Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance painted a picture of the economic position to us here the day before yesterday, a picture which gave the lie to all the prophecies of doom that we had from the United Party in the past. That is why the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) was not the main Opposition speaker, as he usually is. He did not act as the main speaker because he was unable to face that picture. And his party could not face it either, because all their wishes and hopes that South Africa would be ruined economically under this Government had been completely shattered. The hon. member for Constantia took the lead in the whole of the earlier campaign to do everything in their power in an attempt to ruin South Africa economically. Accompanied by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) and the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp), he travelled over the length and breadth of the country trying to frighten people and prophesying that this Government would only last six months, because the banks would close, that industries would come to a halt and that the Government would not be able to get a penny from overseas. They went so far as to intimate that they had secret information from abroad to the effect that the late Mr. Havenga, the then Minister of Finance, would not be able to get a single penny abroad. But it did not help them to play the role of scarecrow amongst the people, and they did not realize that birds, in this case the voters, also had intelligence. Birds very soon discover that a scarecrow is only a scarecrow; when they discover that he only has a few old rags and tatters covering him; they perch on him with contempt, and when they are finished with him and eventually fly away, he looks like the members on the other side. That is the inescapable fate of every scarecrow, and even more so it is the fate of a political scarecrow, the role which those hon. members played throughout the country. That is why the statement made by the hon. the Minister of Finance in this House the day before yesterday was like a staggering sledge-hammer blow to them between the eyes, and that is borne out by the attitude and the conduct of the hon. member for Yeoville. In nearly all their speeches, and particularly in the speech of the hon. member for Yeoville, they used so many arguments without foundation and advanced so many fabricated propositions, that after the hon. member had tried in his speech to create a complete picture, one could not help thinking of a mass of feathers in a whirlwind. One could not make head or tail out of it. In nearly all the speeches made by hon. members on the other side they relied on false premises, so their structure of arguments must inevitably collapse. In the first place they assume that all the Bantu living and working outside the Bantu homelands, and particularly the Bantu in the city, are detribalized. They contend that those Bantu, and particularly those who were born in the cities, want nothing to do with their homelands and with the tribe to which they belong. I want to mention a case here that I came across—and this is no exception. In reply to my questions a Bantu employed at Sasol said that he lived in Johannesburg, that he was born in Johannesburg, that he was married to a woman who was born in Johannesburg, but that he also had a wife on a farm near Ladysmith in Natal. He said that he had children there, too. But the fact that he was born in Johannesburg and married to a woman who was born in Johannesburg, did not cause him to lose his tribal connection. Every year when the ploughing season arrives he takes his leave and visits his wife and children in Ladysmith. He knows his chief; he knows Cyprian Bekizulu. He has retained his tribal connection; he has not become detribalized. I submit that if there are detribalized Bantu in the cities, their numbers are so small that they can be ignored for all practical purposes, and that is why it is so wrong on the part of hon. members to say that Xhosas who do not reside in Xhosaland, who were born in Kimberley perhaps, have lost their tribal connection with Xhosaland. That is not the case. I want to ask the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) whether he has become a White Xhosa because he lives in Umtata. After all, he has not lost his tribal connection. There are many people who were born in Umtata and who grew up there and yet they have not lost their tribal connection; they have not become White Xhosas. Like the Xhosas who live and work here, they have retained their tribal connection and one does them an injustice by saying that they are detribalized Natives. Further evidence to support my proposition is the spontaneous flocking together of the ethnic groups in the large cities, a fact which very often culminates in tribal fights. Surely that could not take place if those Bantu were detribalized. Hon. members do not realize how strongly the Bantu feel about these matters. May I just mention this further example: A month or two ago there was a geologist on my farm with three Basutos, and although I said to them that they could use the Bantu quarters and prepare their food there, they simply refused to sleep in the same building as the Zulus. They cooked and ate and slept outside. It astonished me to find that the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl), a former Minister of Native Affairs, is so entirely ignorant about the people whom he ruled. No wonder that his departmental head ordered him left and right. I have noticed the same ignorance on the part of the hon. member for Zululand. It seems to me that the hon. young gentleman has not followed in the footsteps of his worthy pioneering father and acquainted himself with the customs and the mental attitude of the Black people around him. But to prove that my proposition is correct and that it is also accepted by members on the other side, I want to quote here what the hon. member for South Coast said. I have here “the official notes of the proceedings at the special conference of the N.M.A.”. This is a verbatim report. This conference was held in the Council Chamber, Pietermaritzburg, on Wednesday, 12 February 1947. Mr. Whitehead, the Mooi River chairman, put the following questions—

Now I come to the Administrator’s reply.

Who is he?

The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell)—

And the Provincial Council in Natal is also the United Party—

Quite right. Do you disagree with that?

It is a remarkable fact that when we declare our policy here, he raises his voice in protest, but in his heart of hearts he feels exactly as we do; in his hearts of hearts he supports the policy of apartheid. Let me ask him this: Why does he insist that we should make provision for the Bantu who are in the White areas on a different basis from that made for those in the homelands, because his policy is that these Bantu should be settled in the homelands from which they come? Why does he subscribe to this policy, why does he propagate this policy, why does he support this policy and then he votes against it and opposes it when we propagate it? How can he find it in his heart to do such a thing? In this same report he takes Indians off the Common Roll, without blushing, and puts them onto a separate roll. But when we want to do so, then the heavens are going to fall down upon us, then he wants to march, then he calls up his followers and threatens to march. Why this double policy? No, the time has come when hon. members, and particularly the hon. member for South Coast, the leader of the United Party in Natal, should stick to their guns as far as principles are concerned. The hon. member has fine principles …

But he hides them.

… but he supports the bad principles of the United Party. He would do very much better—and I have often given him this good advice—if he stuck to his guns and did not allow the United Party to take him in tow. Let him lead the English-speaking people in Natal along the road for which he stands, and then he will be acting in the interests of South Africa.

Secondly, the Opposition contend that we refuse to acknowledge that there is also a middle road between apartheid and the policy of “one man one vote”. It has been said here on various occasions that we refuse to realize that there is also a middle road. I want to repudiate this allegation at once and admit here that there is a middle road. That middle road is the policy of the United Party, and what is that policy? That middle-of-the-road policy of the United Party is a wolf in sheep’s clothing; it is a fraud; like the poison of a poffadder it is a carefully conceived plan aimed at fatal delayed action. [Interjections.] Yes, I have had experience of that. With this middle-of-the-road policy they want to give the nation a fatal injection which will slowly but surely paralyse its resistance to that iniquitous policy of “one man one vote”. That is the middle-of-the-road policy. The aim of the United Party and of the Progressive Party is precisely the same, but the method differs slightly. As far as the United Party is concerned, the nation must be given a narcotic. The poison pill is to be sugar-coated.

The allegation has also been made in this debate that the granting of independence to the Transkei was born out of fear, that we have become frightened of the policy of apartheid and that we are putting up the white flag.

Perfectly correct.

Out of the mouths of sucklings!

The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) says that we are looking for fox-holes to hide in; that we can no longer govern the Bantu homelands, that we now have to run away and leave the Bantu to govern themselves. But I thought the hon. the Prime Minister was such a hard and merciless man who follows a granite-like policy! Did they not persist until recently with this talk about a granite-like policy? Now suddenly the Prime Minister and his party have become cowards who are hoisting the white flag. The hon. member for Point also says that while we have become frightened, there is still the courageous and brave United Party that will not become frightened. Let us see for a moment how brave they are. I am sorry that the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) is not here. Let me mention example number one. When the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was sitting at a safe distance high in the air on his way to Cape Town after the Union Congress in Bloemfontein, the hon. member for Constantia experienced a bursting feeling of bravery in his heart. With fire in his eyes and a sword in his hand, like some …

You are talking about Monty now.

He is a thorn in the side of the United Party. With fire in his eyes and with a sword in his hand, like a sergeant-major, and in a stentorian voice he made a statement which was supposed to shake the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the Wild Coast man to their back-teeth. Brandishing his sword like a Zulu on the war-path, he led this little group to the trench, but when they stood on the edge of the trench, he neatly stepped aside, turned face-about and sent his followers, this little group, plunging down the precipice. But then his courageous heart was gripped by an Al icecream-like, icy-cold fear; he took to his heels and ran into the protective arms of his hon. Leader and into the protective arms of the member for South Coast. How the mighty have fallen! I come to example No. 2. In this pathetic drama, the flight of the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) far outshone that of the hon. member for Constantia. I should really have mentioned his case first, because the person who can become as frightened as he does still has to be born. Even the nervous poodle of the hon. the Minister of Lands, when he has been involved in a motorcar accident, does not come anywhere near him—and, believe me, that poodle did get a fright! I come to example No. 3 because Natal also has a sergeant-major. The hon. member for South Coast is at his best and in his element when, to the accompaniment of a blare of trumpets and rock-and-roll movements, he calls upon his followers in Durban and Pietermaritzburg to march. Mr. Speaker, you should have seen the spectacle in Durban in front of the City Hall in the rain. They turned up in their thousands, marching in step, and they were ready to march. They were anxiously awaiting the order from their fiery sergeant-major. But they did not realize that a clammy cold had seeped upwards from his feet and settled in his knees. He was unable to march—not with cold feet and paralysed knees. The “march” became a “stand”. When his followers saw him again, he was standing on the platform in the City Hall in Pietermaritzburg …

On his head.

… not in the role now of the sergeant-major who wanted to march but in the role of the acrobat who represented himself as follows—

That is not true and if you repeat it you will be a liar.

On a point of order, is the hon. member entitled to say that the hon. member is a liar?

Order! What did the hon. member say?

I said that if the hon. member repeated that he would be a liar. It is not true. That is what I said. I say that if he is a man of honour he will withdraw what he said in view of my assurance that I never said anything of the kind.

You never fulfilled your promise.

You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that last year I quoted here from this verbatim report. I laid this at the door of the hon. member for South Coast, and he also said then that I was telling lies. I have now brought the report with me so as to be able to quote what he said to him from this report. I repeat this allegation now, and the thousands of people who heard him …

They did not hear it. That is not true. Not a single person heard me say such a thing.

The hon. member’s followers in Pietermaritzburg are very annoyed with him; they are furious with him.

He says you are a liar.

Order! The hon. member for South Coast did not say that the hon. member was a liar, and the hon. member must withdraw those words at once.

I withdraw them.

The hon. member for South Coast did not fulfil his promise to carry out this acrobatic stunt for them. I want to ask the hon. member a small favour now, and that is please to let me know when he has mustered sufficient courage to fulfil his promise, because I should hate to miss that little stunt.

He does it here every day.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on in this way and produce proof that the United Party is running away; that they are not the brave party that they are represented to be by the hon. member for Point. They are continually running away; they never come to a halt; they are always running and it does not behove them to come and accuse the Prime Minister and this side of the House of having become frightened. We have never been afraid to state our policy candidly. We have never made a secret of our policy, and we have always given effect to that policy.

In the course of this debate a few very dangerous statements have been made which should be analysed once and for all. Everybody knows that we are living to-day in a hostile world. We have become the target for every sniper, and that is a fact which is known not only to this side of the house. Hon. members on the other side are aware of it. They are aware of this dangerous position.

Why is that so?

That is the position as the result of your propaganda.

I am coming to that. The policy of apartheid is being used by them as an excuse; it is not because they love the Bantu so much; they are using it as a cloak to conceal their insatiable hunger for our fatherland and its wealth. They are not so fond of the Bantu; they do not care what becomes of him, but they want our fatherland and they want our riches. Whatever we do for the non-Whites is either suppressed or reported in the Press in just a few lines in small print. In an attempt to deal with this state of affairs, the Government did everything in its power, through the medium of television and through the Press, to bring the declaration of independence of the Transkei to the notice of millions of people who would otherwise not have seen it, and every citizen of this Republic ought to be extremely grateful that was done. But what does the United Party do while the Government tries to represent South Africa in the correct light? The hon. member for Yeoville, by implication, announces to the world, “do not believe them; it is the biggest bluff under the sun He and the hon. member for Constantia did everything in their power to try to belittle and to ridicule the declaration of independence for the Transkei and the announcement in that regard by the Government. The hon. member for Green Point also chipped in when he declared in advance that these Bantu homelands would not win the world’s goodwill for South Africa. That is precisely the sort of ammunition for which our enemies had been waiting. They wanted to hear this type of story from the lips of citizens of the Republic itself, and they have now heard it from members of the United Party. It is common knowledge that we are accused by Russia and the Afro-Asian countries of oppression, of being a police state and of practising slavery. Everybody knows that is not true, but the day before yesterday the hon. member for Constantia came along and said by implication to Russia and to the Black states, “You are correct; they want to build the Transkei roads with slave labour”. [Laughter.] Yes, the hon. member may laugh; it only goes to show the mentality of the United Party, and that is that when South Africa finds herself in the greatest danger and when she is entering the most difficult period, they treat it as a joke. They rejoice over it and laugh about it.

Whose fault is it that we are in danger?

Does the hon. member for Constantia realize in what danger he placed South Africa in uttering those words? Does he realize that he is throwing South Africa and her people to the wolves when he talks that way? Does he realize that he is putting his fatherland on a powder keg?

Not his.

In order to destroy the influence of the West, Russia and China propagated the slogan of “away with Colonialism” amongst the Blacks of Africa and the Asiatics of the East, a slogan which they eagerly embraced, and under the cloak of that clarion call they declared war against the White man with communistic support. The hon. member for Constantia and his party know that. They know what the position is, and while that is the position and while the Whites in South Africa are accused by the Black states and by Russia of practising colonialism, the hon. members for Yeoville and Durban (Point) come along and say by implication, “You are correct; this Government is practising colonialism with its Bantu homelands, and, what is even worse, they are even practising economic colonialism”. This is grist to the mill of our enemies and hon. members know that by to-morrow those slogans of theirs, that statement of theirs, will be known to our enemies throughout the world, and that is precisely what they want.

I content myself with these few examples, and I ask myself what the motive of the United Party is. in such dangerous times to South Africa, in providing ammunition to Russia and to our enemies by continually defaming South Africa and propagating extremely dangerous untruths? What is the motive behind it? They cannot argue that they are doing so in ignorance. They know perfectly well what the position is. They cannot argue that they may derive some political advantage from it, because they know that the electorate has rejected them finally and absolutely for all time to come. They will not be able to rule again. They would not do these things therefore in order to gain political advantage. No, I shall tell you, Sir, what the motive is. It is because they know that they have lost the struggle for all time that they are in the grip of a consuming fury and hatred against the National Party, and particularly against the Afrikaners. That is the motive. If they cannot rule, they are prepared to do everything in their power to see to it that we cannot rule either, even if they have to bring about South Africa’s downfall in that process. Like a blind Samson they are prepared to pull down the pillars of South Africa upon all of us. Their hatred against us has reached breaking point. Their hatred has become greater than their love for their fatherland. That is the reason for their conduct. Russia and the Afro-Asian nations are watching with glee how the United Party in the Republic of South Africa is preparing the way for them free of charge. They are rejoicing because the United Party is preparing the way for them. But I want to say this to the United Party: They will lose this unpatriotic struggle too. They will not win this struggle, because here in the Republic of South Africa the White language groups are forging a close unity in spite of the United Party and in spite of their Press. Overseas the number of prominent men who are prepared to defend South Africa is growing daily. The turning point will come. In South Africa the word “apartheid” is no longer a political swear word, nor is it in Africa any longer. It has now become an inspiring clarion-call, a clarion-call filled with hope for every White man and also for the Bantu in South Africa. It has become a clarion-call to all Whites and to all countries struggling with this problem which faces South Africa. The United Party will lose this unpatriotic struggle too, and the National Party, having adopted this course, will not allow itself to be deflected from its path by this unpatriotic conduct on the part of the United Party, and the National Party is going to leave a worthwhile heritage for the generations to come.

I hope the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, will not take it amiss if I don’t pursue the line that he has pursued in this debate. I sat in this House and listened very attentively last week to the Prime Minister’s speech in which he held out independence to the Transkei. I think it is clear to us all, and also from comment from the Prime Minister designate of the Transkei, Chief Kaiser Matanzima, that those people will in any case not be satisfied with only that which the Prime Minister held out for them. Whatever may happen there, it is clear to me that there is no return from the path that has been followed so far. It is also further clear that it will not be long before the people governing that territory will have jurisdiction or claim jurisdiction over other races occupy-their territory. I represent the 14,000 Coloured people in the Transkei and the hon. the Prime Minister in his speech here made no mention whatsoever of their position in the Transkei. Now, Sir, the history of the Cape as far as the Transkei is concerned, is that of the 14,000-odd Coloured people living in the Transkei, a very large number are descendants of soldiers of the Cape Corps who fought in the Kaffir wars and who were settled there as a compensation for their services, and whose descendants live there to this day. Now the very fact that those people came to live in that area, in settlements all over the Transkei, being the descendants of soldiers who fought with the White man against the Africans, against the Xhosas. will make one realize what the feeling of the more primitive type of Xhosa or African in that area will be towards those people if they get the whip-hand, and it is something of very great alarm to the people living there. Sir, when the Minister of Coloured Affairs took part in that same debate, he did not say anything about the position of those people there either, and I want to mention an incident that took place in Kokstad last year when the same Chief, Kaiser Matanzima, visited Kokstad and spoke to a man there who is undisputedly the leader of the Coloured people in the Transkei. In so many words he told him that he should submit the matter to the attention of his Government that the Xhosas were getting independence and were going to rule their own country, but that they were not going to carry these, that is the Coloured people, in future. He should tell his Government, that is the White Government of South Africa, that they must take the Coloured people out of the Transkei.

Since when is East Griqualand part of the Transkei?

I spoke of “a leader of the Coloured people in the Transkei”. The fact that he lives in Kokstad is incidental. This matter concerns the lives and existence of 14,000 people there, people whose way of life and standard of living, whose language and culture and religion are the same as those of the White man, people who owe their very existence in that area to the fact that they were identified with the White man, as far as the African is concerned, in that they were soldiers or their ancestors were soldiers who fought in these wars and who contributed their share to clearing up that country and making it livable and to bring civilization to that area. It is not a frivolous matter, and I think all the responsible members in this House, including the Minister of Coloured Affairs, should exercise their minds about this matter, because 14,000 people will have to be taken out of that area, and resettled somewhere else.

Mr. Speaker, when he took part in that debate, the Minister of Coloured Affairs in replying to the Leader of the Opposition (when the Leader of the Opposition referred to the Union Council for Coloured Affairs) used these words—

Further on he said—

This differs slightly from what the hon. the Prime Minister said when I had the honour to attend a meeting of the Coloured Council for the first time since its inception. The hon. the Prime Minister then made an important policy statement in regard to the Coloured people. At that meeting the hon. the Prime Minister referred to this council as “this representative body, representative of the Coloured people”. I can imagine the Minister of Coloured Affairs saying what he did because the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs is quite conscious of the methods that were used and in what desperate position the department and the Government were to get this council constituted, for the reason no doubt that the Coloured people did not want to take part in the constitution of this council. I am not going into the reasons at this stage. But what I wish to submit to the attention of the Government is that the Government is responsible for the fact that the members of this Union Council for Coloured Affairs are held up to scorn and ridicule and are viewed with suspicion as a result of the fact that their meetings since this council came into being were held in secrecy and that the Coloured public outside are told stories, “wolhaarstories” they would be called in Afrikaans, in many respects, and they learn from hearsay what is supposed to be happening at the meetings of this council. Had the Department taken the necessary steps that the discussions in that council were published from time to time so that the public outside could learn what was happening there, the Government’s attempt to create a council representative of the Coloured people would have met with greater success than is the case to-day.

When the question was put by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, pinpointed by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn), the Prime Minister’s reply was that this new Coloured Parliament, still to be created, would decide for itself as to whether their debates and discussions would be in camera or would be open to the public and the Press. I do know that it was not left to this council to decide whether they wanted their discussions open to the public and the Press, but I am informed that this council discussed the position and decided that they wanted their proceedings published. I can tell the Minister, however, that no greater harm could have been done to the existence of this council than the fact that their deliberations were held in camera and were kept secret. When I attended the meeting of this council, I was very disappointed because I do not think it is fair on the part of the Department or whoever was responsible, after two years of the existence of this council to have left these people in the wilderness as far as procedure and the conduct of their council meetings is concerned. I think it must have been an embarrassment to the Prime Minister. I don’t think rules of procedure have as yet been drawn up. The chairman of this council acted as a very efficient cheer-leader and he made a speech eulogizing the Prime Minister’s statement, which was drawn up before he knew what the Prime Minister was going to say. But apart from that, dignity of procedure was sadly lacking, and to my knowledge no endeavour was made during the existence of this council, that is during the past two years, to lead them or guide them in any way. What the qualifications of the chairman on his appointment were, I do not know, but nothing was done to assist him in the meanwhile. I feel that it is an insult to the people that I represent in this House that such a council should be conceived, implemented, or organized, as the Government did in this case, and that after more than two years of its existence, in the second half of the twentieth century, the impression should be created that there was an endeavour made to perpetuate the old Griqua Council which was in existence at the turn of the century, or even before the turn of the century. I say this conscious of every implication, and that is that the people that I represent here in this House are capable of and deserve much more than this council, or to the way in which this council was guided and organized up to this date.

Further on, the Minister of Coloured Affairs made this statement in his speech—

I do not want to dispute this statement made by the Minister of Coloured Affairs, but what I want to dispute is the Minister of Coloured Affairs using the economic backwardness of the Coloured people to justify the fact that they were deprived of their limited political rights and the fact that they are being deprived of any further political development in the sense that they had representation since the Union first had representative and later responsible government. I wish to point out that the economic backwardness and the economic needs of these people, the needs of these people in regard to housing, and in respect of the improvement of their position in the rural areas, are due to the criminal negligence of the White man in this country and of previous Governments as well as the present one. It has become a tradition in South Africa over the past 300 years that every time when the Coloured people should have been taken into consideration they were neglected and forgotten, or otherwise bluffed. I wish to mention an example because I do not want to make accusations against the present Government only which are not fair, and I do not wish to hold them responsible for what they are not responsible for. I wish to go back in the political field to the Anglo-Boer War, or the Second War of Independence as it is known. When that war broke out the Coloured people were exhorted by Lord Milner to take part on the British side. I am now referring to the Coloured people in the Cape Province where they were British subjects. They were asked to take part in that war to subjugate the two republics of the Transvaal and the Free State, and what was pointed out to them was that their people in the northern provinces had no political rights. Sir, the Coloured people are suffering for their participation in that war till this day. They have suffered the antagonism and scorn and the bitterness of the Afrikaner to this day, but what did they get in return …

What utter non-sense!

Up to this day the Coloured people in the northern provinces never got any recognition as far as political rights are concerned, not even in 1906 when a deputation went overseas to bring this to the attention of the British Government, not even in 1909, at the time of Union.

Who bluffed them?

I do not care who bluffed them. But it was not the Coloured man or the African who bluffed them. I am only pointing out that is the history of the Coloured people, and now to-day we find that the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs is again using the economic backwardness of the Coloured people as an excuse for taking away the limited political rights they had and for not wishing to extend their rights any further. Sir, if that argument is valid, then I would like to know from the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs, as a born Free Stater, what his feelings to-day would have been if in 1906, when the Transvaal got responsible government after the war, the British Government had used the excuse that the Afrikaners in the Transvaal were economically backward and poor, and that for that reason they could be given no political rights or self-government? What would he have thought if that excuse had been used against the Afrikaners in the Free State in 1908 that the people were economically backward and poor and that no political rights could be extended to them?

As usual, you did not understand my argument. It will be useless to explain to you.

The hon. the Minister tells me that I do not understand his arguments. His argument was that the Government were doing wonderful things for the Coloured people to-day and that the Coloured people were more interested in that than in political rights. That was his argument and he used that as a justification for the fact that the Government refuses to consider the Coloured people as full citizens of this country.

No, you are quite wrong. Next time you should listen more carefully.

Could any person in this House justify the argument that the universal franchise should not have been extended to the White man, the White person above the age of 21. in 1931, when the people who primarily benefited as a result of the extension of the franchise to all White people, were the Afrikaners? Could anybody justify to-day the argument that it should never have been extended to them because during those depression years those people were too poverty-stricken or too poor to realize what they were doing, or to use their vote properly, but that instead they should first have been uplifted economically? As a result of the Universal Franchise Act of 1931—I think it was a very grave mistake that was made, because it was a dangerous precedent that was established—the Afrikaner people benefited. But the Coloured people to-day are not pressing for universal franchise because it was extended to illiterate Whites. After 30 years the percentage of Whites that may be illiterate is very small indeed. But as far as the universal franchise as well as the taking away of the Coloured people from the Common Roll, the old Dutch proverb “Eerst gegeven, dan genomen, is erger als een dief gestolen” applies, and the people that I represent here do not want those people who are illiterate to be deprived of their franchise rights. But what they do want is as citizens of this country to have their political rights. They have a rightful heritage to economic and educational facilities that the country of their birth can extend to them. That they will not exchange and then keep quiet about their political rights and their privilege of participating in the Government of this country. I wish to state, however, unequivocably on behalf of the people that I represent in this House that I would not like to hear the argument that I am demanding for the Coloured people “one man one vote”. The Coloured people do not want that. They do not want to happen to them what happened to other races elsewhere in the world and in South Africa. Leave the qualifications there, qualifications that the people will accept, but give them their rightful share in the government of the country of their birth. And let me say this to the Minister of Coloured Affairs and the Government: The fact that the Coloured people are to-day forced to accept what the Government is doing for them in the field of economic uplift, belated housing, belated educational facilities, is no indication that they are accepting policies of this Government. I speak on behalf of the Coloured people and on behalf of the four members sitting in this House as Coloured Representatives when I say that the Coloured people have never been as frustrated and as hostile to the apartheid policies of this Government as they are to-day. I must emphasise, never before have the Coloured people been as antagonistic towards the apartheid policies of this Government as they are to-day. But they are forced to accept what there is extended to them to improve their position, and my advice to them is to take what they can get to better themselves until the time comes in the very near future when they will be able to exercise their rights as full citizens of South Africa.

I do not want to reply to the speech that has just been made. I think the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs will in due course settle accounts with him. I just want to tell him that, as far as the Coloureds in the Transkei are concerned, he should not worry at all, because both the Department of Bantu Administration and Development and the Department of Coloured Affairs are already attending to the whole matter; these two Departments work together.

I really want to deal with a number of charges that the Opposition have made and certain statements have to be refuted immediately because they can do South Africa a great deal of damage outside if they are not refuted timeously. The behaviour of the Opposition during this debate is typified in the attitude of the English-language Press towards one of the guests of South Africa. I refer to Field-Marshal Montgomery, who came here as the guest of South Africa. He is effusive in his goodwill towards South Africa. And if hon. members opposite do not approve of that goodwill, then as hosts they should remain quiet about it as long as he is in our country, nor should the Press criticize him. But what does the English-language Press do to-day? They show so little patriotism towards South Africa that they are continually criticizing, and leaving patriotism towards South Africa aside, they do not even show the courtesy that any good host would show in not criticizing his guest while he is under his roof.

They think Bronkie is a better soldier.

Even if they do think that the hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) is a better soldier, that still does not justify criticism of a guest in the way the English-language Press is doing it today. But that too is typical of the whole attitude of the Press towards South Africa. They have already become so unpatriotic and the Opposition have already lost so much of their love for their fatherland, that they can no longer distinguish between constructive criticism on which you can build and destructive criticism that is only insulting and that represents us in a bad light overseas. I want to mention a few of the things that the Opposition have done. I want to start with the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw). He quoted from the minutes of the Territorial Authority in the Transkei as to what their agenda was supposed to be and he said that the matters that they dealt with were of a trifling nature and for that reason they were not capable people. Let us look at these trifling matters with which they occupy themselves. Here I have the agenda for last year’s sitting. The first item deals with agricultural matters. The hon. member naturally only quoted those portions that deal with dipping tanks and dipping fees and he regarded that as typical of the matters that were discussed there. The next item is “Law and Bantu Customs”. Then you have “Native litigants: Damages for loss of life of husband”; Notice to appear before a chief’s court”. Then we get “Educational matters: Abolition of the rule debarring pupils obtaining first-class passes in Std. VI from post-primary studies”. The hon. member, of course, regards that as a trifling matter. In any case he did not quote that. But there is a series of nearly 20 resolutions in connection with the education of the Bantu. Then we come to the health matters that they discussed. Then “Employment, social and economic conditions, Bantu in the Civil Service, Appointment of Bantu as Bantu Affairs Commissioners, Appointment of qualified Bantu personnel and assistant Bantu Affairs Commissioners, Promotion of qualified Bantu recorders as interpreters and clerks”. So it goes on. The agenda then refers to transport and communication, and then we have “Territorial, regional and district authorities”. These items show what a lively interest they take in those every-day affairs that affect the Transkeian Bantu. To regard these items as trifling is to regard ordinary every-day matters in which the ordinary man is interested, matters which affect his education, his chances to make a living, his health, as matters with which they should not occupy themselves. That is far-reaching. But if the yardstick that the hon. member for Durban (Point) wants to apply is that you should not ever concern yourself with trifling matters if you want to become efficient, I wonder how efficient he is, he who concerns himself with the trifling matters of his Durban club: Cups and saucers and pots and pans that he as a member of the club has to attend to. Does that make him less efficient for Parliament? No, Sir, I say the hon. member is doing those people a great injustice in thinking that every-day matters, those matters that are of great importance to them, such as the education of their children, the administration of their governing bodies, are trifling and that they are inefficient in consequence. He is doing them a great injustice. The fact that they discuss all these matters shows how interested they are in their own people in the Transkei.

Are they ready for self-government?

But under his federation plan the hon. member wants to bring those same people here whom he regards as too inefficient to sit in their own Parliament, and he wants them to sit here with us in a federal Parliament. How can you argue with a person like that, Sir? He says they are good enough for this Parliament, but not good enough for their own Parliament. That is the type of argument you get from him, Sir.

The hon. member went on to quote from the minutes and he said that he would show from the minutes how unpopular the Bantu Authorities were amongst the Bantu of the Transkei. He read a few extracts from a certain motion which was discussed that Bantu chiefs and headmen should be given weapons. I want to point out firstly that it says here—

That is one of the things that the hon. member read out. But Mr. Speaker, are the members of the United Party not the people who continually said that those chiefs and headmen of the Transkei, those Bantu Authorities, were the “stooges” of the Government? How is it possible that those stooges would say a thing like this? Will members opposite now admit that they are not and never have been stooges? That is why they have freedom of speech and they exercise that right on their governing bodies. It is true that the system of Bantu Authorities is not popular with everybody. There are also many people in the Transkei with whom it is not popular. But as far as the great majority is concerned that is not the case. Even during the discussion of this motion—the motion from which the hon. member tried to suck the poison—those very same people who had said what I had just quoted, explained the reason why they wanted firearms. It was not because they were afraid of their own people—

Then he goes on and says—

Just in the next column of the same minute it shows very clearly where that danger comes from. It is not the Bantu in the Transkei who constitute that danger, because they say—

I do not know whether the hon. chief who spoke here was referring to the hon. member for Point—

Here you have evidence from the same minute that it is not amongst the Transkeian Bantu that the Bantu Authority system is so very unpopular. The system of Bantu Authorities is unpopular with those people who come from outside and who instigate from outside. They say it here and the hon. member should have quoted it. But he thinks he will get away with these clever stories by quoting a little sentence here and a little sentence there out of its context.

That is not clever; it is dishonest.

It is true what the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker) has just said; not to quote fully is not clever; it is dishonest.

I want to refer once again to the riots in Pondoland. I do not know whether the hon. member for Point, who referred to the Pondoland riots, is aware of the fact that a committee investigated that whole matter. Incidentally, I have the report of that committee. It is a confidential document, but I want to quote from it, Mr. Speaker, and I do so with all the emphasis at my command—and the hon. member for Transkeian Territories ought to listen; and if he has not read the report of that committee, it is high time that he asks the Minister of Bantu Administration to have insight into that report. The late Dr. D. L. Smit took the trouble to read that report and that is why he never made the wild statements which the hon. member for Transkeian Territories makes. He continually comes with the story that the riots in East Pondoland were due to the unpopularity of the system of Bantu Authorities. This confidential report states clearly that those riots were instigated by people who came from across the border, both from Basutoland and from Natal. They paid special attention to the Bizana district which borders on Natal; they pointed out how the instigators, who were responsible for inciting the people of East Pondoland, came from those Natal border districts.

Is that why you now want to give them the vote?

That was the finding of the committee. They also found that not only was the incitement perpetrated from outside, but that the people who came there were actually communistically orientated.

Is it not true that the Commissioner found that they had evidence ad nauseum to the effect that there were complaints about the Bantu Authorities?

No, that is not so. What they did say was that they had complaints about the application of certain things introduced by the Bantu Authorities. They had no complaints about the Bantu Authorities, but about the application of certain resolutions passed by the Bantu Authorities in that area.

Yes.

That is something totally different. If we pass resolutions in this Parliament, and they are good resolutions, but the officials outside do not carry out those resolutions well with the result that the people feel aggrieved, the complaint is not against Parliament but against the official or the person who had not carried out that resolution well. That was the finding of that committee and I recommend to the hon. member to read it again. I get the impression that the hon. member for Point will probably not be able to make a speech in this House next year, because he based his whole speech on this Blue Book which contains the minutes of the Territorial Authorities of the Transkei. I assume that we shall have a Xhosa state there next year in which the official language will be Xhosa. The minutes will probably be kept in Xhosa and I wonder whether the hon. member will then be able to make a speech on this subject.

Do you speak Xhosa?

We can discuss that at a later stage. Mr. Speaker, I now come to the member for Transkeian Territories. He made a number of wild statements here which we cannot allow to pass unnoticed in this House. In the first place he stated that the Transkei had had a democratic form of government, namely, the old Bunga.

A more democratic system.

He went on to say that this Government had abolished it and had replaced it by an authoritarian system, namely, that of Bantu Authorities and that will now again be replaced by a bad democratic system. He used the following words—

That is what I said and I adhere to it.

I take it he refers to the system of Bantu Authorities and he says that the Bunga was more democratic. Let us analyse how that Bunga was constituted. The Bunga consisted of 26 magistrates; every magistrate from the 26 districts of the Transkei was allowed full sitting on the old Bunga.

But not the vote.

Officially they had full sitting because they were magistrates.

They were advisory.

Yes, but they had full sitting. For the rest the Bunga consisted of the representatives of the 26 districts. These 26 representatives were not elected by the people of the Transkei. I shall tell you how they got there, Sir. Every district was divided into a number of wards—say four, five, six or seven wards—and then the magistrate held a meeting in each of those wards. Perhaps ten or 12 Bantu attended those meetings—I don’t think there were more than 100 at any of those meetings …

They could all attend.

That was the position, even if all of them could attend. The meeting was held in the open. Then the magistrate says the candidate is X; the candidate is Y, etc., and they raised their kieries in the air and said in Xhosa: We agree. I must also add that at many of those meetings not a single person turned up.

They had the right to elect the members.

Order! The hon. member for Transkei has had his chance and he should now give the hon. member for Heilbron an opportunity to make his speech.

They elected the ward representative there. Then the ward representative goes to the District Council and the District Council elects members from amongst its own members to the Bunga. Is that the so-called democratic system? What is more, Mr. Speaker, a great number of nominees by the Governor-General also sat on that same Bunga. There was a great number of these nominees; then you had the ex officio members, namely the magistrates, and these people who were elected in a totally indirect manner to represent the people of the Transkei. Is that the “one man, one vote” system and the democracy that hon. members advertise so much? What is more they were not all Black; all were not Bantu. They were Bantu and White. The chairman of the Bunga was the chief magistrate of the Transkei, also a European. What is the position to-day?

Will you admit that the majority of the members of the district councils were elected by the tribal Bantu themselves?

I do not admit that because they were not elected by the majority at the meetings. The meetings were very badly attended. Sometimes there were 20 but never more than 100. They were simply told: This is the candidate. And they said that they agreed. It never came voluntarily from them; it was a kind of indirect representation. What were the powers of the Bunga? Its only power was that it could advise. All its resolutions read: “We respectfully submit …” or “We respectfully pray …” Most of their resolutions did not concern those matters which the Territorial Authorities discuss to-day. No, their resolutions were more or less one agitation after the other. Eventually the position became so bad that they could no longer function. They were purely an advisory body, and because they were constituted like that and did not really represent the Bantu of the Transkei, the real representatives were always the headmen and chiefs. The Bunga was not really representative of the Bantu area and consequently it fell into disfavour, so much so that the Bunga itself eventually asked that it should be converted into a Bantu Authority. They asked for it. This Government never forced the system of Bantu Authorities on to the Transkei. Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize that when the Bantu Authorities Act was piloted through this House, it was specifically provided that it would not be applicable to the Transkei. The intention, therefore, was never that there should be Bantu Authorities in the Transkei. Had it been possible for the Bunga system to function, the Government would have been satisfied that it did function. But they eventually asked for it themselves and then the Government established a Territorial Authority for them by proclamation under the laws of the Transkei. This Territorial Authority was established, not under the ordinary Bantu Authorities Act, but under legislation which is applicable to the Transkei and which empowers the Government to pass legislation affecting the Transkei by way of proclamation. That is also the reason why the system of district authorities was retained.

Mr. Speaker, I now want to compare it with the present position in the Transkei. To-day we have the Territorial Authority. What does that Authority consist of? At the moment it consists of 68 chiefs, but also of the representatives of all the members of the nine regional authorities in the Transkei. There are nine regional authorities in the Transkei, and all the members of those authorities are members of the Territorial Authority as well. In addition there are also representatives of every district council on the Territorial Authority. There are no nominated members on that Territorial Authority—nominees of the chiefs, yes. They come from the district authorities. That is true, but there are no nominees of the State President. The representatives of the district councils are designated by the chiefs and by the Bantu Affairs Commissioner. My submission is this, that with the Territorial Authority, as at present constituted where you have 68 chiefs and headmen, it means that we have the natural leaders of the Bantu, leaders who command the respect of their respective tribes, leaders whom the tribes obey. They are loyal to the tribal chief. Anybody who has anything to do with the people in the Transkei, knows that is the case. This system is much more democratic and more representative of the people in the Transkei than the old Bunga was.

More democratic than the United Party.

Much more democratic than the United Party. But what else do we have, Mr. Speaker? The present Territorial Authority also has executive power. The old Bunga only had advisory powers. This one also had executive and legislative power that it can exercise. It is therefore a much better institution than the other one.

I come now to the second point made by the hon. member for Transkeian Territories. He says that this announcement of self-government is a complete reversal of Government policy. But in the same speech he reproaches the Government for the fact that all the chiefs will still be members of the Territorial Authority, and that is not sufficiently democratic. How do you understand a person like that, Sir? How does he reconcile those two statements with one another? On the one hand he says we want to get away from the system of Territorial Authority but on the other hand he reproaches the Government because the chiefs will still have sitting on the new governing bodies. I want to emphasize that there has not been any reversal of Government policy whatsoever. The intention is to have consequential development, based on the system which is in operation to-day. The hon. the Prime Minister stated very clearly in his speech when he made the announcement as to self-government, that it was a logical consequence of one form to another form; that it was a development to a higher form and that we were not breaking with the past in order to make a new start. The hon. member says that we have now thrown the whole system of Bantu Authorities overboard. The hon. member is probably not aware of the true state of affairs in the Bantu areas. Here we are only concerned with the Territorial Authority, the highest governing body there. That is the apex of the pyramid, but the rest of the pyramid is not affected at all. In the first place the pyramid consists of all the tribal authorities—namely the authority or governing body of every tribe. Above the tribe you have the district authority, of which there are 26 in the Transkei. Above the 26 district authorities you have the nine regional authorities. And then at the very apex of the pyramid you have the Territorial Authority, and it is this body that is concerned in the announcement which the Prime Minister made the week before last. It touches only the apex of the pyramid—the Territorial Authority. It detracts nothing from the regional authorities: it detracts nothing from the tribal authorities. All that remains as it was. How can the hon. member allege that the Government has changed its policy because it has departed from the system of Bantu Authorities?

He is doing it because he is politically michievous.

You can only say that he is doing it through sheer mischievousness. I also want to say a few words in connection with the boundaries because the hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) as well as the member for Transkeian Territories made a great issue of which districts would be affected. The hon. member for King William’s Town went so far as to suggest that the whole of Cradock, the whole of Fort Beaufort, the whole of Queenstown and Tarkastad—that all those border districts would now be in danger of being handed over to the Bantu. He is trying to create a sort of panic amongst a large number of those border areas. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories said that Matatiele and Mount Curry would also now become Black.

I asked what was going to happen and I am still waiting for a reply.

The hon. the Prime Minister very clearly said this in his speech about the borders. He said that there must be borders, and that there will be borders immediately. Those are the borders over which the Territorial Authority has jurisdiction. But the Prime Minister also went further. He said that it did not necessarily follow that those borders would be the borders for all time to come. Why did he say that? Mr. Speaker, in 1913 legislation was passed in terms of which all the Bantu areas that were demarcated in the old Colonial days, that were already set aside in the old Colonial days as far as the Cape Province was concerned, that were set aside for use by the Bantu in the old Republics, were circumscribed as scheduled areas, areas set aside for the use by Bantu. In 1936 General Hertzog came with his segregation plan, and in order to carry out that plan of his he said that the Bantu should receive additional land. In the 1936 Act he laid down a quota of what the Bantu should still bet—namely 7,250,000 morgen. A commission was appointed at that time to determine where that land would have to be purchased. The commission then indicated the so-called scheduled areas, or released areas. The fact remains that the released areas do not constitute that whole quota. Additional land will still have to be purchased. But I specifically asked the hon. member for King William’s Town whether he still adhered to the

1936 Act and he said yes he did, but that we were supposed not to. The Prime Minister said very clearly that he would stand by the promise made in 1936 and that it would be fulfilled. The hon. member for King William’s Town says he too wants to fulfil it, but how does he fulfil it? He holds meetings at Stutterheim where he presides and he says to the people: Not another inch of land. He says that in spite of the promise to which he regards himself as bound.

That is not true.

The hon. member cannot say that is not so. Here I have the report which appeared in the Daily Despatch which says that the hon. member had said not another inch of land for the Bantu because they already had enough. But he is supposed to feel himself bound by the promise made by the late Dr. Hertzog that a quota of 7,250,000 morgen must be acquired. Those released areas will probably fall short, according to my personal calculations—I do not know whether my calculations are correct—of the quota to the extent of 1,500,000 morgen. To that must still be added the Black spots that have to be cleared up, namely Bantu farms that have to be cleared in White areas. Then we also have the smaller reserves that are scattered all over. I estimate that something like over 1,500,000 morgen will still have to be purchased outside the released areas. But hon. members opposite want to use this issue to sow suspicion and to cause panic amongst the public by saying that we are not going to determine the boundaries and that it will be Queenstown to-morrow, Cradock the day after, that it will probably be Port Elizabeth the day after that and eventually Cape Town. The hon. the Prime Minister said very clearly that negotiations would be conducted between the Bantu Authorities of the Transkei and the Government in connection with these land purchases. There must be consolidation and the question of the exchanging and interchanging of land will come into the picture in order to effect that consolidation. It will be a lengthy process but that does not mean that a state cannot be established to-day. A state has boundaries to-day over which its governing body has jurisdiction and if land is acquired in future, that jurisdiction can be extended. Why raise this question of borders at this stage and present it as something terrible that is threatening the White people?

What do the farmers say about it?

Yes, the farmers want to know where land will be purchased, but it is not necessary to make such a big fuss at this stage about the borders of a new state. That is the point. We have been busy buying land for a quarter of a century in order to fill the quota, and over that whole period of 25 years we had the same accusations that are now exaggerated and turned into a bogey. All the border farmers knew that land would be purchased, in spite of the released areas that have been determined, and they talked about it.

Mr. Speaker, then I also want to emphasize another matter that has been raised in this debate. It was said that we would not be able to establish Bantu Authorities in Natal for example, because the areas there did not adjoin. That was also even said about the Transkei. I want to emphasize that a prerequisite for the existence of a state is not that the areas which comprise it should be adjacent. One of the best examples that we have is Pakistan. There we have two areas which are thousands of miles apart and they are administered as one area. There are many other examples that can be cited. I do not want to refer to our neighbours, the Portuguese, but they govern one empire from Portugal, from Lisbon as capital, and they govern a host of different places: Angola, Mozambique, the East and the West. All their possessions are governed from Lisbon. Hence contiguity is not a prerequisite for the existence of a governing body. Goodness only knows why hon. members opposite emphasize that. Then we also come to the question of the economy. I want to raise the question of the economy once again. Mr. Speaker, you will remember that when we discussed the Bantu Investment Corporation in this House a great hullabaloo was made and we were told that we wanted to create two economies in South Africa. We were told that we were ravaging the unity of the South African economy, in that we wanted to create two economies.

Blaar said that.

But now they stipulate that down as a condition. There should now be a separate economy for the Transkei.

Who said that?

Members of the Opposition. Members of the Opposition say there must be a totally separate economy. Is southern Africa not the best example of a variety of states with one economy? Take Basutoland for instance, Bechuanaland and Swaziland. For the past 50 years those areas have been governed, and in spite of the fact that they are two separate political governing bodies, they form one single economy with South Africa. The one governing body is in England and the other in South Africa, but there is a single economy. We even collect their customs and excise duties for them.

May I put a question?

No. But because we collect the customs and excise duty for Basutoland, Bechuanaland, and Swaziland, it does not mean that they have to form one state with us. Their monetary system is exactly the same as ours because their economy is the same. They derive all the benefits as though they formed part of South Africa, and that hon. member ought to know that but apparently he does not want to know it. [Time limit.]

Before addressing a few remarks to the hon. the Minister of Finance on the main subject of this debate, the Appropriation Bill, I think I am in duty bound to refer briefly to two speeches of members on the Government side. The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) has referred to the English Press. No speech seems to be complete without reference to this evil English Press in South Africa, especially now, and what they had to say about Field-Marshal Lord Montgomery. I do not wish to elaborate on that. Lord Montgomery is a welcome guest in South Africa, and what he says and does is his own affair. He is accustomed to living in a country with a free Press and I am sure he will not be annoyed by what the Press here says. I think he would even welcome it. But talking about guests coming to this country and the manner in which they are received, may I refer to the attitude of the Transvaler, not in regard to a visiting Field-Marshal of the British army, but to Their Majesties the King and Queen.

Hear, hear!

I do not think they will ever live that down. The hon. member also referred to a speech by the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw). Now I do not think it is fair, when quoting from a speech—and I have no doubt he quoted correctly—to tear sections of the speech from their context. I listened to the whole speech of the hon. member for Durban (Point), and although he made remarks criticizing certain speakers, he also made remarks praising responsible members. But those were not quoted by the hon. member for Heilbron. I think the hon. member should read the speech of the hon. member for Durban (Point). I have always regarded the Bunga as being a democratic body elected on a democratic basis as far as we could apply democracy at that time to the reserves. With this highly technical discussion, it would appear that the whole proposal of the hon. the Prime Minister that was revealed to us last week should have been referred to a Select Committee of both Houses. That was the method followed by Gen. Hertzog whenever he decided to take a very important step. I think then we could have had these points discussed by experts on both sides. That the hon. member for Heilbron should declare here in the debate that this party stood for a separate economy for the various races is the direct opposite of the truth. The hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) made that suggestion. So much for the hon. member for Heilbron’s speech.

I come to a remark made by the hon. member for Vryheid (Mr. D. J. Potgieter). I am sorry he is not here and that the Minister of Immigration is not here, because I wish to make an appeal to him. The hon. member said that when the Xhosa or the Zulu has lived in Johannesburg or any of the big cities as a descendant of three generations, he still belongs to Zululand or the Transkei. I have pleaded all these years for favourable consideration of the position of the immigrant. The suggestion is that you can never become a good immigrant. I have said that the great Napoleon Bonaparte was a Corsican who was an immigrant to France. I have said that Adolph Hitler was an Austrian who was an immigrant to Germany; and I have always had a good word to say for the hon. the Prime Minister. I belong to the Immigrants Association in this House; I think there are two or three of us, but to suggest to us that we can never become South Africans, or that the Zulu living in the White areas can never belong to Johannesburg, is utter nonsense.

Now I should like to address a few remarks to the hon. the Minister of Finance. It was inevitable that this debate should deal with the very important statement made by the hon. the Prime Minister last week, but in his opening speech the Minister of Finance referred to the present financial position of South Africa. He gave it to us, but of course we had become familiar with it from reports in the Press and through the broadcasts of the S.A.B.C. They are very devoted servants of the Government at present and they have put that information across. But I should have thought that the Minister at this stage, after eight months of financial stringency which we have endured, would have been able to make some suggestion of the next step towards giving us a free economy and making it possible for us to transfer money more readily. Of course the question will be asked what I suggest. What I suggest to the hon. the Minister is this. I would ask him whether he has given consideration to the possibility of allowing deals in blocked rands between non-residents. That has been done in other countries. Where a man in South Africa has assets, e.g. has sold shares, and the money is in the bank, the Minister of Finance has gone so far as to say we will not seize that money in the bank if it is not invested. But while it lies there, is there any objection to the non-resident, the man in London or in New York, selling those blocked rands to another non-resident? That is the suggestion I throw out. Of course, I know what the danger is. The danger is that we shall then have an unofficial rate of exchange, but why not face it? The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) made the matter very clear. He said that there was a disparity between quoted prices in South Africa on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange and on the London Stock Exchange of some 15 per cent to 20 per cent. That is the degree of lack of confidence in the South African currency at present. That is a suggestion I would make to the hon. the Minister.

But there is a second point. I think it was incumbent upon the Minister of Finance to give some indication in his address of what the financial responsibilities would be of this new system introduced by the Prime Minister, the notification to the House by the Prime Minister, last week. What are the financial responsibilities? Will there be a Financial Relations Bill later in the year? We are establishing a new economy in the Transkei, although the Minister says it will be an integrated economy. But we are establishing a new country. Will there be a new Financial Relations Act? I think he should tell us as well what the cost of the new Transkei system is going to be. And I would ask this: Will other financial agencies have the right to assist the Transkei financially? Will UNO be able, through the South African Government, to assist in financing the Transkei? And then I would ask …

UNO?

The financial agencies of UNO. Will foundations such as the Ford Foundation and the Carnegie Foundation and other wealthy agencies in South Africa itself be able to finance, say, education in the Transkei, even though it would be through the South African Government? I think the Minister of Finance should have told us. But the suggestion of the Prime Minister was that the White man should be prepared to establish industries in the Transkei and when they are flourishing, when they are successful, to hand them over to somebody else. Well, that is a fantastic suggestion. The whole plan is not a dream plan but a hallucination. That sort of thing is simply not done.

Now I should like to say a word on the proposals put forward last week by the hon. the Prime Minister. We have been led to believe by speeches on the other side of the House that this proposal is the final stage in the natural evolution of the apartheid system that was introduced by this Government. They tell us that they had a Native policy, that it has gone from precedent to precedent and created new systems until it has now ended in independence for the Transkei. That is the story we are told. It commenced, they say, in the 1913 Bill of Gen. Hertzog; it has proceeded until to-day; and it is supported and approved of by the electorate. That is the story. Mr. Speaker, I want to say this: that the position in which we find ourselves to-day is rather similar to the position in which Britain found itself in 1939. In the years preceding the Second World War the British electorate was lulled to sleep by assurances of security. They were told that all would be well. They were told that they had Hitler’s signature and were assured of his co-operation. But then came Munich; and then came the crash. I think the South African electorate is in that position now. Never did they ever contemplate that the development would be on the lines we are having to-day.

Well, what has happened? The Prime Minister with his policy is now riding the tiger. Where we are going we do not know. But I am not interested so much in the evolution of Nationalist policies as I am in the evolution of the Prime Minister’s approach to that policy. I want to show the stages, over one decade, from what he has told us in this House.

I take the first stage, 1953. I am quoting from Hansard, Vol. 81, 30 January 1953, where the Prime Minister as Minister of Native Affairs stated his policy and said this—

He was thinking then of 100 or 200 years ahead for total apartheid. That was only in 1953. I come to the next stage in this development, 1959.

Just read what he said on 17 January 1956.

The Prime Minister has said so much in the course of his short political life that I cannot probe everything. I now come to 1959 and I quote from Hansard, Vol. 99. He said—

In the first stage he spoke about 100 or 200 years, but six years later he speaks about “those future times”. I now come to the third stage in the progress of the Prime Minister’s thinking. I am quoting now from a Hansard report of his speech on his return from the Prime Ministers’ Conference when he was reporting on what had happened. He returned in a blaze of glory and came to this House to assure us that the position was very serious. He had this to say: I am quoting from Hansard, 10 April 1961—

One hundred to 200 years; those future times; and now he talks about buying freedom for the White man, telling South Africans, the descendants of the Boers and the Voortrekkers, the descendants of the men who fought on the borders, these young men around me who have fought in South Africa’s wars, that in this country the White man will buy his freedom. The freedom that has been bought in South Africa was bought with the blood of South Africans. We were taught as boys that you cannot buy freedom; freedom is something you have to live for and be worthy of. That is the story of the three stages in the Prime Minister’s development. The 100 to 200 years becomes one decade. He said this in 1953, and in 1963 the Transkei will become self-governing. It is reduced from 100 to 10 years.

Why has the Prime Minister done this? The answer is contained in his own speech. He says “because of pressure brought to bear upon us.” And what was this pressure? It was pressure internally and externally, externally by UNO and by all the nations of the world, which the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs is only too well aware of; externally by every Press and country in the world. This pressure has been brought to bear upon the Prime Minister. But from his own speech on his return from the Prime Ministers’ Conference, it appears that pressure was brought to bear upon him to do something. That was the external pressure. But there was internal pressure as well. There was pressure in this country, pressure from the Burger. The Burger, 12 months and longer ago, was thinking clearly on new lines. They said a gesture must be made; something must be done; we cannot go on in this way talking apartheid without doing something. It came from the Church and it came from intellectual leaders amongst the Afrikaans-speaking people; it came, as the Prime Minister says in his speech, from inside their own ranks. It came from the hon. the Minister of Lands. I want to say this; that I regard the Humansdorp speech of the Minister of Lands as an epoch-making speech. Whatever his action was after that speech, I regard it as a most important speech. The truth welled up in him. He felt as the Burger did. Something had to be done. Well, perhaps the hon. the Minister of Lands did not respond as we should have liked and as other people would have liked. “He either fears his fate too much or his deserts are small, that puts it not unto the touch to win or lose it all.” The Minister of Lands did not wish to win or lose it all. One remembers that poem was written on the eve of an execution. [Laughter.]

I now wish to refer to what has been said in this debate on the application of the policy of the Prime Minister, the policy adumbrated last week, and how it will be applied. I tried to understand the legal procedure, but that is too much for me. It is appeal after appeal and I am afraid I cannot follow it. But there are some things I think I can follow. I think that in this debate we should have been favoured with an explanation of the nature of Transkei citizenship. That we did not have. I think the Minister of the Interior should have addressed us on that. And now we come to a very popular Minister, the Minister of Bantu Administration, who addressed this House. He gave us the usual pleasant platitudes. In every speech he makes he tells us the same story: how well things are going, that he has the complete confidence of the African people, that the Transkei Chiefs are anxious to co-operate with us, that everything in the garden is lovely. But he does not tell us what the Government are doing. If the Minister of Bantu Administration was preparing for this plan, if he had known about it—probably he didn’t; very few of them knew about it—if he had known about it, surely he would have followed the example of other colonial countries who have made preparations in their colonies. He would have prepared in the Transkei a civil service ready to take over, under the guidance at first of White civil servants, but prepared to take over in due course. Now here is a question I addressed to the Minister of Bantu Administration last year. I asked him how many of the (a) 271 higher administrative and (b) 69 higher professional and technical and (c) 150 other administrative and (d) 445 other professional and technical posts provided for in his departmental estimates for 1961-2 are occupied by Bantu. Here is his reply: No Bantu are included in the posts referred to by the hon. member. Then he gave certain posts where Bantu were employed, where there seems to prevail a system of job reservation. If you are going to have job reservation in the reserves, for whom would the jobs be reserved? Obviously, I should say, jobs should be reserved for the African people themselves. But it is not only the Minister of Bantu Administration. Perish the thought that I should want to say anything unkind about him. There is no more courteous Minister in this Cabinet than he. Where he can help us he tries to do so. But I come to the hon. the Minister of Bantu Education.

That is a different story.

Yes. This is the question I put to him: How many of the (a) 30 higher administrative and (b) 70 higher professional posts in his Department are occupied by Bantu persons? The answer was: (a) and (b), none. It is no good saying that these people cannot occupy the posts, because I have a newspaper cutting here about an African from South Africa who graduated at Fort Hare and who has just been appointed an inspector of schools in Southern Rhodesia. He worked there and was appointed an inspector. The Minister of Bantu Education does not tell us much, but he told the people in London and Britain through the London Sunday Times as recently as 7 January this year, a month ago exactly. He published “Education for Success”, probably through the Information Department, and it is headed by the London Sunday Times, “This Space is Paid for by South Africa House”, and paid for handsomely, I should say. This is what he says. He describes the system of education in South Africa. We all know the story. We know the story for foreign consumption and for consumption in this country. There are so many university graduates, there are so many men who have matriculated, that our standard of education is the highest on the Continent. I agree. What is the obvious response overseas? Why do you not give these people a chance in your Government? Is there not one of them who can be employed in these posts I have mentioned? But let me go further. He ridicules the system of education which prevailed in the Transkei before he introduced Bantu education. This is what he called the product of Fort Hare, the product of education before this Government took over. He refers to them as “pseudo Europeans” and as “quasi Europeans”. He refers to the system as “Westernizing individuals”. Mr. Speaker, who are the “pseudo Europeans” and the “quasi Europeans”? The people to whom the Government of the Transkei is now being handed over. Those are the educated Bantu who are now taking over, and we are telling them they are pseudo Europeans. The Minister of Bantu Education, in his second reading speech on the Fort Hare Bill, had this to say. Speaking of the Fort Hare University College, he said—

This potent source of racial hatred is producing the rulers of the Transkei. That is the position.

Now I want to say this about the new system of Bantu education in the Transkei. The whole system is now to be handed over to the Transkei Parliament. I think the Minister of Finance will have to introduce a Bill amending the Bantu Education Act and the Bantu Education Fund. I want to know, if that is the case, whether the policy for Native education will now be decided by the Transkeian Parliament? Will the system they wish to follow, as enunciated by Chief Matanzima, be allowed to prevail?

Matanzima is a product of Fort Hare.

Yes, he is a graduate of Fort Hare, and he will be Prime Minister. He is one of those men the Minister calls “pseudo Europeans”. Will the system they wish to introduce be acceptable? We cannot refuse it according to the Prime Minister’s scheme. Will they be able to say, as they have wanted to say, “we wish to introduce our own language as the medium up to the fourth year, and after that we wish our children to be educated in a language that will give them a window on the world?” Is that not acceptable? To them it is. If hon. members read the evidence given before the Fort Hare Select Committee they will see that they stated very definitely the kind of education they want. Will that be acceptable to us? They will have the decision in their own hands. I want to say that when we introduced the separate Universities Bill, when we introduced what has been called tribal university colleges, we said that the Council of the University would be White with an Advisory Council that would be Black. Will the position now be reversed? Will the Fort Hare Council now be a Xhosa Council with an Advisory White Council? They have the right to do that. Will they do that? The Act needs amendment. Sir, I want to say that when the whole scheme goes through, we have still not finished. We shall have a periphery of Black States and this one Central State, like a coat of many colours, a State of many races. We are not giving the Transkei a system that is going to last forever, or even ten years, or into the distant future. We have just had the comparison of Basutoland from the hon. the Prime Minister. He is constantly quoting Basutoland; he says he is following the example of Great Britain. At the second session of the Basutoland Parliament, opened by the British Ambassador to South Africa in his capacity as High Commissioner of the Territory, he said in the course of his speech—

We shall have many commissions sitting in the Transkei, asking how the system is to be improved; we shall have elections on the White farms, where the Xhosas will vote, where they hold their meetings without the Secret Branch being present because they are men of a foreign country. All that we shall have. In the Native townships of Johannesburg we shall have public meetings with these men that the Government can call agitators …

What do you call them?

Leaders. We do not say “agitators”; it is “verboden”. We must now say “representatives of the African people”. Sir, that is what we are drifting to. We are going to have the whole system taken out of our hands. I hope the hon. the Minister of Finance in his reply will give us some indication of how all this is to be financed, because I cannot see how. When the day comes and this scheme is eventually in its final form, with its six African States surrounding this small State of ours, with South West Africa in a state of trepidation as well, I think there is only one hope for the White South African, and that is to sing “Lead kindly Light amid the encircling gloom”.

[On the conclusion of the period of 12 hours allotted for the second reading of the Bill, the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No. 116.]

For the sake of the record, I just want to state that in this twelve-hour debate there was absolutely no criticism of the financial policy of the Government. I think it will be rather difficult for future readers to wade through all these tedious pages, and therefore I want to facilitate their task and summarize the debate by stating that there was no criticism at all. There were only a few question in regard to finances put by the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) and now again by the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore), which of course I will answer with pleasure. The fact that there was no criticism is of course a tacit compliment to the finances and the economy of the country, a compliment which certainly will not pass unnoticed.

The position was such that even members like the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) and the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) in this debate did not even see a chance to dare to give their annual performance here in the sphere of finances. And that is easily understood, because if I consider what has happened since last we had a financial debate here, I can quite understand the silence of the Opposition. We have sailed through troublesome waters. Our passage through those waters has not been facilitated by hon. members opposite. Shortly before we adjourned the Leader of the Opposition made a speech here in connection with the finances of the country. In his opinion the finances of the country were then in such a deplorable state that it justified even him in speaking about it. On 16 June, as hon. members will remember, we applied certain measures in regard to currency control and import control. On 16 June our reserves had also reached the low level of R142,000,000, and on 21 June, five days later, on the occasion of the second reading of the Appropriation Bill, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition tried to exploit that position. I do not wish to weary the House by recounting everything he said, but he made two points in particular. The first was that these measures he adopted would not succeed, in the same way as they now aver that the Transkei plan will not succeed. He said—

He then told me that there were so many ways in which these measures would be evaded, and so many loopholes which I have left open. And what is the position how after nine months? These measures we took then have remedied our whole balance of payments position and had the effect of increasing our reserves to the figure I mentioned here, namely R314,000,000, as compared with R142,000,000. You see, if the facts can give the lie to the criticism of the Opposition in such a comparatively short time, it is not surprising that they are rather chary of venturing criticism here.

But he stated a second proposition in his speech. He said that the position in which we found ourselves then, that balance of payments crisis, was exclusively due to the policy we followed, and that policy had also forced us out of the Commonwealth; that was the real cause. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition makes a mistake which is in fact not unusual on the other side of the House, namely to assume that because one event takes place after another, it must necessarily be as a result of the aforegoing happening. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition then blamed our policy. He referred to our colour policy. But at the very same time when our position was so critical in regard to our balance of payments, there were other nations which were in a similarly critical position as far as their balance of payments was concerned. There was Australia which was perhaps relatively in a worse position than we were, and they do not have the policy of apartheid which we have here. At the same time Canada found herself in trouble. Soon afterwards they had to devaluate their dollar. At the same time there were balance of payments difficulties in the Federation, where they follow a policy which is more or less the same as the policy hon. members opposite wish us to follow, but in spite of that they were in an even more critical position than we were at the time. But the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said it was due to our policy that we found ourselves in that position. And what is our position now, nine months later? We have not abandoned that policy. We are still following the same old policy, but look at the position now. One can understand why hon. members of the Opposition are a little chary, a little shy, of voicing further criticism here.

I want to reply to the questions put to me by hon. members, as there were only a few. The hon. member for Constantia asked me what real benefit could be derived by exporting gold coins instead of the ordinary gold bars. Gold coins are convenient, particularly to the small man who wants to invest part of his savings in gold. To him even the smaller gold bars are not convenient. He wants it in gold in some form or another, and the coin is most convenient to him. It is easily recognizable; it can readily be sold, and for that reason there is a premium on gold coins to-day. In France and Italy, for example, the British sovereigns and the Napoleon and even the gold mark is being sold at the equivalent of between 42 and 46 dollars per fine ounce, in comparison with the slightly more than 35 dollars per fine ounce we receive for gold bars.

We do not receive the profits from it.

We cannot expect to sell large quantities of these R2 coins immediately. We must remember that they are still unknown overseas, and we cannot sell them at such a large premium. But these foreign interests to which I have referred confidently expect that it will be sold at a premium which makes it even worth their while participating in it. I hope that in time a big market will develop in this respect. I do not doubt it, but it will take time.

The second question the hon. member asked was whether these coins would be sold in South Africa; whether our people would also be able to buy them. The answer is no. We need our gold as foreign currency to pay for our imports. All our gold not used for that purpose goes into our reserves. If we sell it abroad we get foreign currency for it, and with that foreign currency we can finance our imports. We have a limited quantity of our own domestic gold coins available, but that is mostly for collectors. A certain number of these coins are minted every year in sets, or individually for the convenience of collectors or people who want to buy them as momentos.

Then the hon. member asked a question which was also put by the hon. member for Kensington in connection with the limitations on the transfer of capital, and he specifically asked when that would be relaxed. I have already said that the Government would very much like to relax these restrictions as and when circumstances allow. In respect of the control of foreign bills of exchange certain relaxations have already been granted. Hon. members know that non-residents who hold blocked funds due to the sale of South African shares here in South Africa can now keep such funds in the bank for longer than 90 days without re-investing those funds.

I said so in my speech.

The hon. member did in fact say so. I am not criticizing his speech now; I am just reviewing the facts. They can also use it for the purchase of new shares issued by South African companies, the shares of which are quoted on the London Stock Exchange. But this whole process of relaxation is something which must take place gradually, and there are many technical considerations involved. I do not want to expand on that, but hon. members may rest assured that we are devoting our attention to it. Further concessions will therefore be announced as and when the economic circumstances justify it.

The hon. member for Kensington also asked whether we were going to introduce a Financial Relations Bill during the course of this Session in respect of the Transkei. I can only tell him that when such a Bill becomes necessary, it will be introduced. He need not be concerned about it. He also asked me whether we would receive funds from bodies connected with United Nations. I have already said that I hoped we would be able to receive assistance from the I.D.A., the International Development Association, which is closely connected with the World Bank, of which we are also a member and to which we have also contributed and which is intended to assist the under-developed countries. But it is possible—and it is happening to-day—for a developed country to receive assistance from that fund, in connection with an under-developed Protectorate, for example. Great Britain was able to receive assistance from that fund in respect of work it wanted done in one of the Protectorates, and if our relations vis-à-vis the Transkei are the same or practically the same as those of Britain vis-à-vis the Protectorates, then logically it will not be impossible for us to obtain the same sort of assistance there. Then the hon. member asked me what about donations or assistance or loans from, for example, the Ford Foundation and other foundations. That would of course depend on the conditions subject to which those funds are offered. The hon. member referred to a grant for education. I do not know whether it will be a donation or a loan which will be subject to certain conditions, but it will simply depend on whether we can use it, directly through the Government or via the Development Corporation referred to by the Prime Minister.

That is the sum total of the questions put to me in connection with financial matters. I spoke a moment ago about the lack of financial criticism, and one can still understand that, but even though there is no criticism of our financial policy, have hon. members opposite no criticism then about anything else the Government has done except in regard to the Transkei? Here several of my colleagues have been sitting for twelve hours burning to reply to possible criticism. They were like the sacrifices made on the altar, waiting in vain for the fire which did not come. They sacrificed their time to come and sit here in expectation of the attack which would be made, but nothing happened. I knew that this was a very good Government, but I never dreamed that it was such a good Government that it warranted no criticism except in respect of the Transkei. I know that it is a very important subject, and it is perhaps not strange that to a large extent it should have dominated the debate, but what I cannot understand is that not only did it dominate the debate, but it monopolized the whole discussion. Apart from the few maiden speeches, no other subject was mentioned by hon. members opposite. Do the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and members on that side want to tell me, and the public, that this Government has acted in such a way during the past months since last we were together here that no criticism can be voiced of the Government’s policy and of the implementation of that policy? Are they really so bankrupt, or is it that the Government is so efficient?

If man commits suicide his corns are cured also.

The hon. member for Yeoville himself had much to say, but he could never get any further than just this one subject; he was Transkei-bound.

And they have endorsed the election results.

Yes. Of course, we should remember that an election took place since we last met here, and the hon. members over there have now actually realized that the electorate of South Africa has endorsed what this Government did and dealt them a blow from which they have not completely recovered yet.

I turn now to another subject, namely the maiden speeches to which we have listened here. We had six of those speeches and I think that throughout they were of a very high standard. They showed that a thorough study had been made of the relevant subjects. The speakers showed a very good conception of the requirements for a maiden speech in this House, and I think the six speeches to which I listened here augur well for the future. What impressed me particularly was that the sense of humour of those hon. members was not completely suppressed by the birth-pangs of their speeches. I discovered something here of which I had perhaps not been so aware before, namely that there are many outstanding constituencies in South Africa. I heard about Springs and about Brakpan; I heard about Moorreesburg and about Aliwal North, and it was in fact very interesting to learn about the great potentialities of those constituencies. Perhaps it was pure coincidence that the hon. members who sang the praises of these constituencies are the very representatives of those constituencies.

Mr. Speaker, I can no longer play on the pitch I chose to play on and on which my hon. friends opposite did not wish to play, because one cannot play cricket by oneself; one at least has to play against somebody. I have now done my duty towards the new members, and all that remains for me to do is now to go to play on the pitch selected by the Opposition itself. The first thing that struck me in the speeches of hon. members opposite was the lack of co-ordination, the lack of team-work. It is not really necessary for this side to controvert those arguments, because as soon as a member opposite advanced an argument, the next speaker destroyed it. The Whips did not do their work. There was no thorough study; there was not even a little co-ordination and team-work. Now just let me give hon. members a few examples.

The hon. member for Yeoville said that this whole scheme was just motivated by selfish reasons; there were no real sacrifices. He says it is simply an attempt to get rid of our poor Bantu in South Africa. But his bench-mate, the hon. member for Constantia, says that this plan amounts to the liquidation of the vital assets of the country. He says all these sacrifices must be made and then there will still be no solution. He talks about sacrifices, his bench-mate says there are no real sacrifices; we are motivated merely by selfish reasons. The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) painted a picture of a Transkei with a rich soil, abundantly endowed with water, a beautiful country. All the other water will be used, and we shall eventually have to go on our knees to the Transkei and ask whether we cannot get a little power from their hydroelectric schemes. But the hon. member for Constantia said that self-government would not succeed because the basic problem was one of poverty, and he wanted to know how we would be able to ensure a living for these people in the Transkei. They will not be able to make a living there! But the hon. member for Durban (Point) says: That is the country!

I said “with Russian assistance”.

I do not want to refer to that other refrain to which we have already become so accustomed, but some say that we are spending too much money on this plan and others that we are not spending enough. They have just been true to their own habit of always telling conflicting stories. They have become accustomed to that throughout the years. The one section says it is too much money and the other section says, like the hon. member for Yeoville, that it is just a bluff; that we do not mean it seriously and that it is perhaps the greatest bluff of all.

Just one last example. The hon. member also advanced the argument that we are now giving political powers to the Transkei without any economic development. That is his argument, but the hon. member for Constantia says that the Government plan envisages helping to develop the Bantu in every sphere, not only in the political sphere but also economically. And then we have the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes), who says: No, but they have no more political powers now than they had under the old Bunga system. Whom must we believe now? If I could give the Chief some advice, it would be that he call his speakers together so that the one does not destroy the arguments of another.

I said: “No greater political rights.”

Precisely. That is just what I am saying. But what were the tactics of the hon. members opposite? We have now seen what the result was, but what were their tactics? Their tactics were quite clear. They wanted to sow suspicion as far as possible, they wanted to frighten people as much as possible; they pointed to all the dangers. In fact, that is all they pointed out. They did not say that we had similar dangers in regard to the Protectorates as well. They did not say that similar dangers existed in regard to Basutoland, Bechuanaland and Swaziland. They did not say that they could not stop it, they will in any case become self-governing, independent states eventually. They did not tell us what the dangers of their alternative were. They remained quiet about that. They did not tell us about the dangers of their race federation plan.

Let me now make this statement for their benefit: For every danger they can mention in connection with this Transkei scheme, I can mention an equally great or an even greater danger in connection with the position if we do not give the Transkei self-government; just as great and greater in the case of the alternative towards which their policy must inevitably lead. I can point to dangers just as big or almost as big if we do nothing. But the British Government is developing Basutoland and the other Protectorates into independent states. The economic problems are just as great, whether the Transkei gets self-government or not, but they will increase considerably if the policy of the Opposition is carried out.

But because their tactics were to frighten the people, their speeches adopted two forms. The one is that their speeches were calculated to incite both the Whites and the non-Whites—the Whites against the scheme, and the non-Whites, the Bantu, to ask for too much too soon. I am sorry the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) is not here now, or else I would have asked him whether he would have made the speech in the Transkei which he made here? As I know the hon. member, he would have said yes, and that would have been my very point. Somebody, equally conscious perhaps as we are of the dangers, will go there to incite the Bantu to ask for more than the hon. member himself in his heart thinks they ought to get at this stage of their development. Then we have the hon. member for Durban (Point). His speech was calculated to belittle the Bantu of the Transkei, to insult them as being immature, puerile. And then the hon. member says this. On the one hand you have the incitement of the Bantu there to obtain too much too soon, and on the other hand you have this insult that they are immature. But the people who say they are immature will not go and tell them there that they are not fit for these responsibilities. I say that neither of these two types of speeches is calculated to improve the relations between the Bantu and the Whites. And it does not matter whether they get self-government or not; these are not speeches calculated to improve relations. I now want to tell hon. members opposite: Stop frightening the people, stop belittling and insulting them, stop inciting them in the best interest of both the Bantu and the Whites. We must remember that we had a general election and this was one of the points of conflict.

Where?

I do not know where the hon. member fought the election, but I traversed the country fairly extensively and at practically every place, I referred to the statement made here in 1959. That was the first opportunity of getting confirmation of it and we got it; we specifically got it. The electorate associated itself with that scheme announced here in 1959 by the Prime Minister. But can those hon. members not cease making this kind of speech, and cannot they now at last resign themselves to the inevitable? The hon. the Minister of Lands said a few days ago: You must accept it as inevitable. They of course put quite the wrong words into his mouth. He gave his explanation, but in spite of that the newspapers still profess that he said that only intervention from abroad could make the Government change its course. What the hon. the Minister said is a simple truth, namely that we received a mandate from the electorate and as the result of that mandate we have given the Bantu in the Transkei certain powers. Chief Justice Stratford used the following words in one of the cases he decided, namely in the case of Ndlwana v. Hofmeyr: “Powers once conferred cannot be withdrawn.” On that basis this position is irrevocable, and if hon. members opposite possess any statesmanship they will accept that position. Because even if they should form the Government to-morrow, they cannot recall it. Let them therefore accept it.

There is a second point on which we can agree, and that is the dangers inherent in this position. We have not bluffed ourselves that there will be no dangers. Hon. members opposite tell us about all the dangers and all the difficulties we will have to contend with. If it is then unavoidable and irrevocable that such dangers exist, cannot we stand together in order to limit those dangers to a minimum?

Let me put a positive question now: Not only must they cease making this type of speech, but let them rather aim at making the Bantu understand that it is in their own interest not to obtain too much too soon. Make them understand that they must make haste slowly. We ourselves had a very long history before we could get so far as to gain our independence. Let us rather tell those people in all friendliness, with all sincerity and in their own interest: For your economic development you need an infra-structure, but for your political development, if one day you want to be independent, you must have an infra-structure of good administration, of sound government, and we are prepared to give that to you. But do not demand all these things and try to walk before you are able to crawl. That is a positive attitude, and in that way we shall be able to bring to the notice of these people many of the dangers which we on both sides of the House can foresee and make them understand that it is in their own interest. They saw what the result was of getting too much too soon in the Congo. There were a number of enemies of the Natives in the Congo who advised the Belgians to withdraw, to withdraw too soon, and look at the chaos which exists there today! Nobody who has the interest of the Transkeian Bantu at heart would like to see the same position arising there that we have in the Congo to-day.

Hon. members also asked what the financial implications of this scheme would be. Two years ago they also asked those questions. I happened to look up what was said then about the matter. The financial problem we have in connection with the Bantu within the borders of South Africa to-day is the problem of a yearly increase of from 150,000 to 200,000 Bantu. For that natural increase we must provide opportunities for employment within the borders of South Africa. Whether we provide them in our industrial complex or in the reserves or in the border areas, makes no difference, but we shall have to provide them. We shall have to provide the land and the buildings, we shall have to provide the housing, and if we want to do so in our White area, housing will have to be provided also for the wives and children of those workers, as hon. members opposite advocate. We shall have to provide transport for them because they cannot live next to the factory in our fully developed industrial complex. We have already spent approximately R250,000,000 in connection with housing and transport facilities, and if we also have to make provision for the numbers which will come in every year, I say it will be much cheaper for us to spend this money far distant from the large industrial cities than to do so here. And if they tell me: What will it cost to provide these 150,000 to 200,000 outside the reserves with work every year, and they give me those figures, then my reply is: It will cost the amount mentioned by you less RX to do so in the reserves. Those people must have schools, hospitals and power stations. These things must be established for them somewhere. There is not a surplus capacity of these things in South Africa. The question is: Where will it be? But does the United Party not also want the development of the reserves in terms of the race federation plan? Are they not also going to have this expenditure there, or are they going to neglect the Bantu in their race federation, and are they going to provide services inferior to those we envisage?

The other point mentioned here is that there will be two economies. Two years ago it was also said here that we were creating two economies. With reference to that, the hon. member for Transkeian Territories quoted certain words which I had uttered on this point when I adopted the attitude that we would have the economic unity of the two states with political segregation.

Economic integration.

I then referred to economic integration, and because I thought that there would probably be people with that mentality, I also used another term, namely economic unity.

It does not say so in Hansard.

I have the Hansard here. I spoke about “integration”, and when I developed the subject I used the other term as a synonym for it, namely “unity”, and it referred to this subject, and the example I used in connection with integration is the attempt of the six nations which are linked in the European Common Market to get an integrated economy for these six countries whilst they are politically independent. Now the hon. member comes along and he has only one meaning for “integration he does not care in what connection it is used, but he quotes it here and thinks he is making a debating point.

What is the object of the Common Market?

The object of the Common Market is to eliminate any economic difficulties between them so that they will be one big economic unit whilst still retaining their political independence.

May I put a question to the hon. the Minister?

The hon. member has already had an opportunity to use my words completely out of context and now he wants another chance! We want economic interdependence together with political self-government.

The further argument advanced by hon. members is that we are establishing a new type of colonialism. That is what the two scaremongers, the hon. members for Yeoville and Constantia, said. Do they want us to give those people in the Transkei no political preparation for independence? Do they expect us immediately to give them full independence and to make them share the same fate as the Congo? Do they want us to repeat the fiasco of the Congo here? Or should we have intermediate stages gradually to fit them for the governmental functions which will eventually be fully handled by them when they become independent? It should not be forgotten that the Cape Colony started in 1854 and the Statute of Westminster was passed only in 1926, a long time later, but we are thankful for having had that period of preparation. If we had immediately given them complete independence without having passed through a period of being trained as our wards in these governmental functions, what would have been the result? Do hon. members not want to grant them an opportunity? I said a moment ago that the infra-structure for independence in the political sphere is a sound and efficient administration. That is the first thing. Just as one needs an infrastructure for one’s economy, so one must also have it for political development. What we should do, and what we are prepared to do, is to educate these people for the tasks they will have to perform. We have said that there is no economic colonialism and that there will be no exploitation of those people by the Whites or by foreigners. But we want to help them to develop economically.

Having now heard the price of our policy, let us summarize what the price of the alternative will be. In the economic sphere the price of the alternative, namely when we have here a multi-racial state with a multiracial Parliament and a minority of Whites, will be that we will have to surrender the whole of South Africa. And if we now want to develop those reserves, it will cost just as much as under this system, of self-government unless we want to hamper Bantu development there. We shall have to provide employment. That is the problem, whether there is self-government or not, for an additional 150,000 to 200,000 per annum. If we have that multi-racial state, we shall find that private initiative abroad will not be very keen to invest money here if the possibility exists of this being a politically Black controlled state, because they will realize that their investment is not safe, that they will be exposed to nationalization and, perhaps even worse, to the confiscation of the money they have invested here.

But what about the political results? If the Bantu is given the franchise in a multiracial state and in a multi-racial Parliament, we must remember that numbers will count instead of merit. Then his vote will go to his race and not to efficiency. The other day I quoted the words of Mr. Harry Oppenheimer that this is one of the greatest dangers if the Bantu is given the vote, because he will want to exercise it in the interest of an exclusively Black nationalism. That is the bitter experience being gained to-day where that experiment has been made of having a multi-racial state with a White minority. Then the eventual price we shall have to pay for the United Party policy will not be the dangers they mentioned here, but the eventual price will be South Africa itself, the whole of South Africa. And all the dangers they mentioned here will then be multiplied a hundredfold. One of them spoke here about the dangers inherent in minorities and that throughout the history of the world this has been the cause of wars. Do they realize what they are doing in terms of this policy? Did they read in the newspapers this morning that the Financial Times in England said that Rhodesia could still become Britain’s Algeria, because there will be a White minority there, a White minority which will not be satisfied with Black domination? If that is true of Rhodesia, have they considered that it could also be true of South Africa if their policy is implemented?

There are two words which fell from the lips of hon. members opposite and which they used with great facility, namely “liquidation” and “fragmentation”. But if one has regard to the via dolorosa of the United Party over recent years, that road which is leading to liquidation via fragmentation, one will see that the wise electorate of South Africa will not entrust our beautiful South Africa to the mercies of the members of the United Party. Ever since 1948 that party opposite has allowed almost every great opportunity to slip by. Now they have let another opportunity pass. That is why they have this growing fragmentation; that is why we have those milestones of 1949, 1953, 1954, 1958, 1959 and 1961—increasing fragmentation along that via dolorosa of theirs. And each time they allow the opportunity of adopting a different course, of getting away from their via dolorosa, to slip through their fingers with an almost Gadarine obstinacy; and for surely selfish reasons, and in this case, for vain political gain, the United Party still continues to refuse to accept the inevitable. They will not do so even now. They are continually out of step; they are just obstinate. I think it is due to the fact that there is an impurity in their aims and a defect in their judgment. They have no guiding thought, they have no inspiring principles. Therefore I fear that unless they grasp this opportunity, this via dolorosa which has already caused them one fragmentation after another will still lead to the eventual liquidation of the whole of the United Party.

Question put: That all the words after “That”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion, Upon which the House divided:

AYES—95: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Diederichs, N.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Jonker, A. H.; Keyter, H. C. A. Knobel, G. J.; Kotzé, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E. H.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder. C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, D. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Merwe, J. A.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and J. J. Fouché.

NOES—47: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bloomberg, A.; Bowker, T. B.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kok, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay. L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman. T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Holland. M. W.; Hopewell, A.; Hughes, T. G.; le Roux. G. S. P.; Lewis, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell. M. L.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Russell, J. H.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Taurog. L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; van Niekerk. S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson. S. F.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and N. G. Eaton.

Question affirmed and the amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a second time.

House in Committee:

Clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.