but more specifically my own constituency of Aliwal. The Aliwal constituency is a very extensive one. It stretches from a few miles this side of Burgersdorp right up to Franklin and to the north of Kokstad and its borders on Umzimkulu, which is part of the Transkei. On the other side, the Aliwal constituency is bordered practically by three provinces. On the one side it is bordered by the Orange Free State; in the middle it is bordered by Basutoland, and on the other side by Natal. In the south the district of Kokstad is bordered by the Transkei; the district of Matatiele, which is now suddenly supposed to have become Black, is also bordered by the Transkei, and Maclear, Ugie and Elliot are also bordered by the Transkei.

Mr. Speaker, there is an old adage which says that where there are water and grass there is life. Obviously, where there are water and grass animals can live and one can carry on farming. But I want to change that adage somewhat and put it differently. I want to say that where there is water and where there is coal there is room for industries. I want to associate myself with my hon. friend and benchmate, the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. P. S. Marais), who said that he wanted to make requests, and I also want to ask for things. I should like to ask the Government this to-day: In view of the fact that in the Molteno-Jamestown-Indwe-Elliot complex there is a coal supply more than four times as much as the quantity to be found at Sasol and Vereeniging, attention should be devoted to it. You will perhaps tell me that it is coal of an inferior quality. No, Mr. Speaker, it is not inferior coal. According to the Department of Geological Survey, the burning qualities of that coal are 1 per cent higher than those of the coal in the Sasol-Vereeniging complex.

The mighty Orange River flows past Aliwal North. That river has never been tamed yet. There is some talk of dams which will be built in it, but we still do not know where those dams will be built. Therefore I want to ask the Government in all humility to-day to assist us in erecting a second Sasol in the Aliwal North area. The hon. member for Springs (Mr. Taurog) also spoke about a second Sasol yesterday, but we know that the waters of the Vaal River are already being used to the maximum. Here we have the Orange River in the south and no use has yet been made of its water. When a second Sasol is established at Aliwal North, which I believe is likely to cost less to-day than the original Sasol because many lessons were learnt in erecting the original Sasol and it must cost less, then we can have cheaper power available there. A power line can be built from Aliwal North to Indwe, Elliot, Ugie, Matatiele and Kokstad, which will give an impetus to the border industries, because at the moment these border industries are developing to the south of the Transkei. I say that it is not practical for all the Bantu of the Transkei to trek to the south, to the Ciskei, to go and work there. The stimulus must be supplied near these smaller towns on the borders of the Transkei, and then industries can be established, but that can only be done by establishing a larger industry in the Aliwal North area.

I ask for these things in all humility because we have a responsibility towards the NorthEastern Cape and we have an equal responsibility towards what we have now established there.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to take this opportunity of congratulating the hon. member for Aliwal (Mr. H. J. Botha) for the excellent manner in which he has presented the subject of his maiden speech. I am sure if he continues in the manner he has begun to-day he will make a worthy contribution to the debates of this hon. House.

Sir, I wish to deal with the question of the training of non-Whites as chemists and druggists, with particular reference to the Bantu and the urgent need to allocate funds to expedite their training. In order to place before the House an accurate picture, I shall refer briefly to the historical background of this question. The details which I quote can be substantiated by referring to a report published by the S.A. Pharmacy Board, and I would draw attention to the fact that the Pharmacy Board is a statutory body, one of the functions of which it is to advise the hon. the Minister of Health.

The report to which I refer is entitled “The Training of non-Whites as Chemists and Druggists”, and it was published in the journal of the Pharmaceutical Society, the S.A. Pharmaceutical Journal. The training of non-Whites was dealt with in the report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Training of Chemists and Druggists, which came to be known as the Bremer Report, which was published in 1950. This report suggested that when degree courses are established at universities and apprenticeships permitted in hospitals, the way would be opened to non-Whites to obtain training and tuition and then qualify for registration as chemists and druggists. In February 1952, Government Notice No. 226 amended the apprenticeship rules of the S.A. Pharmacy Board to admit apprentices to hospitals. Prior to that the only method of apprenticeship which could be served in pharmacy was through the means of the retail chemist shop. At this time the Board initiated inquiries through the Fort Hare University College and through the M. L. Sultan College at Durban regarding the establishment of courses for non-Whites. In October 1952, the National Health Council urged the immediate provision of facilities for pharmaceutical training for non-Whites in order that the health services of the non-Whites could be placed more and more in their hands. At a meeting of the S.A. Pharmacy Board held in 1954, the then Minister of Health urged the Board to make immediate provision for the training of non-Whites as chemists and druggists. He said it was essential that they should be trained as speedily as possible to serve their own people. Act 29 of 1954 affected amendments to the Mental, Dental and Pharmacy Act to give effect to certain recommendations of the Bremer Report to which I have referred. Government Notice No. 729 of 1 April 1955, reduced the period of apprenticeship and framed rules for the establishment of degree courses at Rhodes and at Potchefstroom Universities. Information was received at this time to the effect that recognition at Fort Hare and the M. L. Sultan College as training institutions was contingent upon the approval of the Secretary for Education, Arts and Science. In 1954 certain municipalities in the larger cities made inquiries regarding the provision of non-White pharmacies in Native townships. The Pharmacy Board at that stage asked the Minister to obtain a declaration of policy. In 1957 the Secretary for Education stated that he was of opinion that the training of pharmacists should be provided in the Bantu University Colleges contemplated by the Government. None of the institutions falling under his Department would be allowed to admit non-Whites. In August 1957, a meeting was arranged with the Department of Bantu Administration, at which representatives of the Department of Education and the Department of Health, together with the S.A. Pharmacy Board and other bodies were present. No decisions were taken, but the Department of Bantu Administration undertook to carry out a survey of the extent to which training facilities were required. The resulting report was conveyed to the Pharmacy Board on 6 April 1959, two years later, and stated that Bantu pharmacists who might be trained should be employed only in clinics and hospitals and should not be allowed to establish their own pharmacies in urban locations. As hospitals were outside the non-White areas, there was no need to employ non-Whites in Government hospital dispensaries. Bantu pharmacists might be required in the large-scale development of embryo towns in the Native reserves and the whole scheme was to lie dormant in the meantime. Mr. Speaker, I have referred to the report issued by the S.A. Pharmacy Board. A copy of this report was forwarded to the Department of Health in June 1960. The reply from the Minister stated, inter alia, and I quote—

That was in 1960. This reply seems to be in keeping with the opinion of the hon. the Minister of Health as reported in the official report of the Senate debates of 1 February 1960 pages 345-6. Negotiations have been in progress with the University of South Africa and it would appear that the present position is that the B.Sc. (Pharmacy) will be available to non-White students only through various non-White university colleges established for the different ethnic groups. The present position is as follows. Turfloop is training for the B.Sc. this year. The Indian College in Durban is ready to start training Indians. The Cape Western College is training for B.Sc. (1) and will start courses in pharmacy in two years’ time. It must be borne in mind that the first-year B.Sc, course in four specified subjects, physics, chemistry, botany and zoology, taken at a university approved by the S.A. Pharmacy Board, is a prerequisite to the two-year apprenticeship period when it is followed by a further two years of full-time study. The complete period of training is therefore of five years’ duration.

The Secretary for Bantu Administration just recently, speaking for the Deputy Minister, has indicated to the Pharmacy Board that he required 30 chemists and druggists as a start for service among their own people. Four hospitals, Baragwanath, Somerset, Livingstone and King Edward VIII have been approved for the training of apprentices and will probably take in non-White apprentices. Mr. Speaker, there is no provision in the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act which would preclude White chemists and druggists from indenturing non-White apprentices and cases are known where pharmacists are ready and willing to play their part in the training of non-Whites. The requirements of certain other legislation, however, in regard to the provision of separate toilets and other facilities, etc. may make such a step difficult, if not virtually impossible, unless a sympathetic interpretation of regulations is exercised by the departments concerned.

The minimum period of training is five years, but on an average the training period is from six to seven years. This is borne out by a study of the examination results. Figures compiled by the pharmaceutical profession indicate that the cost for a White person to qualify as a chemist and druggist is on an average R3,000. In view of the poor circumstances under which even many of the more educated Bantu are living, there is an immediate need for funds to be made available in the form of grants, scholarships or loans to make provision for a steady flow of Bantu entrants into the profession. The good health of the people is vital to the welfare and the prosperity of the Republic, and this applies to both Whites and non-Whites, and whether the non-Whites are in Bantustans or in the urban areas. The Bantu chemists and druggists should play a major role in health services. He can play his part in the dispensaries of the hospitals for non-Whites, and the skill and knowledge with which he is trained equips him for placing him in a key role in the Bantu territories. He could assist in the health education of which so many of his people are in such desperate need. He could become part of a system entrusted with the supply and distribution of preventive medicine, and fortified food, which in time could eliminate the possibilities of kwasihorkor and other diseases brought about through ignorance of the fundamental principles of nutrition. The Bantu pharmacist could enjoy a status amongst his own people by virtue of the responsibility which his qualifications bestow. This would help to create a stable and contented class of educated Bantu.

My appeal is that the Minister should, firstly, eliminate the causes which have resulted in protracted negotiations on the subject of the training of Bantu as chemists and druggists, and secondly, take immediate and positive steps to see that funds are available to supply financial assistance when and where it is required.

It is a pleasure to me heartily to congratulate the hon. member for Durban-Berea (Mr. Wood) on the very effective speech he made here, the nice way in which he delivered it, the calm manner in which he stated his case, and particularly on his pleasant voice which sounds like a bell. I think that with his calm delivery and his thorough preparation he will make worthwhile contributions to the debates in this House, and I extend my best wishes to him.

After listening to such a good speech, I think it is fitting for me now to move—

That the debate be now adjourned.

I second.