Mr. Speaker, I move the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper as follows—

May I say that if any confirmation were needed of one’s lack of confidence, then that confirmation is given by the somewhat vague and tendentious document prepared by the Cabinet to be read by the acting hon. State President at the opening of Parliament. I know that that document is meant to review the world situation, to review Government policy, and to prepare the public for change. Why it should be so superficial and why so many important questions should be left out, I must say is quite beyond me. I think if I gave a few illustrations, what I meant would be very much clearer.

In the course of preparing that document the Cabinet gave itself a pat on the back because of the fact that our economy was so strong that it was not necessary for us to follow the example of Great Britain in devaluing her currency. That is all very well. But what of the burning questions agitating the minds of large sections of the agricultural community and those who process their products and who are likely to lose on their exports as a result of that devaluation? Many of them are situated in the Western Province, others in other parts of South Africa. What help is the Government going to give them?

There have been statements so far that are so vague as to be almost meaningless. Here we have this statement at the opening of Parliament and this important issue is left undealt with. These people have no idea what the future holds for them, they have no security, they cannot make plans.

I want to mention a second example. Here in this opening address much play is made, on pages 11 and 12 I think it is, of the Government’s plans for the Cape Coloured people. We are told of the establishment of the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council. We are told of the extension of powers which is going to be given to that Council; we are told of its importance in the political life of the Coloured people. But not a word as to the question which is agitating the minds of the more mature of the Coloured people, and that is whether their representatives are going to remain in this House after the termination of their present period of office.

The hon. the Prime Minister himself has made certain personal statements on this issue. Certain of his newspapers have been preparing the public for change. During the recess we had, first of all, the Select Committee converted into a Commission, which must have dealt with this issue, and which was supposed to have reported to the State President by the 30th November. That report has been in the hon. the Prime Minister’s hands. There is no indication here of what is going to happen; there is no indication of an answer to perhaps the most important question before the Cape Coloured people at the present time.

Let me give you a third example, Mr. Speaker. If you read this speech you will find you get the impression that all is well with our agriculture, or almost all is well. Is that so? Is that the situation? Despite good harvests last year we know that large sections of our agricultural community are in the most dire financial straits. We know that Government assistance in most cases was inadequate. We know there has been severe criticism of the way in which it has been administered. We know that even at the present time large sections of the country are suffering terribly from drought, and that the financial position of the farmers is desperate in those areas. We know that the position is so serious that we as an Opposition will seek a special occasion to discuss this matter. But there is not a mention of it in this document to indicate that the Government is even aware of the position of those farmers.

Do you know, Sir, this hon. Prime Minister has now occupied his high office for a period of some 16 months, and I think the time has come for us to look at the results of his assumption of authority. Every Prime Minister stamps his Government, even without legislation. Every Prime Minister stamps his Government even if he is leading the same party as his predecessor, and this hon. the Prime Minister is no exception.

There have been changes. This is a very different party from that led by Dr. Malan. It is even more different from the party led by the late Dr. Verwoerd. [Interjections.] There seems to be a certain amount of agreement on this issue. Perhaps it is the result of the meeting hon. gentlemen held this morning. [Laughter.] Mr. Speaker, some of that laughter is a little false. I want to say that these differences had visible effects in the rank and file of the Nationalist Party and are now even beginning to have repercussions in the caucus of the hon. gentlemen. But that is not for me to worry about. That is the hon. the Prime Minister’s problem. I want to say at once that these differences from previous Governments formed by the party opposite are something of a mixed bag. Some of them find favour on this side of the House; some of them on the other hand, as I think the next few months will show, are utterly unacceptable to us, totally repugnant to us. I want no uncertainty. The central core of the policy of the Nationalist Party remains unchanged.

I thought you said it was a different party?

I never said it was a different party. Mr. Speaker, I shall have to educate this hon. Prime Minister. He must listen to what is said and not jump to conclusions. I said that it was the same party but a different Government. I said that the hon. the Prime Minister had stamped it. I did not say that he had changed his party—at least not yet. The central core of the policy of this party remains unchanged.

I certainly cannot accuse you of that.

Mr. Speaker, the United Party has always been prepared to keep abreast of the times. This Government is nearly a century behind the times already.

Is that why you have stamped more people out of your party than into it?

Mr. Speaker, if ever there was a candidate for retirement, then it is that hon. Minister. The hon. the Prime Minister has been eyeing him for some time.

I think that it is quite clear that while the core of the policy of the Nationalist Party remains unchanged, it is dependent for its support upon certain illusions which it has succeeded in creating in the minds of the public. It is because the leadership of that party realizes that those beliefs are very largely illusions, that it is so determined to see that they are not debunked or shattered. Working towards that end you have their slavish Press, their propaganda, Radio Albert and you have their entire propaganda machine busy day after day. I want to say that no matter how strong this propaganda machine is, the fact of the matter is that they cannot continue indefinitely unless this Prime Minister is prepared to take the drastic action necessary to make a reality of those illusions and really put his policy into effect.

I have said that there have been carefully nurtured illusions in the public mind concerning this Government. I could not hope to deal with all of them. I hope to deal with just two or three and then with the master illusion upon which their support is mostly dependent.

I think that the first of the illusions with which I want to deal is the illusion in the minds of the public that this Government is giving adequate attention to the education of our people, to their technical training and to research. This is an illusion which can be a vital danger to South Africa. It can be a vital danger because hon. members opposite believe that it is possible to manage and develop South Africa as a modern industrial state using the skills, knowledge and the research ability of only about 3½ million of the 18 million people who live in the Republic of South Africa. They believe, Sir, that they will be able to maintain that standard, using only the administrative ability, the industrial skill and the research abilities of this small section. Whether that is possible, is a debatable point. One thing is certain, and that is that it will not be possible, unless priority is given to the development of the latent talents of those million people who have to take over that very great responsibility. Science and technology are developing so fast today that it is a herculean task just to keep up, let alone make up a backlog, if you once start getting behind.

I was really struck by what was written in a Johannesburg paper the other day, Sir. It said—

Now, Sir, of course I know the Government makes a substantial contribution on a subsidy formula laid down by the Holloway Commission in 1952. I know it is based on recognized costs and on numbers but I know what its weaknesses are, that it does not include provision for a rapid student increase or for a safety valve to allow for price rises. But I have been looking at what we spend in comparison with other countries. If you look at the expenditure of universities per student in the year 1960, you find that in the United Kingdom they spend R1,030 per student per year. In the United States of America they pay R860 per year. Here in South Africa we can only manage R320 per year. This is but a third of what they spend … [Interjections.]

But compare the results as well.

I am going to compare the results. [Interjections.] There are many reasons why South Africa should be grateful to that illustrious young surgeon, Prof. Chris Barnard, and his brilliant team of medicos at the University of Cape Town and at Groote Schuur Hospital. They brought renown to South Africa. They brought goodwill to our nation. We rejoice in their achievement. But I think there is another contribution Prof. Barnard and his team have made to our knowledge which, as far as I know, has not yet been recorded. Because his heart transplant operations have been dramatic, because they caught the imagination of the Press and the public, they have also focused attention on the plight of research workers in the Republic of South Africa. Prof. Barnard’s achievement has led to South African mining and financial houses making a magnificent contribution of a million rand and seems to have woken up the Provincial Administration in the Cape, which is going to make, apparently, another million rand available. The sponsors of the Chris Barnard Fund are persuading the public to make further funds available. The point is this. These needs existed and these facilities were inadequate before Prof. Barnard achieved his success, and the needs existed and the facilities were inadequate, Sir, not only in this sphere, but in many other spheres of research in South Africa at the present time.

The hon. the Minister of National Education will know what was said by certain of the professors at Potchefstroom University about research in South Africa being the stepchild of this Government. Yet hundreds of brilliant South African research students are struggling in many parts of the country and are being frustrated because of the unconcern of this Government and the lack of public interest. It was Professor Israelstam, associate professor of chemistry at the University of the Witwatersrand, I think, who said that if Professor Barnard needed R1 million or R2 million then the other branches of science in this country needed R50 million.

Sir, I think the attitude of this Government towards research has been wrong and shortsighted. I believe that because of their neglect many of our brilliant young scientists have left the country completely frustrated and discouraged and have gone to countries where they will have more adequate facilities for their work. What can one expect from this Government led by somebody like this hon. Prime Minister, who when he opened the medical faculty in Pretoria last year said that South Africa could afford the scientific brain drain and was in fact better off without people who deserted their fatherland?

Why do you not quote me in full?

I shall be pleased if the Prime Minister could tell us where he was reported wrongly. But if it is correct as I have had it from the newspapers then I want to say that this is a reckless and supercilious attitude and furthermore utterly shortsighted. It cannot be condemned too strongly.

But I think Professor Barnard and his team have given us another valuable lesson. What we need is to put new (hearts into our university faculties, into our State technical departments and into every possible branch of scientific endeavour in South Africa. I think we should take this heart of Professor Chris Barnard as a symbol for what we Should be doing in the scientific and research fields in South Africa. Let us take courage and let us learn the importance of freedom and scope for individual initiative and research. No scientist worth his salt is going to accept money for research with strings attached. Let us leave it to the universities and let us see that the facilities and the money are made available. The Government can do a great deal to make it easy for private enterprise to make contributions to research. In addition the Government could make conditions in its own departments more attractive. This and other matters are not receiving the urgent attention they should at the present time. If we are already 20 years behind it seems to me that it is just one of those tragedies which we have to suffer as a result of that party being in power.

But it is not only in research that we are behind. We are also behind in the ordinary education we are giving to our people.

You are a joker.

Sir, when I hear a remark like that coming from a Minister of Agriculture then I want to say that if he had known how short this Department of Agricultural Technical Services, which he is taking over, is of scientifically trained people, if he knew of the crying need there is for technical assistance in South Africa and what the agriculturists feel about the neglect of this Government, he would not have made a stupid remark like that. But I want to go on and say that far too many of our children are leaving school too early. Technical education is being neglected. The former Prime Minister admitted it. But I want to go further. I want to ask, what have we been spending on education? About 4.5 per cent of our national income. Against that Britain is spending 10.3 per cent and according to the hon. the Minister Russia is spending 6.8 per cent and the United States 7.3 per cent. Only a few years ago Dr. Marloth, president of the South African Association for the Advancement of Science, said the very survival of South Africa was being threatened by the acute shortage of highly trained technologists and scientists in the country. He pointed out that our secondary schools could not provide a fraction of the matriculants needed in South Africa at the present time, not only for our teaching requirements but also for our industrial requirements.

We know that this shortage goes to the very root of our manpower shortage and we know that it has played a role in creating the inflationary conditions existing in South Africa at the present time. It is inhibiting the growth of our economy and can undermine the security of the whole country. Therefore it has got to be tackled and tackled efficiently. When I raised this matter before in this House I was told by the Minister of National Education that my figures were wrong and that I did not know what I was talking about. Yet last year he came here and repeated the same figures and he himself admitted that we were not spending enough on education !

Sir, it seems to me that we have to make a tremendous effort and that we shall have to spend at least twice as much as what we have been spending in the past on education. Well, with its record I do not believe this is the Government to do that.

There is a second illusion I want to deal with, an illusion on which this Government relies for a great deal of support. This is the illusion on the part of this Nationalist Government that it is the friend of the White worker in South Africa. This is an illusion of long standing and has been carefully nurtured over the years. The wizard responsible for its conception is the hon. the Minister of Transport, because I have been re-reading what he has said in this House in 1943. He then said (Hansard, Vol. 45, col. 82)—

Now I wonder what worker in South Africa to-day reading this statement of the hon. gentleman, reading the promises he made on that occasion still believes that this is the same Nationalist Party as that to which he belonged in those days. You must remember, Sir, that the hon. gentleman was at pains to say that these were not vague promises because he said: “It is our intention to give effect to what I am saying here.” And what did he say? He said they intended introducing national minimum wages; they intended giving the workers a share in the profits brought about by their labour; they intended nationalizing key industries, prohibiting all Sunday time; they intended introducing a nationwide contributory pension scheme, controlling the cost of living effectively, etc.

I cannot deal with all of these. Let me deal for a moment only with the promise that the worker would share in the profits and let us look at the period between 1962 and 1966. We find that in industries wages and salaries have gone up by 46 per cent. Of the 248 companies which in 1961/62 showed a profit of R78.3 million, 224 by 1966 showed a profit of R150 million. Their profits have, therefore, gone up by 91 per cent—very nearly twice as fast as the rate of increase of the wages and salaries of the people they employ. And yet this is the Minister who said that the worker was going to share in the profits of industry. I think the kindest comment one can make is that the public realize that they cannot take honourable gentlemen opposite seriously.

That was a long time ago.

The bubble is bursting.

That is one of your illusions.

Even more illusionary is this other promise to control the cost of living. Ask any civil servant whether they are controlling the cost of living. Ask the Railway workers whether this Minister who made the promise of controlling the cost of living for them is carrying it out. I do not think any illusion has been debunked faster than this one that the Nationalist Government is the friend of the white worker in South Africa. But what are they finding? They find that even Nationalist-controlled industries are very quick to move to border areas where they can employ Black labour to do the same jobs that Europeans have been doing at one-third the rate of pay. And it is not unskilled labour either, Sir. Here is the last report of the Industrial Development Corporation, and this is what they say—

Sir, we know already of the unrest in White labour circles to-day because of the number of jobs done by Whites in the past which are now being taken over by non-Whites. As far as we are concerned, our warning went back ten years when we warned against the establishment of little Hong Kongs inside our own Republic. [Laughter.] Hon. members laugh, but what civilized country in the world would do this to their own established workers? What is happening? Are the wage determinations operating, Are the trade unions in a position where they can negotiate? Let me give you an example, Sir. Twelve years ago a certain shirt factory of the Veka group moved to Charlestown with the express object of using the Bantu labour in the area. 120 Whites in that industry lost their jobs and they were enabled to employ three Bantu for every White whom they had used. What we want to know is what has happened about closing the wage gap? Objections raised by the trade union workers in the established areas were multiplied every time a new industry moved to the border areas. The promise to pay equal rates and to enforce similar conditions of work as the Bantu workers become better trained and more sophisticated has never been realized at all. What is the position of the established worker in the White areas when that situation arises? You see, Sir, it has been highlighted by a statement from the Department of Planning. One of those officials said that Natal is almost entirely a border industrial area; the industrial areas in Natal are considered at this stage close enough to the African homelands to allow Africans to work in the industries but still to live with their families in their own areas; the Government, however, is to prevent the establishment and extension of industries in places where this is not possible. Now, we have already seen the White workers frozen out of certain industries as the result of movement to the border areas and as the result of jobs being reclassified at rates at which Whites will not work. But now we are in the position where we will have a whole province in which that situation is going to exist, and it is likely to be lost to the white worker.

What happens to the white workers? Will they all be unemployed?

Sir, you only have to listen to the Ministers contradicting themselves and asking questions, which make it perfectly clear that they do not know what is going on. The whole of Natal is to be industrialized under the system of border industries, and is going to be under wage regulations which no trade unionist would accept for his members. That is the situation, and that is why the White worker is suffering as a result. [Interjection.] Where do I get it from? Does the hon. gentleman not know what the general secretary of Tucsa said? Does he not know that he said that thousands of city workers were facing a bleak future? He dealt with the possible transfer of the Leyland Motor Factory to Rosslyn, where the Datsun-Nissan group were established and where the Fiat Factory is established, and he said that that would become the capital of the motor-car assembly industry in South Africa, and he could hold out no hope of employment for White, Coloured and Indian workers as border industries were intended by Government policy to cater for the Bantu.

Make that your election platform in Pretoria West.

Sir, when you hear the Deputy Minister of Agriculture venturing into the field of industry, it is a little appalling to imagine how he could have got to that position. This is what was said, namely that the trade union movement must feel distinct concern over the means by which the conditions of employment of these workers are being regulated. The future of White, Coloured and Indian workers employed in car assembly plants such as in Cape Town, Port Elizabeth and Durban looks extremely bleak, and he pointed out that the job reservation determination protecting Whites and Coloureds in this industry was virtually a dead letter and had not been possible to apply. [Interjection.] That hon. gentleman is encouraging White industrialists to move to border areas with promises of tax concessions, cheaper transport rates, exemption from minimum pay rates and the ability to write off more of their capital each year. He knows very well that those concessions are no bagatelle, and they are encouraging the employment of more Black workers as opposed to White workers. In those areas Black workers are allowed to do what only White workers can do in other areas. Then when you talk to the Department of Commerce and Industry, what do you get? You hear that wage differentiation is allowed in so far as it can be justified on grounds of lower productivity and lower living costs. Does that mean that the Bantu is going to be allowed to do a White man’s job at lower wages, because his costs of living in that area are lower? We have already had the Garment Workers’ Union complaining that lower wages were permitted in border areas. What is the Government’s answer? When is this gap going to be closed? It seems to me that the Government’s answer is that they will continue at the present rate until in fact the standard of wages of the Europeans in the White areas has dropped so low that it has got to the level of the non-White workers in the border area. [Interjection.] Sir, the hon. gentleman was talking about Pretoria. What is the position of Mr. Van den Berg of the Iron and Steel Workers’ Union? What does he find? More and more his trade union members form a smaller part of the labour in the industries concerned, and when he goes to negotiate he is negotiating only for a small percentage of his workers and not the whole group as in the past. The result is that the employers are able to beat him down as they could not do in the past. The employers are in the position where the majority of workers do not belong to his union, because a large percentage of them are non-Whites. For whom are these people fighting? What is the position really? The unions are specifically excluded from maintaining the standard for which they fought in the past in the very areas to which the Government is trying to force labour to move at present. We are told that there will be 37 established areas, and in those established areas there will be controlled development. There can be no development without the permission of the Minister of Planning.

I am afraid that we are in this position. Border areas, first of all, will not decrease the dependence of the Republic on Black labour. In fact, in the White border areas there will be far more Blacks in employment than at present. Secondly, border industrialization is not going to make a reality of Bantustan development or development inside the Reserves. In fact, it will slow up development in the reserves because the border industries are just the type of industries which could develop inside the reserves. If they once develop on the borders, they will not develop inside as well.

Thirdly, this border area development cannot of itself reduce the number of non-Whites employed in industry in the white areas. If it could, it would not have been necessary to pass that Planning Act limiting the number of Blacks being employed in the white areas. Fourthly, border area development is enormously costly. In this House last year, the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs told us that in December, 1966, R43,000,000 had been invested by the Industrial Development Corporation and R221,000,000 by private enterprise and R131,000,000 had been spent by the State in border areas, and for that expenditure the 1966 report of the Committee for the Location of Industry and the Development of Border Areas said that a total of 44,600 Bantu had been given employment. If you work that out. Sir, it comes to nearly R9,000 per head per job for the development of border industries.

What does it cost in Johannesburg?

In the highly industrialized areas, it would not have been a third of that amount. I have challenged hon. members opposite before, particularly that noisy Deputy Minister, and they have never come to this House with the figures. I think they are afraid to produce them to this House. I do not think they have figures to prove that it is cheaper than in our industrialized areas.

I will give you figures to show that it cost 260,000 to employ one black person.

Mr. Speaker, you see the ridiculousness of this sort of statement by the hon. gentleman. He knows very well that the object of the Industrial Act was not to provide work for Blacks. He is going to look for an industry with a large number of Whites and one black and then say “that is what it cost to employ one black”. We know that hon. Deputy Minister. Even industrialists in South Africa are ceasing to be impressed with him any more. They have realized that the fact that you make a noise does not mean that you are talking sense. I want to say straight away that we of the United Party are not opposed to sensible decentralization of industry for economic or sociological reasons. The Government’s present policy is neither sensible nor economically sound. The industrialist is being cajoled into border areas; the cost is enormous; the future of the white worker is being jeopardized; the Bantu is being forced to work outside his homeland in ever-greater numbers and development inside the reserves is not a necessary concomitant of development in the border areas. It is not just I who say these things; it is not just the opponents of the Government who say these things; the engineering department of the Transvaal Board for the Development of Periurban Areas issued a statement, when there was a discussion as to whether there should be an additional white township established adjacent to the Rosslyn border area near Pretoria, and they quoted a Stellenbosch professor, Professor Page, on the urbanization of Bantu homelands—

Sir, if that is the position, where is the white worker being protected by this Government? We are told that there are black workers being encouraged to work in the border areas and that white workers are working in these 37 controlled areas. But this must be coupled with the remarks of the hon. the Minister of Planning, because this is what he says—

Even a ratio of one white worker to one African worker is not good enough for the hon. gentleman.

I am not wedded to a ratio at all.

Surely you were mis reported?

I was not.

The hon. gentleman says that he was not misreported. Well, if he was not, then perhaps he will refer to one single industry in which more Whites are employed than Blacks. Let us hear from the hon. gentleman which industry employs more Whites than Blacks? There is one—the printing industry has more Whites than Blacks.

Look at the figures for some of the other industries. In the woodwork industry 9.5 per cent are white; in textiles 11.2 per cent, in leather 11.7 per cent, in clothing 11.9 per cent, in footwear 11.8 per cent, in food 16.3 per cent, in metal products 27.6 per cent, and it goes up to 55.7 per cent in the case of the printing industry, which is the only industry employing more Whites than Blacks. Am I to understand from that hon. gentleman that it is only the printing industry that is going to be allowed in these controlled areas? What an opportunity, Sir, for improving our literacy in South Africa! Imagine 37 controlled areas pumping out literature. If we cannot read it all ourselves, we can always export it! That, Sir, is the protection that the white worker is getting at the hands of this Government.

I want to deal with a third claim and that is that this Government knows how to manage the finances of this country. Sir, I wonder if it is appreciated to what extent this Government is to blame for the inflationary conditions with which we have been afflicted in South Africa. I wonder if it is realized to what extent it is due to Government incompetence and Government misjudgment? I wonder if it is realized to what extent the measures taken to counteract inflation had to be intensified and made more severe because of the failure of the Government to realize what the situation was and its failure to curb its own spending? Mr. Speaker, I do not want to deal with this at length. I just want to remind hon. members opposite that this Government was quite incapable of managing the boom of the sixties. It did not realize that when we were short of men and services its own competition in the market for men and services forced up prices and created inflation. Do you know, Sir, that between the Budget of 1961-’62 and the Budget of 1967-’68, Government expenditure went up 153 per cent? It went up from R899,000,000 to an estimated expenditure for the current financial year of R2,232,000,000. It is possible that it has been cut down a bit because they have now realized the severity of the situation. But expert after expert drew their attention to this. They would not listen. Even last year when they were making appeals to the public and to the private sector of the economy to cut down, Government expenditure in the Budget went up 7½ per cent. It received protest after protest. Now you find that the Government is calling upon workers to accept a wage freeze to get them out of the trouble they have created for themselves. Sir, excessive inflation is one of the worst maladies from which any country can suffer. Why should people save if their savings are to be worth so much less in a few years’ time? How can they save? What is the point of working harder to attain an improved standard of living if increased wages are outstripped by increases in the costs of the necessities of life? I believe that in the circumstances for which this Government is responsible it is unreasonable of them to expect workers to exercise a great deal of restraint when it comes to wage increases.

But when they are making those appeals I think the public of South Africa is entitled to certain assurances from the Government. The first of these is that efficiency in government departments is being raised effectively; the second is that government expenditure is being cut, that it is being co-ordinated, and that it is being selected on the basis of priorities aimed at protecting the best interests of the economy as a whole; the third is that the nation is getting maximum value for this tremendous expenditure on defence at the present time; and the fourth that the Government is using all means at its disposal to reduce the cost of living, for example by reducing tariffs, by keeping the costs of transport as low as possible, by removing duties that put up costs. Can the hon. the Prime Minister give those assurances to this House? Will the hon. the Minister of Transport, sitting with his pockets bulging with a surplus which he had gained from his transport this year as a result of the profits made, give those assurances?

Basically our problem in South Africa was a shortage of goods and services. If we had enough goods and services there would be very little danger of inflation. I am well aware of the difficulties of meeting that demand in the short run, but in the long run it seems that the right course we should have followed would have been to pay more attention to the increase in goods and services than to many of the restrictive measures of which the Government has made itself guilty.

I know I will be told that it has checked the rise in the cost of living. But at what level has it checked it, and what privation has it left in its wake? There is no doubt whatever that the living standards of our civil servants, of our pensioners, of many of our railway employees and people on fixed salaries have taken a tremendous knock already. Now we are beginning to get the side effects of a credit squeeze. Money is piling up in the banks, piling up in government coffers, piling up in the hands of some of the big institutions. One is faced with the fact that there are many thousands of farmers and small men crying out for facilities. And now what is going to happen? We are in danger of reaching a position where the Government’s remedy may be as bad as the disease. If it relaxes too much you may get increases in cost of living again. If it does not relax it may force a recession in the South African economy. We may easily land in a position of relaxation following restriction, and restriction relaxation, in an ever shortening cycle, which is always the danger after a credit squeeze.

I want to say that I do not believe the public of South Africa can have the confidence that this government will take the right decision at the right time in this delicate situation after the appalling record it has had in managing the finances of the country.

There are many thousands of people in South Africa to-day who are without decent accommodation. There are many civil servants who are dissatisfied and feel they are forgotten by Ministers who have become accustomed to their own affluence. There are many railway workers pressing for rises. There are many post office workers pressing for rises in their salaries. There are many workers in industry who want inceases. There are many others too, for instance housewives, who are finding it difficult to make ends meet, who know how difficult the situation is for the ordinary person in South Africa at the present time. I believe it is not going to be long before their illusions are shattered.

I want to hurry on and deal with the master illusion, the master illusion of them all …

Bantustans?

Even this hon the Minister knows! What a confession!

I did compliment the hon. the Minister earlier by saying he was a wizard, and he has proved it again this afternoon.

I said I know the way your mind works.

The hon. the Minister must be a wizard. I think what the hon. gentleman really knows is how awkward the situation is for the Government. I think he has been waiting to see what chance he has got of destroying this argumnt. Let us deal with it for him. I think that the master illusion is the belief amongst the public that this policy of separate development as applied by this Government is providing a solution to the relations between European and non-European in South Africa. I am not going to talk about the Coloureds and Indians—I am going to talk only about White and Bantu relations. I think it is common cause between the hon. the Minister, the hon. the Prime Minister and myself that for this policy to have any hope of success, the Bantu homelands must be developed to the point where they can absorb the natural increase of their present population, and a certain percentage of the population which the hon. the Deputy Minister and the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development are trying to send back to the Bantu homelands. They must not only absorb them, but absorb them at a decent standard of living. If that cannot be achieved then the policy is a failure, a fraud, and a delusion. That is what we have got to examine.

Hon. members opposite no doubt are aware that there have recently been certain Government-sponsored tours of the Bantu homelands, of the Reserves, to show the faithful and others what progress was being made. I would say hon. members opposite are perhaps uncomfortably aware of those tours. In the course of one tour Dr. Eiselen was interviewed by the Press. He was one of those who had helped to formulate Government policy. He was asked what progress has been made towards the ultimate goal of changing the labour flow to the cities into a flow back towards the homelands. Dr. Eiselen described this as a “rather difficult question”. I am sure it is so for the Government. It goes to the root of the whole question. It is the measure of the Government’s failure. Then, as a man of integrity, Dr. Eiselen said, “Statistics would show that the number of Bantu in the urban areas over the last decade had grown considerably.” If that is the position, what progress has been made? So-called White South Africa is blacker than ever. The chances of changing the pattern are as remote as ever. I think there can be no doubt whatever that the people who visited the homelands as guests of the Government were prepared to be impressed by what they saw and were prepared to be convinced of the success of the scheme. I want to say at once there is not a single report on those tours that does not stress the remarkable dedication of the officials, the White officials, engaged in the task of building up those reserves, that does not stress and give generous praise to their success in erecting thousands of miles of fencing, building over a thousand dams, making miles of conservation banks, sinking hundreds of boreholes. For this work I think South Africa should be grateful, and South Africa owes them a very big debt of thanks. I do not think they receive sufficient public recognition for the work they do.

Mr. Speaker, what is the significance of this tremendous effort after nearly 20 years of Nationalist Party rule against the task of making the reserves more independent economically and of increasing their carrying capacity? You see, Sir, by the end of the century the Bantu population is going to be round about 28 million—that is in just over 30 years’ time. The reserves at the moment are supporting at a pitiable level of bare subsistence some 4 million people, a high proportion of them dependent on earnings by relatives outside the reserves. They have not been able to support the natural increase of their own population, let alone absorb an inflow from outside.

There were certain reports written on these tours, and from them one gleans certain information which I gather came from the officials who met the tourists. One of these reports on the Transkei interested me because it reveals that the total number of Bantu in the Transkei employed in industry at the present time is approximately 1,700. Total employment in the Transkei was only 32,700, but from the Transkei 257,500 men and women went out to work in areas outside. When you take the figure of 32,700 for total employment, it presumably excludes subsistence farming. Of this 32,700 nearly half were in the employ of the Government. This gives one some idea of the magnitude of the task and of the insignificant achievements by this Government after 20 years. Mr. Speaker, I need not remind you that Tomlinson in 1955 recommended that there should be created annually 20,000 new jobs in industry in the Bantustans—that is, each year for the next 25 to 30 years. That means that there should have been a quarter of a million jobs created already. Having regard to population figures one-third should have been in the Transkei. Against all this after the 12 or 13 years that we have had the Tomlinson Commission’s report and the application by the Government of this policy, the total employment in industry is approximately 1,700. What a miserable performance that is.

We heard here about an irrigation scheme in the Transkei. We heard that it costs R7 million and that it was in the area of Chief Kaiser Matanzima. It will cost R7 million and will give employment to 2,365 African farmers with a potential yield of R450 per farm per year. When one takes into account the initial cost of R7 million, it means approximately R3,000 per farmer. Let us compare that with what Tomlinson estimated. He said that we had to find farms for 307,000 families and he reckoned that it would cost R93 million, or R300 per family. The figures I have just quoted show that the costs are ten times as high as those which Tomlinson estimated. I admit that it is an irrigation scheme. Let us look at the report from the Transvaal. There it was R800 per farmer for a small group of farmers. The 307,000 families of which Tomlinson spoke are probably 400,000 units to-day. They must be resettled in farming areas where they can make a subsistence. What is this going to cost? Let us take an average of the two and say that it is about R2,000 per unit. That comes to about R800 million for settling this group on farming land in the reserves, and then we are not talking about industries either on the borders of the areas or inside the areas themselves. I have already mentioned how expensive border area development is from the figures given by the hon. the Minister. When you look at these figures and you see what the Government is spending and how painfully slow the progress is—if you can call it progress—you realize that the natural increase within the reserves, which is not as great as the natural increase outside the reserve, is already growing faster than can be coped with at the rate of development at the present time. If that is the situation, then this policy can never work. Then this policy is a fraud and a delusion of the people of South Africa. It is not only the tourists who go to the reserves who are disillusioned. Look at what happened when the leading intellectuals met the Suid-Afrikaanse Buro vir Rasse-aangeleenthede at their annual conference last year. What did we find? We had Dr. Adendorff, Chairman of the Bantu Investment Corporation, revealing that the average income per head of the Bantu in the reserves was R53 per annum, of which R22 was earned inside the reserves and over R30 coming from relatives outside the reserves. He also quoted authorities to show that in the next 15 years in the reserves alone, work would have to be found annually for 39,000 males alone. He gave figures to show that he believed that it would cost the private sector, excluding what it would cost the Government, approximately R5,000 per head, for jobs for Bantu in border industries. Supposing these figures are accepted, what will it cost to get this scheme off the ground? In the next 15 years just to provide work for the natural increase of the Bantu in the reserves will cost thousands of millions of rand. From the income figures little is going to come from them. What is the Government going to do about this? Is it going to spend that money and provide those jobs, or is it going to give up its policy? I have spoken to thousands of workers. Mr. Speaker, you know what the Government is committed to now? It has a five-year plan costing R491 million and finishing in 1971. That is chicken feed, a bagatelle, compared with what they would have to spend if this policy is to be made a success in respect of the natural increase of the Bantu in the reserves already and not those sent back by the hon. the Deputy Minister. That is merely to provide jobs for those in the reserves already. Mr. Speaker, do you realize that in the reserves there are only 37.9 per cent of the total Bantu population? When you see those figures you realize how divorced from reality is the present Government’s policy and how utterly inadequate is their planning if the policy of seperate development is ever to be applied and made a reality. I wish that they would be just as realistic as the Chief Minister of the Transkei, Chief Kaiser Matanzima, who told his own Legislative Assembly on the 20th April—

That is his view. Then there was Dr. Adendorff himself who told Sabra quite bluntly:

Then there was Professor Moolman of the University of South Africa who said that more land would have to be made available to the Bantu than was envisaged in the 1936 settlement. He pleaded that land on the borders of the reserves should be opened for purchase by independant Bantu. Then we had the Commissioner-General for South West Africa, Dr. Olivier, who warned Sabra that if the process of decreasing the numbers of Africans in the White areas proceeded at a slower rate, it may as well be abandoned and that Government policy could only succeed through the large-scale development of the homelands. What is the Government going to do? This is a serious matter. It affects the security of the whole of South Africa. Does the Government really know what it is about, or is it suffering from this master illusion itself? To bring realism back to people’s thinking in South Africa, I challenged the hon. the Prime Minister publicly on two occasions to get his Economic Advisory Council to work out what it would cost to make this policy a reality. I challenge him again this afternoon. Let him tell us what it will cost to make this policy a reality and not just a shadow, an illusion. Let him tell us what it is going to mean in terms of additional taxation. Let him tell us what it is going to mean in terms of economic stagnation in the areas where the Minister of Planning will not allow development. Let him tell us what it is going to mean in falling living standards for the whole of the population. Let him tell us what it is going to mean in additional sacrifices for everybody. I do not know whether the hon. the Prime Minister will answer my challenge forthrightly and fully.

I challenge you to state your alternative.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Deputy Minister does not know the policy or he would not have left this side of the House.

The Prime Minister cannot answer my challenge fully without exposing how preposterous his own policy is. The hon. gentleman has got to attempt to reply if he wants to maintain this illusion that he has an answer. I want to forecast even now that it will not be a full reply. I think that the time has come for the people to be told the whole truth on this matter as the failure of this policy could mean tremendous danger for South Africa because then the Government has no policy.

This policy has broken down. The things for which it stood, no longer exist. It cannot carry them out. We placed our alternatives before the hon. gentlemen. We told them time and again how the reserves could be developed very much more cheaply than they are doing it at the present time. We have told them how there could be controlled use of private White capital. And now the Chief Minister of the Transkei, Chief Kaiser Matanzima, when he addressed the tourists, said the time had come for negotiations between his Government and the Government of the Republic as to the controlled use of private White capital in developing the reserves. We told them how we believed they could attract capital to the reserves. We told them that we wanted to see a measure of self-government there. We told them that we were not prepared to see independence for the reserves, but that they should always remain under the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa. I believe, Sir, that they are going to be forced into that policy, because I do not believe that their policy can ever become a reality. Mr. Speaker, I believe that many people support them to-day because of the illusions that I have mentioned. I think the time has come for us to get reality into the political debate in South Africa. That is why I moved this motion of no-confidence, certain that a large section of the public of South Africa is beginning to see through the sort of bluff that has been put over by this Government for so long.

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and I want to thank him for one thing, and that is that in his motion this year he at least did not pretend to be serious. For this is what I find striking, Mr. Speaker: We have come here again to discuss the affairs of the country and it is the prerogative of the Leader of the Opposition to introduce this motion. After all that has been happening in the world, all the influences to which South Africa has been exposed, one would at least have expected that the Leader of the Opposition would have referred in passing to these things in order to invite a discussion of them. Instead of doing so, the Leader of the Opposition not only gave us summaries of his old speeches, but in fact gave us a repetition of the various speeches he made during the 1966 election. Last night I happened to be paging through my cuttings, and I can give the hon. the Leader of the Opposition the assurance that there was nothing he said to-day that I did not come across in his election speeches of 1966, except in so far as new statistics had been added here and there. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has now been using these to justify a motion of no-confidence in the Government. Surely, Mr. Speaker, he has had a reply to those old speeches. The reply came from the electorate in 1966.

But in addition I would at least have expected the Leader of the Opposition to have told us something about his new policy which he has found in the meantime. Mr. Speaker, you remember of course that, when they met in Bloemfontein towards the end of last year, the Leader of the Opposition was like a schoolboy who had received a new schoolbag, because he had found a new policy. I expected that he would come and tell us about that policy. I sat attentively waiting for it to come. No, the Leader of the Opposition reminds me of an old bachelor who has at last found himself a girl friend and is now ashamed to come and show her to his father. Otherwise I really cannot think why the Leader of the Opposition did not discuss this matter. I think that we could use our time much more profitably, instead of repeating the old things now which we have mulled over repeatedly, and to which the replies have been given year after year …

Reply to me on this.

… and to which the replies will again be given to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. But the hon. gentleman must not take it amiss of us. Sometimes he is so dense that it is very difficult to get through to him. We shall furnish the replies again, but we want the guarantee that they will penetrate. They will be furnished on this occasion by my colleagues. But I want to ask the hon. the Leader to consider that we on our part, if the hon. the Leader is too ashamed, want to make use of this opportunity, which has pre-eminently been created in terms of parliamentary procedure for an Opposition to state its alternative policy …

No, that is not true.

Here the hon. the Leader has a pre-eminent opportunity. According to the little I know of parliamentary procedure it creates the opportunity for an Opposition to state the alternative, in other words, to state its policy. But we are going to discuss it. The hon. the Leader is not going to escape it.

But let me reply now to a few aspects brought forward by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He criticized the Opening Address. Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Leader knows as well as I do that the problem in an Opening Address is to make it as short as possible. After all it is quite impossible for one to cover all matters of importance in that Opening Address. It is particularly impossible to make unnecessary references to matters which have already been dealt with in public. But let me now take the three examples which the hon. the Leader quoted as shortcomings. I do not know whether this is also supposed to be one of the reasons why there should be a lack of confidence in the Government. The hon. member referred to devaluation. I should not have talked about that if I were the hon. member. The hon. member is the only person who. when we did not follow Britain’s example, levelled the reproach against us that if we had not governed so badly we could also have devalued. [Interjections.] That, in essence, is what the hon. member said. I would honestly not have referred to it if he had not mentioned it. But surely the hon. member is aware that the Government stated its attitude in regard to this matter through the mouth of the Minister of Finance. It was not necessary to repeat it in the Opening Address. The people who have an interest in that matter and whose products have been affected as a result, know precisely what the Government’s attitude is.

Who said that?

The hon. the Minister of Finance made it clear in his statement.

Very vaguely.

Is it vague if the hon. the Minister of Finance states the principles which the Government will apply in that regard? Or is it because principles are so vague and mean so little to the hon. member for Yeoville? The hon. the Leader found it necessary to express criticism because nothing had been said about the Coloured representatives in this House. It is true that nothing was said about them, for very obvious reasons, namely that the Commission had submitted its report, and the hon. the Leader and everybody else know that that report will in due course, as soon as the printers have finished with it, I hope before the end of the month, be laid upon the Table here and will then be discussed. Was it really necessary to mention it?

But you discussed the matter while the Commission was sitting.

All I did was to state in this Parliament, before and after that Commission, what my attitude in regard to that matter was. The hon. the Leader knows that. I stated my attitude in regard to that matter the very first time I spoke in this House. But it would be premature to go into details on this matter before the Commission’s report is laid upon the Table so that it may be discussed by Parliament. The hon. the Leader need not be afraid. He will definitely be called upon to take up a standpoint in regard to that report.

The hon. the Leader found it strange that, as he said, nothing was said about hardships being suffered by farmers. I want to assert that references were made to that matter, but what is far more important—I do not know whether the Leader of the Opposition is aware of this—is that long discussions on this matter were held among the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, the Minister of Finance, the farmers and myself. What more did the hon. the Leader want?

For the rest, the hon. the Leader referred to differences in my Party and what was supposed to have happened at our caucus meeting this morning. I have not heard yet. If the hon. the Leader should happen to hear, would he please let me know? [Laughter.] I would appreciate it if he would let me know. But let me tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition this. Surely it was not to-day but a long time ago that he started looking forward to something happening in our Party which would be a comfort to him. Surely this is not the first time that these predictions have been made. I want to quote the best authority I have in this field, namely Sir De Villiers Graaff. As far back as March, 1966, the hon. the Leader also discussed these matters—

This kind of gossip from newspapers and the Opposition is not going to bring about a split in the National Party. May I now, to conclude my discussion of this matter, say the following to the Leader of the Opposition, and I can say this because I am the leader of the National Party. There is not a single man sitting on this side in this Parliament who does not subscribe 100 per cent to the entire policy of the National Party in all its aspects. [Interjections.]

Order!

I say that there is not a single person on this side in this House who does not fully subscribe, in letter and in spirit, to the entire policy of the National Party in all its consequences and as it has also revealed itself under my leadership. But can the hon. the Leader say that of his people? I can guarantee each one of my supporters, but can the hon. the Leader guarantee the hon. member for Karoo? [Interjection.] You may as well ask him in person, and he will tell you precisely what I have just told you.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition levelled the reproach at us that we were not spending enough on education and research. Let me say at once that no country can ever say that it is spending enough on research and education. It would be foolish even to try and suggest that. Therefore I do not want to maintain, and we have never yet maintained, that we are spending enough in that regard. I can tell the hon. the Leader, and I have already said so in my New Year’s message, because the Government decided this last year already, that we are going to spend more on these things. Just wait until the Budget is introduced.

But we have been waiting for that for 15 years already.

No, that cannot be, because the hon. the Leader ought to be aware of the fact that under this Government we are at present spending almost three times as much on one university, namely the University of Pretoria, as was spent under the Government of that party on all the universities together.

But I want to go further. You can say to any government that it is not spending enough but then you have not said all there is to say on the matter. Why does the hon. the Leader not take into account the fact that it was this very Government which established so many more educational institutions? Why does he not say that it was this Government—and now I am speaking more specifically of the Transvaal, which I am acquainted with because I lived there—which had to establish from scratch school facilities which the United Party had failed to establish when they had the opportunity to do so? Why does the hon. Leader not tell us that a town such as Brakpan, where I lived, and which had 28,000 white inhabitants at that time, did not have a single high school? The first high school to be established in that town—and to-day there are five —was established after 1948, when the National Party came into power. There were 28,000 Whites who did not even have a place for their children to go to. [Interjection.] It is a question of who was in power, and it was the United Party which was in power. It is this Government which established additional universities, despite the difficulty of our financial position at the time. I am referring to the Rand Afrikaans University in Johannesburg and the Port Elizabeth University, apart from the numerous other technical institutions which have been established by my colleague, the Minister of Education. But we can go further. Of course it is always possible to say that people are not spending enough, but is the hon. the Leader aware of the fact that on a percentage basis we in South Africa have the second highest number of university students in the world and that on a percentage basis only America has more students at universities than tiny South Africa? Is it not something to be proud of that such a thing could be achieved by this tiny country? It is true, and I want to repeat, that one can spend more, but I want to say to you that, considering our means and our resources, this Government has done more than can be expected of it in this field.

Now, the hon. the Leader has criticized me for what I said in Pretoria about certain scientists leaving the country The hon. member referred to the brain drain. This is not a phenomenon which is confined to South Africa alone. It is a phenomenon which is at present causing Britain a great deal of concern, so much so that there is even talk of introducing legislation. It is a phenomenon which is found in many European countries. We are aware of the fact that America can buy many things with her money. She can buy scholars and scientists. This phenomenon is not confined to us alone. But I want to repeat what I said at Pretoria University. I referred to leftist university people, and I referred to those people who have become too important for South Africa. I said, and I want to repeat it here, that if a man has become too important for South Africa, then we can do without him; and the kind of people who are continually stating that the political climate in South Africa is such that a scientist can no longer live here, do not want to practise science; they want to practise Communism. There is no room here for people of this kind.

The hon. member had very high praise for Professor Barnard. I agree with him wholeheartedly there, and I have done my share in that connection. But he is not the only one. We have many good scientists, and I have already referred to the fact that we have scientists of a very high calibre in the medical field, in the field of nuclear power, in the field of veterinary surgery and in the field of agriculture who are doing very good work. If everything is in as sad a state of affairs as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants to make out, how have we been able to achieve the results which we have in fact achieved? I would be the last person to say that we have provided sufficient facilities. But the hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows as well as I do that in older countries of the world, and especially in America, a tremendous amount of money is being made available for research by private bodies. He knows how we have, over the years, made appeals to private bodies in South Africa. Some bodies have in fact responded; others have not.

You do not make it attractive enough for them.

In all the years I have been sitting in this House, hon. members on that side have never, when these proposals came before the House, said to the responsible Minister that they could suggest a better formula than the one which he had proposed here. Surely this was a shameful dereliction of duty on the part of hon. members. One is grateful for the fact that our people have come to a new realization of the necessity of making contributions. One is very grateful for the contributions which have in fact been made. Together with the Leader of the Opposition I want to make an appeal to moneyed persons and bodies to make larger contributions to an ever-increasing extent in order to undertake research which is important to all of us. The Government will do its share in this regard. The Government will not only do its share as far as research is concerned. I also envisaged that the Government would honour those people, and not only those people, in a fitting way. While dealing with this subject I want to say that I have also made the decision of the Government known. We have made a great deal of progress—and I hope that we shall finalize the matter this year —towards honouring, in a fitting way, those who have in general rendered great services to South Africa. It has been a shortcoming in our public life which the Government wants to rectify and in regard to which it has already taken a decision. But I want to say that as far as general research is concerned, there are in fact facilities and that those facilities will be improved. The Government will see to that, and in the past we have done what was necessary.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to the white worker whom we have allegedly neglected. He also mentioned in passing that it had been necessary “to call upon the workers to accept a wage freeze”. Sir. that was never done; that is not true. All I did was to make an appeal to the workers, who happened, through their representatives, to adopt the same point of view, namely that an increase was only justified if it went hand-in-hand with increased productivity, and my appeal was that they should not at that juncture come forward with wage demands which could stand over, because at that moment we were in a delicate position as regards our struggle against inflation. I want to express my gratitude and appreciation to the workers of South Africa, who acted very responsibly in regard to this matter. It was not only in connection with this matter that they acted responsibly, but I also want to say this: If one considers the loss of man-hours in other countries, if one considers the labour unrest in other countries, then we have a great deal to be grateful for as regards the responsible behaviour of our workers in South Africa. Let us understand one another very clearly in regard to this matter: I do not want to say that people do not have a few grievances here and complaints there; we all know that this is the case. We all know that they want a change in working conditions here, and higher salaries there. That is the general thing; we know that it is so. But nowhere in the world will you find a happier working class than here in South Africa. It will be of no avail to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to try and play off the workers of South Africa against the National Party. But, Sir, what is more, it is surely not necessary for us to argue this matter across the floor of the House; surely we can put it to a practical test soon in Bloemfontein (West), in Pretoria (West), in Bethlehem and in Swellendam. The workers of South Africa know what they have in this Government. After all, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and I know that he has in the past made much greater promises to the workers of South Africa— things such as boreholes and windmills. The hon. member for Yeoville went much further; at times one got the impression that he was promising the workers six days vacation in the week and overtime on the seventh for coming to draw their salaries. That kind of thing we have had time and again in South Africa, but the workers of South Africa—and I am grateful for this—responded at that stage to my appeal. They know that their interests are safe with this Government. Where does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition get the idea that standards have been lowered? Mention to me one group of workers or an individual worker whose standard of living is lower to-day than two, three or ten years ago. Surely that is not so. The standard of living of our people is increasing steadily, and one is grateful that that is so. But I shall return to that later, if time permits.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to the border areas. I want to ask him in all sincerity whether he has ever visited a border area.

Yes.

Which one?

Outside East London and in Zululand.

Then you have not seen anything yet.

I would suggest that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition should also visit a place such as Rosslyn. I have had the opportunity of visiting some of these areas—not all. I talked to the industrialists, the white workers and the Coloured workers, and I must say that I was pleasantly surprised to find that the conditions and circumstances were so much better than even I had thought.

Have you been to Hammarsdale?

What is wrong with that?

I do not know why the hon. the Leader of the Opposition goes out of his way to disparage the border areas. It took us a long time to break down the prejudice which was built up against the border areas by, inter alia, hon. members on the opposite side. I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that border areas have a tremendous future in South Africa. Not only do they have a tremendous future, but they are going to be a tremendous asset to South Africa—without any doubt—not only from the economic point of view, but also from a sociological point of view and from any other point of view one chooses to look at them. They ought to receive encouragement from a Leader of the Opposition as well.

My hon. friend referred to the position regarding inflation. He only dealt with it briefly. It is a subject which he and I usually have to deal with rather briefly. He referred to Government expenditure which had increased. Sir, we have debated that matter before, and we shall debate it again this year. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition will remember that we repeatedly asked that we be shown which expenditure we should cut. He will also know what replies we received from that side. You see, Sir, our problem with the Opposition is this: If one has no responsibility, one is at liberty to criticize. On the one hand one levels criticism because the Government is spending too much, without saying what expenditure should not be incurred, and on the other hand one promises that if one should come into power one would spend so many millions more than the Government is spending at present. But what is the financial position of South Africa as far as the Leader of the Opposition and myself as laymen are concerned? What picture does it present at the moment? The fact of the matter is that since 1960, the date chosen by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition …

1961.

I am taking the previous year now. The fact of the matter is that from 1960 to 1966 we were able to maintain a growth rate of 6 per cent in South Africa. There are few countries that can compete with us in that respect. In spite of all the circumstances we were still able to maintain a growth rate of between 6 and 7 per cent in 1967. But how far did we progress with the struggle against inflation? That is, after all, the criterion. Once again I have to remind hon. members on the opposite side that inflation was not confined to South Africa alone. All of a sudden, according to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, it is this Government’s fault. Inflation made its appearance in all countries of the world; I shall have a few more words to say about that later on. The question is not whether inflation made its appearance here, because it made its appearance everywhere. The question is how effectively we have been combating it. I maintain that this Government has combated inflation very effectively, and that the Government can, with complete equanimity, pat itself on the back for the way in which it has done so, and that without disrupting its economy, without promoting unemployment, for that is important to our people. I have been informed that the latest unemployment figure in South Africa is .8 per cent.

For Whites?

Yes, for Whites and Coloureds. Naturally Bantu are not included—they are never included in these figures.

[Inaudible.]

Oh, Sir, that was the position even before the rinderpest … [Interjections.] Other countries have not been as fortunate as South Africa in that regard. And that notwithstanding the fact that South Africa had three things counting against it which other countries did not have. South Africa was continually subject to the pressure of threats and boycotts. And progress and development and threats and boycotts are not twin brothers. On the contrary. And that notwithstanding the fact that South Africa has had to make sacrifices to spend money on defence which she would not have spent under normal circumstances. That notwithstanding the fact that in view of the boycotts and threats South Africa had to pursue a policy of stockpiling strategic material which cost her many millions, money which she would otherwise not have spent. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not take that into account. I say that, notwithstanding all these things. South Africa was able to achieve what she did achieve, was able to strengthen both local and overseas confidence in South Africa. I am able to state here to-day with the greatest confidence in the world that South Africa is at present being regarded by people who know, who want to know and who ought to know, as one of the countries of the future. There is tremendous confidence in South Africa. In fact, the tremendous confidence which is being placed in South Africa is one of the very causes of the problems we are now discussing here. There is confidence in South Africa, not only because South Africa has the potential, but because these people know that there is a Government in power here which will keep matters in order … [Interjections.] We know only too well that, as a result of the vicissitudes of governments, as a result of events throughout the world, the first question an industrialist asks himself before investing in a country, particularly before he invests in Africa, is this: “Is there a stable government in that country?” That is the first question these people ask. He asks whether there is a stable government and he inquires about the labour market—whether there is a satisfied labour market. Sometimes he inquires about the Opposition as well! [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, it is not a question now of my blowing my own trumpet or extolling my own party. The fact of the matter is that apart from the potential of South Africa, apart from the working capacity and reliability of its people, one of the reasons why people believe in South Africa is that they believe in this Government. They believe that the policy of this Government is the right policy for South Africa. I shall return to this. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that we were vulnerable in respect of inflation. What is the latest position? The rate of inflation for the last nine months—one may as well say the past year—was 1.8 per cent. The hon. the Leader is aware that it was almost twice as high in the preceding years. But this is the result of our struggle against inflation. Let us look at comparable countries. I want to mention this here for the sake of the record. On account of the impression which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition tried to create here I should like to quote certain figures in this regard. In Canada it was 4.1 per cent, in the Netherlands 3.9 per cent, in Japan 3,6 per cent, in Italy 3.8 per cent, in the U.S.A. 2.7 per cent, In Belgium 3.2 per cent, in Sweden 4.5 per cent, in Austria 5 per cent, in Denmark 4.9 per cent in Spain 7.1 per cent, and in Portugal 4.9 per cent. Those were the rates of inflation in those countries. In Britain it was 1.4 per cent and in West Germany 1.3 per cent. But the hon. the Leader knows what happened in Britain. He knows about the pegging of prices and wages which occurred there. He also knows what has happened to Britain’s economy. I do not think there is anyone in South Africa, and I say this with all due respect to another country, who would exchange South Africa’s economic position for that of Britain. We are aware of the unemployment which resulted. West Germany took very drastic steps to restrict the figure to 1.3 per cent, but it led to unemployment and a measure of recession, phenomena which we did not meet with in South Africa. In other words, we have certainly succeeded in our struggle against the world-wide phenomenon of inflation, and as the Session continues the Ministers concerned will inform the House of the success encountered in that struggle and the measures which they took. That is their task and their function. We would, however, be making a mistake if we were to relax our measures in this regard before complete victory has been achieved in this struggle, and that is what the hon. the Leader heard in the Acting State President’s Opening Address.

Let us look at South Africa’s exports. After all, this is also a test to see whether a government can be trusted or not, whether it is managing affairs in such a way that it can be trusted with them or not. We find an increase of 12.7 per cent in South Africa’s exports in one year, i.e. the past year. Hon. members recently saw the figures indicating how South Africa, despite everything that counted against her, was expanding her trade throughout the world.

This Government may be vulnerable in many respects, but the hon. the Leader is trying to flog a dead horse when he attacks the Government on this front.

My time is getting short. I want to exchange a few words with the hon. the Leader on his new policy before I go any further. I want to extend my sincere congratulations to him on his having found a policy. We know, at any rate we have known for all the years I have been sitting here, that the United Party is frantically seeking a policy. Time and again they have cried ’‘Eureka!” but it was prematuro—they had not really found one. Now we are being given to understand that they found one at Bloemfontein.

Do you want to take it over?

The hon. member asks whether I want to take over the policy. No, Sir, I will not buy it for a penny for two dozen. Let me give the hon. the I cader some advice.

You did not even say thank you for another policy which you took over from us.

I find it interesting to hear this story from the United Party that we are taking over their policy. It is actually the hon. member for Yeoville’s story. I was grateful to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition for not repeating it. After all, he has come forward with a motion of no-confidence, and suppose now it was their policy … ! We have a genial motion of no-confidence to-day, more genial than we have had in this House for many years. It will probably not be out of place for me to address a few words of encouragement and a few words of warning to the hon. the Leader. I cannot do it any better than the editor of the Sunday Express did in his article of 29th October, 1967. This was the Sunday after the policy was born. This is what the editor said: “Three duties now rest on the United Party. The first is to stick by the principles it has now enunciated.” They must hold what they now have. In the past this has been a pious hope, but perhaps it will work on this occasion. He writes further: “The second is to work out the federal policy in detail and in a manner that will be understandable to the electorate.” Now I can understand why the hon. the Leader has not yet mentioned his policy to-day—it has not yet reached the ’’understandable stage!”. That will probably come in due course. The third duty to which the editor referred was the following. I think it is nasty, and I almost feel like omitting to read it. He writes: “The third is to provide dynamic leadership that will revitalize the party organization and rouse supporters from their lethargy.” The hon. member for Durban (Point) must sit up straight, says the editor! [Interjections.]

I am wondering whether hon. members opposite pay circus tax.

No, we have had a very genial motion of no-confidence …

They would make a lot of money out of the Prime Minister.

The hon. the Leader has no price whatsoever on the political market. What does the policy of the United Party consist of? We must spend some time examining it to-day. We must ask ourselves whether it will satisfy, and we must ask ourselves whether it will be left at that. It is interesting to note the following. This is a party which is moving a motion of no-confidence in another party; it is a party which, without turning a hair, gives through the mouth of the hon. member for Yeoville the same motivation for wanting to place the Coloureds on a separate Voters’ Roll now as they gave for wanting them on the Common Voters’ Roll. On 14th March, 1966—it was during the election when the cry of “White leadership” was heard all over the country— the hon. member for Yeoville said the following: ‘The essence of the U.P. White leadership policy involves the return of the Coloureds to the Common Voters’ Roll.” At that time that was the “essence” of “White leadership”, and now the “essence” of “White leadership” is the separate Voters’ Roll.

Can the hon. the Leader of the Opposition understand why people in South Africa no longer take his Party seriously?

I think that they are going to have a very good laugh when they read your speech.

They may laugh at my speech, but they laugh at the hon. the Leader himself—and that is much worse! But, Sir, let us proceed. Let us look at the blatant reproach which has been levelled over the years by the Opposition when we adopted the point of view that one could not grant equal political rights. To what lengths did they not go in reproaching, persecuting and calumniating us, even overseas!

That is untrue.

It is so. It was as a result of this policy that we were told that we were the oppressors, the people who were keeping them down. Sir, surely we all know this. We need not even argue about it. With complete equanimity the hon. member for Yeoville states in The Star of 14th December—and this is not a report of what he said; this is his article which normally appears— that:

Never wanted to give them.

Yes, let us leave that in the lap of history. But just see how he motivates it, Sir. Who does the hon. member for Yeoville think he is bluffing in this connection?

That is why they must now come and sit in Parliament.

Does the hon. member realize what he has said here? In other words, if any other group, for example the Indians, should decide tomorrow that they will speak Afrikaans and become Protestants, then they too will come and sit here? Surely one cannot keep them out of here on those grounds? If Bantu communities adopt Afrikaans as a language, and most of them are Christians too, then surely they too can come and sit here. Surely one is not bluffing anybody with stupid arguments of this kind.

What is the hon. the Leader of the On position doing now? Why is he shying away from his policy? The hon. the Leader is trying once again with this policy to introduce an element of friction in this Parliament, and we as a country will surely have to pay dearly for that. Are all of us in this country, irrespective of which Party we belong to, not called upon, and have we not learnt the lesson from the outside world, not to do one thing above all else, and that is not create additional points of friction in our country? And that applies to any country which has a multiracial population structure. Now the hon. the Leader is creating this new point of friction inside Parliament where no point of friction existed before. But hr is going much further. He is creating a balance of power. He is giving a balance of power to 16 people, something which has never yet paid in any Parliament in the world, something which will stir up intense hate and enmity in South Africa. That is what the hon. the Leader wants to do with his policy, that is to say, if it ever remains at 16. But the hon. the Leader knows even now, as he sits there in his bench, that it will not remain at sixteen. It will become much more than that. Nor will they be Whites. Forget about the six representatives of the Coloureds. But surely those eight representing the Bantu will not always remain Whites? [Interjection.] Why? Because my authority, the Leader of the Opposition, says that that will not be the case.

The hon. member for Yeoville says so too.

No, I am no longer quoting the hon. member for Yeoville. He has made so many statements on this matter that I cannot keep up with them. But I can keep up with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. This is what he said in the English Hansard of 1963, col. 276 and 277. He is reported as follows—

[Inaudible.]

Has the hon. the Leader of the Opposition changed his views on this matter now?

The hon. the Prime Minister questioned me on this matter.

Yes, I am coming to that. This is what he had envisaged. In 1964 he went further—

That is what the Leader said. He then said that he had changed his mind. Why did he change his mind? That is a matter we settled across the floor of this House. It was the most shameful admission I have ever had to hear from a Leader of the Opposition, namely the blatant admission that he had changed his views because the pressure on him had then diminished. Well, Sir, knowing himself to be a person who is subject to pressure and who is going to give way to pressure, he creates …

The former Prime Minister admitted that he gave the Transkei its independence owing to pressure on South Africa. [Interjections.]

That is not so. But leave it at that. Through the hon. the Leader’s defence, which is not a valid one, he has now himself confirmed in his own words that he gave way to pressure. He is admitting it now. Surely he is treating South Africa in a reckless fashion in that case. The hon. the Leader does not want black people in Parliament. He has told us so on numerous occasions. But he knows himself to be a person who is going to give way under pressure and say “yes”, and so in spite of that statement he is opening the door to bring black people into this Parliament. In spite of this fact he is gambling with the future, he is toying with the interests of South Africa, to bring black people as representatives into this Parliament, knowing full well that one is saddled with a Leader of the Opposition who will give way as soon as the pressure on him becomes great enough. [Interjections.] That, Sir, is beyond my comprehension. The hon. the Leader can try and wriggle out of it now, but he stands condemned out of his own mouth as one who does not have the courage to stand firm when pressure is brought to bear upon him. But, Sir, that is not only the hon. the Leader’s point of view; he is also inculcating this idea in the few remaining youngsters in his “Youth Front”, for this is their, i.e. the United Party Youth Front’s point of view—

This is their latest edition. In other words, Sir, this representation which he is granting now, is a bluff. It does not end there. He is committed. He has given his word and the word of his young people and his children to the non-Whites that their representation will increase accordingly as they progress and develop further. What kind of game is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition playing with South Africa? Where does he want to lead us in this regard? It is no wonder the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not get so far as to do what one expected him to do under the circumstances, namely to discuss his policy. My time has expired, Sir.

What about your policy?

What about my policy? My policy is being implemented in practice. My policy, and every member of the Opposition knows this, is that this Parliament will be the White Parliament where Whites are represented. My policy, and hon. members on the opposite side know this, is the creation of elected bodies for the Coloureds, the Bantu and the Indians. My colleagues will discuss that. My policy is the establishment of Bantu homelands. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants to, he can now, as he did to-day, charge us with not spending enough in the Bantu areas, because that is what he spoke about.

We want to know what the price is.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) is the last person who should ask what the price is, because he quoted the price from Ceres to Natal, at every political meeting he held.

Was it wrong?

The day the hon. member for Durban (Point’s) figures are correct, this Government will be wrong. The fact of the matter is that that is the policy of that side, i.e. if they are honest about it, and it is the policy of this side to develop the Bantu homelands. We shall develop those homelands as the money for that purpose becomes available to us and as the people for whom they are being developed can absorb the development taking place there. Now I want to make it very clear to the hon. member, and through the hon. member also to the other hon. members who are continually asking what the time table for this and that is, that we are dealing here with the development of human beings. This development can only take place as rapidly or as slowly as those people can move. One Bantu nation will naturally move faster than another.

As regards the quotations made by the hon. Leader of the Opposition, I just want to say that it is easy to quote out of context. It is very easy to do that. It is true that for one man we would be moving too rapidly, while according to another man’s standard we would be moving too slowly. But for me the criterion is not whether things are moving rapidly enough for me or for the hon. member. For me the criterion is whether the Bantu can keep up with the development we are bringing to them. If we fail in that, if we go too rapidly, that development will end in failure. If we go too slowly, we shall feel the reaction in other areas. After Parliament was prorogued I went out of my way to visit the Bantu areas. I would go so far as to say that we are maintaining a good, reasonable pace, as rapid a pace as the Bantu can keep up with.

What about the segregation of the Bantu there?

But that is the entire policy of the National Party. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition thinks that he can make propaganda among the Whites—because that is the only reason why he asks that question—by trying to determine what it will cost, then I just want to tell him once more that the Whites in South Africa have at one election after another accepted this policy of the development of separate homelands for the Bantu as their policy. No case which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition can make out today, he can make out more strongely than he did during the last general election. It failed miserably. The hon. the Leader is aware of that. This party will continue with the development of the Bantu homelands. It will continue to lead the Bantu nations towards self realization. It has irrevocably set itself on that course. If sacrifices have to be made for that, its people are prepared to do so. But, Sir, its people also know, contrary to what hon. members tell them so readily, that it does not have to be paid for from the White taxpayers’ pockets. That is really what the hon. member wants to make the people believe. It is being financed in the normal way, the way in which such undertakings are financed, namely from Loan Account and from the Bantu Trust. We shall continue to do so. Whether we have a Bantu homeland policy or not, it must be done in any case. What political advantage the hon. member is trying to gain from it is simply beyond my comprehension. I am sorry, Sir, but I shall have to find another opportunity during this session to discuss the matters which should have been discussed in this debate, namely the Simonstown question and the question which arose as a result of the fact that Britain has withdrawn from the area east of Suez.

You know why I said nothing about Simonstown.

Leave Simonstown aside then, but we could have discussed these other matters profitably. We could profitably have discussed the international situation in which South Africa finds itself. I should like to have heard the hon. the Leader’s views on that matter. But above all, while the National Party’s policy is known and it is applying that policy in practice every day, we could profitably have discussed the new policy of the United Party. Unfortunately we were unable to do that, as should be done, because the hon. the Leader did not want to come forward with his policy. We have before us a Leader of the Opposition without a policy. The hon. the Leader has introduced a motion. That motion, with due deference, Sir, has so little substance that I am not even going to take the trouble of moving an amendment to it.

Mr. Speaker, I think that everybody in this House will agree with me that we have experienced a remarkable performance on the part of the hon. the Prime Minister this afternoon. The Leader of the Opposition came forward with his charges against the Government and his justification of the motion of no-confidence. As one knows, if one knows the Leader of the Opposition, that argument was founded on facts and figures; the facts were quoted. It was with interest that we expected the Prime Minister, with the advice he has of his Cabinet and of a powerful Public Service, to have refuted those charges or at least to have stated an alternative. But we are still waiting in vain for the Prime Minister to fulfil that task. All we had was a euphoric statement by the Prime Minister that all was well in South Africa and that things could not be better. We also had the hon. the Prime Minister’s expression of disappointment at the fact that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition failed to raise those matters to which he would have liked to reply; in other words, disappointment at the fact that he, the Prime Minister, had prepared the wrong speech for this afternoon. That is all that it amounts to. Why should the hon. the Leader of the Opposition discuss matters such as the Simonstown Agreement or foreign affairs which may much more fittingly be discussed next week when we shall be dealing with the Part Appropriation?

The purpose of the no-confidence motion is that the nation should realize why virtually half of the South African electorate lacks confidence in this Government. That is what the Leader of the Opposition did, but we are vainly waiting for a reply from the Prime Minister. I listened to him and I could not believe that he is the Prime Minister of a country in which workers at a place such as Despatch—if there has ever been a Nationalist Party stronghold, then it is Despatch—left the hall because somebody had the audacity to propose a vote of thanks to the Minister of Labour. One would think that he was not the Prime Minister of a country in which one of the most renowned economists, Dr. Hupkes of Stellenbosch, had to point out the other day that people who had earned a certain amount in 1938 would have to earn almost three times that amount at present in order to maintain the same standard of living. He furnished figures: a person who earned R200 a month in 1938 has to earn R561 to-day. The Leader of the Opposition mentioned the distress of the ordinary worker, but there was no reply from the Prime Minister, save that he expressed his gratitude—and they deserve that gratitude—to the workers of South Africa who maintained self discipline by refraining from making excessive demands while the Government was combating inflation. We agree with that, but for how long must the workers of South Africa pay the price of the incompetence of this Government?

The Prime Minister did not reply to the very relevant point raised by my Leader, namely that although there are signs of inflation being curtailed at the moment, that curtailment is being done on the basis of a cost structure which is much higher than it was three years ago, and that as a result many workers, particularly in the Public Service, for which the Prime Minister is directly responsible, are suffering hardships to-day because the increases they received, fortuitously just before the recent election, have already been devoured by the inflation the Government has allowed to take place and has to a large extent been the cause of in recent years. About that he has nothing to say.

The Leader of the Opposition referred to the brain drain we are suffering in South Africa, in the Public Service as well, but not a word was said about that by the Prime Minister. One would not believe that a few years ago the National Bureau for Education conducted a survey on what was happening in certain State departments, and that it was, for instance, found that as regards engineers in the Public Service, the number of vacancies amounted to 300 or 25 per cent of the total number of posts. The Prime Minister is not the Prime Minister of this country; he governs in another country which we do not know. As regards biologists in the State departments, 270 posts were vacant or improperly filled by people who did not have the qualifications for those posts. As regards agricultural experts, there were 189 vacancies; as regards architects, one out of every five posts was vacant; as regards teachers, there was in respect of those qualified to teach mathematics and science alone—two of the most important subjects for a modern state—a shortage of 600. As regards nurses, there were no fewer than 4,373 vacancies out of a total of 19,700 posts. But that leaves the Prime Minister stone cold. We are unable to elicit anything from him as to what is being planned by the Government or as to whether they intend to do something about this. The Prime Minister’s reply is a totally unrealistic euphoric one.

One of the greatest problems with which South Africa has to contend at present and to which my Leader referred with irrefutable figures, was the shortage of manpower, particularly of people with certain administrative qualifications and scientific knowledge. This is a serious matter, but apparently the Prime Minister is unaware of it, even though he listened to my Leader. One would not have thought that it would have been necessary for a former journalist of the Nationalist Party Press and subsequently a senior official, a person such as Mr. Piet Meiring, to point out recently, in a scientific address he delivered on 19th October, that of the scholars leaving our schools every year only 1.6 per cent were interested in the Public Service. That is absolutely shocking and alarming, because it will not be possible for us to have the work of South Africa done by the Public Service—and remember, the Public Service does the work; the Prime Minister does the talking—unless this position changes and unless the Public Service can once again attract its share of the best brains and skills the country has to offer. But the Prime Minister did not respond to that. Nor did he respond to another very important fact mentioned by my hon. Leader, namely that owing to the manpower shortage one industry after the other in South Africa was becoming blacker and blacker, and because the Government knows that this is inevitable and that they cannot prevent it, they have now embarked upon a new policy of establishing industries on the borders of the Bantustans in order that this process of being swamped by the Blacks may continue without the knowledge of the white workers in the existing industrial areas. My Leader quoted from the report of the I.D.C.—

There is no job reservation in those areas. In most of those areas there are no industrial agreements.

You know that it applies in Rosslyn.

But is Rosslyn the only border area in South Africa? With my own eyes I saw that work was being done in factories in the border areas, not on the borders of Bantustans but on those of small locations, work which the Bantu are not allowed to do in the white industrial areas. That is true, and if the Prime Minister does not believe me he may consult the Minister of Labour. But the Prime Minister does not have anything to say about this. What are we going to do? I am not saying that it is wrong that more non-Whites are being employed, but what is the Government’s reply to this extremely dangerous fact, namely that the white workers’ influence through the medium of their trade unions is steadily diminishing because they are steadily becoming a smaller minority of the workers in the industries? That is the point my Leader specifically raised, but the Prime Minister made no mention of that. The country he is governing is not the same as the one in which we are living.

You and I simply do not look at things through the same spectacles.

Quite. It is high time the Prime Minister removed those rose-coloured spectacles from his eyes and looked at the facts. We have been warned by authoritative persons. Let met mention this first. In March, 1967—these are the latest figures I could obtain—the total number of white workers in the entire manufacturing industry of South Africa amounted to 25.4 per cent; the number of Coloured and Indian workers amounted to 21.9 per cent, almost as much as the Whites, but the number of Bantu workers amounted to 52.7 per cent, and we have been warned on good authority that by 1971 the percentage of White workers in our factories will drop to 20 per cent. What is the Government’s reply to this so as to safeguard the position of the white workers and their bargaining power? These are matters that have been raised, but the Prime Minister did not say anything about them at all. Is he unaware of these facts?

The reply is to be found in the unemployment figure and the standard of living of the workers.

If the Prime Minister is saying that as long as our white workers are earning good wages it does not matter how our industries are being swamped by the Blacks … [Interjection.] Then it does not matter that every industry in South Africa is going to be indissolubly dependent upon Bantu labour. That is what the Prime Minister has just said. Does apartheid only have significance when there is poverty? The Prime Minister says that the solution to the problem lies in the fact that there is no unemployment in South Africa. As long as all is well, apartheid does not count. There is truth in what the Prime Minister says. If we want things to go well in South Africa, we must stay away from the theoretical form of apartheid which the Government is advocating. I am glad that he admits it. We are making progress. But the most striking fact in the speech made by the Prime Minister is that he was on the point of resuming his seat without making any reference to the failure and the futility of the essence of the Bantu policy of the Nationalist Party. He wanted to resume his seat without making any reference to that; it is important that he should have dealt with it, because the Government wields the power in South Africa to-day; it can take steps to implement its policy, and the implementation of its policy is of day to day and lasting interest to every White and non-White person in this country.

But we do not change our policy every day as you do.

On a previous occasion I pointed out how the Nationalist Party changed its policy, and I do not wish to repeat that speech. The Prime Minister may be telling the same jokes every year, but I am not making the same speech every year. We proved how the Nationalist Party’s Bantu policy had Changed over the years. I remember the time when Dr. Malan sent a message to the Bantu at Oskraal, when Mr. Eric Louw was the candidate in Queenstown, and said that in the struggle against the U.P. supporters the place of the Bantu was in the same political arena as that of the Nationalist Party. Is that still their policy to-day? Whose policy has changed now? The point I am making is that to this charge against the Government there was no reply until he was about to resume his seat. Then one of us made an interjection in order to ask him a question, and what we heard then was a lot of vague and meaningless words. The Prime Minister attacked our policy. We shall discuss that policy with him. When they on the other side have the initiative and wish to discuss our policy, we shall do so, but in this Session we have but one opportunity where we have the initiative and that is in the debate on the motion of no-confidence introduced by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. We are using that initiative by inviting the hon. the Prime Minister and his Cabinet to deal with the failure of the Nationalist Party Bantu policy in its essence, and they are running away. What is the Nationalist Party’s Bantu policy? The hon. the Prime Minister must stop me if I go wrong. I want to try to state it as reasonably as I can. The Nationalist Party’s Bantu policy is that in South Africa there can be no multiracial state—I am referring to the Bantu only —which is made up of both the Bantu and the Whites; that separate nation states should be established, because they are separate nations, and in order to establish separate nation states there must be areas for the various ethnic groups in which they can realize their political aspirations and exist as a nation. Exceptions are being made for individuals in terms of the strange philosophy that an individual can of course not bind a nation and that one can have individuals amongst the White people, but that one cannot have a nation amongst the White people. I think this is a fair premise. Mr. Speaker, what is the moral basis of the philosophy of separate development, or whatever it may be called at present? First it was “apartheid”, then it was “separate development”; then again it was “autonomous development” and subject to that it was “separate freedoms” one cannot keep up with it, but what is the policy of apartheid, as I came to know it in 1948, in its essence? The essence of the policy is this concept, namely that the Bantu will be able to subsist and realize themselves in separate, eventually independent Bantustans. Take away that concept and the entire moral basis, in as far as it does exist, disappears from the Nationalist Party policy. The charge the Opposition is laying is this: We have often been invited to conduct political debates in South Africa on the basis of the Nationalist Party’s policy; now we are doing so and the Prime Minister is running away. It was his Party’s suggestion. Our charge, our criticism, is that the progress which is being made with the Bantustan development is not such that it will ever be at all possible for those areas to become the true political and economic homelands of the Bantu. Sir, we are not talking merely as politicians; we have behind us the authority of the intelligentsia of the Nationalist Party. There is a Dr. Adendorff who is saying that at the present rate of development the Bantu areas will never be able to absorb the growth of their own population as well as those who are being sent back from the urban areas. Then there is the pathetic phenomenon that the Government is hesitant about developing those areas from within, that the editor of Dagbreek, until recently the largest-selling newspaper of the Nationalist Party, had to admit in an article that was soaked in tears that the Nationalist Press had left the nation in the lurch because it had failed to criticize the Government when they refused to allow White capital in the reserves. Now they want to allow White capital subject to certain conditions, but the years are being eaten by the locusts and the policy is not being implemented; it cannot be implemented. Why, if the policy is making progress, must Bantu who in the opinion of the Nationalist Party have become redundant in White cities, be sent back to the reserves where they are then unable to find employment and have to be detained in transit camps like refugees? Why?

That is not true.

If this policy has any moral content, if this policy really has significance, then surely there must be a home for these people in their homelands, not refugee camps. And then the hon. the Prime Minister speaks of unemployment …

That is an entirely distorted picture.

Where does one find refugee camps?

In the Ciskei.

Where?

I cannot remember the name of the village.

Essex.

The place is called Essex. There is such a camp at Ladismith.

Essex is a railway station.

The fact remains— and I can also quote the authority of the Government’s own creation, the authority quoted by my Leader, Kaiser Matanzima himself—that they cannot absorb the Xhosas the Government wants to send back. What is the use of such a policy? And then the hon. the Prime Minister asks my hon. Leader whether he has seen the border industries? Of course, he has seen them. We have all seen them. Mr. Speaker, those border industries are very striking. I saw them at Rosslyn. But I did not see the Bantustans. I saw the industries but I did not see a Bantustan. I saw a small reserve which is nothing but another location for Greater Pretoria. That is all I saw. I visited Hammarsdale and what I saw there was a shocking slum, a danger point for the health of the people who live there.

Is that the industrial area?

No, the housing area, the area about which the hon. the Minister, as he himself said in this House, feels rather ashamed. I also visited East London. I saw the tremendous expansion there, but what is it essentially? Essentially it is an industrial extension of the White city of East London which attracts labour from a greater semirural location. Mr. Speaker, then I looked for other places.

But East London is a border city. What about that?

Then I looked for border industries on the borders of a true Bantustan. I went to Durban and there I found a large Bantu village called Kwa Mashu, which is nothing but an extended location of the White city of Durban. Then I went to the actual reserves; I went to the Transkei. There I stayed for a week with my hon. friend, the hon. member for Transkei, and we looked for one border industry, one border town, along the borders of the largest, the only consolidated Bantustan in South Africa, and guess what we found? Nothing. Can you believe that, Mr. Speaker? The world and the people are being told that we have a government with a policy. That policy is the separation of the races in South Africa, because one cannot have a multi-racial state. They are creating for the Bantu their own homelands. They do not have homelands for the Coloureds and the Indians; in that respect they take over part of our policy. But for the Bantu they create homelands where it will be possible to allow the Bantu to develop to the highest level of which they are capable. But if one looks for this development, what does one really find, apart from work which is being carried out in the sphere of agriculture, apart from dedicated work which is being carried out in certain aspects by public servants to whom my Leader has paid tribute? What is being done to enable those areas to support the Bantu population of South Africa? What one sees there is something tragic, something wretched, something pathetic, an absolute failure of the positive aspects, in as far as they do exist, of the Nationalist Party’s policy. The emphasis is on the negative; the emphasis is on chasing people back to the Bantu areas; the emphasis is on curtailing 37 industrial areas in South Africa—not on curtailing them in order to develop the reserves as such, but in order to develop the reserves as locations for additional White industries, in order to make our entire economy even more dependent upon Bantu labour, which it is to-day. Why is the Prime Minister trying to bluff himself, his Cabinet and the people? For as long as he lives, for as long as I live, and for as long as our children and our grandchildren will live, South Africa’s prosperity and welfare will depend on the co-operation which by the grace of God we have between white initiative and white skill and Bantu labour in South Africa. Even the Nationalist Party, when they try to implement another type of policy, must face that fact. The only show of progress they can make, is in the border industries where white factories are being established on the white side of the reserves, and where the Bantu labour comes from the reserves. Bantu labour is dependent upon white capital and white skill, just as is the case in Johannesburg and in Cape Town. The factories of the white people are dependent upon Bantu labour, just as is the case in Port Elizabeth. After all, these are facts. Why this bluff; why create these illusions; why, in a debate such as this, should one be guilty of euphoric evasion of reality and refuse to face the facts and to debate them?

The performance put up by the hon. member for Yeoville is an indication to us that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had a very hard time this afternoon. We know it is the usual state of affairs in this House that, when the United Party has a hard time in a debate, the hon. member for Yeoville jumps in to kick up a lot of dust to try and cover up the tracks left by the Opposition. What is really the charge levelled by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon? I want to deal with only two of the statements made. The first statement he made was that as a result of the many Bantu labourers in the border industries the white labourer was being pushed out of his employment because of the lower wages that were being paid there. If the hon. member had only taken the trouble to look at the statistics in this regard, he would have seen that in spite of the phenomenal development of border industries in South Africa, there was no unemployment among Whites in South Africa. The statement made here by the Opposition is therefore a hollow one. The hon. member for Yeoville stated that approximately 25 per cent Whites were employed in the industries and that 52 per cent Bantu were now employed in these industries. He said that our industries were becoming black.

Mr. Speaker, what is our policy in regard to this matter? We want to put it very clearly. We want to retain the industries that are not Bantu labour-intensive in our white cities. We want to provide employment there for all our Whites. Surely it goes without saying that the development of South Africa as an industrial country will result in more and more labour being required in South Africa, and as our policy of border industries succeeds, more and more labour will be required in those border industries as well. If quite a few million more Bantu are absorbed by the border industries, that does not mean that a proportionally smaller number of Whites will be employed. In proportion as our industries expand, as our economy develops, there will be room for both the white labourer and the Bantu labourer in our industries. This statement by the hon. member for Yeoville that we are pushing the Whites out of the industries in South Africa is indeed a hollow one. I just want to refer again to the statistics which prove that in the last few years the number of white labourers in our industries has increased, although it has perhaps decreased on a percentage basis. On a percentage basis there are at present more Bantu than Whites in the industries, but this does not mean that the Whites are being pushed out of these industries. Their numbers are increasing, although the percentage is decreasing. I want to say that we are achieving great success as far as these border industries are concerned. I want to quote what was said only recently by an authority in this field. In October last year Professor Stadtler wrote an article entitled “Die Behoefte van die Nywerheidsontwikkeling in Suid-Afrika”, in which he said that during the years 1965 to 1980 provision will have to be made for the employment of approximately 530,000 Bantu. He sets as his goal for the development of border industries, if they are to absorb some of those Bantu, that 212.000 of those Bantu will have to be absorbed in that period. He then reaches the following conclusion (translation)—

This is what he said after making a thorough study of this matter, and this is the conclusion he reached in his article about the border industries.

But this does not satisfy the hon. member for Yeoville. The hon. member tries to ridicule the idea of border industries. He says we have white industries and right next to them we have locations. If he wants to regard a Bantu residential area near the border industries, in which the Bantu workers live, as a location, he may do so. I give it to him as a present. He may regard it as a location if he so badly wants to call it a location. But the fact remains that those workers must be housed somewhere, and the idea of our border industries is surely that the white industries, white know-how and white capital must be placed at the border of the Bantu area, but that the Bantu worker will be accommodated in his own homeland. If he is accommodated there, as we are doing at the moment with an increasing measure of success, the hon. member wants to try and ridicule this matter and states that they are just locations. The hon. member is so poorly informed that he is in fact making himself ridiculous. People who know something about these matters will know, for example, that Kwa Mashu, the place he mentioned here this afternoon as one of those locations that are situated near a border industry, is still a white area, that it is a Bantu residential area near Durban. It does not form part of the Bantu area at all. Kwa Mashu is a very poor example that the hon. member has quoted. I cannot understand that anyone can be so stupid as to come and tell us something like that this afternoon in this highest council in the country! Let me tell the hon. member that Kwa Mashu, like Soweto, forms part of the white area of South Africa. Did the hon. member not know this? Or does the hon. member want to tell us that because Soweto, a Bantu residential area, is near Johannesburg, Johannesburg has border industries? Is this his argument? One should not make such stupid statements when discussing these matters. I think the hon. member should see to it that he is better informed. The hon. member could have mentioned a better example near Durban, but he was afraid of doing so. Why did not the hon. member mention Umlazi near Durban?

Our standpoint is that we must accommodate these people, and we are accommodating them in the Bantu area. Take Rosslyn, for example. Surely the hon. member has seen the great development that is taking place there, the Bantu township that has sprung up there. We call it a Bantu township in the Bantu area to accommodate Bantu workers. But the township does not accommodate Bantu workers only. Those townships that the hon. member calls locations are different from the real locations or Bantu residential areas. They are different in this respect, that the Bantu obtain proprietary rights in those Bantu townships. They obtain proprietary rights in respect of their stands. What is more, they can trade there. They can practise all the tertiary trades in those townships that the Whites can practise in their towns. There is a fundamental difference between the Bantu residential areas near white towns in the white homeland and the Bantu townships in the Bantu homelands. Once the hon. member has grasped this essential difference, he will not discuss these matters so lightly.

The hon. member says that he toured the Transkei together with the hon. member for the Transkei and that he too could find no border industries. Does that mean to say that, because the hon. member could not find any border industries in the Transkei. the policy has failed in respect of the whole of South Africa? It is ridiculous to suggest that. Surely the presence of something like raw materials is a prerequisite for the establishment of industries. and we all know that certain raw materials are not easily obtainable in and near the Tanskei. Consequently that development has not vet taken place there. Another factor is that it is very difficult, for example, to obtain power supplies near the Transkeian borders. Water supply is also a problem. These are all factors which influence the establishment of industries. Because the hon. member did not find any border industries in the Transkei, he now wants to suggest that no border industries have been developed in the whole of the rest of South Africa. It is ridiculous to argue in that way.

I want to come to the other statement made here by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He maintained here this afternoon that the whole policy of separate development was merely a policy of the economic development of the Bantu areas. This is by no means what the policy of separate development is. The policy of separate development is not only a policy of the economic development of the Bantu homelands. Let me emphasize that very strongly. The policy of separate development in the first place seeks to provide a political home for the Bantu, and the policy of separate development gives him that political home in his own homeland.

The development of the political institutions of the Bantu must not be underestimated. As a matter of fact, they have to be brought to the fore more strongly under our policy of separate development. The Bantu must develop his own governmental institutions in his own Bantu homeland. We have already progressed very far in that direction. How can the hon. the Leader of the Opposition say our policy has not succeeded, because what have we achieved in this respect in the past years? We have established a self-governing state, the Transkei. We have established forms of government, namely the Bantu authorities for all the other Bantu national units. They are also known as territorial authorities or, as we now prefer to call them, national authorities. As the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development envisages future development, all those authorities will soon be granted certain powers, more and more powers. They are functioning on a very sound basis at present. They are busy building the roads in those Bantu areas, not only in the Transkei, but also in Zululand, Vendaland, Tswanaland, and Sekukuniland. In all the Bantu areas the Bantu authorities are, for example, building the roads. Education in those areas already falls under them. In this way they are carrying out a whole series of functions. for instance in agriculture as well. They are already carrying out all those functions in their areas for their people. The forms of government have therefore undergone a great and long process of development under our policy. This is self-development. A political home therefore has to be found for the Bantu, and it is particularly in this respect that our policy is going to succeed. They are not getting a political home here, but they are getting a political home there. We are succeeding in this, because the Bantu are accepting it. The Bantu sit on the doorstep of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development to ask that they be granted more powers so that they may develop their own political institutions, and may do so more rapidly. We are preparing them for that, and these things are coming—they are coming this very year, if the hon. member wants to know. Therefore the policy of separate development is not only an economic policy, but also one for the establishment of a political home. There are other fields as well. There is also the cultural field. The Bantu must also have a cultural home, he must also have cultural development, something which is going to take place in his homeland. This is what is already happening to-day; it is busy developing in those Bantu homelands. The Bantu are establishing and developing their own cultural institutions in their own homelands. They are making immense progress in that respect.

We may also consider the social aspect. Does the hon. member know, for example, that there are several youth camps and youth organizations in those areas which look after the interests of the Bantu youths there? He does not know it because he never comes into contact with them. His knowledge of the Bantu area goes only so far as Kwa Mashu and the journeys he undertakes in the Transkei with the hon. member for Transkei. He does not look and he does not notice these things. Has he ever visited the area to see which social functions are being carried out? Does he know, for example, that we are building a large number of hospitals in the Bantu areas, hospitals which will be run and staffed by the Bantu in the Bantu areas? Development is therefore taking place in that field as well. Does that not mean the development of our policy of separate development?

The hon. Leader, in alleging that the Bantu homelands were not being developed and that the policy of the Government had failed as a result, has overlooked the human factor, I have discussed this matter in this House before. I just want to quote again what Dr. Stadtler says in this connection, because it is obvious that we are dealing with human beings when we want to initiate this development in those areas. This is what Dr. Stadtler says in his article (translation)—

I have discussed this human factor in this House before. I have also referred in the past to the author Colin Clarke, who has written something about this human factor, the human factors in an overseas publication. His article was entitled “Growthmanship”. I am referring to an article which appeared in the International Economic Association of 1961. Colin Clarke writes as follows—

That is what we are dealing with as far as development in the homelands is concerned. We have to see how rapidly the Bantu themselves develop. It is no use initiating a rapid economic development while the Bantu lags behind, because then we have not helped him yet. Then we have merely initiated a white development in the Bantu homelands. That is not what we want to do. We want to initiate a Bantu development in the Bantu homelands, because they are the people we want to uplift. That is why we speak of a policy of separate development. It is not a white development; it is a separate development, separate Bantu development in the Bantu homelands. For that reason we cannot and may not overlook the human factor. We have to keep pace with the development of these people. Their development is the prerequisite for any development in the Bantu homelands.

Now that I have stated that point clearly, the hon. the Leader must realize that we are dealing here with a lengthy process as far as the Bantu homelands are concerned. We cannot initiate that economic development over-hastily. He will not see that development taking place overnight, because human development is not a matter of decades, but possibly of centuries. The development of the Whites did not take place over a period of decades, but over centuries, and if it is seen in that light he must understand it.

As regards this human requirement, these human factors, Professor Stadtler mentions a certain number of characteristics which necessarily have to be developed. Having enumerated these characteristics, he states (translation)—

That is to say, as one that is ripe for modern economic development and industrial development. That is the conclusion reached by him. But what is our task then? If development may take place so slowly, let us see what our real task is in respect of our policy of separate development. I want to say that this is our policy of separate development (translation)—

In other words, we must initiate development in the Bantu homelands for a nucleus of each national group and in order to provide a livelihood for that nucleus. We must be able to initiate a nucleal development there so that there will also be an economic nucleus for the national groups. I want to state emphatically that I do not believe for one moment—and this has never been our policy—that our policy will succeed only when every Bantu will have found a livelihood in the homelands. This has never been our policy. On the contrary. It has always been our policy that we have said all along that we also have to deal with a White economy in South Africa. This White economy in South Africa is largely dependent on Bantu labour. The statement made by the hon. member, namely that we will first have to provide a livelihood to all the Bantu in the Bantu areas before our policy will have succeeded, is in fact nonsense, because we have now entered into agreements with various foreign nations in terms of which we provide them with labour opportunities in our own economy. Surely the hon. member knows that we entered into an agreement with Malawi recently. At present we are accommodating in South Africa approximately 50,000 people from Malawi who are working here. Is he suggesting now that Malawi is unable to develop as a country because it has not yet been able to find employment for all its people in Malawi? There are approximately 90,000 Portuguese Bantu working here. Is the hon. member now suggesting that, for that reason because we allow those Bantu into South Africa in terms of that agreement, our policy of separate development is not succeeding? If we can do that in respect of countries such as Malawi, the Portuguese territories, Rhodesia, etc.—there are more than 600,000 foreign Bantu working in South Africa who are being accommodated in our economy—does it mean that because we accommodate them in our economy our policy of separate development has failed? Surely it is ridiculous to argue in that way. If this can be said of those countries, how much the more can it not be said of our own Bantu? We say that we can also accommodate our own Bantu in our economy. They can be employed in our economy. It does not detract from the policy of separate development. We do not say that all the Bantu have to be accommodated in the Bantu areas first and that they have to find their livelihood on an economic basis there before our policy can succeed. Surely it is ridiculous to argue in that way, and he knows it, Mr. Speaker. What we do say and what we are doing at the moment is to return to the Bantu Homelands those Bantu who are not economically active in the White homeland. Surely the hon. member knows that there are many Bantu—large numbers of them—in South Africa who are unemployed. We have always maintained—I think the present Minister of Bantu Administration and Development was the first to have stated it positively in this House—that the justification for the presence of a Bantu in the White homeland is the fact that he is working here. As long as he is working here his presence here is justified in terms of our policy. If that is the attitude, the presence of all those Bantu who are not working here is not justified. Those are the ones we are now resettling in the Bantu areas. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Rosettenville may presently discuss the migratory labour pattern again. We are trying to introduce that migratory labour pattern as far as possible in every sphere. That is in fact the entire basis of our policy as far as the White economy is concerned, namely a system of migratory labour.

We now come to the redundant Bantu, those Bantu who are not employed in the economy in the White homeland. What should be done with them? We must take them back there. The hon. member for Yeoville spoke about camps, because we are now resettling the Bantu. He cannot mention one such refugee camp in South Africa to me, no a single one. I challenge him to do so. He used the word “Essex”. He does not even know where Essex is. Let me tell him where Essex is. Essex is situated 12 miles south-east of Queenstown. A Bantu township is being built there.

He does not know where Queenstown is.

Yes, perhaps he does not even know where Queenstown is.

Who are living there?

Bantu who are being resettled, Bantu who were not employed in the White homeland. They are being resettled there.

What are they doing there? What work is there for them?

I want to ask: What did they do when they were here? They did nothing. That is why we are moving them. They did not work here. Those Bantu did not have a livelihood in the White homeland. They did not work here. Do we first have to provide employment for them before we remove them? If the Bantu is not doing anything here he may just as well go and stay there. [Interjections.] I do not know why hon. members find that amusing, because many elderly people do nothing. We resettle many elderly people. If they do nothing in the White homeland, they may just as well do nothing in the Bantu homeland and get their pension there. There is nothing funny about it. There are many Bantu children here who do nothing. They simply stay with their mother or with their grandmother or whoever it may be. They do not work at all. Then they may just as well go and stay in their homelands and do nothing. [Interjections.] Sir, it is so ridiculous to listen to these arguments put forward by hon. members. I want to tell the hon. member this, so he may know what procedure we follow in resettling these people who are not employed in the White homeland and whom we have to resettle. They are taken to the Bantu homelands. They are not simply offloaded there. They are provided with accommodation in those areas. If such accommodation is not available yet, tents are provided for them. As long as they are staying in the tents food is provided to them. When houses have been completed they leave the tents and move into the buildings. We also see to it that they have an adequate supply of water and proper sanitation. There was one case where there was something wrong with the sanitation. But neither the Department nor the Government was to blame for it. The reason for it was that the Bantu themselves had dug their latrines alongside the wells from which they got their drinking water. It was not the Government’s fault that they had done that. But hon. members do not want to see any good in what the Government is doing. They do not know that this resettlement is being carried out every day and that we are resettling thousands of people. At the moment we are resettling more than 14,000 Bantu in Northern Natal. We hope we will have completed this within a few weeks. I may say there are people who are not pleased at the success with which these resettlements are carried out and who are dissatisfied with these resettlements, particularly Catholic and English priests, as you have seen in pictures in the latest Sunday papers. The fact remains that we shall continue resettling in the Bantu homelands those Bantu who are not economically active in the White homelands. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, earlier on the Prime Minister accused our Leader of having changed his policy and he suggested that it was almost a crime to do so and that the Nationalist Party never changed its policy. He pointed out that Dr. Verwoerd had brought about a change in his policy because of pressure and the hon. the Prime Minister denied it. I think that perhaps the hon. Prime Minister needs to be reminded of the speech of the late Dr. Verwoerd in this House when he gave the reason for changing his policy. If his mind has not been refreshed, then perhaps I can read the speech to him.

It was not a change of policy.

I shall read what the late Dr. Verwoerd said. It appears in Hansard of 10th April, 1961, column 4277. I read it in Afrikaans:

Because of outside pressure the then Prime Minister was compelled to adopt a policy which he did not want to adopt. I have just listened to the hon. member for Heilbron, and here we have another policy again with regard to separate development. What do we hear now? We now hear that it has never been the policy to put the Bantu back into the reserves —only those who are not economically active.

Surely you are talking nonsense now!

That is what he said. The Prime Minister must get that Hansard tomorrow. We are also very interested in seeing this Hansard to-morrow to study the full implications of what the hon. member for Heilbron has just said. Whether the Prime Minister admits it or not he did say that only the Bantu who are not economically active in the White areas would be sent back to the reserves. He also said that the Bantu labour was all going to be migrant labour and the hon. the Deputy Minister agreed with him. [Interjections.] I want to know why, when Dr. Verwoerd was Minister of Native Affairs, the Bantu living in the urban areas were given permanent rights in terms of Section 10. The Minister himself in the Other Place last year admitted that the country had the impression that they had rights. He was therefore going to introduce an Act of Parliament to make it quite clear that they did not have rights. In fact, the Supreme Court has found that they have rights. Now all those rights are to be taken away and we have another change of policy. Every year when we criticize their policy, there is a change of policy to try to meet the criticism. If the hon. member for Heilbron is right in saying that the present policy is only to take those who are not economically active …

[Inaudible]

Who is justified? I take it that every Bantu who is working here, who is not lying idle, is justified in being here. He would not be employed if he was not needed. If that is so, why is it the hon. the Deputy Minister’s policy to decrease that number by 5 per cent annually and send the Bantu back to the reserves.

Because they are not needed here.

I am not surprised at the hon. member for Heilbron making a statement like that because the hon. the Deputy Minister is himself running away from that policy now. [Interjections.] The hon. the Deputy Minister will not say that it is still his policy to reduce the Bantu population in the urban areas by 5 per cent every year.

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Speaker, of course we have seen the newspapers. He has already told the Chamber of Industries that he would not insist on this reduction.

Of course I am going to insist on that.

The Deputy Minister gave the Chamber of Industries a different impression. We see here again a change of policy. That is what this debate is about. My Leader has moved this vote of no confidence because the non-White policies of this Government are illusory. Whether intentionally or not the people have been misled as to what the policy is to be.

The hon. member for Heilbron attacked the hon. member for Yeoville. He tried to ridicule him. The hon. member for Heilbron said that the hon. member for Yeoville did not know Kwa Mashu was not in the reserves. But what difference does that make in terms of the speech made by the hon. member for Yeoville? What is the difference between Kwa Mashu and Mdantsane? [Interjections.] The hon. member says that Mdantsane is in the reserves. How did it get into the reserves? They just changed the boundary. I am willing to take on a bet that in due course Kwa Mashu will become part of the reserves as well. Will the hon. the Deputy Minister now give an undertaking that Kwa Mashu will never be included in the reserves? I will go further. I will ask the Minister because he is bigger than the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he will give the country an assurance that Soweto will never become a reserve.

Never, not as long as I am the Minister concerned.

The hon. member for Heilbron said that separate development did not only mean the economic development of the reserves. It also meant the political and cultural development. And he told us about the hospitals. He asked whether we knew about the hospitals that they are establishing. I want to ask him: How many Bantu doctors are there in mission hospitals in the Transkei? Just tell me about one. This shows that the hon. member in ignorance is misleading the House and the country by suggesting that there are black doctors in those mission hospitals. That is the impression he wanted to give. Sir, I say it is an illusion that this Government has a non-White policy. They are certainly champion builders of castles in the air. They are very “kragdadig” when it comes to talking about ideals. The hon. member for Heilbron did the same just now. He read from some economist’s report that the border industries could be developed. But they rely again on forecasts, while we are talking about the facts, the facts as they are after 20 years.

Do not be ridiculous; the committee was only appointed six years ago.

What was appointed six years ago?

The Committee for the Settlement of Border Industries.

The Tomlinson Commission was appointed to go into this very question, and that was supposed to be a commission of experts. They made recommendations as to how the Reserves could be developed. Those recommendations, Sir, were not accepted by the Government. But the Government was warned by those experts at the time that unless they did something, unless the Government took steps at once to establish industries in the Reserves, the policy of separate development would fail.

Which Committee was that?

The Socio-economic Commission of which Professor Tomlinson was the chairman. The Government, then under the late Dr. Verwoerd, did not accept these recommendations. They had their own plan, they said, and it is this plan that we are now attacking. A five-year plan was produced again last year. But we could not pin the Minister down to anything. We could not pin the Minister down as to what the development was to be. He said it might have to be changed, and that they might not necessarily spend as much as they promised. That is why he would not let the House see it. But the border industries plan was Dr. Verwoerd’s plan. That was the one thing which Dr. Verwoerd did accept. Now the hon. member for Heilbron criticized the hon. member for Yeoville because he attacked the Government for not establishing industries around the Transkei. The Government cannot get away from it as easily as that, by saying that the Transkei is not the only Reserve. The Transkei is the Reserve, the showpiece for the people they take there every year. All the visitors are taken there. If this development of border industries has then been so succesful, name one such industry in Queenstown, which is a border town. Name one. [Interjections.] No, Rome was not built in a day, but here six years have gone by. Just name a new industry which was started in East London …

Why are you so inarticulate now?

Sir, they can come with industries in Hammersdale in Natal, but an industry can be established anywhere in Natal and it will be a border industry. The only place where border development has taken place on a large scale is at Rosslyn. But what area does Rosslyn serve? Where is the Bantustan which Rosslyn serves? Hon. members opposite say that the Bantu accept the policy. But I want to point out that in the area where the Bantu has got the say, where they can get onto the political platform and talk freely, there is great criticism of the Government’s policy. Why is there criticism? It is because they see what is happening, all this money being spent on buildings. We are very thankful to see this money being spent on buildings in Umtata. But what permanent employment is that giving, what industries is that establishing? If you look through the minutes of the last session of the Transkei Assembly—I have them here—you will find that in debate after debate that they referred to this lack of development. They keep on asking the Chief Minister, Kaiser Matanzima, where the industries are and what is being done for the men. They are critical of the fact that the men have to go away from their homes and have to leave their families to go out to work. They will not accept migrant labour like the hon. member for Heilbron does. It is all very well for him accepting it as he does not have to do it. It is all very well for the hon. the Minister accepting it …

[Inaudible.]

I am not talking about the advantage to the industry. There may be advantages. We know that certain works have to have migrant labour. That we know. But what about the individual who has to do the Labour?

[Inaudible.]

If this Deputy Minister was truly concerned about the well-being of the African, if he was concerned with orderly living in the reserves he would know that because of the absence of the kraal head doing his migratory labour, the discipline of the family is broken down and so is the discipline of the tribe. That is an accepted fact. Chief Kaizer Matanzima, the chief minister, accepts government policy of separate development but even he now, is showing signs of unrest. When he spoke in the Assembly he spoke on the question of White capital. They are wanting White capital to be introduced into the Transkei because they saw that the Government was doing nothing. Much as the civil servants may be imbued with a sense of dedication and loyalty, the point is that civil servants are not the people to start industries. We have the Bantu Investment Corporation, the Xhosa Development Corporation, but the people want to see what is being done to give them work. It is useless talking about a furniture factory which actually was in being before the Nationalist Party came into power. They bought it from a White firm: A weaving factory which was employing Bantu outside the Transkei. It has merely been brought into the Transkei. They were employing Bantu before. Then there is the meat factory. How many people can that employ? 180 at the most. You have the phormium tenax experiment with a decorticating plant at Butterworth. You have the tea experiment. But these things are all mentioned by speakers in the Transkei Assembly. They said it was nothing. I should like to read what the Leader of the Opposition there said in reply to the Chief Minister. The Chief Minister had said that a solution would ultimately be found. He said there were various ways of employing White capital and that a solution would ultimately be found with the advice and guidance of the Government of the Republic. Why should it ultimately be found? Surely when they embarked on the scheme they should have known what they were going to do. When they rejected the Tomlinson recommendations they should have known what they were going to do. They talk now about industrial development only taking place at the pace of the Bantu or the African and that we must not outstrip him which will mean in fact that if he is slow in acquiring the skills there will be no development. If we read a report of the speech made by the Commissioner General for the Transkei to industrialists when they visited the Transkei then there will be no development. He said this. He has said that he was quoted out of context but he did not deny that he used these words. He said:

And he added:

Who said that?

The Commissioner General. [Interjections.] If this is all true that the Xhosa has no initiative, that he has no organizational ability, that he has no judgment, that he has no responsibility, that it is a happening if something starts and if as the hon. the Prime Minister has said that we will only develop as fast as the natives can follow, then there is going to be no development. And, if that is so, I ask what about the high and lofty ideals of Mr. De Wet Nel when he told us about the development that could take place, especially the political development? If this is true, how can you offer to hand them their independence, how can you offer to hand over to them the administration of their areas if these words are true?

May I put a question to you?

No, I am sorry. I do not even have half an hour. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Guzana, in reply to the Chief Minister—and I want to end up with his reply—after he had been warned by the chair that it was lunchtime, that is 1 o’clock, and it had been suggested that perhaps he should stop, said that he knew he did not have much more time. The Chief Minister then suggested that he should be allowed to go on although it was lunchtime, whereupon Mr. Guzana said:

In other words the only development that had taken place there had been with white capital. He went on to say:

Now, that is his view. That is a fact. Unless white capital goes in there, unless white capital is made available to them, you will get no development. Now, I want to give an example of how the Government’s policy is restricting development by not allowing white capital in. It affects the building societies. This is a point raised by Mr. Guzana too. The Bantu invest in building societies in the Transkei and elsewhere on a fixed scale. But those building societies will not give loans to Bantu for development because they have no assurance that if bonded property is sold on a forced sale that they will be able to buy it in. There have been discussions with the department and I understand that the hon. the Minister—and he can tell the House later whether this is correct—has said that they can buy in provided he has given them permission to do so when the loan is granted. Now, that is not fair. It is unfair. They have to apply to get permission first and then they give the bond. It all takes time. What is the criticism against the Bantu Investment Corporation? It is that it takes months and months before they can get any financial assistance. No, the Government’s policy has been a failure in the one area where one would expect it to be a success. And they only have to go there to see that development is not taking place. And why? What is said by the Government? The development will start with agricultural development. Go through the Transkei via the national road and see what the country looks like. What is the average production of mealies there? Two bags to a morgen. How can these people live on the production there? The system of land tenure is wrong. Again, Sir, the Government would not accept the recommendations of the Tomlinson Commission, namely that you should change the nature of farming there and put farming on a profitable basis by giving them economic units and on a capital system. But, the Government turned that down. They left the people on small plots. And, of course, one of the difficulties is until they establish industries there, they cannot take the native off the rural land. Therefore, he is left with the small bit of land. And if you drive through the Transkei as I do daily you will see who is tilling the soil to-day. They are old women and children, sometimes two small children and I have even seen one young native girl on her own with a span of oxen holding a plough. Those are the people that have to till the soil to-day. And why is it? It is because the men all have to go out and work. They cannot live on what they produce in the Transkei. The policy of the Government that they are going to develop these reserves is an illusion. They cannot even maintain the national increase. How can they maintain those who are supposed to be sent back? Of course we now hear from the hon. member for Heilbron that they are not going to be sent back anymore. They are going to be kept in the urban areas now. That is probably because Chief Kaizer Matanzima is fighting an election. He said that he was going up to Pretoria to see the Government about the application of influx control. And in the Assembly he said that you cannot send back the Africans from the Western Cape unless you first furnish jobs for them in the Transkei. And I have no doubt that because of his visit that we now have this change of policy from the hon. member for Heilbron. I hope the hon. the Minister will tell us also what answer he gave to Chief Kaizer Matanzima on his request for further departments of State to be handed over to the Transkei government for their administration. The country naturally is interested in hearing what the development is to be there and I hope the hon. the Minister will take the first opportunity of telling us.

Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting here for many years now with the hon. member for Transkei, but I have never yet felt so sorry for him as to-day. The hon. member for Transkei set up puppets for himself and then tried to knock them down one after the other. I shall return to the hon. member for Transkei in a few moments. First I just want to touch upon the motion of no-confidence which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition introduced this afternoon. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s point of departure in his motion of no-confidence was that the Government’s policy of separate development had failed. According to him it has failed because there is insufficient development, because there are insufficient industries, because it would be too costly, and for those reasons the country will have to accept the policy of the United Party. What is embodied in that policy of the United Party which would have to be accepted by the country? It means that all industries would have to be in the white metropolitan areas and in no other place.

No.

All the labour needed … No wait, the hon. member for Durban (Point) must keep quiet now. The hon. member can speak again and he does not understand these matters anyway. All the Bantu labour, and this he says himself, is necessary in our industries. All the labour will have to be drawn to the White industrial areas. And it will have to be drawn, not on a basis of migratory labour, but on a family basis, a permanent family basis. In this way I can continue mentioning one impossible result after another of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s policy. Those Bantu labourers must then get land-tenure here, as well as political representation and on that I do not even want to elaborate. They will then eventually sit in this Parliament as well.

But you agree that your policy has failed.

No, I did not agree with that at all. On the contrary, the policy is succeeding. But the hon. member must not think that he will distract me. Will the hon. the Leader of the Opposition not understand why the electorate of the Republic of South Africa will not accept his policy? It is because that policy of his only means the downfall of the white man in South Africa. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition must not try to calculate the cost of placing a Bantu in employment in a border industry area. If I have to make the calculation for the hon. member, it will be far more expensive to place a Bantu labourer in an industry in a white area than the calculation of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to place a Bantu in a border industry. In the first place, that industry’s buildings cost far more in the white area than in the border area. The housing of the Bantu in the white area is far more expensive, and the provision of water and other services is more expensive. So he can calculate one item after another and he will find that the cost of placing a Bantu in a white industry within a white area is far greater than that of placing him in a Bantu area or in a border industry. But now the hon. member says that because the costs are high, this policy of separate development must be abandoned and his policy of integration must be accepted. No, the electorate of South Africa will not accept that.

But I want to return to the hon. member for Transkei, who set up puppets and then attempted to knock them down. He tried to make out a case that the National Party Government had changed its policy. No, it has not changed its policy at all. This question of migratory labour is peculiar to the Bantu since the Bantu came to work in the white area, and the hon. member knows this. And if he does not know it, I do not know how he can represent a constituency such as the Transkei. He should at least know the Bantu. This system of migratory labour has been peculiar to the Bantu for many years. This question of the Bantu’s wife who is the agriculturist is only changing now that we are making a break-through since we have come forward with development in the Bantu areas, where the Bantu is self-activated in the development of his own agriculture and it is no longer merely a subsistence agriculture which is managed by his wife or daughters. The hon. member knows this. Another puppet he set up was when he spoke of the lack of agricultural development in the Transkei. This was very different to what the Leader of the Opposition or the hon. member for Yeoville said. Both said that tourists had testified to the fact that there was exceptional agricultural development. Actually the two previous speakers went further and said that this sound agricultural development was only the work of the good officials and not that of the Ministry. It is the same thing we had when they attacked the Minister of Transport and said that the Railway officials did good work but the Minister was worthless. Two of those hon. members say that there is sound agricultural development, but here the hon. the member for Transkei comes along and wants to belittle the fibre production and other schemes and all the other agricultural development in the Transkei. I wonder whether he knows about the Quamata irrigation scheme. After all, it is close to him. Has he ever gone to look at it? Why then do other people see the development in the homelands, especially in the agricultural field? But the hon. member wants to belittle everything. Now he says that the furniture factory at Umtata was there and also the textile factory, but what were they like previously? The hon. member now complains because there are no border industries in the Transkei. This is just like the hon. member for Yeoville, who went there for a fortnight and then looked for border industries in Umtata. Imagine, looking for a border industry in the heart-land itself! Is this not ludicrous?

Now the hon. member pleads for Queenstown to become a border industry area. Does he not know that it has already been proclaimed as such? [Interjections.] I will concede that it was very difficult to hear the hon. member when he spoke, because he could not make his speech on his own. He had to get help from everyone around him and there was a great deal of noise. Before I come to his other statements I want to deal with this other matter raised by the hon. member when he suggested that the National Party Government had changed its policy. He says the late Dr. Verwoerd gave permanency to the Bantu in the white areas: they had the right to remain here permanently, and now we want to change this. The hon. member is a lawyer. Does he not know that section 10 of the Urban Areas Act of 1945 provides that a Bantu who is either born in a White area or has worked for 10 years for one specific employer for 15 years for more than one employer, is not subject to influx control measures? [Interjection.] The hon. member must refrain from putting his questions now, because I am replying to this question of his. Where are we changing this policy? The hon. member says we are ejecting those people. The time may come when amendments may be made to section 10 of the Urban Areas Act, but so far no amendment has been made to it. But there was more contained in that Urban Areas Act. It also meant that if a Bantu lived here, even if he satisfied those three qualifications in terms of section 10, he could still be removed or returned to his homeland if he was unemployed. In passing I also want to reply to the hon. member for Yeoville, who made this objectionable remark which is really intended for export, about these camps to which we send people, refugee camps. I challenge anyone opposite to show me one such camp. The hon. member looked for a name, and then the name Essex was mentioned, but I know that the place he had in mind was in fact Sada, the Bantu township in the vicinity of Whittlesea. It is really the one which the Daily Dispatch told them about, informing them of the very poor conditions that prevailed there, and where people went to take photographs and then came and told what tragic conditions allegedly prevailed there. Let me now once and for all give the information to these hon. members. We are building Bantu townships in Bantu homelands, and Sada is such a Bantu township which is in process of construction.

Those Bantu townships cannot all be built immediately with all the amenities we would like to have. At Sada houses of 12 feet by 10 feet were built to serve as temporary housing for people, but I want to say this to the hon. member: The State has bought up land along the Fish River, and then Bantu remained behind who could not immediately be placed in employment. At present there are old pensioners in many areas, persons for whom the town councils do not want to provide housing under their housing schemes. We gathered together those people and provided accommodation for them at Sada. What objection does the hon. member have to a pensioner drawing his pension in Sada? Why must he draw his pension in Cradock or Somerset East or in one of the white towns? Why must a house be built for him out of housing funds? Why must he be provided with health services, etc., in white areas when we can provide his health services and his housing, etc., for him in Bantu areas? But we did more than that. In the vicinity of Sada there is the Klipplaat dam with the Klipplaat irrigation scheme and in that section of the irrigation scheme that falls in the Bantu area and where we do have water rights, we have made available small-holdings to those persons. They are producing their own vegetables there. In that way they have become self-sufficient, but what is more, we are building extensions there. We were then able to employ those people profitably; we could let them make bricks. Mr. Speaker, I can go on for hours telling you what is being done there and what efforts are being made there for the good of these people and to care for them. But everything you do must be viewed with suspicion by the United Party for political ends. In this connection I just want to say that the camps to which he referred are not the type of camps he wanted to make them out to be. Some of the Bantu will most probably not stay in that Bantu township. They are free to go from there and work elsewhere but it is a Bantu township and those who wish to reside there permanently and who can make a living there can remain there permanently. Is this now clear, even to the hon. member for Durban (Point)?

I come now to the other insinuations and sowing of suspicion that we get from the United Party side, namely that if there is a Bantu residential area or a Bantu township near an industry, then we simply change the boundaries and incorporate it in the Bantu area. The United Party is at the same time always sowing suspicion about where the boundaries are to be. What they really wanted to say by implication here this afternoon was that boundaries are simply altered to meet the requirements of border industries. Mr. Speaker, we shall still discuss this question of boundaries further, but I want to put this challenge to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to-day: I will allow him till 1971, if we are spared, but I want him to know that from now on I shall be chasing him until 1971. I challenge him to tell me before the next election whether he is going to leave the Bantu areas as they are to-day, whether the boundaries of Bantu areas are not going to be changed and whether he is going to change them. If he says that he is going to change them, then he must tell me where the boundaries will be. All I get from him is that pretty smile of his. Yes, he and I are still going to smile a great deal at one another, but we are going to discuss this matter till 1971. Before 1971. before he makes these insinuations again, he will have to get away from this game of hide and seek once and for all; he will have to tell us where he stands. Yes, land has been purchased at Mdantsane. It adjoins Bantu territory. It was conveniently situated to clear up the slum conditions that existed in East London, and to establish those people in an orderly manner in a Bantu township at Mdantsane, where they are employed in industries. Hon. members of the Opposition must not ask me now, as the hon. member for Transkei did, what new industries there are. He must really go and look when he goes there again. It is true that Cyril Lord has his industry there, but has he seen all the additional industries that have been established there, just as new industries were established in Rosslyn and in Durban when the Bantu township of Umlazi was built? The hon. member mentioned Kwa Mashu. Yes, Kwa Mashu lies very near to a Bantu homeland.

Are you going to incorporate it?

At present it is a Bantu residential area, and if it is incorporated therein, what difference would it make to that hon. member? It is Bantu who are living there to-day and Bantu who will live there in the future. It will make no difference to him; it will only be of great benefit to Durban.

What about Soweto?

But the hon. member will not understand that it will be of benefit to Durban, because then it will be a Bantu township under the care of Bantu Administration and Development and the Bantu Trust, and then it will not be the taxpayers of Durban who will be responsible for it.

The hon. member went further and said that we changed the boundaries and that we would probably even change the boundaries in such a way that Soweto would be situated in a white area. This assertion has already been made by the English Press, and it has even been requested, but I want to give the assurance here that as long as this National Party Government is in power—and as far as I can see, it will still be a very long time—Soweto will not become a Bantu area or Bantu homeland. But if the United Party comes into power, then I am not even so very sure any more that Johannesburg and Cape Town will remain white areas, because then all those people will be drawn into the white areas; after all, according to the Opposition they cannot make a living in the Bantu areas!

Mr. Speaker, please pardon me for speaking so disjointedly this afternoon, but I have to reply to a disjointed speech made by the hon. member for Transkei and consequently I also have to touch here and there as he did. He asked what Bantu had moved into a Bantu area and established an industry there where they could make a decent living. I want to ask him whether he has ever heard of a place called Hammanskraal. Has he ever heard of the Tswana people? Has he ever heard of an industrialist such as Habakuk who had a small furniture factory in a white area and who was aided by the Bantu Investment Corporation and who established a factory in Hammanskraal and who can also supply furniture in white areas to-day and who now has a flourishing factory there? He is no exception to the rule. There are many others who have similar profitable undertakings.

The hon. member also made the assertion that the Bantu were so dissatisfied with our policy. I want to quote to him from The Star of Thursday, 2nd June, 1966, in which a Bantu wrote—

“All unbiased persons”; they are rather scarce. In addition I just want to quote the following—

I could have quoted at greater length from this report, but if I think how tedious the hon. member for Transkei was when he stood and read, I fear that I may become just as tedious. Therefore I am not going to quote further from that source. This report was written by C. B. Morane.

Morane?

Morane, yes. Moroka West, Johannesburg. Mr. Speaker, we have this evidence from a Bantu himself of how this Government’s policy is to his advantage. But he adds that development should not proceed more rapidly than the Bantu himself can absorb it, or else they will land in the same situation as the Central African states. Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude my speech with another quote from a newspaper. It has been said that the other report is somewhat dated. This one is fresh from the oven. It is from the Sunday Times of 4th February, the day before yesterday. It is a Mr. Thompson writing. This Mr. Thompson is very annoyed with the Government. One can see that he is certainly no Nationalist. [Interjection.] No, it is not Blyth. It is not even his cousin. He may perhaps be related to the hon. member for Pinelands, but, Mr. Speaker, I shall not be personal. He writes—

This person can make accurate predictions. He sees it already. But then he continues very despondently, and says:

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that this question of the Bantu policy which has been debated by the last two or three speakers on that side of the House, is one which has got three main aspects: political, industrial and farming. I would like to have an opportunity of dealing more fully with these than is perhaps presented at the moment. So, Sir, I would like to move—

Agreed to.