Last night the hon. member for Transkei addressed the Committee on the position of the Coloureds in the Transkei. I do not wish to reply to him now. I think the hon. the Minister will give a thorough reply to that matter. I just want to raise another matter and I think it is necessary that I should say something about it at this stage, and this is the question of foreign Bantu, which the hon. the Minister directed me to deal with. I think it is necessary to say something about the foreign Bantu in South Africa because there is apparently a great deal of misunderstanding among the public on certain policies of the Government with regard to foreign Bantu.

In South Africa we appreciate of course that the major export commodity of our neighbouring states is actually labour, and that foreign labour has been assimilated in our labour pattern through the years. I think I may say that the employment of labour from our neighbouring states has become part and parcel of the pattern of our common economy in Southern Africa. It also contributes to the mutual friendship between us and our neighbouring states, and because we realize that we can help them by employing some of the labour exported by them, we have to come to an understanding with them. But there is most certainly not an unlimited opportunity for work for foreign Bantu in South Africa. If there are not unlimited opportunities for work, it will mean that if we admit unlimited foreign labour into South Africa, it will ultimately be at the expense of our own indigenous Bantu, and consequently there has to be some control. Fortunately it is also a fact that our neighbouring states appreciate that there has to be some control over their subjects who come to South Africa. We have already attained the fortunate state of affairs that agreements were reached with most of our neighbouring states. Thus we have an agreement regulating the exportation of labour from Lesotho, Botswana and Swaziland. There are fixed arrangements with those countries, and thus we are also in the fortunate position of having a fixed arrangement with Mozambique, and recently we came to a similar agreement with Malawi. We may therefore say that agreement has been reached with most of our neighbouring states in connection with this important export commodity of theirs, their labour, and how we will employ it here in South Africa.

But there is also another state of affairs, and that is that before these agreements were entered into with our neighbouring states there as some crossing of the South African borders, and many foreign Bantu entered here, and it is actually those foreign Bantu who entered here before agreements were reached who have given rise to one of our great problems. I now want to state most pertinently that foreign Bantu may be in South Africa only if they are properly documented, and there are two requirements for that.

The first is that every foreign Bantu must be in the possession of a passport, but in itself this is not enough. Many employers seem to be under the impression that if a foreign Bantu has a passport he may be employed. But there is a second very important requirement, and that is that passports must be endorsed by a South African passport control officer, to the effect that the Bantu concerned may work in South Africa. I am not speaking of the foreign Bantu who comes to South Africa just for a visit or who comes to study. I am speaking only of those who come to South Africa to work. These are the two important requirements, that they should be in the possession of a passport and that the passport should be endorsed. Any Bantu who does not comply with these requirements is subject to immediate repatriation. Such repatriation is actually a difficult process, because such a Bantu has to be identified by his country of origin before they take him back, and it may be that it takes months before he is identified. But what is more important, and what I particularly want to draw attention to —because it has happened that there were South African citizens who were not aware of these facts and who employed foreign Bantu who did not comply with these two requirements, and who are now in trouble because the police are prosecuting them—is the fact that any person who employs a foreign Bantu who does not have a passport and whose passport is not properly endorsed is employing a prohibited immigrant, and becomes subject to prosecution.

I want to ask my colleagues to take great care to bring this to the attention of the public, because this is indeed the case. I may just say that the implementation of the Immigration laws of South Africa does not rest with the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, but with the Department of Police, and the Police will prosecute such persons. Mr. Chairman, there are in fact two categories of foreign Bantu in South Africa: Those who were in South Africa before arrangements were made with our neighbouring states, and those who came to South Africa as a result of those arrangements with our neighbouring states. To those who came to South Africa before we made those arrangements, we have allowed ample time. To each subject of our neighbouring states who was in South Africa we allowed at least a year to two years and in some cases even three years to become properly documented. In this regard I also want to ask that employers should go to the Bantu Labour Bureau and should register their employees there, because if they employ a foreign Bantu and then go to the Labour Bureau, they will find out very quickly whether he is in fact a foreign Bantu, and then they may also ascertain what the requirements are for employing such a person. Any foreign Bantu in the first category, who was in our country before we made arrangements with the country concerned, is usually given an opportunity to obtain a passport, and that passport will then be endorsed if he has been in the country for a long time. Mr. Chairman, what I am now saying does not apply to the greater Western Cape. As far as the greater Western Cape is concerned, it is only reasonable and wise, in view of the fact that as far as possible we want to remove all Bantu from the Western Cape, that foreign Bantu should first be removed from the Western Cape before we take action against our own indigenous Bantu. Therefore foreign Bantu in the Western Cape are all on a departure footing; they receive six months’ notice that they are going to be repatriated, and the employer is also given six months’ notice that the employee concerned, who is a foreign Bantu, is to be repatriated after six months. There are certain cases which we shall in fact regard as compassionate cases, but then they must indeed be cases of compassion. It must not be a case of a foreign Bantu who is allowed to stay here simply for the convenience of the employer; it should be in the interests of that Bantu himself, because he is perhaps particularly old or infirm, or has no more ties with his country of origin. To such a foreign Bantu we shall allow a longer period of grace. [Time expired.]

May I have the privilege of the half hour? The hon. member for Heilbron has dealt with the position of foreign labour. He has merely explained to us how the law was altered in regard to documents they have to carry. I am going to mention the question of foreign labour in the course of my speech, but I would like to point out to the hon. member, when he deals with foreign labour from the Portuguese territory, that we have a special treaty, the Mozambique Treaty, which deals with natives from that territory. They are employed in the mines. I hope the hon. the Minister will tell us in this debate what arrangements have been entered into with Malawi with regard to the 30,000 who are to be allowed into the country. Are they to be additional to the Malawis who are here at present or is the number to be limited to 30,000 and where will they be employed? Perhaps the hon. the Minister will tell us at a later stage exactly what the position is with regard to these 30,000 Malawis.

Sir, it is said that politics is the art, the science, of the practical, and we have to ask ourselves whether this Government’s policy is practical; is it being applied and can it be applied? Is it merely a slogan; does it consist merely of meaningless expressions; is it wishful thinking and idealism? If it is practical then we ask whether it is being applied. Can it be applied with equity? Will it make us happier; will it give us more security? Will all the Africans who are to be removed from the white areas be maintained in the Reserves? Will there be sufficient there not only to maintain them but to maintain the natural increase as well? If they; are all removed, will we in the so-called white areas be able to maintain our industries without their labour and will we be able to expand without black labour? Sir, if these questions can be answered affirmatively, then I say that the apartheid policy can be advocated in good faith. The policy can be defended if the answer to all these questions is in the affirmative. Is the policy practical? Can the reserves become viable? Can the Bantu be maintained outside the white areas? Can we do without their labour? Sir, we have passed the supposition stage. The Government has had 19 years to put its policy into effect, and people who think are becoming increasingly worried. Government supporters and economists are becoming critical of the policy. Apart from the fact that there is a lack of development in the reserves, there are misgivings about the new labour movement development which has come about as a result of the appointment of the hon. member for Vereeniging as Deputy Minister. If the policy of endorsing out, repatriation and stricter control of entry into the white areas is to be applied, even if flexible, will future development not be stifled? Sir, the curtailment of the use of black labour is in its initial stage but is application has already brought forth protests not only from industry and commerce but also from agriculture. The farmers certainly never expected it to be applied to them and we now find that they are protesting. Sir, the farmers have labour troubles and some of them overcame those troubles by getting permits to go and recruit their labour themselves in the Transkei. We saw them with their vehicles in the streets of the villages recruiting labour. Sir, they did not go to all this expense and trouble just to have the Bantu lying about idle on their farms; they did it because they required the labour. They need labour and they get it because the African in the Transkei needs work. The industrialist too needs Bantu labour, and that is why industrialists are recruiting them in increasing numbers through Government agencies. Even Government members, even the hon. member for Klip River, will admit that this remarkable development that we talk about could not have taken place had it not been for black labour. This labour is sought after to such an extent that the mines, which were the traditional employers of the labour from the Transkei, now find themselves short of labour and 60 per cent of the mine labour to-day is foreign labour. We know that foreign labour is employed not only on the mines but elsewhere as well. It is interesting to see that in the 1960 census it was estimated that there were 600,000 foreign black labourers in this country, and. as I have said, the Government has now entered into a special contract with Malawi for another 30 000. Sir, what must be puzzling the Bantu in South Africa, especially those in the Transkei, is that they are being sent home and more and more restrictions are being placed on their re-entry into the white areas, and yet they see a report that we have entered into an agreement with Malawi to bring in 30,000 Malawis to come and work in this country.

It is no wonder that Chief Matanzima has expressed his concern about his unemployed labour force. He knows as well as the Government that the Transkeians have to go out to work if they want to maintain their families. There is no work for them In the Transkei; they must go out to work, and although border industries may satisfy some of the reserves, the Chief Minister of the Transkei and his people know that border industries are meaningless as far as the Transkei Bantu is concerned, and platitudes such as those expressed by the hon. the Deputy Minister for Bantu Administration and Education about the Bantu labourer being able to sleep with his family at night mean nothing to the Bantu in the Transkei unless he is able to take his family with him when he goes out to work in the rest of South Africa because there is not a single industry around the borders of the Transkei where he can work and sleep with his family at night.

The Deputy Minister with a sense of relief and also triumph, may I say, announced a little while ago that Mr. Oppenheimer—lus friend in need—is to establish an industry on the borders of the Transkei near Umzimkulu. at Creighton. It is not definite yet that it will be established, and in any event, if it is, I say that it is not because of the border industries policy that it is going to that spot. That is a good example of decentralization of industry, where an industry picks the site for the industry because of natural advantages. This particular concern has selected this particular locality because the terrain is suitable for a factory, there are sufficient water supplies because of the confluence of two rivers, because there is labour available and, most important, because of its accessibility to a ready and plentiful supply of raw material. No doubt it has been offered the financial advantages which are offered to border industries, but I am certain that if it does establish an industry there the considerations which will weigh with it will be those which I have mentioned and which would influence industry in any event anywhere else, namely sufficient labour, water, transport and raw material.

Now, let us face it—supposing this industry does go to the Transkei because of the efforts of the Deputy Minister and because of border industry advantages …

No, I have nothing to do with that.

Supposing it did, can it honestly be claimed, even by the most enthusiastic of the Government’s supporters, that the Government has shown any enterprise if all it can do after 19 years of government is to offer a prospect of getting a border industry for the Transkei some time in the future. Remember, Sir, that this is not a new policy, this policy of border development. It may not have been the policy in 1948, although I must say it is resented when we suggest that Dr. Verwoerd had a new policy for the Government. That side suggest that their policy has always been the same. But supposing they did not have the policy in 1948 of establishing border industries, they certainly did have it 11 years ago when the Tomlinson Commission made its recommendation and the Government then issued a White Paper on its decisions with regard to the recommendations of the Commission.

The Tomlinson Commission was, of course, much more realistic than the Government. This is to be expected because it consisted of a commission of experts. This commission purposely said that it preferred not to suggest that European industry should be encouraged to move towards the borders of the Transkei because that territory was pre-eminently a region for internal development. After 19 years we see how right the commission was. It was not an area for border industries. What did the Government do? The Government announced that it was going to establish border industries and it particularly refused to adopt the recommendations of the Tomlinson Commission that the industries be established inside the reserves.

I said that there has been criticism of the Government for not establishing border industries. There has been criticism about labour. But harsher criticism has been levelled against the Government for not allowing private white capital and initiative into the reserves. Here is another example of where time has caught up with this Government.

The Bantu industries established in the reserves are negligible. Anybody will admit it. The facts speak for themselves. Recently the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development had to get up in this House and make a special statement regarding the question of white capital and initiative in the reserves. Why did he do it? I say, first, because of the criticism he is getting not only from economists, but from his own people. Even the Commissioner-General in the Transkei, Mr. Abraham, had criticism to offer that the recommendations of the Tomlinson Commission were not being carried out. Dagbreek had criticism to offer. Fred Nel, a former Nationalist M.P., also had criticism galore to offer. What happened was this. The Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education made an announcement that white capital was to be allowed to go into the reserves and that was so well received by the whole country as being something new that this Minister had to get up and make a statement to the House to try and persuade us that it was nothing new.

Of course it is nothing new.

The Tomlinson commission had quite rightly pointed out that for a considerable time the necessary talent for enterprise would not be found in the ranks of the Bantu, and the Europeans and the Government would therefore also have to act as entrepreneurs. It then went on to give the conditions to which white entrepreneurs would be subject, inter alia—

There was no promise of permanence. But what was the attitude of the Government as expressed in this White Paper. It accepted the policy that Bantu enterprise, unimpeded by European competition, should be enabled to develop its own industries inside the Bantu areas. In this White Paper they said that they dustrialists should be permitted into these areas. In this White Paper they said that they accepted the recommendations of the minority members of the commission. The minority were two civil servants who at first signed the report unanimously, and then afterwards altered their minds. This is what they said. They said that they changed their minds because—

not on a permanent basis—

They were afraid of white spots being created in the Bantu areas. It is amazing how much they talked like Dr. Verwoerd, because when he made his speech in Parliament dealing with this matter, when he presented his decisions, he said that “for large-scale European-owned private industries security would be required”. and he said that that would be freehold title to property. He is wrong. That is not what the Tomlinson Commission recommended; they did not recommend free-hold property. That is not what the United Party did when in power when it established the Good Hope textile industry, or when it encouraged the development of the mines at Mount Ayliff. It was not necessary to go to that extent. He went on to say this in Hansard, column 5306, 1956—

that is for white people if he allowed white capital in—

Those were his words. He did not want more Whites to enter the reserves. He rejected white capital and initiative, as did the two civil servants, because it meant if white capital went in, Whites would have to go in to manage that capital. He did not want large-scale development. According to column 5307, he said this—

According to column 5308 he said—

So we see that the whole intention was that whatever development was to take place in the reserves, was to be by the Bantu through their own resources. Dr. Verwoerd did say that they could be assisted—not unduly, but they could be assisted by the Bantu Trust. In discussing the recommendations of the commission at the time, he said that it was not desirable at that stage to decide upon the establishment of a development corporation. He did not even wish to go to that stage at the time. Of course that that was the policy of the Government is borne out by the fact that eventually when the Development Corporation was formed it was not permitted to operate outside the Bantu areas. It could not go into the white towns and villages in the Transkei. We had to adopt an amending Bill to permit of them operating on a larger scale. Industrialization by the Bantu himself even on a small scale has failed, as we said it would, and so white capital and initiative are to be introduced. The first intimation of this came from the hon. the Deputy Minister when he made his speech. It was welcomed. The Minister then got up to explain that it was not a change of policy. He started by attacking the United Party by raising the question of integration. This was of course an attempt to create the right atmosphere. He then attacked us for what developments had taken place and also for what had not taken place. He started off with Soweto. He attacked us for developments in Soweto. Were it not for the development on the Rand and the labour force at Soweto, what would the development in this country have been? This Government is very pleased to have had that development. Did they stop development at Soweto? Did they stop expansion? Of course they did not. They went on building more and more houses and extending railway lines and they are still extending Soweto. They boast here about Meadowlands and Diepkloof. Why did they bother about going on developing those areas? Now they have started building a new city which will accommodate 150,000 souls between Vereeniging and Johannesburg. They say that portion of this town is a released area. That might be so but I can see what is going to happen. The next thing will be that this will be a reserve and Vereeniging and Johannesburg will become border industries. [Interjections.] Why is this Government establishing a city to house 150,000 people and spending R15 million on it if the policy is not to have these spots.

Are you so ignorant that you do not know that this is a resettlement scheme?

It does not matter whether it is a resettlement scheme. The Minister admitted that the reserves had not been developed. [Interjections.]

Order! I think that the hon. member is quite capable of delivering his own speech.

He admitted that he was opposed to starting “’n verhewigde ontwikkeling” as he put it, through factors outside the reserves which would “geheel en al verbysnel by die mense”. Why are they so afraid of this type of development there? What is the history of this country? How did development take place in this country? Where did the capital come from? It was not local capital and are we not still seeking foreign capital? Did Mr. Tom Naude not, when he was Minister of Finance, give the American investors more privileges than the South African investor in order to get American money here? Art w* not looking for it? The Minister of Finance recently said that we are still looking for it. Is the Government now opposed to development which did take place, for instance the opening of the mines in the Transvaal by the “uitlanders”. Do they resent it merely because the Afrikaans-speaking man at the time did not have the capital or the know-how to establish the industries? Is the Afrikaans-speaking man not catching up in business? Do we not hear about it every day, about the progress being made in the mining world and in commerce? Of course they have caught up and why should the same not happen to the Bantu in the reserves? He attacked the white entrepreneur for not using his initiative in developing agriculture in the reserves. How could he do that? The Minister knows very well that white farmers were not allowed to wander about the reserves. They could only farm on their own farms. They could not go elsewhere. What criticism does he have of the farmers who owned their own farms in the reserves? Did he not pay a lot for the farms in Umzimkulu? Were those farms not properly looked after?

Then he says that he has given the special instruction for the intensification of the development of agriculture. The Deputy Minister, Mr. Vosloo, has called a conference of Bantu commissioners. Why is this done now when they have been in power for 19 years? Why did they not do it before? The way these Ministers and members talk anybody would think that they have only just taken over from the United Party. I should like to remind them that in March, 1948, we prepared detailed plans and blueprints for a dam at Qamata. Why was that not proceeded with at once? Why was all that work delayed? It is only now that the dam is nearing completion. The Minister implied that he has done more to encourage development because he has allowed mining prospectors. That is nothing new. The United Party used to allow that as well. The first instance of prospecting was at the Insizwa mine at Mount Ayliff which took place under United Party Government. Then he thanked heaven that his Government had no share in giving entrenchments to the Whites in the Transkei. I say that he is thankful for what the Whites did in the Transkei. That is the first time I have heard any Minister of the Nationalist Government say that he is thankful that he is not responsible for the entrenchments given to the Whites in the Transkei. What would have happened to the Transkei if the Whites had not moved in there and had they not been given some entrenchment? What would have happened to that area? The industries which he proudly announces now—I have a list of them here— were mostly taken over by this Government from the Whites who had already established them. What development would there have been were it not for the Whites in the Transkei? It is nonsense for the Minister to talk like this. When he said thank goodness that this Government had nothing to do with the entrenchments, I would like to tell him that when Dr. Verwoerd was Minister of Native Affairs, he granted a new trading site in the Mount Frere trading district. Why do they say that this Government had nothing to do with the giving of entrenchments? He gave freehold title there. [Interjection.] Yes, just one, but what about the principle?

This Minister now states that he is going to allow white agents to develop the reserves. They will bring their capital and their initiative. He pretends that this is nothing new. I say that it is quite new if read in the context of what was proposed by this Government when they discussed the Tomlinson Commission’s recommendations. If it is not new, why does he now want to alter the statutory structure of the Trust and the corporations at his disposal. He himself said that he wanted to alter the “statutory structure”. He wants to do so “to be able to employ and utilize people properly on an agency basis”. If this was originally intended why was provision not made for it then? Why is it only being done now, by amending the legislation? In any event, if he does do that, is he not going to do what Dr. Verwoerd feared? The very reason why he would not allow white capital and initiative into the Transkei to develop it was because it would bring about a penetration of Whites with more schools and churches. What he proposes to do now is to grant concessions. That is just what the Commissioner-General of the Transkei said would not be allowed to happen. In opening the Civic Association Congress in Umtata in 1965, he warned concession hunters, as he called them, that the industrial development in the Transkei is reserved for the people of the Transkei or such statutory bodies as are recognized by the Transkei and Republican Governments. The Minister will find that white capital and initiative will want more than just an agency fee to entice them into the reserves. They will want a substantial share in the profits. That is only natural. We will find in the end that our arrangement with that company which started the Good Hope textile factory will probably be the basis on which white capital will be invited into the reserves. I am certain that within a very short while we will find this happening. When we say that you are adopting United Party policy, we will be criticized again. I say that that is going to happen.

I say that the Government’s policy of development in the reserves by the Bantu for the Bantu, has failed. For their policy of the removal of Africans from white areas to succeed on an equity basis, jobs will have to be provided in the reserves. According to the chairman of the Johannesburg Chamber of Commerce, this is going to cost at least R70 million a year, that is to say to supply sufficient labour to remove the 5 per cent from the towns, as is proposed. The Minister had something to say the other day about urban Africans. He indicated that he might legislate to make it clear that no African had a right to reside in urban areas. He said that the law as it stands is quite clear.

If an African is born in an urban area and he continues to reside in that area, he is entitled to be there. There is no misrepresentation. He is entitled to be there. If he has worked for one employer for ten years, he is entitled to be there under their law. If he has been there for 15 years continuously, he is entitled to be there. What does the Minister mean by saying that the position is being misrepresented and that he is going to introduce legislation to put the matter right? Is he going to take away the right of these people to be in these areas? Is that what he intends doing now? I hope he will give us an explanation as to what he threatens to do to these people now. Those people who qualify have been given certain rights. They have qualified under the law to be in the urban area and to remain there permanently. It is a peculiar thing that the Minister expects the African to come down here without his family, but he does not expect any white civil servant or anybody else to go to the Transkei without his family. The Minister always says that whatever they are doing for the Africans in the white areas, they are doing for the Whites in the Transkei. The Minister does not expect the white person to go to the reserves on the same basis as he expects the African to come to the white areas.

The stipulations under section 10 do not apply to them. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, yesterday, after we had listened to members of the Opposition in the Other Place for three days, the hon. the Minister threw his hands up into the air in despair and said: “Let us agree to differ.” He said that to argue with those members was like buttering 13 hot stones. I am quite sure that in this debate it will be the same as buttering 40 hot stones. It will be of no avail. Just listen to the argument of the hon. member for Transkei. He criticizes my colleague because he interviewed the agriculture officials. He said: Why did you meet them only now? Why did you not meet them long ago? The hon. member for Transkei is in for a terrible disillusionment. In the next 19 years we are going to do a great deal which we did not do in the past 19 years. We shall do many other new things. We shall do many other fresh things. We are not stagnant, as they are. That is why they look like that. They do not want to try anything new, and when they do try something new they try the wrong thing. It is nonsensical to ask why we did not do it in the past 19 years. We are going to do plenty in the next 19 years. [Interjections.] As the hon. member for Brakpan said, watch us from now on. The hon. member for Transkei said that if we replaced the Bantu labour in the Western Cape by Coloured labour industry would suffer. I have some news for him. I want to tell him that that is also the policy of the Chamber of Industries of the Western Cape. It is also the policy of the City Council of Cape Town. I shall now prove that to him. It is the policy of the City Council of Cape Town that the Western Cape must look to Coloured labour in respect of its industrial development. I now want to prove this. There is the industrial township Epping Industrial. The Cape Town City Council increased the price of land there by 50 per cent, to R12,000 an acre. Then they say this in their report—

Not one Bantu may work in Epping Industrial. [Interjections.] Not one was given permission. Where did a Bantu get permission? Permission was given only in respect of Coloured labour. Purely with Coloured labour the City Council of Cape Town is increasing the prices by more than 50 per cent. They also say that the land is selling like hot cakes. Not one Bantu is allowed to work there. Let me tell the hon. member for Transkei that not one industry will get permission to employ a Bantu there, and they know that. They have already received the reply from us. Yet they are prepared to pay twice as much as they paid some years ago.

Let us consider the decision taken by the Cape Town City Council. The Cape Town City Council adopted an official resolution to approach this Government and to approach the Provincial Administration with a view to establishing industrial townships. To establish an industrial township is by no means cheap. It is an expensive business. They approached the Provincial Council to establish industrial townships in the Western Cape on the specific understanding that the Government could exclude Bantu labour there if it wished to do so. [Interjections.] In other words, the City Council of Cape Town and the Chamber of Industries of Cape Town are quite satisfied with the fact that the Western Cape has been scheduled for industrial development, not on Bantu labour but on Coloured labour. They are very wise. I have told them, and I want to repeat this, that any person—and not only in the Western Cape but in particular in the Western Cape—who establishes industries or expands them in the hope that Bantu labour will always be available on demand, is making the mistake of his life. We are engaged in the task which we regard as the most imperative and most important task. This is to develop the Bantu homelands—and as far as the Western Cape is concerned, the Ciskei and the Transkei—in such a way, whether by way of border industries or by development within those homelands, that within the foreseeable future they will be able to absorb their natural population increase. Once they are able to absorb that natural population increase, there will of course be no more labour for the Western Cape from that source.

May I ask a question?

Sir, we have made a great deal of progress.

Is the hon. the Deputy Minister prepared to answer a question?

No, Sir, for nobody. I have only ten minutes. We are making a great deal of progress. The hon. member for Transkei says that we are making no progress. Let me tell him what progress we have made in the Ciskei in the past five years as a result of the work of the Standing Committee in East London. In the past five years no fewer than 19 factories have been established in the Ciskei in East London, with the assistance of the Standing Committee. No fewer than 18 factories were expanded. Listen to the amounts in respect of the past five years. The hon. member says we are doing nothing. In the past five years there were additional fixed investments, through the Standing Committee —this includes both private and Government investment—to the fantastic amount of R25 million in the Ciskei alone. What did this mean? It meant additional jobs for 2,850 Whites and 8,510 Bantu. If this had not happened, they would have found their way to the Western Cape, with their families, according to the policy of that party. An additional 40,000 Bantu were therefore prevented from coming to the Western Cape, and that was only in the past five years. Additional jobs have also been created for an additional 1,023 Coloureds and Asiatics. From 3,900 a year in the period 1961-’63 the opportunities for work for the Xhosa in the Ciskei increased to 5,300 a year in the period 1964-’65. What does that mean? It means that as far as the Ciskei is concerned, the Permanent Committee has succeeded in the past five years in creating jobs which are absorbing almost the entire natural increase in the Ciskei at the moment. Is that not an achievement to be proud of? And thus it will grow, from the Ciskei to the Transkei, until the entire natural increase will be absorbed, and this also applies to the rest of the Bantu homelands in South Africa. Now hon. members are complaining that border industries are expensive and that they get concessions, but I want to make this statement today, that new industries in the metropolitan areas are much more expensive than border industries. Not only are they much more expensive, but the concessions we make to border industries are not as significant as the concealed concessions which are made to industries in the metropolitan areas. I just want to mention one example, and I want to raise the question whether this entire system should not be changed. Do you know to what amount industries and other employers of Bantu labour in Johannesburg, Cape Town, Pretoria and so forth are subsidized on the transportation of their workers from their homes to their work? It is almost R12 million a year, and this is a subsidy from the pockets of the taxpayers, to subsidize the industries and the other people who employ Bantu in the urban areas. The question that occurs to me is why I should pay for that, or the hon. member for Rosettenville. The question that occurs to me is whether Treasury should continue subsidizing the transportation of labour from their homes to their work from the pocket of the ordinary taxpayer. [Time expired.]

I should just like to take up where I left off just now, and conclude what I was saying in connection with the foreign Bantu. I think it should be set out in full. There are two kinds or categories of foreign Bantu, and I just want to specify how each of these is dealt with. There is, for example, the foreign Bantu from the former Protectorates. We have now permitted them to stay in South Africa, provided that they stay with the same employer who employed them before the agreements were entered into. If they change their employment, they can stay in South Africa for only a further two years, and then they are also repatriated. As regards the other territories, such as Mozambique, any foreign Bantu from Mozambique who was in South Africa and who has now become legalized and documented, may stay in the country for 18 months and then he has to return to his country of origin. The same applies to Bantu from Malawi. They will be allowed to stay in South Africa for 18 months after they have become legalized and documented—those who entered prior to the agreement—but after 18 months they have to go back, and then there can be recruitment again to let them come back to South Africa.

We now come to those who are recruited now. No more foreign Bantu may enter South Africa unless the prescribed procedure is followed, and that is that the employer has to put in a requisition with his Bantu Affairs Commissioner, and then the Commissioner has to issue what we call a no-objection certificate, but before he issues that certificate, he must ascertain that there are no local or indigenous Bantu available for that particular work. Only after he has ascertained that this is the position, he may issue a no-objection certificate, in triplicate, and that certificate stipulates at which border post the Bantu has to be brought in. But the agreement entered into by the employer with the foreign Bantu is entered into with the territory from which he derives. He concludes it through representatives, as in the case of Mozambique and Malawi, through recruitment officers, and the contract is completed and certified there, and then the Bantu enters South Africa and must then be documented, with his passport, and then they show that no-objection certificate at the gate. I want to emphasize this because the hon. member for Transkei expressed his misgivings about the number of foreign Bantu who are supposedly entering the country. This no-objection certificate ensures that no foreign Bantu will enter if they take the place of an indigenous Bantu. The indigenous Bantu gets preference before the certificate is issued. Furthermore, it is provided in the agreement that recruitment for the mines can still be undertaken. All the Bantu who are recruited abroad are recruited with preference to agriculture and mining. In respect of domestic servants, no recruitment of foreign Bantu is allowed. Agriculture and mining get preference. That is why we have now replaced the existing contracts between the Chamber of Mines and the foreign states for the recruitment of foreign Bantu by proper inter-state agreements between South Africa and its neighbouring states, and these are no longer agreements which subjects such as the Chamber of Mines had with another state. In terms of those agreements arrangements were made as to how those Bantu would be transported to the mines. As far as agriculture is concerned, they must all use this procedure, the requisition and the no-objection certificate, as well as the ordinary documentation of the foreign Bantu, and the foreign Bantu is then brought in through the proper gate. This is a lengthy procedure which I cannot set out here in full, but we have made concessions, for example, to the border farmers of the Western Transvaal and the Northern Transvaal and also the Eastern Transvaal, to recruit Bantu, particularly for harvest time, because it has been the customary pattern of our labour in agriculture in those areas that they got their harvesters from the neighbouring territories. Special concessions have been made to them to enable them to get their harvesters from there, but we insist on this procedure being followed and no deviation from it will be tolerated. I must point out that recently it happened once again that on the old customary pattern, which obtained before border control was introduced, numerous Botswanas crossed the border and were employed on the old pattern. This is indeed illegal. That is why I rose to bring this matter pertinently to the attention of those farmers in particular, because they are exposing themselves to prosecution. They must follow the channels of a requisition and the no-objection certificate and then their recruitment, of those harvesters as well. The harvesters must also comply with that pattern. If we want to achieve any success in this border control and want to control the influx of foreign Bantu we have to comply with this procedure. I also want to take this opportunity to convey my special gratitude and appreciation to our neighbouring States and their Governments for having co-operated so well with us in handling the prohibited immigrants who were in South Africa before we entered into agreements. They sent officials and opened offices in South Africa and they co-operated with us to enable us to document those subjects of theirs properly. This was a tremendous task to perform if one considers that from Malawi alone there were some 70,000 subjects in this country. Now they can all be properly documented in South Africa, but we could not do so without the co-operation of our neighbouring states. For that reason we are so grateful to our neighbouring states for the assistance they have rendered in the proper documentation of these foreign Bantu of theirs who were in our country. I want to emphasize once again that we shall accommodate them with work as far as we are able to do so, because we believe that in this way we are also able to do our neighbouring states a service of friendship and that we are thus able to strengthen the ties of friendship.

I listened with great interest to the hon. member for Heilbron telling us what the legal position is as far as foreign Africans in South Africa are concerned. The one thing that he has not mentioned is the effect upon people who have been here for many years, some of them for well over 20 years and who have married South African women, some of whom have even married Coloured women and who have families and who now suddenly find after 20 years or more that they have to leave South Africa. The hon. member says that they are given six months’ notice, during which period years or more that they have to leave South Africa. The hon. member says that they are given six months’ notice, during which period they can continue to work here, and then they have to return to the countries of their birth, provided those countries will acknowledge them. I say that this shows an absolute disregard for the human element, with tragic results for these people. Sir, if those people had had white skins, if they had been in South Africa when the Commonwealth Act was passed and citizenship permits were handed out to people who had been here for many years, those people who came from our neighbouring territories would not be slung out now with six months’ notice but they would have been regarded as South African citizens and allowed to live out their lives in this country, and that, I believe, is what civilized behaviour would have dictated in the case of those people who have been here for many years and who have married South African women. Many of these people can produce the most glowing references from their employers for whom in many cases they have worked over 20 years and. as I say, they would have been regarded as South African citizens if they had had white skins.

Now, Sir, let me get on to another subject. All of us read with considerable dismay the statement made in the Other Place by the hon. the Minister on the new attitude he is adopting towards the urban African in this country, as if things were not bad enough already with the amending Act which was passed two or three years ago, under which the so-called section 10 Africans lost their de jure rights. All they now have is de facto rights; they no longer have de jure rights, but apparently this whole policy is now going to be tightened up even more and the hon. the Minister says that if there is any doubt about this he is going to change the law. Well, no doubt those changes in law will come, but at least he is going to bother to change the law, and I suppose for that we should be duly grateful, because this is certainly more than his colleague, the Deputy Minister, bothers to do. He does not bother to change the law. What he does is to declare what is policy and then he issues departmental chits, here, there and everywhere, telling people that they must now carry out certain instructions that he gives them. I have tackled him on this issue before, earlier this Session, and I have never had a single satisfactory answer from the hon. the Deputy Minister. Perhaps now that he has had more time he will be able to tell me under what law he is doing this. He told me then that he was not a lawyer; he said he was a statesman. I will say, Sir, that with due modesty he did not say that he was an elder statesman; he just said he was a statesman, but he said that he was not a lawyer. Well, he has had lots of time now and his officials have had plenty of time to delve into all the existing statutes and I would like him to tell this Committee exactly under what legal provision he has issued these departmental chits. Let me make it quite clear that this excludes contract labour. He does have the right under a certain proclamation to limit the number of contract labourers who come into the Western Cape. But I challenge the hon. the Deputy Minister to tell this Committee under what existing statute he has decided by departmental chit that the number of Africans in the urban areas of the Western Cape must be reduced by 5 per cent per annum—that is excluding contract labour—and under what particular law he has sent around an instruction—I know that this is policy but this does not impress me; policy is not law; it must be passed by this House before it becomes law— that nobody who did not have an African in employment in August of last year may take on an African employee, and under what law he has laid down occupations in which Africans may no longer be employed. Under what specific law or regulation has the hon. the Deputy Minister decreed these bannings on the employment of Africans?

Why not take me to court and find out?

I do not have the interest to take the hon. the Deputy Minister to court. But the point is not whether I or anybody else take him to court. What he is saying now is that he is going to continue with his illegal actions, because they are illegal, until somebody takes him to court and then when he is taken to court, then of course, he will come along to this House and change the law.

What you should do is to keep fewer illegal Bantu on your premises.

The hon. the Deputy Minister can take me to court when I do things like that; there is a law under which he can take me to court. Let him go ahead and do so; I really do not mind. He is perfectly entitled to do so. I doubt if there is a household in Johannesburg that has not had the same tragic experience that I had when my house was raided not so long ago. Practically everybody will find illegal Africans on his premises because it is very difficult for Africans legally to be in the urban areas. Sir, I challenge the hon. the Minister to answer me and not to give me these evasive answers about “it is policy”, “I have decreed”, “I have decided”, “I am on the rampage”. Let him tell us in terms of what law he is acting. I say that those provisions were to have been introduced in the original Bantu Urban Areas Bill but they were excluded from the Bill which was finally presented to this House. But in spite of that the hon. the Deputy Minister goes ahead and issues these chits which now have the effect of law and I think that is a serious situation in South Africa.

You are talking nonsense.

Instead of telling me that I am talking nonsense let the hon. the Deputy Minister get up and tell me under what law he is acting. I do not want the answer that this is being done in terms of the Government’s policy or in terms of an administrative decision. Let the hon. the Deputy Minister tell me, chapter and verse, in terms of which law he is acting in implementing this policy. You see, Sir, this has had very serious effects. It means that more and more emphasis is now being placed on migratory labour.

You asked a question and we replied to it.

Sir, there was no answer to the question. The answer was simply that this was being done in terms of policy. I have the hon. the Deputy Minister’s answer here if he wants to see it. He said that this was laid down in terms of policy. I do not consider that to be an answer. The whole tendency now is to place more and more emphasis on migratory labour, particularly as far as the Western Cape is concerned. We know that the municipality of Cape Town has recently built 13 bachelor quarters. Why they are called “bachelor quarters” I would not know because the chances are that there are more married men living in those bachelor quarters than bachelors. At any rate, they have erected 13 of these bachelor bungalows and, of course, the South African Railways and Harbours have plans for 40 permanent bungalows to house 2,000 males in Langa, and the City Council has a scheme to provide 2,700 bunks in Langa. Sir, how can the Government in this modern age go in more and more for this migratory system of labour when every sociologist of note has expressed himself against this disgusting way of life where married men are taken from their families and housed in dormitories with absolutely no privacy whatsoever, with nowhere to keep their clothes, with six common latrines for thousands of people to use, with cold water taps. What sort of housing is this in this modern age? And how does this correlate with this wonderful magazine which I have just read? It could not be more current because it is the May issue of Bantu: “Houses for Millions: Vast rehabilitation projects were tackled successfully. This article might well be called ‘Rehousing a nation’ ”, which it says is what white South Africa has done in the past 17 years. Then it goes on—

What is more, Sir, it talks about owners. Sir, there are no owners of houses in the Bantu townships. There are owners of 30-year leases; that is the maximum period of the lease, and nobody may own the land on which the house is built, and as far as I know the law, what is built on the land accrues to the land. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to follow the hon. member for Houghton in her specific argument, but with particular reference to her question in this House on 9th May, 1967, from which certain conclusions could be drawn about her dark motives, it is perhaps necessary to achieve clarity at this stage on the question of Bantu labour and the proposed schemes to mobilize this source of labour in such a way that it will be to the greatest benefit of the country as a whole and of the Bantu homelands in particular.

When we discuss this matter I cannot understand why we hear such a fuss from the Opposition.

The hon. member must please speak a little louder.

I was saying that one cannot understand why there is all this fuss by the hon. the Opposition in this regard, because in the Natal Mercury of 15th April of this year I read that Senator Cadman said: “The basic difference between the Nationalist Party and the United Party was not the colour policy.” It is only part of these discussions on the question of policy nowadays.

The present set-up relating to the registration of Bantu labourers and the demand for Bantu labour is fairly generally known, as it runs through local labour bureaux, district labour bureaux, regional labour bureaux and then the central labour bureau under the Director of Bantu Labour in Pretoria. This extensive system to handle Bantu labour means, in the first place, that its organization is mainly in the hands of Whites, and secondly that it is aimed at providing Bantu labour in white areas.

Now I want to suggest that any attempt to develop the Bantu homelands, economically and on the lines of nationhood, must fail if the emphasis is not shifted to the activation of the Bantu themselves. I am now speaking of the activation of the Bantu in the interests of their homeland. We shall simply have to face the fact that the Bantu labour must primarily —but note well, not exclusively—be enlisted in the interests of their own homeland. For that reason the scheme to decentralize labour bureaux to the tribal authority and the regional authority, where every Bantu in the homelands will receive the opportunity to have himself registered as a work-seeker, is welcomed.

Right at the outset it should be stated that all requests for labour will be made through the existing channels of regional labour bureaux. Thus a regional labour bureau will be established for every regional authority, with the primary function of serving as a link between the demand and the supply of labour. The regional labour bureau will keep a current register of all employees leaving its area. Statistics will be kept of all work-seekers, unemployed, etc., and the regional labour bureau will also supervise the activities of the tribal labour bureau.

As a sub-division of this arrangement several tribal labour bureaux will be established with every regional authority, and their major function will be, as a tribe, to select and classify work-seekers according to industries, according to choice of occupation and ability, and then to register them. It will be necessary that these tribal labour bureaux forward the information collected in this way to the district labour bureaux as soon as possible, in order that the latter may be kept informed of the available labour.

Every district office, which is at present at the Bantu Affairs Commissioner’s office, will have a district labour bureau, but here contracts will only be certified, medical examinations carried out, and stipulations in connection with transport, advances and repayment of wages, etc., arranged. Records will be kept of all workers who have been placed. If necessary, labour depots could also be established. All requisitions received by the district labour bureau from the regional labour bureau must be distributed among the tribal labour bureau. All unclassified work-seekers must be sent through and referred by the district labour bureaux and regional labour bureaux to the tribal labour bureaux concerned.

It is consequently clear that the tribe becomes the core of the new arrangement, and this holds new advantages. The tribal labour bureaux can now concentrate to a larger extent on the provision of seasonal workers in the form of work-teams, more so than in the past. Recruitment in each area is undertaken by the tribal labour bureau and no workseeker leaves the area until the prescribed procedure has been followed. This provision must be borne in mind particularly by employers and recruiting agents who enter Bantu areas.

Then cases are already known where tribal authorities levied a small fee on work-seekers for the work done for them. It sounds logical, furthermore, that regional authorities should also charge employers an administration levy in respect of each Bantu person who enters into a contract of employment. In both these cases it provides a source of income which may be used for the benefit of the tribal authority.

Under this proposed system it is clear that a free but much more tribally-orientated labour arrangement is contemplated. This should result in the more economic utilization of Bantu labour and should place a greater restriction on idling in white areas. It should also encourage the Bantu to equip themselves for fields of labour on a much more purposeful basis. But more important, this labour arrangement creates new opportunities for work which form the focal point for new economic points of growth in which the Bantu can take part as a full human being.

For this to be effective, however, it will be necessary to place a total prohibition on employment of work-seekers in white areas unless the correct procedure has been followed without there being or having to be any question of inhumane restrictions on the labour supply of the Bantu in any specific area.

Mr. Chairman, I hope that the hon. member for Zululand will forgive me if I do not follow his train of thought. I should like to return to the hon. the Deputy Minister. Listening to the hon. the Deputy Minister it really does not surprise me that his reputation has already been abandoned by his side, and by his Minister, because this is the effect of what the hon. the Minister said in his speech on his motion in the Senate. He said that for a time the numbers of Natives in the white area would continue to grow; and it would be a time well beyond that on which the reputation of the hon. the Deputy Minister is staked I say that it does not surprise me because in this debate the hon. the Deputy Minister made some very astonishing statements. He said that he had the support of the Cape Town City Council for his policy. This is entirely inaccurate. The Cape Town City Council wanted to have an industrial area proclaimed without any conditions and the hon. the Minister refused to allow this. In one case the City Council were able to get an industrial area proclaimed on the condition that no Bantu were used there. I think that it was to be no Bantu without the permission of the hon. the Minister. They were certainly prepared to have it proclaimed on that basis rather than none at all. They also wanted it proclaimed on the basis that no Bantu may be used there without the permission of the hon. the Minister because they know that the policy is that, if there are no Coloured people available, they should and will get permission to use Bantu labour. I suggest that it is most misleading of the hon. the Deputy Minister to continue on this line as he has.

There is one further point which he made which again shows what harm this policy is doing to us economically. He said that the prices of these industrial stands had shot up recently. Of course they have shot up. Because he will not proclaim new industrial areas, the price of industrial land all over the country is going up. One of the results of this is inflation. In time one of the results of this will be to price our goods out of foreign export markets. He says with pride that the prices of industrial land have gone up. We say that this is one of the direct and disastrous results of his policy. Apart from that the hon. the Minister, who has many charming characteristics, entertained us to a lot of blustering big talk. This is quite unjustified. The big talk was all about how wonderfully these opportunities were being created, how wonderful it would be and what they would not do in the coming years. What has their record been? Let us look at their past achievements. Where we asked and received answers to our questions as to the amount of industry actually in these reserves, we received an answer in Col. 2742 of this year which shows that the total amount of industry, despite any figures of investments he may quote, does not add up to the industry in one small town in South Africa. The total industry in all these reserves of South Africa does not add up to the industry in one small town in South Africa. The answer is here in Hansard for people to see. Apart from that we know how many people are employed within the reserves. In 1965 the answer was given that there were less than 1,500 Natives employed in industry within the Transkei. In the showpiece of apartheid less than 1,500 are employed. In the border industries serving the Ciskei and the Transkei there are less than 5,000. Now the hon. the Deputy Minister gives us big talk about very soon being able to absorb the natural increase of the Transkei and the Ciskei. Does he know what the annual increase is? I do not think that he knows, because if you ever ask the hon. the Minister for figures on the births of Bantu, he says that no figures are available. I will give him the figure; but then I want him to tell me about direct plans which will show that this number of people will be employed. It is quite clear that in South Africa the birth rate of the Bantu is about 40 per 1,000. In the Transkei and the Ciskei there are 1½ million people. That means they must have jobs for 60,000 per year. What we have in fact got over 18 years in the reserves, is less than 1,500 and in the border areas serving the Ciskei and the Transkei less than 5,000. We need, to fulfil the big talk that the hon. the Deputy Minister has given to this House today to the accompaniment of cheers from his side, 60,000 jobs per year to absorb that natural increase. [Interjections.] You see, Mr. Chairman, we get this lovely talk and if hon. members will apply that figure of the birth rate of 40 per 1,000 to the 8 million Natives who are outside our reserves in the so-called white areas, they will realize that in the course of time when these people reach 21 or thereabouts, we will need 320,000 jobs annually, or very nearly that for those people because almost all the males and most of the females must be and are in fact employed in our industries.

If all that is true, what are you going to do about it?

Our approach is well known. I should like to go further and say that we want some concrete plan. We want to hear from the hon. the Minister what plans he has to justify this talk. He is relying upon the establishment of certain industries there. He has no idea what industries he is going to get. He cannot even tell us what industries the Government are prepared to establish in those areas. He just does not know. He is prepared to continue lulling the country into a false sense of security on that basis.

In the short time left to me I want to touch on the question of the foreign Bantu. We have had a statement from the hon. member for Heilbron. I want to make a suggestion in regard to the foreign Bantu. Since the hon. member for Heilbron is not here, I hope very much that the hon. the Minister personally will listen to this because I believe that there has been a big change in the attitude of the Government since the first decisions were made that various foreign Bantu had to leave the Western Cape. For one thing we have this new trade agreement by which there will be 30,000 Malawians coming here. This shows the general approach. As the hon. member for Heilbron said, this will bring good feeling and “wedersydse vriendskap, etc. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that I believe that there will be a serious discrimination against the Western Cape if the statement of the hon. member for Heilbron is going to be carried out. It comes about like this. He says that they cannot come in here because the policy is to remove Natives from the Western Cape. I accept that that is Government policy. In regard to people who are told that they must get rid of foreign Bantu, that foreign Bantu must lose their jobs, they are told that they can get Republican Bantu at the Bantu labour bureau. There is no question of unemployment being suggested here. No factor of unemployment was involved. It was a purely ideological consideration that they I should not be allowed in the Western Cape. If a foreign Bantu has been here for 25 to 30 years and he suddenly has to leave, the person who will come in his place will not be a Coloured man, because it is already known that there are no Coloured people to fill those positions. This position is proved daily. Consequently the foreign Bantu may go and the Republican Bantu will come in and there will be no nett removal of Bantu from the Western Cape. As a result there is grave discrimination against the Western Cape, there is grave discrimination against the Bantu concerned who suffers great hardship in many cases, who may have been in employment here and know no other home or employment, only suddenly to be shot away. Also there is often hardship for the employer as well. The hon. the Minister mentioned that there are certain cases of hardship. I believe that this whole situation and the administrative attitude in regard to these people should be reviewed in the light of the new policy that has been indicated, namely that Malawians and others must come here and that will help mutual friendship. I do suggest that this is a point which merits consideration in the light of fair treatment to the Western Cape and, as I say, fair treatment also to the employers and employees concerned.

Mr. Chairman, in a moment I shall come back to the hon. member who has just spoken. I just want to ask the hon. member for Houghton a question. Has she ever in her life made an attempt to speak to the upper echelon in the Chamber of Mines on the question of the family life of their Bantu?

This affects migratory labour in any form, mine labour or any other labour. The Chamber of Mines wanted to change their policy … [Interjections.]

In other words, the hon. member says that the Chamber of Mines now wants to import those Bantu together with their families? Is that so? Very well, then. Let it then go on record that the hon. member for Houghton said that the Chamber of Mines and Anglo-American wanted the families of all those Bantu who are at present employed by the mines, to go there as well.

I did not say “all”.

Let it go on record. One thing the hon. member should really learn. That is that the art in this House is not only to talk, but sometimes also to listen in silence. It seems to me as though she is simply not always able to listen.

Did you ask me a question?

Yes. But it has now gone on record. We shall have to go into the matter somewhat further to see whether that is in fact the case and whether the hon. member has interpreted Anglo-American correctly. If she has interpreted them correctly, she has managed more with Anglo-American than any member of the United Party. This question has been put to the opposite side hundreds of times by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration. The Opposition was asked whether they were in favour of the family life of the Bantu working in the mines being controlled in such a way that their families could also live there. Not one member of the United Party was ever able to reply to that, but today the hon. member for Houghton says that it is the official policy of Anglo-American.

No, I said that they wanted to start an experiment.

Yes, now she is repeating it.

There I leave the hon. member. I now want to come to the hon. member for Pinelands. It seems that he is violently opposed to the Government’s policy that the Bantu should be cleared out of the Western Cape and that they should be replaced by Coloureds. He spoke on behalf of his party, and now I want to ask him: Does he approve that the Coloureds should be further crowded by Bantu labour and that a field of labour should not be secured for them anywhere?

I did not deal with that aspect at all.

That was the entire spirit of your attack. You attacked the Government. You attacked the Deputy Minister because he wanted to clear the Western Cape. [Interjections.]

Order! This debate cannot continue in the form of a dialogue. Let every member make his own speech.

I think that is the right pattern, Sir. [Interjections.] The hon. member also queries the fact that the Cape City Council wishes to replace Bantu labour by Coloured labour. This is not new to me. although the Minister thinks that it is new. For the past 25 years it has virtually been the official policy of the Cape City Council to employ Coloureds as far as possible. As long ago as 1937 they objected to the large-scale importation of Bantu from the Transkei to come and usurp the place of the Coloureds here.

I want to come back briefly to the stage at which we can at present compare one policy with another. This is with reference to what the hon. the Prime Minister said earlier today and to what the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration said last year on 6th October, at a meeting, and also with reference to what the hon. member for Heilbron said to-day, when he outlined to us what had flowed from the good relations between South Africa, Malawi and other territories. The Prime Minister said that the entire matter was unfolding in such a way that the day would come when virtually the whole of Africa would act in that way. It is very pleasant that after all these years of struggle and opposition we now find that the Bantu of Africa and more particularly of Southern Africa have at last succeeded, in spite of all the false propaganda of the past, in forming a proper conception of neighbourliness. Now we have one of the positive steps which flows from good and sound neighbourliness. I want to pay tribute to the Minister for the attitude he adopted in the first speech he made when he became Minister. Furthermore, I want to congratulate him because as a result of this policy which he has pursued so consistently he has succeeded in reaching the stage we have seen this afternoon and in inspiring in the Transkei an absolute sense of responsibility in the Bantu. The Minister, in the way he handles the policy, and the Department of Bantu Administration, have succeeded in the minimum space of time in cultivating a sense of responsibility in the Bantu in South Africa. That is why we get these results at present. That is why we find at present that the relations between Bantu and White in South Africa is improving every day. That is why we find that the Government steps are welcomed one after the other by the Bantu of South Africa. This we have to contrast with what was presented to them by the Leader of the Opposition and his party. What did he want to give them? He did not want to cultivate self-respect or a sense of responsibility in them. He wanted to give them an ever-lasting sense of subservience and of inferiority by giving them eight members of Parliament in this House. Then he expects them to be satisfied with that. Those are the contrasts. That is the difference of concept, and the ultimate object we set for the Bantu. The Bantu must ultimately realize himself in the form of absolute self-respect. There must be no sense of inferiority or subservience in him. The Opposition’s attitude is that they should have an ever-lasting sense of inferiority. They must be satisfied with eight members in this House. Is there a more acute form of fostering a sense of inferiority than that? Is there something which can cause the development of a greater grudge against the Whites in South Africa than that kind of attitude? No, Sir. That is why we are making this rapid progress at present. That is why we find that we can make one announcement after another today. Now the Opposition is asking continually: Tell us what your plans are. Give us figures. But of what use is it to give figures? How many times have the Ministers and the Deputy Ministers given all the particulars showing the potential development? The hon. member who spoke just before me tried to ridicule the small number supposedly employed in industry in the Transkei area. But the hon. member is forgetting about the large number who worked and who are still working in the infrastructure in the Transkei. He does not mention that. The secondary development is absolutely impossible without the development, the investment and the manpower which we found in the Transkei in connection with the infra-structure. But the hon. member does not say a word about that. He simply keeps that a secret. He does not mention that. That infrastructure is still far from total and absolute development. It must still proceed from one stage to the next. Just as in South Africa, which already has a high degree of development, we shall find everlasting development also in connection with the infra-structure of the Transkei. It will not only be in connection with the secondary industries. It is a more permanent and perhaps a much more reliable source of development and sound economic growth than the urban industrial development. But the hon. member refuses to see that. The Opposition just wants us to give them certain pictures which they can misuse. [Time expired.]

I would like to reply immediately to the question put to me by the hon. member for Krugersdorp. As far as the migratory labour system on the mines is concerned, I think it is a rotten system, but there is just this to be said for the mine system, that more than half the labourers employed on the gold-mines are people who come from other countries beyond our borders. [Interjection.] Just let me answer you. It is obviously impossible for the 52 per cent of the mines’ labour force which comes from outside our borders to be allowed to come in with their families. That is accepted, although I do not like the system any better for that. Anglo-American wanted to start an experiment when the Free State Mines were opened. They wanted to increase the number of stabilized family units on their mines, and the late Prime Minister stopped it. He was then the Minister of Bantu Administration and he refused to grant permission. [Interjection.] I am not arguing the merits. The hon. member asked me what I felt about it and I am telling him what I feel about it. He asked me for the facts of the mine labour system, and I am giving him those facts. Where Anglo-American wished to start an experiment to see how it could increase the stabilized labour force on the mines, it was refused by the Government, and not by the Chamber of Mines. The other thing that the hon. member must remember is that this question of stabilizing labour on the mines is closely interwoven with the whole question of the reclassification of jobs on the mines. As long as you have to keep the vast labour force on the mines at the level of the unskilled worker earning the lowest possible wages, it is really impossible for them to bring their families there. To stabilize them you have to allow them to do the higher skilled jobs, and if this experiment which was started a year or two ago had continued the situation of at least decreasing the number of migrant workers on the mines and increasing the stabilized family units could have been continued. That is all I wish to say on that issue, but let us get the record straight.

Let me come back to this whole question of migratory labour. The report of the Minister’s Department reads on page 6—

Last year I had occasion to congratulate the Department on this discovery, that these people are now regarded as human beings. I am glad to see from this report that they are still regarded first and foremost as human beings with all their own interests and potentialities. Now, if that is so, I wonder how this policy of the building of these bachelor bungalows, which is a direct result of the hon. the Deputy Minister’s crusade to reduce family labour and to endorse back all the women who no longer fall under the fairly flexible provisions of the old Urban Areas Act, in any way correlates with this statement here? What possible connection is there between human life and the way human beings normally live and the way these bachelors have to live, housed in these miserable dormitories, 40 to a room, under unhygienic conditions and bad sociological conditions, leading to all sorts of evil practices like homosexuality and illicit unions with women in the towns, leading to a vast increase in their illegitimate birth-rate … [Interjection.] This is one of the great sociological problems which this Government is deliberately promoting, and it. would require a child to see what trouble we are laying in store for ourselves.

This happens all over the world.

Lack of parental supervision does not happen all over the world. Nowhere is this emphasis placed on the migratory labour system, not even in countries like Italy, where a minute quantity of labour comes in as migratory labour. I say this is a dangerous and sinister thing that is happening in this country and I am borne out by no less an authority than the Dutch Reformed Church, which at the end of 1965 published the result of a commission of inquiry which had gone into the whole of the migratory labour system, and which summed up what were supposed to be the advantages of that system as well as the disadvantages, and it ended up with the following very significant paragraph of which both the Minister and the Deputy Minister, as well as members of this House, should take note. It said this—

Then it went on to say—

What are you reading from?

I am reading from the report of the Commission of Inquiry.

That is not the report. I know what is in that report.

This is a report on the findings of the commission.

So it is a report on a report.

It is not a verbatim report, but it is a report on the findings of the commission. This comes from the Christian Minister, a magazine serving the Christian ministry of South Africa. Is the hon. the Minister trying to tell me that this is incorrect?

Yes. Do you know what the final decision was? You know nothing about the D.R. Church and you should stick to what you know about.

Will the Minister kindly produce any statement which runs counter to what I have read out? I do not purport to know anything about the D.R. Church, but I can read English, and I can read a report which purports to be the report of this commission of inquiry. I would like the Minister to tell me whether I am incorrect in interpreting that commission’s report, when the actual words I have read out appeared in this report? Do the words to the effect that the church must only point out the moral implications and the alarming effects of the system, etc., not appear in the original report, or is this not a correct interpretation of that report? And if the Minister tries to justify the migratory labour system, will he say so? [Interjection.] The Minister says he does, but can he point out one economist or sociologist of standing in South Africa or elsewhere who can justify this disgusting system that deliberately breaks up family life in this country? Can the Minister justify that? I doubt it, and I do not think the Deputy Minister enjoyed the idea of being the father of an extended system of the migratory labour system.

I think you are the most vicious and mischievous person, and this is a vicious misrepresentation.

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister must withdraw those words.

I withdraw.

I am not interested in the Minister’s personal opinion of me, and I am not going to exchange slanging remarks with him. There are two schools of thought about my character and I am really not very interested at all in the Deputy Minister’s opinion of me personally. I could say a lot of things about him, but I would not dream of telling him what I really think about him. Let him answer the arguments I put up and let him leave personalities aside. Let him not worry about my looks or my character or anything else, but just let him answer me on merit for a change. It will make a very pleasant change indeed. As I say, it seems to me that the whole trend of the policy as far as labour is concerned is to place more and more emphasis on the migratory labour system. I agree with what the hon. member for Pine-lands said here earlier this afternoon.

But the figures are all wrong.

Whatever the Government does about border industry, it is never going to be able to replace the existing industrial complexes in South Africa. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Houghton is the last person who should come and complain here as she did to-day. We remember the days when she and people like her made a fuss when we wanted to create decent conditions for the Bantu on the Witwatersrand. We remember the days of the bus difficulties in Johannesburg when they took their cars and picked up the Bantu in order to break the will of this Government. We remember the days when she and kindred spirits opposed, both inside and outside this House, every measure which we wanted to take here for creating better conditions for the Bantu of South Africa. There is not a single Act affecting the Bantu on the Statute Book which she did not oppose.

Because they are all rotten.

The hon. member for Houghton is the last person who should open her mouth in this House in regard to matters of this nature. She has ulterior motives, and what she says in this House she does not say because she believes in what she says, but she says those things for consumption abroad. If the motives of the hon. member about keeping families together are so sincere, she should take cognizance of our policy, and our policy is to bring families together to an increasing extent, but not within reach of her and her people who want to exploit them. We want to bring Bantu families together in their own homelands where they can live together and where the husband can be employed in the border industries. That is the policy of this Government and the hon. member should take cognizance of it. We shall see in the future when this policy will be implemented to an ever increasing extent, whether the hon. member will get up here with laments about the living conditions of these people and their family ties. I say the hon. member ought to be ashamed of herself. She has never said anything in this House which has not been intended for outside consumption. We are sick and tired of her. What is more, I think it is infra dig to have to get up in this House to reply to the hon. member, because whom, after all, does she represent? She does not represent any party. What is more, she does not represent the Bantu in South Africa. Today her kindred spirits are no longer in this country; they have fled and they are no longer within her reach. Those of them who have not fled have had the fright of their lives, and I take it that there is no greater frustration than the frustration of this hon. member, because she knows that she is speaking for fewer and fewer people in this country.

Why do you not answer the facts that I put forward?

Mr. Chairman, I now want to come to something more positive than trifling with the hon. member for Houghton. I want to turn to the hon. the Minister, and what I now want to say to the hon. the Minister I want to relate to what the hon. member and previous speakers said. During the past 19 years, since we have come into power, we have been working hard at building a structure which is at present the pride of this country, a structure which is being accepted by more and more people, and here I immediately reject what the hon. member for Transkei said when he alleged that there was growing concern in South Africa about the implementation of our policy. He alleged that certain economists were showing more and more concern about the implementation of our policy and the viability of the Bantu homelands. Sir, only a fool and a man who does not travel about in the country will say such things. The fact of the matter is that South Africa has undergone virtually a structural change, virtually a spiritual change, during the past number of years. If one wants to know what the position in South Africa is, one has to travel about in the country to see what peace and what order has been created, what conditions have been created within and around our urban areas. Apart from seeing these things, we know that there is no greater peace amongst the various Bantu races in Africa than that in South Africa, and that is the pride of South Africa but I shall shortly come back to this matter. Mr. Chairman, the Department of the hon. the Minister has been engaged for the past number of years, since 1961, in implementing a purposeful plan, the so-called five-year plan. We know that the object of this five-year plan is to implement a physical plan so as to lay certain foundations within the homelands upon which it will be possible to go on building this structure. On a previous occasion in this House the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development, like his predecessor, gave an indication of the progress which had been made. The hon. the Minister also gave us an indication in speeches made by him during the past number of months that he was engaged in activating the authorities in the Bantu homelands. We know that that is a big operation. In the Other Place the hon. the Minister indicated 14 directions in respect of which we shall have to think along broader lines and which he is trying to co-ordinate. The question I want to put to the hon. the Minister is this: Is it his intention to co-ordinate and to include in a next five-year plan or in a plan for the future those things of which he gave us indications in his speech in the Other Place as well as those things which we have to deduce from speeches made by him in the past number of months? I shall tell you, Mr. Chairman, why I ask this. I ask this question because the entire plan of future development is so comprehensive and so big that we on our part should like to see to what extent the various stages of this development can be embodied in one ambitious plan. If the hon. the Minister is willing to do so I shall be very glad if he will try to take this matter a step further to-day than he did in the Other Place. This is important because I think that the miracle of separate development in South Africa is to be found in the very fact, in spite of what hon. members opposite said here to-day, that we have made a break-through to all sides to which we had to make a break-through in order to achieve success. In order to achieve success in the implementation of this policy one must, in the first place convince the Whites of South Africa that one’s policy is the right one, and they must have faith in that policy. At present we are getting an ever-increasing degree of co-operation from the Whites in South Africa. The hon. the Deputy Minister indicated a short while ago that even the industrialists of Cape Town and the Cape Town Municipality were prepared to accept our policy to a large extent, and what is happening in Cape Town is also happening in Johannesburg and elsewhere. One of the major break-throughs we have made is the break-throughs we have made to the dealer and the industrialist in South Africa to have faith in the policy; they are prepared now to co-operate in implementing the policy. But apart from the fact that it has been an important break-through to have succeeded in getting the very people who were not prepared to accept our policy in the past to do so now, another important break-through we have made is to be found in the fact that the industrialists are more prepared to accept our policy. The fact that the entire South African nation is moving in the direction of implementing the policy also has another effect. It has the effect that surrounding territories, as is proved by their goodwill and co-operation,and also the outside world have more and more confidence that the Government’s policy may possibly succeed in South Africa. If we can succeed in bringing the outside world to give us an outside chance—in the past it gave us no chance—that will be the opportunity for the entire South Africa to promote this matter by co-operating as one in an attempt to implement the policy. Therefore it is important that the hon. the Minister, in view of these very things, should take us a step further to-day as regards the co-ordination of these plans which have been revealed little by little from time to time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to make another remark, and I want to do so in respect of the hon. members who spoke a little earlier, in regard to the goodwill and this break-through which has been made to the Bantu. The willingness to co-operate and to implement our policy is the result of the important fact that the white man and the black man has now accepted the consequences of apartheid. That is important. They have accepted the consequences of apartheid. There are basic facts which have to be accepted if one wants to accept apartheid in the broad sense. The one important consequence of apartheid is protection for every national group. This does not only concern protection if the white man lives in white South Africa and the black man in his homeland. Also if the black man stays in the white area there is protection for him. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just sat down mentioned here the question of the peaceful nature of the country. Indeed I agree with him, but he must remember that we are dealing with a very peaceful Bantu population in this country. Where else will we find a nation who, as the hon. the Deputy Minister said, has since 1835 laid down an oath of loyalty to the government every year—irrespective of what government it is. Of course we can expect peace from them.

The hon. member also spoke about development. Development has been there but that side are putting across to the people facts and figures which are completely and absolutely untrue. I want to come back to the hon. the Deputy Minister who spoke first this afternoon. He said, first of all to the F.C.I. here in Cape Town in referring to the 5 per cent decrease in Bantu labour and the possibility of unemployment in the Ciskei and the Transkei, “I want to give the assurance that no such thing will happen. We have great plans”. Indeed they have great plans, but with plans or with no plans, and whatever the assurance is, the fact of the matter is that to-day, indeed for the past weeks, months and years, in the Ciskei and the Transkei, without any 5 per cent reduction, without the effective use of labour in the white areas, without automation, we have had unemployment in those areas. Now the Deputy Minister tries to justify his assurance by discussing the growth of the Xhosa population in that area. He gets somewhere with his figures, but all of a sudden, very conveniently, may I say, he forgets the question of the Transkei. He deals only with the growth in the Ciskei. He made the following statement—

What is wrong with that?

What are the facts? I will give a few now. We had the report of the Permanent Committee for the Establishment of Industries and the Development of Border Areas, and we see in that report—I presume that those figures are correct—that through new industries, as well as the expansion of industries, with and without assistance, over the whole of South Africa, in all the Bantu areas and all the border areas, last year —in 1966—they provided 3,600 employment opportunities for Bantu.

Directly in factories?

Directly in industry. Your statement here refers to industry. You said that there were 2,000 in industry in the Ciskei.

Where did I say that?

You said that at East London at 3.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 10th May, 1967.

I will show you that speech.

We all know that the Ciskei border area is the one that is lagging. I have given these figures in this House before, but I want to repeat them in view of the circumstances. Over the last four years in East London and in King William’s Town, in that specific area, there were 11 industries established which gave employment to 740 Bantu only.

When was that?

That was over the last four years—1963 to 1966.

700 Bantu only?

740 Bantu.

That is absolute nonsense.

That is the estimate. In industry I am talking about. I am sure that the hon. the Deputy Minister is speaking in terms of the labour turnover. We all know that the labour turnover is over 100 per cent, but we are discussing here work opportunities.

Where do you get those figures from?

I ask again: What happened to the 1½ million Bantu of the Transkei? We are the major industrial border area for both the Transkei and the Ciskei. The Deputy Minister should know that. He knows that one of the problems with Mdantsane is the question of the adjustment of the Ciskei and the Transkei Bantu.

Let us forget the border industrial aspect and come back to the industries and the commercial development inside the territory. I say here that the Government has lagged hopelessly behind what they should have done. They have established the Bantu Investment Corporation, the Xhosa Development Corporation, and what have we got? Since 1959— the time when the Bantu Corporation was established—584 loans totalling R2,395,000 were made to Bantu for all businesses. And there are 4 million people within Bantu territories. That figure does not apply to just the Ciskei or the Transkei but to all the Bantu areas. Now, the Xhosa are very nearly half of all the Bantu peoples who are in reserves. We must also remember that they are the only self-governing state. They had but 134 loans amounting to R522,000—that is what was given to them by the Bantu Investment Corporation. This figure includes the amounts that have been given to the Bantu for the takeover of European trading stations. Is that development?

We all know that the European trader has been there for years and years with his business skill, with his capital. He has given those Bantu people in the reserves more than they will ever get from anybody else. And now their jobs are being taken over by the Bantu themselves. They do not have nearly the skill of the Europeans, and they will not have it for a long time. Therefore what we have there is in fact retrogression and not development.

Investment by the Bantu Investment Corporation in new industries until the end of 1966, in all the Bantu homelands in this country, amounted to R1,289,741. Employed in industry within these homelands there were 381 Bantu. The B.I.C. is still, as we see in the report, operating at a loss, and quite a substantial loss. The loss has increased every year, and substantially over the last three years. The Minister says that our businessmen must now channel their money into the Transkei and the Ciskei, or whatever they will, through the B.I.C. The B.I.C. has been there for nine years, and for nine years this has been possible. How much money has been channelled from businessmen—unless it is the one rand which I see is the difference between the figures given in the balance sheet and the trading account!

The hon. member for Krugersdorp made a big fuss here and asked: “What about the infrastructure?” I want to give him the figure, and he can listen now. In 1965 in the Transkei the number of Bantu employed within the territory totalled 33,000, and of that 33,000 10,700 were females. That is in an area which has a population of over 1½million people.

The position has developed, as the hon. member for Transkei has said here this afternoon, that white capital will and must come to the Transkei. Indeed even the hon. the Deputy Minister has recognized that. Let me just quote again what he himself said. He was talking about this new Bill which I will not discuss now:

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for King William’s Town is upbraiding the wrong people and is upbraiding the wrong party. The hon. member for King William’s Town should upbraid his own party. He should quarrel with those people, because we have the strange phenomenon that the hon. member started his speech by referring to the unemployment existing in the areas represented by him. Now I want to ask the hon. member whether he will give his support to his party, whether he will give his support to the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education when border industrial development is encouraged or border industries are established in that area? Will the hon. member give his support in that case? He has to tell us now. Does the hon. member for East London (North) want border industries in his area or does he not want border industries there? What is the policy of his party? Does his party want border industries or does his party not want border industries? Those hon. members should not pick a quarrel with us.

They should pick a quarrel with their party’s leadership which would like to make the task of the National Party and this Government impossible when we want to establish border industries for the exclusive purpose of locating Bantu-intensive industries closer to the areas where the Bantu can work and render their services, a matter which has been dealt with in this House time and again. Now we are faced with the interesting position that members opposite want industries which would, from the nature of the case, be border industries. Now I can only ask them, in the light of the circumstances in which they find themselves, whether they will give the necessary support and assistance to this Government to establish border industries in those areas. As a result of the attitude revealed by the United Party through its speakers—the hon. member for Transkei, to be specific—the United Party stands accused in the eyes of the South African nation as the obstruction which stands in the way of the only attempt which is being made to effect a proper and sound numerical ratio between White and non-White in white man’s land. Those hon. members must accept responsibility for that. I know that the time will arrive, as happened in regard to all other constitutional developments on the long road we have covered in South Africa, when those hon. members will get up and tell the world and the electorate in South Africa that they actually were the father of that idea and that policy. We know that will happen.

To-day they are revealing an attitude from which it will not be possible for them to escape. This is the direction in which we are all devoting all our energies in order to find ways and means and to make attempts to rectify and improve the numerical ratio in white man’s land, in the white man’s part of South Africa. The numerical ratio is not the only thing which is involved, but also the creation and the promotion of a sound and mutual relationship between White and non-White. It is in this regard that the United Party objects and acts as an obstruction every time the opportunity presents itself to stand in the way of this extremely important development, not only for the white man, but also for the Bantu in South Africa. I say that the United Party must accept the responsibility for this attitude which it reveals. Today I want to appeal to every citizen of the country for whom it is a matter of seriousness to achieve the correct numerical ratio, to be prepared to make a contribution and to render assistance even if that would require of them to sacrifice a little comfort. There is no doubt about this. There is only one policy which can be followed and I think all policies have been tested in South Africa. There is only this one policy which is going to succeed as far as White and non-White in South Africa are concerned and which will be successful in ensuring that the white man too may be assured that there will be a safe home for him in the future in white South Africa, and that is the policy of separate development with all the implications and all the results it may have. Other countries in the world which have more than one race group living in the same country, will follow South Africa’s example in regard to this policy.

I am on my feet to discuss also another matter which links up with this question of the numerical ratio between white and non-white in South Africa. On 4th April this year the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development gave a brilliant exposition of the way in which things were being developed in the Bantu homelands, and for that matter in any other country, namely by means of the establishment of an infrastructure which is such an essential thing and which has to be undertaken by the authorities. The hon. the Minister gave a very explicit and very clear picture to this House and to the country of the development of the agricultural industry, of the exploitation of mineral resources and of industrial development in that area. I think the way in which he did so and the way in which he is actively implementing that policy is a feather in his cap. I want to plead for the acceleration of the social points of growth within the Bantu homelands and the Bantu areas. As far as those points of growth are concerned, I want to mention, in the first place, the payment of pensions. I notice from the Estimates that an amount of R12,676,000 is provided for pensions. I want to ask that those pensions should to an ever-increasing extent and as soon as possible be paid within the Bantu homelands, if possible, to the full extent. I ask for all social services which are provided, and here I have in mind the treatment and the nursing of the chronically ill, to be provided within those areas. We know that there will always have to be hospitalization and hospital services for the employed and productive Bantu within the white area. We know that that is so, but there are chronically ill people who can be treated inside their own areas. I want to plead for unproductive elderly Bantu to be accommodated and placed in the Bantu areas as soon as possible. You will be surprised, Sir, to see how much laziness the payment of those pensions in the white area of South Africa promote amongst young Bantu who live on the pensions of their grandmothers or grandfathers until there is no money left. When there is no money left those elderly people simply have to see how they can make ends meet. The treatment of tuberculosis may just as well take place in the Bantu homelands as in the white area. In connection with child welfare we know that Bantu youth camps have been established in Bantu areas and that the children are committed to such camps. We are grateful about that, but I want to plead that we should give attention to the creation and the acceleration of these social points of growth within the Bantu homelands so as to assist in accommodating in them the non-productive Bantu who is no longer rendering services in South Africa. It is true that we do have Whites, for example officials, who work in the Bantu homelands at present. When they have completed their work they do not retire there; they come back to the white area. They retire here and they enjoy such privileges within their own white area. We only want to ask that that should also apply in the case of the redundant Bantu in the Republic of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to react to what the hon. member for King William’s Town said this afternoon, namely that there was quite a lot of unemployment in the Transkei. The hon. member for King William’s Town knows the Transkei well, but I think I know it equally well. I want to place it on record here to-day that the economic climate in the Transkei at present is better than it has ever been at any stage in the history of the Transkei. Not only the Whites, but also the non-Whites in the Transkei are prospering in the economic field. That has been my personal experience. I have been there and I have discussed the matter with Whites as well as non-Whites. In spite of the fact that the implementation of our policy is still in its initial stages, great success has been achieved in the economic field. It is not even possible to make a comparison between this and the position in the past. We are grateful for this success.

The hon. member for King William’s Town also said that Bantu were being assisted by the Bantu Development Corporation to buy out white traders. Will the hon. member agree with me that before that policy came into operation there were many of those people who could not sell their trading stations? There was no market for those trading stations. There were many widows. In addition there were people who were economically dependent on those trading stations. They could not sell them. To-day they do have a market for them. The white trader in the Transkei has a better market than the white trader in white South Africa.

Why did they not have a market? Who killed the market?

The hon. member for Transkei is the one who killed that market by means of the wrong impressions created there by him right from the early days. To a certain extent the hon. member for Transkei was responsible for the earlier economic chaos which set in in the Transkei. At present peace and quiet prevail. We are satisfied and everyone there is satisfied in spite of his daily agitations with which he persists.

It seems to me you no longer travel about in the Transkei.

I still travel about a great deal in the Transkei. The hon. member also spoke of white capital which had to come and would come to develop those areas. That is not our policy. It is not our policy to establish white settlements in those areas with outside capital.

What is your policy?

Our policy is to develop the Transkei and the other homelands through agents. That is our policy but we will not allow the black man of the Transkei to be exploited as that hon. member wants. We will not allow that. That is not our policy. [Interjections.]

Give us an example.

An example of what? [Interjections.]

Order! Will hon. members please stop making these interjections.

To-day I should like to convey a word of thanks to the hon. the Minister and to his Deputy Ministers for the contributions made by them to the development of our Bantu homelands. The hon. member for Transkei may laugh now. Earlier today he asked why we did not do so long ago, why were we, for example, struggling at present to rehabilitate the Transkei in the agricultural sphere. Why was that not started by the United Party? [Interjections.]

Order! I warn hon. members that things have now gone far enough. I want no more interjections. This House is in Committee of Supply and everyone has the chance to get up and reply. The hon. member may proceed.

The National Party— our Ministers, to be specific—continued with the implementation of the rehabilitation schemes in those areas in spite of various agitations against their policy. Surely it is obvious that matters first have to be rectified in the agricultural sphere before anything else can be done. We know for example that the inhabitants of the Transkei were quite antagonistic towards this policy. We know for example that wires were cut on a large scale. At present the inhabitants of the Transkei are co-operating. They are co-operating to such an extent that it really is a joy to pay a visit to the rehabilitated agricultural areas to see the living fields of red grass in the valleys and against the mountains of the Transkei where there only were dongas and ruined grazing land before. That is indeed something of which our Ministers may be proud. We are very grateful for that. To-day the scene in the Transkei is a joy for the traveller to behold. When I got to know the Transkei 20 years ago, the landscape was barren. There was nothing. If the policy of that time had been implemented all along half the population of the Transkei would not have been able to live there to-day. We believe that as the result of the policy which is being implemented at present the Transkei will be able to carry much more live-stock within a few years’ time than it does now. We believe that that will assist in contributing to the welfare of the Bantu who loves his animals and who would like to stay there to look after them.

There is another matter which I should like to raise. It concerns the clearance of the black spots as well as the purchase of quota land. Many people are criticizing us. They think our progress is too slow. I believe that more rapid progress can unfortunately not be made. The simple reason is that if we were to proceed more rapidly in this regard, it would promote inflation. In the second place there is a transition period during which land is purchased for the Bantu. Such land is purchased from Whites. It is withdrawn from the white area and included in the Bantu area on an economic basis. But the Bantu cannot, for example, utilize such land immediately. If it is poor land it first has to be rehabilitated. On the other hand the black man has to be trained. His training has to be such that he will be able to utilize that land properly. This is a very important matter and the Bantu has a great deal to learn in this connection. The Department of Bantu Administration still has an enormous task for the future to train these people to make their contribution in the sphere of agriculture. It is a very important task. People absorb these things with difficulty. For example, it took white civilization 2,000 years to reach its present level. We cannot expect of those people to reach and maintain the same level as the Whites within 50 years.

As regards the production of grain, I want to mention in passing that white farmers along the borders of the Transkei, in the district of Elliot, have progressed to the stage where they harvest 78 bags of mealies per morgen. The soil is the same as that in the Transkei. If it will be possible to reach the same stage of development in the Transkei, I foresee a prosperous black community in the eastern part of the Cape Province.

The hon. member who has just sat down was obviously in difficulties. He rambled and he was uncertain of himself and he had a difficult task because he was trying to prove something which he knew in his heart was quite incorrect. I will make documents available to the hon. member if he lacks proof. Just let him tell the House who it was who started the Zwelitza undertaking. He is trying to show now what this Government is trying to do in the interests of the Bantu, but who originated it? Sir, he is taking our heifers to plough his fields with. Let him go back to the famous document which was issued by the ex-Minister of Bantu Administration, Mr. De Wet Nel, where the greatest exception was taken to the voting of money to buy good breeding stock for the Bantu in the Transkei. He took the strongest exception to it, and it appeared in the form of a document signed by Mr. De Wet Nel, in which he complained bitterly also about the money being paid for pensions to Bantu in the Transkei. To-day the Government plucks the fruit from the tree planted by the United Party in those days and they say: Look at the wonderful job we are doing now to develop the Bantu economy and to build up the self-respect of the Bantu. But what have they done? They have simply taken the fruit off the tree planted by the United Party. I will give the hon. member the opportunity to read this document. But I want to come to an issue which I raised under the Prime Minister’s Vote, and I hope the Minister will give me his attention for a moment. When I discussed the matter then, on a couple of occasions the Minister interjected. I was dealing with the Dunn family in Zululand and the land which was surveyed to be allotted to them as farms, and what has taken place since then. It is over 30 years ago now that the diagrams were prepared, but the title deeds have never been issued. I repeat that I was the man who stood good and I gave my own personal guarantee for the honour and the integrity of the then Secretary for Coloured Affairs and the Secretary for Native Affairs, that their word could be relied upon by the deputation which came down here to interview the Minister, led by one of the Dunns. They were the representatives of the Government and they gave certain assurances at the time, and that is now nearly seven years ago, but those assurances have not been carried out in a single particular. When I was speaking and asked when these people would get their farms, the hon. Minister twice interjected and said that they would get them. Now I raise the matter here pertinently on the Minister’s Vote so that he can tell us precisely what the Government’s policy is in respect of these people who have been waiting all these long years to receive those farms which they were given by Parliament. It was the intention of Parliament that they should get the farms, but the difficulty which arose was that there were Bantu squatters on those farms and the squatters had to be got rid of in terms of the legislation passed by this Government. The Government decided that other land had to be made available for those squatters, and that was done, and this House passed the necessary resolutions in respect of that other land that was to be made available for them, and the land was provided, and at the critical moment when the squatters had to go to this other land, which had already been ploughed and fenced for them, they refused to go, and the Government sat back and said there was nothing more that they could do about it. And there the matter has rested over the years? In view of the fact that the Minister earlier this session told me that those Coloured people would get their farms and the squatters would have to move, I hope he will take this opportunity to tell us more about it. I hope he will give us the assurance that I gave on behalf of the Government when I gave my personal word of honour on behalf of the two officials concerned in the matter.

You have had enough time to carry out your promises.

What has the time got to do with it? But seeing that the Deputy Minister is so vocal, let him tell us about this statement he made about the rigid position in which all work-seekers in South Africa were to be. There have been several reports in different newspapers and some of them have varied in important particulars, but I have in my hand here one which has in inverted commas the word “call-up”. The heading says “Call-up plan for African labour”. When I read that report I did not see in what the Minister was alleged to have said anything about a call-up, and so I address the hon. the Deputy Minister in a perfectly fair manner and ask him whether he will tell us what is in the mind of the Government in regard to this statement he has made that all work-seekers in all the Bantu areas, including the homelands, are to register as work-seekers, even though work may not immediately be available for them? What is the plan behind it? What is the organization which will be established throughout the Republic for the purpose of the registration of these Bantu, and how are they to be handled thereafter? Are the Bantu to be given an opportunity of seeking employment in the sphere in which they want it, or are they to be drafted? I want to say this as far as the present policy of the Government is concerned, and it affects this question of removing Bantu from the Western Cape, because the Bantu who are going back, particularly to the Transkei—and they are going back to my own part of the country because we have a tremendous number of Pondos living in Natal on our side of the border—what are those people to do? Where do they find employment in a territory which is the complete antithesis of “viable” economically?

The growing population is eating more and more of the topsoil until there is nothing like sufficient soil available for cultivation. There is not nearly sufficient grazing land and the Bantu population continues to grow in those areas. Now comes the Government with its plan to send back numbers of adult males, and they are told to find their own economic opportunities in their own country. Where do they find it? Do we wonder that representations are being made by the Transkei Government pointing out that the only hope for the economic viability of the Transkei is through exporting its labour to the white areas? Are these people not really citizens of South Africa, that they are treated in this manner? Is not one of the first things that a man is entitled to, whether he is white, black or Coloured, that he may, if he can, sell his labour in the best market, and that he should be given the opportunity to sell it where there is a demand for it, so that you do not just take labour and force it in where it is quite unsuitable? We all know on our farms that there are certain types of labour that we can employ with advantage, but we also know that there are certain types of labour which are quite useless to us. But is the labour not allowed to come and offer itself, so that it can be engaged by those who want labour of that particular kind, when there are scores of other people who want labour of a different kind and who will perhaps be only too pleased to have that other labour? But is the labour to be given no opportunity? What is the plan of the Government in regard to this matter, and what is the point at which a Native who is sent back to his homeland can find a lucrative position where he will be adequately paid? What is there in the homelands where a Native can get employment? What opportunities are there for him? Who is making those opportunities? Must the Bantu pull themselves up by their own boot-strings, or are they supposed to work on the basis of the exchange of goats for labour? Is this the year 1967, when we have a highly industrialized economy in South Africa, as we are continually saying, a country where industry is continuing to grow and where we are making more and more use of our Bantu labour?

If we do not want the labour any more, must we just send them back to their own homelands because there is no future for them in the white areas? How long will it be before these law-abiding, respectable people feel that they have to do something about it? They are the most law-abiding and respectable people that anybody could possibly wish to have in their country and I defy anybody to show me any other country in the world which has an indigenous population which is as law-abiding and respectable and so willing to cooperate with the white man as our Bantu people here. That is the fact of the matter, but they are not being treated fairly when they are treated like this. Give them a chance to earn a decent living.

The hon. member for South Coast launched his attack directly at the hon. the Minister and put his questions directly to him, and I believe that he will receive decisive replies to them; for that reason I shall not comment on his speech. From the very outset, when the hon. member for Transkei introduced this debate, it was clear that it would be one attack after the other on the policy of separate development applied by the Government. It was the same old pattern which we have had year after year and to which hundreds of precious hours have been devoted. The never-ending, spiritless and negative attacks made by the Opposition on separate development as a policy, is to me one of the most disappointing phenomena in our South African political arena; when apartheid is discussed, we immediately find ourselves engaged in a debate on the merits of colour and race relations in our fatherland, matters which should actually be decided outside the political arena. It would have yielded better results then. Everybody with a sense of responsibility knows that this has always been a delicate sphere, a sphere with a myriad of thorny problems, and irresponsible statements, especially from that side, can do more h?.an than good. It may have repercussions domestically, in respect of the way it may be interpreted by the non-white races; it may also have repercussions abroad. To my mind it would, therefore, be much better for the Whites as well as the non-Whites if this responsible Opposition were to accept the fact of separate development as the only basis for peaceful co-existence in this multi-racial country. They have already received this good advice from many of their friends, also from the editor of the Sunday Times, Joel Mervis. That will enable them to put forward much more positive proposals in this House so as to facilitate the implementation of this essential policy and to assist in eliminating the causes of friction that are bound to result. The opening speech in this debate—the speech made by the hon. member for Transkei—was really a poor and petty one. It was an attack on the Minister about the position of Coloureds in the Transkei. It was about the implementation of the zoning policy in which provision is being made for certain parts of Umtata to be purchased by Bantu in the course of time, which is in actual fact only a minor aspect of the actual implementation of the policy. One comes to realize the complete lack of positiveness in the Opposition all the more when, year after year, the way separate development has been expanded and implemented successfully in an ever-widening sphere, is becoming more and more obvious. How the Opposition can dissociate itself from that more and more, represents to me an unfathomable lack of comprehension. I am at a loss to understand how an Opposition that consists of experienced politicians, that has both feet firmly planted in South African politics, can still adopt such a provocative, destructive and negative attitude* and persist in it while it becomes more and more obvious that this policy is being recognized in an ever-widening sphere, both domestically and abroad. After all, the Opposition knows and has to admit that separate development has reached the stage where it has become much more than the policy of a single group or of the National Party. It has outgrown that stage and it has acquired the status of being the indisputable policy of the Republic of South Africa. As such it has been accepted by the electorate of South Africa. Conclusive proof has been furnished at every election since 1948, and the three by-elections that were held recently confirmed this once again. Abroad, on the international level, the policy of separate development is being accepted as the general policy of the Republic of South Africa. Irrespective of the hostile attitude states and bodies may adopt, they are all in complete agreement that this is the official policy of South Africa, not necessarily that of the National Party or of a section or a group of the Whites in South Africa. The fact of the matter is that this official policy of South Africa is causing the enemies of South Africa considerable perplexity in their attempts at liquidating it.

In the last place—and it is important to emphasize it in a debate like this—the basis of separate development is being accepted to an ever-increasing extent by the vast majority of the ethnic population groups, through the mouth of their acknowledged leaders. It is being accepted as the only basis for peaceful co-existence. It has been confirmed and emphasized time and again by persons such as Chief Minister Matanzima of the Transkei and by the leaders of the Botswana group, and even, to a certain extent, by Cyprian of Zululand. To my mind the most explicit and striking statement made by a Bantu in support of the policy of separate development is the one made by Credo Mutwa, the witch-doctor historian of Zululand. He is the author of the sensational yet illuminating books “Indaba My Children” and “Africa my Witness”, which have a wide reading public both domestically and abroad. I am quoting what he said according to a statement published in Die Transvaler dated 15th September, 1966 (translation)—

He concludes with this statement—

Mr. Chairman, if the Opposition is prejudiced against the positive apartheid statements made by Bantu leaders who support the Government, then they ought to pay serious attention to the objective statements made by Credo Mutwa, who has both feet planted firmly in the national life and culture of the Bantu in Southern Africa. To me his statement has the significance of a confession of faith made by a Bantu thinker and philosopher in respect of apartheid as the soundest basis for the development of the various population groups in a multi-racial country such as South Africa and Africa as a whole. [Time expired.]

The hon. member who has just sat down came out of the upper reaches of Zulu witch-doctoring but started off by attacking my colleague, the hon. member for Transkei. He attacked him because he had dealt with details of the administration of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. I think Government members ought to realize at some stage—at least a front-bencher should—that these debates which are now taking place are in order to deal with that very subject, that is to say, the post of the Minister, the Deputy Ministers and their administration of Bantu Affairs. Yet two-thirds of the speech of the hon. member who has just sat down was a long complaint because we were dealing with detail. Sir, it is our task to deal with the administration of this Department, and I want to start by asking the hon. the Minister whether he agrees and whether it is correct, as stated by the hon. member for Marico, that the Zulus and Cyprian Bekezulu have accepted apartheid. [Interjections.] The hon. member made a clear statement that he had accepted apartheid, and I am asking the Minister to confirm or deny that statement.

Now, Sir, I want to deal for a moment with the split personality of this Department. Last month, April, 1967, the official journal Bantu …

What is that on the back of the page?

This in an acting assistant Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration. It is a little more handsome than some of the Deputy Ministers we have. When you look at the look of deep intelligence on the face …

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Vote.

In the official journal of the Department for April, 1967 …

I am sure that is not the official journal of the Department that you are holding up.

Is Bantu not published by the Department of Bantu Administration and Development?

You are not holding Bantu in your hand.

I am holding a page torn out of Bantu, page 16 of the April, 1967, issue, on the back of which there is the self-portrait to which the Deputy Minister is referring. Sir, on page 16 of the April edition of Bantu, an official Government publication, we have a lyrical piece of writing—

Touching, Sir. This is something that has been said over and over again by members on this side of the House. Then it goes on—

“An unqualified ‘yes’.” Sir, I suggest that that is a complete and total untruth. “The answer is a qualified ‘yes’.” A Bantu may own a piece of land in the Bantu homeland. Here we are told of the urge of a man to plant, to sow, and build on his own piece of soil, and I want to relate this to a statement made in December last year by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education in Durban, when he stated that every Dart of Natal was a border area. He said that the whole of Natal was a border area.

I said most of it.

Sir, I was present at the meeting and I wrote it down; I confirmed it afterwards with the hon. member for Pine-town and I said to him, “Did you hear what that …” I am sorry, Sir, I nearly used an un-parliamentary word. I said to him: “Did you hear what that gentleman said?” We discussed the statement at the time.

I have my speech here; I will give it to you.

Well, then the hon. the Deputy Minister must have misread it because what he stated was that Natal should welcome this policy of the Government’s because the whole of Natal is a border area. I want to know how this relates to the right to own “a piece of land, a house of my own”, all over Natal and how this ties up. Obviously if the whole of Natal is a border area, then the whole of Natal on one side of this imaginary border, which covers the whole of Natal, must be a Bantu area. You cannot have a border area unless it borders on to something, or have you got border areas which do not border on to Bantustans?

Don’t talk nonsense.

Exactly. Every border area borders onto a Bantustan, and in each of these Bantustans the Bantu has the right to own his own home and his own piece of land. The Deputy Minister stated that the whole of Natal was a border area; therefore running throughout Natal there must be Bantustans, and I want to know how this fits in with the attitude of the hon. the Minister and of the Department towards the consolidation of Bantu areas and where this actual Zulustan is going to be which is going to cover the whole of Natal. The hon. the Deputy Minister said that the whole of Natal could benefit from border industries.

You either misunderstood me or you were not listening to what I was saying.

Well, almost the whole of Natal. If the hon. the Deputy Minister says that what he meant to say was “almost the whole of Natal” then I accept that.

That is what I said.

Sir. I will work on the assumption that what the Deputy Minister said was that almost the whole of Natal was a border area. That means that throughout Natal we should be able to have border area development, but Durban, of course, is excluded, I assume.

Durban is not excluded. Durban does not get border area treatment for quite obvious reasons.

Very well, we are not going to have the old argument about which border areas are going to have border area, privileges and which border areas are not border areas. But excluding Durban, I assume that “border areas” mean what normal people would take it to mean, namely areas where industries may develop with the support and backing of the Government, including the concessions which go with it. The whole of Natal, excluding Durban, can apply for these benefits.

Yes, that is right, even Durban can apply.

So the whole of Durban, is a border area?

Not yet.

Now I want to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister what he means by “almost the whole of Natal”? What is the pattern of the Zulustan which is to be created in Natal? What area is then going to be a White homeland; what area is going to be given to the Whites? Is it going to be little pockets of industry surrounded by Bantustan? Yet the hon. member for Aliwal said that you could not have White capital in the Transkei because that would be exploitation, but when it comes to Natal then it is quite all right; then you can have exploitation and the whole of Natal, or almost the whole of Natal, can. have white capital and white entrepreneurs because almost the whole of Natal is a border area. Sir, this makes an utter mockery of the whole concept of Government policy.

Tell us what the Natal Chamber of Industry said about it.

I would not like to be rude towards the hon. the Deputy Minister. Obviously the Natal Chamber of Industry favour, and we all favour, industrial development.

They favour border industries and they said so. They said they had changed their mind about it.

The Deputy Minister is obviously preparing for another apology or looking for another opportunity to have to withdraw statements that he has made like the famous “five percenter”. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, before I deal with the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, allow me to address this remark to the hon. member for Houghton. The hon. member for Houghton thinks that she will succeed in making out of South Africa a market square into which she will allow all black people—not only those in the homelands of the Republic of South Africa itself, but also those who want to come to South Africa from other African states—to enter on a family basis to come and live here in the white cities. She does not want them to come to the Bantu residential areas surrounding the white cities, but, in accordance with her policy, she wants them to live within the white areas themselves. There they are to increase their families, to obtain the right of ownership, and there they are to participate and share in any aspect of the economy and society, wherever they prefer to do so. Permit me, Sir, to tell the hon. member that South Africa will not tolerate that. We will not accept that. I also want to tell the United Party the following: That party says that the Bantu should be able to enter the white area on a family basis and to obtain the right of ownership there. That party says that the Bantu should be able to obtain his own house in the white area. What that party advocates is that the Bantu should be able to establish themselves in white areas and to stay here on a permanent basis. Well, I want to tell the United Party that South Africa does not accept that, and that is the reason why that party has gradually come off worse at every election. This Government sets the requirement that in the white areas of South Africa the Whites will be the only land-owners. They will be the only persons who will be here on a permanent basis. We do not begrudge the Bantu the same in their own Bantu homelands. That fine poem recited here by the hon. member for Durban (Point), applies to the Bantu in the Bantu homeland as much as it does to the Whites in their own areas.

Now I come to the hon. member for Durban (Point) who wanted to know what area of Natal would actually by a white area. He tries to arouse the suspicion that it is the policy of this Government to land Natal in the difficult position in which it finds itself at present. This matter was discussed in the Other Place, and it was pointed out there that there are more than 300 Bantu areas in Natal. If it had not been for the fact that there are so many people in Natal with whom one has sympathy, one could almost have said “Fry in your own juice.”

You mean “stew in your own juice”.

But we dare not, we cannot and we will not allow that to happen. [Interjections.] Yes, that was a slip of the tongue on my part, but I think that “fry” is perhaps just as appropriate. As I am saying, we will not allow that to happen. We will consolidate in spite of all the obstacles which are being placed in our way. The hon. member wants to give out that we created this position. He wants to know whether the Whites in Natal should only inhabit such small white strips as are determined by this Government. But, surely, it is not this Government that determined those small white strips.

It is a situation they inherited, a situation that was like that. They did nothing about it. Now this Government is burdened with the task of unravelling and remedying that position. But in spite of the opposition and criticism we get from the Opposition, we shall continue with this task and consolidate to such an extent that Natal may also be provided with a future, so that the White man will also have stability in the future.

I shall now return to the hon. member for South Coast. Basing his information on Press reports, the hon. member wants to put into my mouth words I never used. He wants to give out that I expressed the thought that there would be a “call up”—I think that is the word he used—a registration of Bantu labour. In other words, there will be forced Bantu labourers, irrespective of whether the person is a work-seeker or an employee. He went further. He said that such a person would not even be entitled to work in that sector of the economy where he would like to sell his labour. He went even further than that. He claims that I have also said that I would make it impossible for the employee to sell his labour on the highest market.

Now, that is by far and away not what I said, but just to think of the implications of what the hon. member said here, is the United Party not the party which boasts of the fact —which even pretends—that they are the first party to have applied influx control? Does influx control not have the additional implication that the work-seeker may not sell his labour wherever he pleases? Then hon. members on the other side should not accuse me of being the only person who places obstacles in the way. It is true that the Government will apply influx control. Influx control may imply that every person will not be free to enter whatever area he pleases, to seek employment where he pleases and to seek the particular work he would like to do. Surely, the influx control of that side also implied these restrictions. Let us assume, therefore, that in this respect we are oppressors to the same extent. Or should I not believe that the United Party also wants to apply influx control?

What were the actual words I used at Lichtenburg on that occasion? I talked about the scarcity of labour that prevails in this country. I talked about the waste of labour. I do not suppose that it is necessary for me to go into that matter again. I talked about the waste in terms of the labour-tenant system, and I am sure that hon. members on the other side agree with me and feel about it just as I do. I referred to labourers whom farmers kept on their farms just to have them available in certain seasons. I referred to farmers who have a surplus of labourers on their farms, and in that regard I stated what arrangements had already been made, namely to establish labour control boards. I said that the farmers themselves would arrange for their labour through those boards. I praised them for that. I added that it was a very good thing that the farmers had already started making arrangements for their own labour. I suggest that urban employers of labour should follow the same procedure. They, too, should make arrangements for the way in which they may best avail themselves of their labour. Then I referred to the various sources of labour that are available. I said that in terms of this scheme which we are working out, a scheme which the hon. member for Heilbron set out very well, it would be compulsory for every work-seeker in the homeland to have himself registered as such. It will also be necessary for the person who wants to employ people to apply at the various labour bureaux for the labour he requires. In that way these arrangements can be made. In that way it will be possible to determine what should be done. For instance, if the hon. member for South Coast requires some labour, he may lodge his requisition for labour. It has been explained to him clearly. If that labour is available it will be possible to meet his needs. I cannot guarantee that it will in fact be available. If labour is in fact available in a homeland, such labour can be allocated to him. He will have to pay the necessary levies for that purpose. He will have to shoulder the responsibility of caring for them properly. [Time expired.]

The hon. Deputy Minister recalled to our minds the fact that the pattern of settlement in Natal, where Blacks and Whites are settled in interlocking patterns, is the fruit of history. It is something which, I believe, was implemented by Sir Garnett Wolseley in 1854. He then referred to the pattern of the “gridiron”, meaning Blacks and Whites being settled in close inter-relation so that the influence of the white man might act as a civilizing influence on the black man. The hon. the Deputy Minister used the phrase “stew in our own juice”. As a matter of fact, he said “fry in our own juice”. If I may say so. this is a particularly ant simile because the gridiron is beginning to heat up to-day as a result of the policy of this Government to give independence to black areas. The word “fry” may well be a very prophetic word coming from the mouth of the hon. the Deputy Minister. You see, Sir, this hon. Minister and his two deputies have already been called the “three blind mice”. They have to implement the policy either of moving out the whites and consolidating the areas or of giving the Bantu in those areas independence within the close relationship with which they are living with the white man. This is the problem these hon. members have to face.

I want to draw the attention of this House to the plight of a farmer who lives on the border of a Bantu area. Let me tell you, Sir, that there is no farmer in this House who of his own accord will say that he is willing to farm next to a Bantu area even to-day when, they will still be under the control of the white man’s police. Is this not a problem which will become far more serious when independence is granted to these areas? We have already seen the pattern of development in Basutoland where rustling has assumed formidable proportions. The letter I have here from a constituent of mine illustrates the sort of thing that is happening. This particular farmer has a paddock of 400 acres in the Bulwer area and it borders on a Bantu area. This paddock of his was fenced for 17 years by the farmer concerned. For the last four years, however, there has been no fence because he refuses to continue to refence while this fence is deliberately and maliciously removed. This is the pattern of what is happening in every instance.

Has this never been the case before?

It has been like that before, but under this department one would expect that there would be increased control. Things went so far that the Natal Agricultural Union had to convene a conference, a special conference, which was attended by representatives of the police and of farmers’ organizations throughout Natal. This conference was called to ask for stricter measures to be implemented, that more control be exercised, that the police should hold increasingly close vigilance upon the border areas where white farms are contiguous to Bantu areas. At the congress of the South African Agricultural Union the Natal Agricultural Union moved a resolution asking for all Bantu areas to be fenced with a 13-strand barbed wire fence to be patrolled by the Department of Bantu Administration and Development and should anything go wrong for the Bantu authority concerned to be held responsible. What happened to that resolution adopted at that congress to make it easier for farmers to farm in those areas? The position is not getting any better. It is getting worse. The Department is losing control and as the shadow of independence falls over Natal the position is getting more and more serious for the farmers.

I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister, who was talking about the policy of the Government, where this policy of separate development is actually operating.

Where does it not work?

The next speaker should tell us where the separation of Black and White is becoming pronounced, in which areas the flow of Bantu has been reversed, in which areas less Bantu are being employed. He should tell us where industries are being established, industries which are not based on Bantu labour. The hon. the Deputy Minister spoke for a while about parallel development, or separate development. The essence of parallel development is that the two lines should not meet even if extended into infinity. In what areas are the Blacks and the Whites never meeting? If they are separate, start from a common point and go out in different directions do they never meet? How far is this policy of the Government real? I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is still independence they are striving for. Is it still independence they are striving for? Is this still their ideal? If so, when are they going to implement it? Have they not now handed over the initiative for the future development in South Africa to Bantu leaders? Because they have said to the Bantu leaders that they can be independent and to-day these leaders can say that they want to be independent now. Then this Government cannot say “no”; all they can say is “not yet”. So the initiative has effectually passed from the hands of this Government into the hands of those Bantu leaders who can ask for independence at any time. All this Minister can say is “not yet”. All he can do is to attempt to hold back a drive for independence in these developing Bantu areas. For how long can the Government keep on saying “not yet”? Until such time as one leader can get up and convince his people that they need to be independent of the Whites! This is the heritage this Government will leave behind for South Africa— that they have handed over the initiative for the development of this country into the hands of these Bantu leaders. We are told about border development. We are told that R25 million has been invested in the Ciskei border area during the last five years. What is the comparable figure of investment in the White areas during that period? For the seven years up to 1963, the last figures I can get hold of, the investment in industry in the White areas was R2,563 million—100 times as much as has been invested for the last five years in the border areas, in this area of the Ciskei mentioned by the hon. the Deputy Minister. These figures are the figures of the Minister of Economic Affairs. This was before the policy of border development really got going and before the boom started. Are hon. members opposite really serious when they say that they are developing border areas at a pace which is going to be commensurate with the need that their policy imposes on them? Are they satisfied?

Yes.

We have it from the mouth of the hon. member for Krugersdorp that he is satisfied. I wonder whether the Minister is satisfied. Is he satisfied that enough is being spent to-day on development of the border areas, sufficient to implement the policy he has laid down? Is the Minister satisfied? What is happening to-day is that the white man’s income and industry are being tapped to develop other areas.

I shall reply to you …

Let me finish first what I am saying before the hon. the Minister tries to reply to anything. I am saying that the white man’s industry and economy are being used and milked to develop something which will come into active competition with the white man.

I will not reply to you any more. I am not replying to cheeky snobs.

The hon. the Minister is now becoming petulant. I am pleased to have been able to get so deep under the Minister’s skin. I really think a Minister of State should be a bit above that.

Mr. Chairman, it is indeed a tragedy that every time the Vote of the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development comes up for discussion, when we do in fact have to try in this debate to improve the human relations between the white man and the black man, we hear the type of speech we have been listening to in this House for the past few hours, speeches like that of the hon. member for Durban (Point), who became lyrical about what he had quoted from some journal or other published by the Department of Bantu Administration. He wanted to know what was being done in respect of housing for these people or whether anything could be done. If the hon. member for Durban (Point) only …

Are you unable to follow English? I did not say anything of that nature.

The hon. member said that no non-white person could obtain a house. That is what he said.

That is untrue.

But now I want to tell the hon. member that the policy of this Government is the only policy which can and will succeed, which will stand the test, namely the policy of separate development. What it amounts to is that if the hon. member were to look at what is being done to provide non-Whites with housing in their own homeland, he will see that in the year 1965, 11,534 houses for non-Whites were built in their homelands, and that 1,425 non-Whites built their own houses in their homelands. Is that not an achievement? Is that not something of which we may be proud, namely the realization that the opportunity is being created for those non-Whites to obtain their own houses. But this afternoon I would not like to quarrel with these hon. members about these matters. I feel that so far this afternoon mention has only been made of the urban Bantu or the Transkeian Bantu. This afternoon I want to talk about the Bantu who are living in the other homelands. I want to tell this House that these are the Bantu after whom we must look.

Let us see what is being done for that third group of Bantu in the other homelands. According to the speech the hon. the Minister made at Turfloop last year, he is prepared to transfer self-rule to the various territorial authorities. I tried to ascertain what was actually implied by the fact that he was going to transfer self-rule to these various territorial authorities. With the exception of the Transkei, there are still five territorial authorities in the Republic of South Africa. Four of these five territorial authorities are situated in the Transvaal complex with an aggregate population of 3,336,892. The form of government of this Bantu national unit has also been based on the Bantu authorities system.

The first form of government that is found there, is the tribal authority, with which the hon. member for Mooi River is familiar. He referred to that a moment ago. The chief and his tribal council are responsible for matters of policy affecting that tribe, and they have control over all the circumstances in that tribe. At present there are no fewer than 326 tribal authorities in the Republic. We find that they are autonomous bodies and that they have control over all their internal affairs. Above the tribal authority one finds the regional authority, of which there are 45 in the Republic. Then we have the five major territorial authorities. That is the highest authority over those tribes. As far as the territorial authorities are concerned, we find that a certain form of government is being introduced. In that way these homelands were ruled in the past with the aid of the Bantu Commissioner and his staff. This type of rule emanated from the office of the Bantu Commissioner until the Minister announced on 28th November, 1966 —during the session of the Lebowa Territorial authority at Turfloop—that he would grant all territorial authorities a further phase of self-rule. What is implied by this further phase of self-rule which the Minister is going to grant to these territorial authorities? It means that they will be granted an executive committee system and that this executive committee will consist of six members, including a chairman. These six members will be in the fulltime employ of the territorial authorities. We know how these territorial authorities functioned in the past. They simply used to meet and hold meetings, and the white Bantu Commissioner did all that work for them. In this new further phase the Bantu will now be granted the right to be able to develop and rule their own people. This executive committee will now have a chief control officer who will co-ordinate the functions in those territorial authorities and assist the chairman. He will be the liaison officer between that territorial authority and the Minister. There will also be control officers who will assist the members of these executive committees.

In addition there will be various departments, for instance, a department of community affairs, a department of agriculture and forestry, a department of education and culture, a department of justice and a department of finance. In view of the fact that the hon. the Minister announced this further phase of self-rule, we are convinced that the non-Whites of the other territories are much more privileged than those of the Transkei itself, because these people are being helped systematically and step by step to master self-rule. In connection with all these various territorial authorities, I should like to ask the Minister whether it has already been planned where their seat of national government will be. Since everything in Natal is still being controlled by these tribal authorities only, I want to ask the Minister whether it has already been planned where their territorial seat of government will be situated. I want to appeal to the non-Whites in our cities, especially to professional people—in view of the fact that they have already acquired the necessary knowledge and have enjoyed the privilege of enriching themselves here—to return and to utilize their knowledge, their skill and even the money they earned here in the country of the white man so that they may assist in developing these territories and making them independent, so that they will not always have to look to the white man only and so that the white man may not only be there to help them. The non-Whites of the cities, who have acquired their skill and knowledge amongst us, the professional people, the doctors and the nurses, must return to their homelands and help those underprivileged persons who have not yet been educated, to contribute their share to building up a better and an independent community. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I agree with the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education that what is happening here is the same as happened yesterday in the Other Place, i.e. that one, will not really achieve much by, as the saying goes, trying to wash a blackamoor white. But I am an optimistic person and I never lose hope; that is why I shall try again. I want to begin by reacting to what speakers in this debate have said and I shall begin at the beginning. The hon. member for Transkei referred to Coloureds in the Transkei. The position as far as the Coloureds are concerned ought to be very clear to hon. members because we stated very emphatically in the White Paper which was laid upon the Table that fundamentally the same applies to the Coloureds in the Transkei as applies to the Whites. That means that the Coloureds, just as in the case of the Whites, should in principle have to disappear gradually from the Transkei. In the second place that means that the same guarantees which the Government has offered the Whites and is already enforcing, will apply to the Coloureds as well. That is to say, in respect of Coloureds who are property owners, whether they own dwellings or businesses, it also applies that if they cannot sell those properties of theirs to Bantu entrepreneurs who want to own them, and they have to leave the Transkei, then we are prepared, by means of the machinery which has been established, to take over those properties from the Coloureds as well in the manner prescribed in the White Paper. I think I am not wrong in saying that we have already paid out one Coloured. Perhaps a greater problem is the one in respect of Coloureds who are lessees of dwelling houses which are situated in those portions which have been reserved or zoned as areas into which the Bantu can begin to penetrate. There is that problem, and we realize that there is. It was actually in regard to that problem that two Coloureds came to see me when I was in Umtata recently. As far as that is concerned, the problem is a difficult one for them, I realize it, because it sometimes happens that the owner of that house, who is perhaps a white person sells the house to a Bantu person, who may perhaps want to move into a house himself. Then the Coloured must vacate that house and he does not get another one. We realize that problem. It may be possible to make other houses available for them and I promised the Coloureds—and we are doing this and I want to tell you here that the hon. member must know this—that I shall go into the matter to see whether we cannot make temporary housing facilities available in some other way to such Coloureds if they cannot find other houses to rent and if they have to remain there and cannot find another place to go outside the Transkei.

The hon. member must give me a chance to investigate this matter properly, and he shall now discover in a moment why I say this. There is no proper picture available of what the socio-economic set-up is in regard to the Coloured community in the Transkei, particularly in the large towns. Our Department, in consultation with other Departments which are concerned in this matter, has instructed that an investigation be made into those Coloureds who are involved in this matter so that one may know precisely how many of them are owners, how many of them are lessees in or outside the zoned area, and what their profession, work or trade, etc., is, so that one may have a better picture of these things because we have not yet had a survey like this made. Nobody has done it before, and in this respect the Department of Coloured Affairs, and others are being of assistance to us. I want to tell the hon. member—I hope he only asked that question because he was interested—that the position of the Coloureds in the Transkei will not be ignored, very definitely not. I told them this, and the two who spoke to me understood these problems. More than half the discussions I had that day in Umtata—and I have witnesses present who can confirm this —did not deal with the fundamental position of the Coloureds. They were concerned with the individual problems of a certain Coloured who is leaving the Transkei and has already found himself work at a certain place in the Western Cape. He has not yet found accommodation for himself in the Western Cape. More than half our discussions were concerned with this matter. In that respect we promised him that we would undertake liaison with the bodies which ought to have been able to help him here in regard to accommodation. I do not think that I need say more about the Coloureds in the Transkei. The one Coloured who had that problem in regard to accommodation, has already availed himself of the offer which we made him the other day, i.e. to get in touch with us. We are seeing whether he cannot be assisted with the accommodation he has to get here in the Western Cape.

The hon. member for Transkei then asked: What about the Whites in the Transkei? He has now discussed the Whites again for the umpteenth time. Now he is smiling about it. Why is he smiling? Must I now ask him the kind of question which a former Opposition member put to us when a number of us laughed at a joke, and when he told us that we were laughing at “murder by torture? Must I also tell him now that he is laughing at the interests of the Transkei Whites? No, I am not saying that, but that hon. member is sitting there now laughing while I am discussing this matter. I do not know why.

I did not laugh.

Sir. the hon. member need not be so irritated about it. I have already said that I will not say that he is laughing at the expense of the interests of the Whites in the Transkei. I have already said that I will not do that. I did not say that, nor will I say it, but he laughed. Sir. [Interjections.] He definitely laughed about something else.

That is his natural expression.

That is perhaps possible. Some people’s natural expressions, as the hon. member for Kensington said, are inclined to laughter. Other people are more inclined to prattle. The hon. member for Transkei actually introduced a different note last night in regard to the Whites in the Transkei, although it was not for the first time. It was not the first time that that note has been introduced here. The one note we always heard in the beginning was that we wanted to write off and forget about the Whites in the Transkei. “You will sell them down the river” was the slogan, if I can remember correctly. That they can no longer say, because statistics have proved that we have over the past year or so already spent R2.5 million on the acquisition of properties of Whites who, owing to the conditions there, which I sketched just now, have to sell out. We bought those properties because they were not able to sell them to Bantu buyers. As hon. members know, monetary provision is once more being made in the Estimates. The process which we envisaged a few years ago and which we put into operation is now in progress. Therefore we do not hear that note any more. But now there is a different song. In terms of National Party policy, and as some of them sometimes say, in terms of their own policy as well, it is a fact that we do not want mixed residential areas, and they think that this may be a hare which will run well. Now the hon. member is saving: With the zoning of regions and wards in the towns in the Transkei, you are now compelling the Whites to live on a mixed basis with the Natives there. There is only one of three ways in which we can go to work with those established Whites there, those Whites who are established to such an extent that they have land tenure and other rights. One way is for us, and this is similar to what the United Party policy; was and will remain, to give up and to say that they may as well remain dug in there. If we say this hon. members must remember that mixed residential areas have not yet been eliminated, because up to now, and hon. members are well aware of this, there have been large numbers of Whites and non-Whites who have been living in the Transkei towns, in Umtata and in Butterworth, and in other towns in the Transkei, on a mixed residential basis. There has already been mixed occupation on a basis of zoning which was regulated administratively, and not statutorily, as we now want to regulate it. [Interjection.] There was a kind of administrate zoning whereby non-Whites were nevertheless able to acquire properties amongst the Whites in the towns and the hon. member ought to remember that at that time it was possible for approval to be given by the Governor-General, and it is still possible for approval to be given now by the State President in terms of the Urban Areas Act for such people to live in white snots like that, and such approval was given. The last time I looked up the figure was a few months ago and I cannot remember the precise number, but it is either 129 or 139 such cases where infiltration was allowed. Therefore, even if that attitude is adopted and it is said that we must let things remain as they are then there will still be mixed residential areas. [Interjection.] It is not as voluntary as the hon. member for Transkei is suggesting. The second method which it will be possible to adopt is to draw a line and to say: Tomorrow morning at 9 o’clock all the Whites must be out and all the Blacks must be in. Then it is accomplished instantaneously like a bolt from the blue, and that, as everybody knows, is a ridiculous impossibility. We have never in the application of our policy and in terms of the rectification of things which have gone askew over a period of many years advocated things like that. The hon. members ought to know that if there is one word which is written in letters of fire over our policy it is the fact that rectification, and the application of our policy is gradual. [Interjection.] It is very strange that the Opposition can complain that it is too gradual. They claim that the things that they do not want done because they run counter to their principles are taking place too gradually when we undertake them. That is the third method and it is the method which is being applied there. It is the only practical method and we concede that it causes the uncomfortable situation that it is possible for more Blacks to enter the zones and that it makes more mixed occupation possible, but to that there are at least two replies, apart from the one which I have already given, i.e. that it is the only process whereby a town which has, in any case, to become a black one can gradually become a black one. The other reply is to say that we will introduce more zoning in a large town like Umtata where only a percentage of the town, I estimate it at one third or 40 per cent, has already been zoned for Bantu penetration. There we must be able to zone a larger area so that the process of making it a black area is spread over a larger area. The other reply is that as the Bantu penetrate into the zones to an ever-increasing extent the Whites will apparently become more eager to leave and then we have the responsible task of taking over the properties if they are not able to sell them directly to the Bantu. [Interjection.] The hon. member knows that a scheme has been developed for that purpose, and it is based on this principle of gradual change, and that the urgent cases will be dealt with first and the less urgent cases later. That, the hon. member for Transkei knows only too well, because he discussed these things with me the other day. [Interjection.] Now the hon. member says that they are complaining about that. That is the difficulty which we have with the Opposition. Five years ago when we spoke about introducing this scheme into the Transkei they complained about the scheme as such; at that time they said that we were going to ruin the Whites there; we were going to neglect them completely or “sell them down the river”, as they nut it. But when they see that we were certainly not doing that, they performed an about-face and argued in the way women argue, saying: “You are now in fact doing that thing, but you are not doing it in the right way.” [Interjection.] To the hon. member for Wynberg I want to say that I am not talking now about women who are Members of Parliament. [Laughter.] Now that they realize that we are doing what they said we would not do, they are saying that we are not doing it in the right way. Sir, that is typical of the Opposition. They are always trying to make fun of the Government, but they must just see to it that they do not, in the process, do themselves more harm than they are doing to us.

The hon. member also asked me about the Malawi Bantu and the agreement of which there was talk recently. The hon. member for Heilbron dealt with the matter quite comprehensively and it is therefore not necessary for me to say much more about the matter, except to say this one thing which the hon. member omitted to mention. The agreement which we read about in the Press has not yet been finally ratified between the two countries in question, and consequently we cannot yet discuss it and we ought not to discuss it. But it will not only cover the Malawi Bantu who are here in the general sector without proper documents; it is also the intention to cover the mine Bantu in a better way in that agreement. The main intention of course is to have the Pantu who are present in spheres other than the mining industry here in South Africa provided with proper documents, and then it will be considered to what extent they can be retained in those services. But this will always remain subject to the fact that they will have to return to their homelands periodically and the interests of the South African Bantu in procuring work are given precedence. They realize that; that is the principle which we mention. Now I want to tell the hon. member this. He mentioned the figure 30,000 here. I do not know whether that is correct. I saw the figure in the newspaper myself and immediately asked for a confirmation from our representatives who were in Malawi a few days ago but they were equally astounded at the figure of 30,000, as I was and apparently that hon. member also was. I do not know where that figure comes from, but one sees many things in the newspapers. The figures in regard to this matter are not precise and in the agreement we mentioned no figures to them. We will have to leave the matter at that, the more so because the question of the agreement has not been finalized yet. I shall not comment on what the hon. member for Transkei said in regard to the Commissioner General and how he and other people had associated themselves with things like white capital in the homelands, things about which he did not even speak. He did have something to say about development, however,. The hon. member spoke about white capital and then dragged Mr. Abraham’s name in. Let us argue candidly, straight to the point, with one another. We should not tie unrelated matters together.

The hon. member also spoke about Good Hope Textiles, and the hon. member for South Coast also referred Just now to Zwelitsha. the Bantu township. Good Hope Textiles and other places. Sir, the hon. member for Transkei makes one laugh. Several years ago when we began with the concept of border industries there were hon. members of the Opposition who said: “Alas, you are late; we began with border industries; there you will find Good Hope Textiles.”

That was not a border industry. That was within the reserve.

The hon. member must not argue now; that is what the hon. members of the Opposition said at that time. I know better than that hon. member does where that factory is situated. When we began with the concept of border industries, the hon. members on the opposite side—perhaps some of them are no longer in the House to-day—said to us: “You are late; this idea of establishing industries in the Bantu homelands is an old one. Look at Good Hope Textiles.” We now know that they were wrong when they said that because Good Hope Textiles is not in the white area; it is in the Bantu area. But at that time they used it as a reproach to us, implying that it was a form of border industry development with which they had begun. We cannot get away from that; it is a fact. To-day the hon. member for Transkei tells me here that the matter I discussed a few weeks ago, from this same bench, when I was talking about the various forms of development within the Bantu areas, and said that it was in fact possible to use white capital and white skill there under our agency method, something which had been used there for years, was an old thing. He said: “Alas, the idea of an agency is an old one; Good Hope Textiles is the first example of that”. In other words, one moment Good Hope Textiles is an example of a form of border industry development, and the next it is an example of agency development, just so that he can demonstrate that we were consistent on both occasions in following their policy—two opposite things, both of them apartheid measures. How must one get along with such arguments?

No, we did not want the borders.

Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether that courteous old friend of mine, the hon. member for Pinelands, realizes what he has just said now. He said that they did not want borders.

We do not want independent states.

They do not want any boundaries between the white and the Bantu areas. It is interesting to note how much weeping and wailing there is on the part of the Opposition in regard to boundaries.

I come now to the hon. member for Houghton. The hon. member is making her speeches in the House in an extremely provocative way these days. She took it amiss of me here, and one of the hon. members of the Opposition also took it amiss of me, because I had supposedly intimated in the statement which I made in the Other Place the other day that there would be a different approach to the Bantu here in the white areas and that the section 10 Bantu would also be effected as a result. I am not going to discuss this matter at length again. I do not think it is fair that a speech made in one House of this Parliament should be repeated three to four days later in the Other House. I do not think it is right, but I just want to tell the hon. member that this is not the first time I have said that. It is old news, unless she was asleep at the time and other members with her, because I said the same thing in a Third Reading Debate on the Bill which I launched through Parliament in 1964. I made the same emphatic statement then as I did the other day in the Other Place, i.e. that if the Opposition, and if liberalists such as the hon. member for Houghton—and the Opposition must thank me now for distinguishing between Opposition members and liberalists—continue to say that section 10 facilities received by Bantu in the white areas are citizenship rights in the white areas, then they would be making a misrepresentation which could impede race relations in South Africa and we would then be compelled to state the statutory position more clearly. I said that in 1964, and I said it the other day in the Other Place, and I am reapeating it now.

So what!

The hon. member for Houghton ought to know that the entire debacle between herself, the Deputy Minister and myself is related to the Western Cape and 5 per cent; it is not related to the section 10 Bantu. We have explained the position as far as the rest are concerned, those who are not section 10 Bantu, in replies to questions which the hon. member for Houghton has put. I had three question which the hon. member put in regard to this matter traced, and I had a very good look at the replies to those questions, both the Afrikaans as well as the English versions, and nowhere did we say what she said this afternoon in this House, i.e. that either myself or the hon. the Deputy Minister had allegedly replied to the question that we were doing so “in terms of policy”. I did not say that in reply to any one of these three questions. There may have been other questions, but in reply to these questions we did not say this. These questions referred to Bantu who did not fall under section 10, and we state here in reply to the questions that the notifications were attended to in terms of the regulations of the Labour Act.

The hon. member for Houghton also referred to the resolutions of the Dutch Reformed Church in regard to migrant labour. I want to tell that hon. member that I will not make so bold as to drag in the synagogue and the Jewish Board of Deputies, and similar things, into my arguments. She should not drag in the Dutch Reformed Church, or any other church, in such an undignified and improper way as she did here this afternoon.

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Chairman, that poltergeist from Orange Grove must not make interjections now. The hon. member for Houghton must listen carefully to what I am saying; I repeat: She must not drag in the church here in such an irresponsible or in such an improper way, as she did here this afternoon. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, I shall reply to that if the hon. member will only give me a chance. The hon. member uses another reprehensible method and that is to speak for as great a length of time when she is sitting as when she is standing. She must please remain quiet now; I am going to reply to everything. The hon. member knows—and I thank her for this—that I received from her a publication just now in order to read the paragraph which she quoted here. Yes, I thank her for that, and I shall reply to her in full, and that is why she should at least try to be courteous this time, keep quiet and listen. Sir, I said that the Dutch Reformed Church was dragged here in an improper way, and I repeat what I said. She can bring in the Dutch Reformed Church, and as far as I am concerned, she can bring in any other church into the debates but then she must do it in a proper and correct way. What are the facts? The hon. member knows nothing of the constitution of the Dutch Reformed Church; she does not know how it functions. There was a provisional report, and I asked her emphatically whether she was quoting from that provisional report. She did not read the report of the Dutch Reformed Church, because I read it in its entirety, and I did not read a summary of it in a publication. The hon. member for Houghton read out a summary of the report and I want to add—I read through it quickly —that she read a distorted summary in the publication The Christian Minister which appeared in August 1966. This was a submission; it was a report of the provisional discussion held here in Cape Town, whereupon it had to go from the regional synod to the general synod in Bloemfontein and at the sitting of the General Synod in Bloemfontein, where the regional synods of all four provinces met together, the resolutions which the hon. member for Houghton read out, were partially deleted.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member must not take it amiss of me when I say that she is now re-confirming that she cannot display the good manners of hearing me out and taking her medicine. I have here in my hand the book which I obtained this afternoon from the Church office in Cape Town, properly annotated, as it was done at that time, with the resolutions which were in fact adopted. Those resolutions from which the hon. member quoted were not resolutions but recommendations and conclusions, as they were called. In that report they were called only conclusions and not recommendations. No differentiation was made between the two categories. They were partially deleted and were replaced by other things. In the original document, and not in the pamphlet from which she read, many good and sympathetic things are said on the part of the church in regard to the problems we have in regard to migrant labour. My time is too precious to read everything, but I just want to state briefly what is mentioned here. These are the final resolutions which were taken here. They read as follows (translation)-

In addition the church, in its resolution states the following. It refers to the fact that migrant labour is found in other countries as well and how it is dealt with less successfully than here. I want to read this amended portion as well (translation)—

It goes on in this vein. Owing to the limited time at my disposal I cannot read it all. If it is net reprehensible, then it is, put in as mild a way as possible, highly improper for a senior Member of Parliament to use the church documents in this House in such an incorrect, ignorant and improper way. That journal from which the hon. member quoted was The Christian Minister of August, 1966. I have quoted here from the Proceedings of the General Synod, which were held on 13th October. This Synod was only held two months after that periodical appeared. We heard nothing about that. [Interjections.] We shall now wait to see whether that hon. member gets up here to at least furnish the church with an explanation even if she will not condescend to make an apology.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister to repeat his past remark. I did not quite hear it.

I shall repeat it. I said that the hon. member ought at least to apologize to the church in this House. If she does not want to condescend to making an apology then she ought at least to give an explanation of why she misused the documents to such an extent in this House.

Otherwise what?

No, that is precisely what I said. The hon. member for Pinelands also referred here to foreign Bantu in the Western Cape, and this is all I want to mention. I just want to tell the hon. member this. We administer the matter in such a way that there is no discrimination either against South African Bantu, or against foreign Bantu here in respect of the Western Cape. In other words, what applies to the one applies to the other with this additional accommodation to the foreign Bantu in the Western Cape that if they have the right to be in South Africa and they have to leave the area because there are Coloureds who can take their work, and it is not fair towards the South African Bantu to remove them only, then we are prepared to let those foreign Bantu find work somewhere else in South Africa if they have the right to be in South Africa. I think that is enough said about that matter.

The hon. member for Soutpansberg asked me something to which I want to refer. It it very important. He referred appreciatively to the five-year plan which we have been applying for a five-year period ending last year. That is the five-year development plan in regard to the Bantu areas. He asked me what the further possibilities in that regard were. It is a very fair question and I can inform the Committee that we have drawn up a further five-year plan for all the Bantu areas in South Africa which we have put into operation. The Transkei has of course drawn up its own. There is therefore a subsequent five-year plan which we have put into operation. It is a comprehensive plan. Naturally I cannot deal with it in detail. I am not going to lay it upon the Table. The previous five-year plan was not laid upon the Table either. It is simply a departmental working document. Surely we cannot lay departmental working documents upon the Table here. However, I am quite prepared to do what my predecessor did. I am prepared to allow the Press to have a look at this second five-year plan for the Bantu areas of the Republic. Then they can write about it. In general I can just say that the planning covers an amount of R490 million for all kinds of expenditure in the Bantu areas. Now hon. members will realize what it means. It is a drafting of a five-year plan, seen within the framework of the procedures followed in the voting of money by Parliament. We have no guarantee that we will receive the R490 million over the five-year period, because we know that Estimates work on an annual basis. That is the basis which we have devised for ourselves and according to which we should like to wo k if the money can be made available to such an extent.

[Inaudible.]

No, he frightens me a great deal more than I can frighten him. The hon. the Minister of Finance is not afraid of me. Nor am I afraid of him. We understand each other very well.

Will you spend the same amount each year?

I do not want to discuss at this moment the details of the various years, the various areas and the various places. I just want to tell the hon. member that it is of course more than twice the amount which was spent on the first five-year plan. The details we shall have to leave to the Press. They can look at this report in our office and then write reports about it.

The first one provided very few people there with work.

Order! Hon. members must now stop these questions and interruptions. I shall count it as speaking time against them.

I do not know whether the hon. member is pleased or sorry about that. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad also asked me something important when he referred to the points of growth which we should of course like to have in the Bantu areas and which we can promote by channelizing to those points pensioners and various kinds of institutions. I want to tell the hon. member that it is a very fine idea which we are already trying to put into practice. The idea of paving out pensioners’ pensions only at those places is a little more difficult to carry out. We are investigating the possibilities in that direction. It is of course our policy to establish in the Bantu areas all kinds of institutions for the Bantu—he mentioned some —such as hospitals, clinics, homes for the aged, rehabilitation centres, youth camps, prisons, etc., which do not necessarily have to be situated in the white areas. Amongst other things they are very important avenues of employment They can also be centres of growth in those regions. We are working in that direction.

The hon. member for South Coast had quite a lot to say. The hon. Deputy Minister has dealt with that. However, he raised one point to which I have to refer. Many members in this House might not understand this, but the hon. member for South Coast and I understand each other quite well. He raised the point concerning the Dunns. I have said before here that the Dunns will receive their title rights. I am saying this again to-day, but it is a very delicate matter. It is a matter on which we are already working. It applies not only to my Department, it applies to others as well. It will be possible to deal with the matter more successfully if we do not say too much about it. I am quite prepared to give that hon. member and the Member of Parliament for the constituency in question, i.e. the hon. member for Zululand, confidential information in regard to these matters. I hope that we will then be able to let this matter rest there and that we will in due course be able to make progress in this regard, because it is necessary to do so. I hope the hon. member is satisfied with that.

Yes.

You see, Mr. Chairman, that hon. member and I understand one another. The hon. member for Durban (Point) made a speech to which he did not really want a reply because he made that speech for the sake of effect. But there are two of his statements to which I want to react. He asked whether it was true that Cyprian, chief of the Zulus, had expressed himself in favour of apartheid, and so on. Before replying to the hon. member on this point I want to utter a word of warning. In fact, I have already uttered this warning on several occasions here in this House but I want to repeat it now for the sake of the hon. member for Durban (Point) as well. We must refrain from dragging in individual Bantus, particularly a Bantu leader, into our political squabbles. [Interjections.] The hon. member must not try and wriggle out from under now. I think the hon. member would agree with me if I said that we should rather speak in general of the Bantu as such and ask whether the Bantu as such are in favour or against apartheid, integration, or “white leadership”. In this regard I just want to point out that my challenge still stands. My challenge was that the name of a single Bantu leader should be mentioned who was prepared to accept “white leadership”, or the “Race Federation” of the United Party, something which would give the White eternal domination over the Bantu. There is no such Bantu. In fact. I want to amend this challenge of mine in this respect that it should be said of any Bantu body, instead of merely a Bantu individual. In any case, let us confine ourselves here to generalities and not to concentrate on individuals, particularly individuals who are in a position of leadership. By so doing we create more disorder than peace amongst the Bantu people. However. I want to tell the hon. member something, for what it is worth. It is history in any case, and is well known. When the Parliament of the Transkei came into being Cyprian sent a telegram to my predecessor in which he expressed his congratulations on the occurrence in the Transkei and he added that when the Zulu nation was ripe for such an eventuality one day, they would also desire it. I do not know whether this may be interpreted as being for or against apartheid. The hon. member must use his own judgment.

I come now to the hon. member for Mooi River. When he was speaking I called him an impertinent little man. The hon. member does not have the appearance of somebody who could be impertinent. However, since he came here from the Other Place it seems to me that he has learnt here how to be impertinent. In any case he asked me to say whether I was satisfied that we were spending enough on border industries. I wanted to ask him a question in turn but he actually rebuffed me. That was when I called him an impertinent little man. What I wanted to ask him is whether he wanted more or less to be spent on border industries for if he asks me whether I am satisfied, that is a fair question to put to him in turn. In fact, it is not even as difficult a question as: “Do you still beat your wfe?” It is not even as difficult a question as that one. But I now want to ask the hon. member whether he wants us to spend more or less on border industries. As far as his question to me is concerned I want to say that I should very much like to see that we spend more in promoting border industries if we can afford to do so, and not only on border industries, but on decentralization in general. But, Mr. Chairman, it appears to me that I did not use up all the possible adjectives when I called that hon. member an impertinent little man a moment ago because while I am replying to his question now he is sitting there shaking with laughter. He is not listening to what I am saying.

Another question which he put to me was whether we are still striving to attain independence for the Bantu areas, and if so when they are going to receive their independence. A similar question was put to me yesterday in the Other Place. Now I just want to say that we have always maintained and that we will always continue to do so, that the policy of separate development in respect of every Bantu nation in South Africa can proceed as rapidly as the Bantu nation in question is able to absorb it and just as quickly as we are able to bring it to them. When they have reached a stage where it is within their power to become independent we accept that they will become independent. We shall therefore help them along that road. But at the same time I want to say that we can give no guarantee that they will become independent because only the Good Lord knows whether they have that ability in them. We have never said that a specific Bantu nation must become independent. As far as we are concerned, we have said that it can become independent and that we will even help them in that direction. In the same way we cannot say when they will become independent because it is a matter which involves many human factors. In any case, how can we say whether a specific Bantu nation will become independent in one, five or ten years’ time? We will not get up to that kind of foolishness which colonizing powers got up to in Africa. They stipulated a specific date on which they would withdraw. Then the Bantu had to take over. All the developments which had taken place over the years were consequently left in the hands of the Bantu who had not been trained for that purpose and the result was chaos and arson. We are not going to do that; we are not going to specify a year, a day, or an hour. All that we are doing is to lead each of the Bantu nations along the road of progress. And when the time finally comes for them to become independent we will be satisfied with that. In this regard I want to quote from what Matanzima said recently in his own House. It reflects his attitude and more or less tallies with what I have just said. This is what he said about the question of independence—

What about those Bantu you are sending back to the reserves?

There it comes again! But I want to come to the hon. member for Brakpan, the last hon. member to whom I must reply. He referred to the constructive work which we are at present undertaking in order to activate the various Bantu authorities and Bantu nations to participation in increased responsibilities and the take-over of more powers and activities, activities which were formerly undertaken by the Trust. He wanted to know how this process was developing and where the seats of government of the various Bantu nations would be. I can inform the hon. member that over the past few months we have made good progress in this regard. We have negotiated with all the Bantu authorities and most of them have already decided to accept this scheme. In the case of quite a few other Bantu authorities there was as yet no certainty as to where their seats of government would be, but in this respect as well they have progressed to a certain extent. So, for example, the Tswana have decided that their seat of government should be in the vicinity of Mafeking. Other Bantu authorities have also adopted resolutions in this regard. However there are still cases pending and that is why I do not want to go into detail. We must still go into certain aspects of this matter administratively. One which I can also mention, a case which is no longer pending, is that of the Matshangana who have said that they want it to be at a certain place, called Bendstore. That is in the middle of their territory. We have found that it will be a good place from where they will be able to build up their administration and their pride.

With this I think that I have replied to all the questions put by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman, this Minister’s manner of debating rather amuses me. He is known to be one of the “cheekiest” —that is the word he uses—of the hon. members on the other side, especially of the Ministers. He is the one who is noted for his discourteous treatment of hon. members on this this side. Now he takes exception to behaviour on this side which certainly did not compare with his. He took exception to it. First he said that he would not answer questions, when we accused him of being sulky, and eventually he did answer the questions. The hon. the Minister must realize that this is not a class-room of school-children he is talking to any more. If he treats us with courtesy, then we will treat him with courtesy.

The hon. the Minister read out a statement here by Chief Kaizer Matanzima. I was rather surprised that he did that, because just before that he called upon the hon. member for Durban (Point) not to use the names of African leaders.

This was his speech in his Parliament.

That does not matter. The Minister objected to the hon. member for Durban (Point) using Chief Cyprian’s name. Now, what is the difference between Chief Cyprian, who is the paramount chief of the Zulus, and Chief Matanzima, who is the paramount chief of Emigrant Tembuland and Chief Minister of the Transkeian Government. The difference, of course, is that Chief Matanzima was supporting the Minister’s point of view, and that is why he referred to him.

The Minister, in dealing with the Coloureds in the Transkei, said that he had had discussions with them. He admitted that it was a difficult problem, and he said that he was trying to make arrangements and we must be patient. But that is our complaint about this Government’s policy. They embarked upon it before they thought of all the consequences, and this is one of the consequences which they never reckoned on.

We dealt with it in the White Paper.

The Minister says that he dealt with it in the White Paper. How many

Coloured people were to be compensated who had houses to sell? My complaint was about the Coloured people who did not have houses to sell. I did not deal with the Coloured people who had property to sell: I dealt with Coloured people who were tenants and who had to move—the very people that he mentioned. Now he says that he is going to try and find other accommodation for them, try and work out some scheme for them in the Transkei. The Minister should have thought beforehand what he is going to do with them. Is he going to build another little township for them or is he going to zone an area off in the white area for them, or are they going to be allowed to buy anywhere in the areas reserved for white occupation? I say that this is typical of the lack of foresight in the Government’s planning policy.

The Minister said that I took a different line last night in regard to the Whites in the Transkei because no longer could I say that they are “selling them down the river”, which, he said, was my refrain. That is quite true. I have always said that they have sold them down the river, and I still say so. The Minister says that he is spending some millions of rand on buying trading stations. That was right. Now, why is he buying those trading stations? He was forced to buy them because of the fight that we on this side put up here, and throughout the country, because of the agitation which we made, because we accused them of adopting the Kenya policy as far as the treatment of the Whites there was concerned, and because the matter was raised, after our agitation, at a congress of the Nationalist Party in East London. At that congress Dr. Verwoerd was asked, “What are you doing for the white people in the Transkei?”, and then Dr. Verwoerd announced that he was going to appoint a committee to go into the question of the future of the Whites. Only after it was raised by his own congress in those specific terms—“What are you doing for the Whites in the Transkei?”—then they started thinking of what they were going to do. Eventually, after many years’ delay, they started buying. Now the Minister says we cannot say that they are selling them down the river because the Government are buying their trading stations. Well, they are buying trading stations, but very slowly. Everybody is offering their trading stations. But it takes months and months of negotiations, and then after the deal is concluded still months and months before payment is made. These traders have only one buyer to sell to—only the Government; there is no other market.

What about the people living in the zoned areas? They have no one to sell to, and the Government is not buying their property. Perhaps I should mention the case of a white man who sold his property in a zoned area. That is one case I know of. But what about the others who want to sell? They are all clamouring that they want to sell their properties in the areas zoned for black occupation.

The Minister says that there are three alternatives. He can “hands-up”.

Not the business in his own area.

I am talking about the residents, about the people who have to live next to the black people; I was talking about residential integration last night. That is what I was talking about. This Government is forcing residential integration on to the people.

No.

Of course you are forcing residential integration on the people. The Minister himself admitted that just now He asked what could be done. He said that there were three alternatives: He could “Hands-up” and do nothing about it; he could give notice to the white people that they all had to get out over-night; by 12 o’clock at night all had to get out …

9 o’clock.

… or 9 o’clock. That is before curfew. I suppose he is going to apply a 12 o’clock curfew just now. The third alternative was that they could do what they are doing at present. Before the Government embarked on this zoning, before it announced its policy, it should have made arrangements to buy out all the white people who want to sell, because it is as a result of this Government’s action that they are placed in that position now. They did not ask for this. The Minister said that there were certain villages and towns where black and white were living together. That is true. But those people were living there voluntarily. When those people moved in there, one could sell properties— there was a market. But there is no market to-day. There is absolutely no market. There is only one buyer and that is the Government, or the Bantu. The Bantu, however, do not have the money to buy. I say that, unless this Government buys out all the people living in the zoned areas who want to sell, unless they buy up their properties, they are selling them down the river. I repeat my accusation.

The hon. the Minister had quite a gay time about the Good Hope textile industry, about Zwelitsha. I am really surprised at the Minister. He got some laughs from his side of the House, but this Minister has more intelligence —well, I thought that he had more intelligence—than to use an incident like this in the wrong context, to get a laugh. What did I say about the Good Hope textile industry? How did I bring it into my speech? He can read it again. I was talking about security. I said that Dr. Verwoerd had said that if white capital went in they would want security, they would want freehold title. I went on to say that that is not what the Tomlinson Commission recommended—they did not recommend freehold title. But Dr. Verwoerd refused to accept their recommendation. I also said that it is not what we had to give the Good Hope textile industry. I was not talking about border industry when I mentioned the Good Hope textile industry.

I did not say that you ever said that the Good Hope textile industry was a border industry. I said that some hon. members in the past said so.

Well. I am sorry that I misunderstood the attack. The attack was on me. In fact, the Minister got some laughs at my expense. I want to remind the Minister about what happened to the Good Hope textile industry. Does the Minister remember when we discussed this in the House some years ago? Dr. Verwoerd was so annoyed because it was in the reserve and he said that he was going to remove it. He never did it, though.

It can be done.

I am not talking about whether it can be done or not. Nobody doubts that you can do it. I say that, although he said that he was going to take it out, he never did do it. He left it in the native reserve. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in the course of this debate reference was made to the Anglo American Corporation and Bantu labour in the mining industry. I want to put it to you Sir, that the Corporation sets us an example in that in all its operations it shows us very clearly how to save labour, particularly Bantu labour. I have visited several of the mines belonging to this group and it strikes one to what extent labour is being saved there as a result of mechanization. Amongst other things, so much progress has been made as regards this kind of saving at a place such as the Consolidated Diamond Mines at Oranje-mond that approximately 83 per cent of the company’s operations are mechanized. In view of the criticism that is often levelled at the mining industry, I say that we have here a very good example of how labour can be saved through mechanization.

I want to avail myself of this opportunity to refer to the particular enthusiasm and interest which followed upon the recent message concerning legislative powers for Ovamboland, a message which was conveyed by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development on behalf of the hon. the Prime Minister. This message concerned the granting of assistance in all fields of the Ovambos’ national development, including that of selfpoverrment, where a right of self-determination forms the basis of Government policy under the guidance of experienced and trained officials, with the tribal authorities as the basis from which higher authorities such as regional and community authorities can develop and from which representatives will be elected according to a method determined by themselves. Together with the traditional leaders of the Ovambo people they will then be able to serve on a legislative council with an executive committee, which will, in fact, be something similar to a cabinet.

The hon. the Minister allowed me to peruse the speech he had made on that occasion, and on this occasion I should like to quote what he said there. He said (translation)—

It is therefore evident that it is being left to the people of Ovamboland—and to any other national unit—to create its own future.

This enthusiasm for and active co-operation in regard to the Government’s plans are not something which came about overnight, but developed from the earliest times under pressure of natural circumstances, such as periodic droughts with subsequent periods of famine. The last occurred in 1915 and 1916, when the Whites were at war with one another and had no time to attend to the problems of the Blacks. As a result tens of thousands of Ovambo’s died of hunger. I myself saw evidence of that on my journeys across the plains of Ovamboland. Since this last famine, during which thousands of Ovambos died because they were unable to combat the elements, they have come to accept the leadership of the Whites for the sake of their own preservation in combating the elements of nature. Large amounts have been or are to be spent for the purpose of combating these elements. Amongst other things, R43 million is being spent on roads and airfields; R80 million is being spent on supplying water; this latter amount includes R49 million in respect of the Kunene scheme, which received a fair amount of publicity recently. These are all integrated schemes; one scheme cannot really be dealt with separately from the others, because it will then cost so much more per unit.

After this initial expenditure it will be possible for expenditure to take place more gradually in order to make it possible for the Bantu to adapt themselves and to absorb things according to their value. In this respect a more gradual economic development will be essential as a processing towards maturity of the spiritual framework of the Bantu for self-government. In this processing the amount spent on education will have to be increased progressively. This human factor is still being stressed in the U.N.’s Economic Bulletin for Africa (United Nations Economic Commission for Africa), and I quote from page 87 of a recent edition of this publication—

This is what has actually happened in Ovamboland. There has been active co-operation; the people were and are desirous of change; they were and still are confident that the change in their means of livelihood will benefit them materially, and they realize that changing the mentality of human beings through education is a step along the road towards becoming ripe for political self-government. Permanent progress is something which is increasing among these people, and a tremendous break-through has been achieved.

That brings me to another point in connection with the Okavango territory, which adjoins Ovamboland. Ovamboland has a population of approximately 230,000 people, while that of the Okavango is only about 30,000. I think there are five different tribes in the Okavango, as against six in Ovamboland. In the Okavango we have a potential wheat-producing area which may possibly solve many problems as regards supplying food to Ovamboland. Geographically and economically the two areas actually form one unit. For that reason I should like to learn from the hon. the Minister, if self-government is being planned for Ovamboland, what the intention is as far as the Okavango is concerned. As these two areas constitute a geographic and economic unit, one would say that it would be better to form these two areas into one political unit.

Mr. Chairman, there is not very much time left, but I want to assure the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development that I have no apologies whatsoever to make to him. None whatever.

Not to me—I did not ask for myself: I asked for the Church.

But why must I apologize to the Church? I was quoting from a report of a commission set up by the Cape Synod. Is that correct or incorrect? The report, according to the Minister, was eventually turned down by the main body, but that is no concern of mine. I am only interested in knowing that this is a published report and the hon. the Minister cannot deny that. Can he deny that this is accepted by the Cape Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church? I say that any report that has been published, whether it be by the Dutch Reformed Church or the Jewish Synagogue or the Presbyterian Church or the Anglican Church or the Catholic Church, is available and free for anybody to use. That is what a public report means. There is nothing sacrosanct about it. Therefore I have no apologies to offer in this regard. I do not know why the Minister thinks that just because this is a report emanating from a Church, as I say, be it from the D.R.C. or any other Church, it means that one must treat it as though it is holy—it may not be used at all. What a lot of nonsense!

Progress reported.