When the House adjourned yesterday I was saying that the debate on the Bantu question could most conveniently be divided into three aspects; one was the economic aspect, the second the agricultural, commercial and industrial aspects and thirdly their political rights and powers and the future which is awaiting them in that regard. Sir, I listened with great care to what the hon. the Deputy Minister had to say yesterday, as well as the hon. member for Heilbron, who occupies a very responsible position as chairman of the Select Committee on Bantu Affairs. I waited in vain for them to give any reply to the questions which my hon. Leader had asked during the course of the debate earlier on. There is still a Deputy Minister and the Minister himself, and I have no doubt that they are holding themselves in reserve to get all the questions so that we may get all the answers from them. I hope we will not be disappointed. This is an opportunity where they can give us the policy of the Government; this is a vote of no confidence in the Government, after all. Hon. members opposite might wish it to be a vote of no confidence in the Opposition but, Sir, they are going to be disappointed. That is not the issue before the House.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Prime Minister, I think very rightly, did not attempt to answer my hon. Leader. He left that alone; he made it rather clear that he was leaving it to others. As I have said, we heard two responsible members of this House, the Deputy Minister and the Chairman of the Bantu Affairs Committee but when I had listened to them I wondered whether we should not get right back again to first principles in regard to this issue. It seems to me that the Government is losing touch with the Bantu people altogether. The speeches of the two hon. members to whom I have referred represented that very clearly indeed. Sir, the other day I came across an article in one of our papers here in South Africa, an article which was written by a very well-known Bantu journalist in Natal. This is what he had to say, not in this context at all, but in another context entirely—

Sir, there is a whole big speech in that. That article, as I say, was written by a Bantu journalist. Sir, when I heard the speeches here yesterday I wondered whether the speakers on that side of the House realized that this is precisely what the Bantu people want and whether it is being put across to the Government. Not only is the Government failing to appreciate it but are they in touch with the Bantu people? Are the channels of communication with the rank and file of the Bantu people to-day dried up? Is there an official blockage taking place somewhere? Sir, I am sorry, but I believe there is. I believe that there are vast numbers of dedicated officials in the Department of Bantu Administration who are trying to get a completely unwieldy, unworkable experiment working. The people who should be leading the Bantu are either trying to serve two masters or they are becoming Government stooges. They are completely frustrated. I am now talking about the chiefs and their headmen. They either say that which the Government wants them to say so as to be able to say that they are in favour with their masters or if they say something different, then they are frowned upon.

They continually have to try and serve two masters, namely their own tribesmen, their own people, and the Government, or they throw up the sponge as far as their people are concerned and they become Government stooges. I want to emphasize this point because yesterday when the hon. the Prime Minister was speaking I think he said that the unemployment figures—the registration of unemployed people—did indicate that there was this state of unemployment in the Bantu reserves. I do not want to misquote him, I believe that was the gravamen of what he said. He had no figures.

Will you just repeat that? I referred to the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians.

I accept that. The Prime Minister said he had no figures. Nobody has any figures. The Government has no figures. The Government does not know how many Bantu there are in South Africa. We are dealing with a problem of which we do not know the magnitude; we know nothing about the basic data on which a policy can be established. We do not know whether the Bantustan policy is working or not. The Government is making it manifest that it cannot work, but so far as being able to sit down with figures and prove something, there are no figures. There are no figures as to the total Bantu population. [Interjection.] No, it is no use Ministers asking me to do a job. If they cannot do the job they are supposed to do, then they must resign and get out. I proffer good advice to them, free and for nothing. I suggest a whole number of them get out—it may assist South Africa very considerably. I want to repeat that we are not dealing with chattels when we are dealing with the Bantu people, we are dealing with people whom we are governing. I have a means of bringing my troubles before Parliament, before the necessary authorities. But through which channel must the tribesman go? If I am told he must go through official channels, my answer is “I am sorry, that is clogged up.” That is exactly the trouble we are in to-day. I repeat: We do not know how big the problem is. We do not know whether we have 13 million Bantu or 15 or 16 million, or even 18 million. We have no idea at all. There is not an hon. member on that side who. knows, including the Deputy Ministers, including the hon. member for Heilbron. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, you hear the interjections. They are most enlightening. When we are dealing with a problem of this magnitude, of this importance for the future of South Africa, those are the interjections from that side of the House that we have to listen to, that is the measure of the intelligent application of hon. members opposite when considering this problem.

By a trick of fate many years ago prior to Union, in Natal at any rate, it so happened that following on the census came the imposition of poll tax, so that from that time onwards so far as the Bantu are concerned it is absolutely solidly in their minds that poll tax and the number of Bantu have some relation to each other. It so happened by chance, but that impression has remained, with the result that the figures which are handed in at the time of a Bantu census to official quarters for computation are deliberately falsified. We all know that. Every one of us who has any experience and knowledge of the Bantu knows that those figures are deliberately falsified to give a figure which is much less than the actual figure. It is not just one’s opinion, it is a fact which any man who goes out officially to carry out a government census will be able to tell one without equivocation.

When we are dealing with matters such as this whilst there is a lack of essential data, where then do we find ourselves? Where do we find ourselves as regards this matter which is receiving our attention here to-day? I want to say the following in all seriousness to the hon. the Prime Minister as regards the sending back of the Bantu to their homelands, as they are called, Bantu who, in many cases, know nothing about them. May I interpolate and say the following to the hon. the Prime Minister. He will remember that Native children born in the white areas who were five or six years of age in 1948, when the change of government took place, are 25, 26 or 27 years of age to-day. What do they know of the homelands? But they are being sent back. It is creating the greatest bitterness. Has this come to the knowledge of the Government? It is creating the greatest bitterness. What would be the feeling if the position were reversed and there was a wholesale movement of our people? What would happen if there were wholesale movements running into thousands and tens of thousands? I am not against the clearing up of black spots.

I am not against the consolidation of the areas which belong to the Bantu. I want to see the Bantu happy and living together in amity with the rest of the population. But I do not want to see it happening under such circumstances that it is creating discord. I do not want to see it happening under an ideological concept such as the one we are working under at the present time, where Bantu with no knowledge whatever of the conditions under which they are going into the so-called homelands are being sent by law back to settle in those so-called homelands. What do they do there, Sir? Here is paper after paper giving examples of the fact that the Bantu go back to no jobs. They go back to no place where they can settle. They go back to no kind of a future. In many cases they are people who have spent their 10, or 15 or 20 years in our service within the white areas. It has been truthfully said that we need them and that they need us. But look at this policy of the Government with its variations—it is suffering many a change, Sir.

I heard what the Deputy Minister had to say yesterday, when he referred, I think, to the fact that in terms of the Urban Areas Act, under certain circumstances, for instance if a Bantu had worked there for 10 years, he would be allowed to stay there. He would then not be endorsed out, as it is called—whatever the law may be, it is called “being endorsed out”. They are not to be endorsed out. They are not to follow the path which was laid down yesterday by the hon. member for Heilbron, who said in effect that all these people are to become migrant labourers. The hon. the Deputy Minister said that they were not going to become migrant labour. He said that those who complied with the provisions of the Urban Areas Act would remain. But, Sir, a native can fall out of employment just as a white man can. Under certain circumstances, if he is unfortunate enough to fall out of employment, he is sent away to the so-called homelands. When he wants to return again, he knows no other work and he knows no other master. These are good people, Sir. These are people not in their scores or in their hundreds but in their thousands who have served us well, faithfully and loyally. We want them back in the employment to which they have become accustomed and where they have given us that good and loyal service. We want them back, but the Government’s policy is against that. We can now go to the marketplace and find another group of Bantu people who will take over that employment, because the law, turning slowly, has ground out another servant for us, to take the place of that loyal man who has gone away, and who may not even be allowed back into that town again because the Government’s policy decides that that ethnic group shall not be employed in that town.

That ethnic group—the people from that tribe—must go to some other town. That is where they will get their employment. They cannot even get employment in that particular town. What are these people to think now when they go back to the so-called homeland and they sit down there after years and years of service? Is it any wonder that they are feeling bitter? Does the Government know that they are feeling bitter? Is it coming to the Government’s attention? Mr. Speaker, what is really the biggest difficulty that we on this side of the House have to contend with? What is my greatest difficulty to-day? [Interjections.] My greatest difficulty is to use language here which will be read in Hansard by the Bantu of South Africa without giving them the impression that there is something in here which is indicating that they have just cause and reason to resent the Government’s policy. That is my biggest difficulty. How do we do that? It is virtually impossible. It is almost beyond human capacity to be able to make a speech here which will drive home the point and at the same time not create the wrong impression outside these four walls.

Why do you not study the law? Then you would make a more sensible speech.

The Deputy Minister says: Why do you not study the law? That is precisely the attitude of the Government towards this human problem. “Why don’t you study the law?” The Bantu Affairs Department could put that in letters of gold above their portals in every single office they have in South Africa—and show it to whom? Show it to the Bantu, not to me. Show it to the Bantu. Why does the Deputy Minister not go and show that to the 30 million Bantu in South Africa? Sir, I was speaking about the removal of these Bantu. We have a case at the present time. I hope that when the Deputy Minister gets up, he is going to take this opportunity of giving us an explanation in regard to the removal of the 4,800 Bantu from Meram to Limehill. Here is a case, Mr. Speaker, where it is being bruited abroad and publicized in the Press. Party politics will soon be right in the middle of it if we are not careful. [Interjections.]

Order!

There are approximately 12.800 Bantu as far as we can judge on the farms, being removed to another place called Limeville. A doctor, whose name is not given, according to the press reports, visited the Bantu there because there was trouble. There were difficulties arising. People were starting to complain on behalf of the Bantu of the conditions under which the Bantu were being moved. At Limehill it was found that there was no sanitation for the Bantu who had been brought in. They were told: “You must make your own latrines. That is for you to do.” There was no store for them to buy any of their requirements. There were no medical services or clinical facilities of any kind, although an official statement, I understand, was issued, stating that a store will be provided and that a clinic will be set up. But, Mr. Speaker, why is this done after the Bantu have moved? Hiere are cases where the Bantu have to be moved. I have said already that I am in favour of cleaning up black spots, and where Bantu have to be moved—and there are such cases— the least the Administration can do is to see that all the facilities are provided in advance, so that when the Bantu get there, there is something that looks like an approximation towards normal, healthy conditions, under which they will have to live. Now. what happens about their employment?

Why don’t you qualify?

I want to be fair. Will you tell me how I should qualify? [Interjections.] Well, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to accept an explanation from the hon. the Deputy Minister when his time comes to speak. Here is an opportunity, and I invite them to give us here in Parliament a full statement on the factual position of the transfer of Bantu from Mevam to Limehill. When these people want a job, what job is waiting for them? There is no job waiting for them. They are referred back again to this empty myth that they can find service in their so-called homelands, in which they can find employment and in which they can pull themselves up by their own shoestrings. It is quite impossible. It cannot be done. When one looks at the Government’s policy as adumbrated by the late Prime Minister, by the present Prime Minister and his Government when he dealt with these matters, and particularly the Deputy Ministers, when one looks at this policy as it is set out in cold black and white, we find that the success or failure of this policy will be fatal to South Africa. Here is a policy where we cannot win. If the Government succeeds in its policy and it separates—and let us now go the whole hog, and say it separates the Whites from the non-Whites—and let us suppose it succeeds. What will be the position? Because if it does not, what has happened to the policy? It cannot partially succeed in separating White and non-White. It must succeed or fail. If there is a great mass of non-Whites still left in the white area, this policy has not succeeded. It must succeed or fail. If it succeeds, and the Whites are separated from the non-Whites, in what position have we placed ourselves as white South Africa? Completely at the mercy of independent Hindustans, Colouredstans and Bantustans which have got international lines drawn between us and them. What is the history of Africa at the present time in regard to these matters? Completely fatal, not only to the white man and the white man’s economy, but to the whole of our civilization as we know it. To the North the metropolitan powers believed that they could pull out of Africa, having left a semblance of Government, based on Westminster, behind them. By and large all the metropolitan powers tried that. But where have those governments gone? In state after state it has broken down, and if it was not for the white officials in the Transkei government they will break down as well. I challenge any hon. member on the other side to deny that the Transkei to-day is being kept going by the white officials. The Government does not want to allow white industries there, or white money or white entrepreneurs but we have white men there running the country through non-Europeans. I should now like to ask the hon. member for Heilbron point blank: Can the government of the Transkei to-day manage to carry on without the white officials? Apparently the hon. member finds himself in some difficulty in answering, but he knows perfectly well that it cannot. I see the hon. Minister of Planning shaking his head sadly. But he too will learn. He will be getting a question put to him one of these days and I hope he will have the answer ready. As I say, we have a question waiting for him and I hope he will work on his brief so that he will have his answer ready the day the question is put to him.

Mr. Speaker, let me repeat: If the Government’s policy succeeds, white civilization in South Africa is finished. And if it fails? I hear laughter from the other side. Do hon. members opposite really believe that if the Government’s policy succeeds white civilization will remain? Do they really think so? After the lessons we have had from the rest of Africa, do they think we can continue to exist without the non-European? [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister of Planning is now asking me a very rude question. He asks me whether I feel insecure. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do feel insecure. Does the hon. the Minister want me to come out openly and say that? What is he doing to protect my province? What is he doing to see that we are secure in our province? Virtually the whole of Natal to-day is a border area for the purpose of border industries for the Bantu. In addition we have approximately a ¼ million Indians and our own group of Coloured people, who are not a problem in Natal. Let us see what the late Prime Minister had to say about Natal. He said there was nothing he could do for Natal—conditions there were the results of history. He did not bring it about, he said. We are as we are in Natal to-day because of history, he said, and nothing can be done about it. And what did the present Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions say in this regard? He said consolidation in Natal was impossible. He said that if they were able eventually to get seven blocks of land for the Bantu in Natal that would be as far as they could go. Even that he regarded as being difficult, although possible. But that is not consolidation; that is not creating a Bantustan— it only means creating borders, borders and borders. Here I want to bring to the House a very wise old saying, a saying I came across many years ago. The point of contact is the point of friction when you are dealing with different racial groups, this saying goes. And the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions wants to create seven points of friction. That is how far he is prepared to go. I want to say this and I want to say it openly —hon. members opposite should know it— that with the greatest Bantu population relative to the white population of all the provinces of the Republic, Natal has lived in greater harmony with the Bantu than is the case in any of the other provinces. We shall continue to do so. Our record since the Bambata rebellion of 1906 is a record of harmonious living together. But the policy of this Government is disturbing this; it is disturbing this harmonious living together. It is upsetting this entire position so that we are now faced with this insecurity which the hon. the Minister of Planning wanted to know about. Therefore I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Planning whether when he takes part in this debate he will give Natal the assurance as to its security and tell us what steps the Government is taking to give us security?

Now, Sir, comes the final 64 million dollar question. My Leader put the same question yesterday as he did in the past without getting any reply to it. With the Government’s policy going forward, win or lose, what will it cost South Africa? What will it cost us as taxpayers? What will we have to pay in terms of money and what will we have to pay in terms of security? We have people from foreign nations living here in our midst. How is that affecting our internal security? Do hon. members opposite think that the influence of the South African Government is going to be the only influence, that it is going to be the only Government in the whole wide world that is going to be of any effect and of concern to the non-White people whom they are proposing to build up into separate, independent viable states? Do they really believe that our Government is the only one to whom those people will harken in future? Are we going to have a problem of internal as well as external defence? Because some of these governments come under the influence of foreign countries with foreign ideologies. What is to stop it? Let the Government tell us what the cost is going to be. Let the Government take it as its motto, openly, so that we can know where we stand: Divide South Africa into Bantustans or perish. This should be their motto. What is the Government’s alternative? It has none. As my Leader said yesterday, if this policy broke down the Government would be left without a policy; they could not turn to something else. They cannot adjust it; they cannot qualify it; they cannot change direction just a little. This policy of theirs is absolute—it is all or nothing. So I say, if this policy succeeds, we perish, and if they lose, they perish, but South Africa may perish with them. Let us face this issue fairly and squarely. This is a human problem. It is a problem of people. I believe that the communication with the Government has broken down and that the Government as a result is not aware of the true feelings of the millions of Bantu people. I am not talking of the few intelligentsia, but of the mass of the people. It beholds the Government to make arrangements to see that they are fully informed even though the information they may get is distasteful to them and even though they may not like to hear it.

The hon. member for South Coast was very concerned about the fact that it had been said in this debate that the Opposition should prove its policy and explain it to us, that the Opposition should regard this debate as an opportunity for proving why the country could have confidence in it. Then the hon. member continued by saying that we on this side of the House would like to introduce a motion of no confidence in the Opposition. No, Sir. That select opportunity for expressing their lack of confidence we are leaving to the voters of South Africa. They will do so at the next election and at the forthcoming by-elections, as they have been doing it for the past 20 years. Let me tell the hon. Opposition that we on this side did not come to power only by telling the public how bad the government of the day was—and truly, Sir, there was a bad government for you!

Where were you then?

Good gracious, I am older than the hon. member …

But you are ageing rapidly.

No, Sir. In my constituencies in Johannesburg, where I lived, I worked. What I want to tell hon. members on the other side is that this side did not come to power as a result of such a negative game. We came to power by presenting to South Africa a policy which would be implemented when we did come to power. [Interjections.]

I want to deal very briefly with the hon. member for South Coast, because I want to reply to quite a few of the aspects mentioned here. I want to say to the hon. member for South Coast that I wonder whether the years —and he has already reached what the Bible calls one’s span of life—have not yet taught him that he need not rave so dramatically and excessively as he did this afternoon? Why does he have to make use of such terminology as “Government stooges” in respect of Bantu chiefs? Why does he have to suggest that the Bantu are being regarded as “chattels” by us? Why does he use those words? Is it because he does not have anything else to say? We do not expect a person who is a leader to display such irresponsibility. [Interjections.]The word “chattel” was the hon. member’s own word. The hon. member referred to the removals in Natal. At the moment I do not want to go into those removals at length, because there is a motion in the Other Place where we shall do so at great length. But I just want to tell the hon. member that as regards those removals that are taking place in Natal, we have a pathetic example of how White villains can come from outside to start all sorts of incitement amonst the Bantu. Those Bantu, approximately 14,000 in all, were prepared and informed beforehand by our Department as to the removals, and they were shown the places where they would go to. The preparatory work was done, but now this hon. member is suggesting that those black spots from where the Bantu were removed are all Valhallas, as though they are beautifully laid out residential areas. That is not so. They are slum areas, tin shanties. There are no toilet facilities, and where they are going to they will have more than that because those places have been properly prepared for them. The hon. member is also giving out that in those places from where they were removed the Bantu in their hundreds had been employed at high wages, but that is not so. They are mostly the dependants of people who are working far away, and these dependants are being moved to a better place where they will enjoy better facilities and where it will be possible to grant them rights of ownership in their own areas, and the necessary care is being given to them. But the hon. member says that it was only after certain priests with long white and black dresses had scurried about amongst the Bantu women that we provided those facilities. That is not so. [Interjections.] Hon. members opposite must not raise their voices now. I want to relate what actually happened in order to point out the comical aspect of the situation. They were walking about in their long black and white dresses. Then they saw how some of the Bantu women were pitching their tents, and when the wind became rather strong a few of those people decided to give those women a hand, and you know how difficult it is to pitch a tent when one is wearing a long dress. As a last resort they took off their habits and then they scampered about in their shorts and helped to pitch the tents.

What are you insinuating?

I am not insinuating anything, but the hon. member must remember that we have recently received requests from the Bantu Chiefs themselves that we should kindly keep away from then those inquisitors who are doing the rounds there, those people who come down from Louis Trichardt to supervise the work being done by our Deparmten, we who have had years of experience of this and are concerned with the care of the Bantu. I say that I deplore the fact that such people are going there and that they do not even know how to behave themselves then, because even at this stage the Bantu are asking that they should be kept away from there. If the hon. member continues in that vein, the Bantu will also ask that he should be kept away from there.

So far the most striking feature of this no confidence debate, apart from the over-enthusiastic reaction we even heard from the gallery when my Leader made mention of the absolute confidence members on this side of the House have in him. was to me the doleful figure cut by the hon. member for Yeoville. What a disconsolate yes-man he turned out to be! Yes. he reminds me of Langenhoven’s words about “vrotsige vryers and papbroekbakleiers”. He jumped up with a totally unprepared speech. He did not even know the names of the two Bantu towns. He jumped up in order to dot the i’s of his Leader’s speech, but instead of doing that he stained the entire page. That is all he did and that is why I heard very little from him to respond to, because in actual fact he only tried to say more loudly what his Leader had said softly, or had failed to say. But I nevertheless want to make one or two references to the hon. member for Yeoville. He spoke about the economic progress which is dependent upon co-operation between the Bantu and the Whites in the sphere of labour. I want to ask him why he is stealing the terminology of our policy by talking about co-operation between the Whites and the Bantu in industry? Have we not for years been hearing them talk about integration between the Whites and the Bantu in industry? Was that not their policy? We are the people who have always been talking about cooperation and the mutual arrangement of the relations between the Whites and the Bantu in industry. Or has the word “integration” also been buried at the national congress, along with the common voter’s roll? With a dramatic gesture the Leader of the Opposition asked this question: Name to me industries where there are more Whites than Bantu. I can name many to him; I can mention an entire own, let alone only one industry. The total number of Bantu employed in all the industries at Sasolburg amounts to less than one Bantu to every white person in those industries. We know that the Opposition has been belittling Sasol ever since its establishment. It does not astonish me that the Leader of the Opposition is again asking that disparaging question about it at this stage. But it is not only Sasolburg.

But tell us how many are there.

I said that on the average it was one white person to approximately .9 Bantu in the industries of Sasolburg, in the entire industry, and in Vanderbijlpark the ratio is almost just as favourable, one to one, which means that there are quite a number of industries where it is less than one to one. The Leader of the Opposition should make a more thorough study. [Interjection.] The hon. member should not expect me to devote half an hour of my time to Sasolburg.

It is not an undertaking; those are industries.

Mr. Speaker, I only have 30 minutes. That hon. member was unable to use all of the time he was allocated for his speech, and now he wants to filibuster me. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that our policy could not succeed unless it was possible for the homelands to absorb the entire natural population growth as well as a large percentage of the Bantu in the white areas, and that all of them together should be able to maintain a high standard of living.

Not a high standard of living—a decent standard of living, as your previous Prime Minister put it.

Fine, there must be a decent or high or good standard of living. I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that that remark which he has just made, is a very rash one. Let us test that remark of his against the present conditions in African countries, even those inside our own geographic borders. If one looks at some of the other countries in Africa which have already gained independence, one will see that their economic position is much weaker than that of the Bantu areas in South Africa. Did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition read in the papers the other day that it is being claimed that the economy of Basutoland is equivalent to that of Vryburg district? That is an independent country.

And it is not we who granted it independence.

That country of which it is claimed that its economy is merely equivalent to that of Vryburg, has tens of thousands of workers who are seeking employment beyond its borders, and it is an independent country. But if our Bantu areas were to become independent, then they are not to have a single worker seeking employment beyond their borders, but some members of the populations of other African countries may do so. As the Minister of Finance has said, the inhabitants of other countries may seek employment beyond their frontiers but not a single Bantu area in the Republic of South Africa dares to permit that. And how does the standard of living of the other Bantu countries in Africa compare with that of our Bantu areas? We know that their standard of living is lower than that of our Bantu areas in almost every facet of the circumstances of life. But as far as that is concerned he does not make his demands; that is in order. Mr. Speaker, I also want to set the hon. the Leader of the Opposition right as regards his remarks concerning section 10 of the Urban Areas Act. I interrupted him and I want to state it more clearly because now I have a proper opportunity for doing so. The provisions which are contained in section 10 and which relate to the Bantu in White areas, he interpreted as being rights. I wish he would listen to me and not to that hon. friend of his who is sitting next to him and who always helps him from the frying-pan into the fire. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition regards the provisions of section 10 of the Urban Areas Act as rights.

No.

He said so yesterday.

I said so.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also said so. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition need not deny this now because he also said so in 1964, when this Act was passed here. At hat ime I replied to it in the Third-Reading debate, and he can look it up in Hansard if he wants to. On that day I said that the provisions of section 10 do not grant the Bantu any rights, or, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition called them at that time, any civic rights. I denied that on that day and subsequent to that I did so in the Other Place. I am in deadly earnest now when I say that I want to deny it once again. I say that section 10 does not grant any civic rights to the Bantu. I want to repeat here the warning I issued that day: If the Opposition or the nonmember for Houghton or the newspapers or whoever continues to tell the Bantu or to try to bluff South Africa into believing that section 10 amounts to civic rights for the Bantu, then they would with that campaign of theirs be precipitating the day when we would have to review section 10. I said this on that day and I am repeating it.

The hon. member for Transkei said that the Tomlinson Commission had stated that without industries in the homelands the policy of separate development would fail.

Yes.

Yes, now he confirms that be said it. I challenge him to show it to me in the report of the Tomlinson Commission.

I shall show it to you.

He will never be able to show it to me, even if the moon rises in the west. He can look up Chapter 36 and Chapter 50 of the Tomlinson Report, if he has the report. He can look it up and he will see that the Commission states throughout that internal economic development and border area development are both parts of the general economic development programme, and nowhere in that report internal industrial development is given as a sine qua non for the success of that policy. I deny that once and for all. It is very striking to note how the Opposition, who at the time fought the report of the Tomlinson Commission tooth and nail and with poison, has now climbed on the bandwagon as far as that report is concerned. The same applies to their reference to the Tomlinson Commission’s recommendation in regard to the utilization of white capital and white skill in the homelands, to use their terminology. They are always intimating that they stand by the report of the Tomlinson Commission.

We did not accept the entire report of the Tomlinson Commission.

It seems to me the hon. member is dreaming. I say that they have climbed on the bandwagon as far as the Tomlinson Commission is concerned, and that they are coming forward with misrepresentations in which they are suggesting …

We accept their recommendations in regard to the development of the reserves.

Mr. Speaker, by this time the Opposition owes me five minutes. Hon. members on the other side are pretending that they and the members of the Tomlinson Commission were of one mind in regard to the utilization of white capital and skill in the homelands. May I just ask them a straightforward question? I shall welcome a straightforward reply. In regard to that matter the Tomlinson Commission states very explicitly that the interests of the Whites living there should pass into the hands of the Bantu as soon as possible. Does the Opposition also say “yes” to that point? Zip! From Dan to Beersheba all is quiet. I am repeating my question: Should the white interests in the Bantu areas, according to the Opposition, also pass into Bantu hands, because the Tomlinson Commission recommended that this should be done as soon as possible?

We have always said that it must be controlled.

Control is another aspect. The Tomlinson Commission stated clearly that the control should be such that it would pass into Bantu hands in due course. I am asking the Opposition: Will your control be such that it can pass into Bantu hands as soon as possible? Answer me, please. Zip.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I do not have much time left. I want to deal with the million-dollar-question of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, a question that was also put to-day by the hon. member for South Coast, who wanted to know what it would cost the Government to implement its policy.

Tell us.

In the limited time I have at my disposal I shall not be able to give a good reply to that question, but I shall be afforded other opportunities for doing so—and I am grateful for that—if only I am spared. My reply to that is as follows: We say that it does not matter what it will cost to implement our policy. I want this to be recorded accurately, and I challenge the Opposition to quote these words of mine at every election. We say that it does not matter what it costs, nor are we trying to hide a single sixpence or a cent of what it costs. Each year we publish what it costs in the Estimates, but the Opposition fails to open that book and discuss it. No, they discuss borders and “dangerous Bantustans”.

Money is no object.

We all know that our policy will not be implemented in a matter of a year or two, and that is what we always say, and that is why we do not want to and cannot furnish the total cost of that programme. We do this year after year. We must continue to the best of our ability, means and capacity and to the best of the absorptive capacity of the Bantu in respect of whom development projects are being undertaken there. That is a very important point. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has asked rather dramatically, “What will your tax increases amount to? Tell the nation. Tell us about the economic stagnation which will set in in the white areas and tell us about the lower standard of living which will be necessary for all of us in order to implement that programme.” How nonsensical to have said all those things. As regards extra taxation I say, yes, if there has to be extra taxation for that purpose we shall introduce it as moderately as is practicable. As regards stagnation: What stagnation have we experienced during the past 20 years we have been implementing our policy? What economic stagnation have we experienced in South Africa? The Government and the Minister of Economic Affairs have almost reached the end of their tether in their efforts to exercise some restraint, because the economic development is threatening to get out of hand. There is no stagnation. Mention was made of a lower standard of living. After 20 years of this policy of apartheid the standard of living of both Whites and Bantu is higher than ever before.

If we are discussing the price of policies then we also have the right to ask what price has to be paid for the policy of the United Party. We must ask that as well. I am prepared to admit that theoretically—because it is true that we do not have the figures for our policy, but then that side does not furnish the figures for their policy either—the cost of that side’s policy as expressed in financial terms will probably be less than ours. Their policy will probably cost less than ours. But money is not the criterion for these matters. We know that the price the Whites in South Africa will have to pay for the implementation of the United Party’s policy, if they should come to power, will entail many things. In the very first place it would entail that the authority of this Parliament of ours would be prejudiced. The authority of this Parliament will initially be shared by representatives of other nations. In due course the authority of the Whites in this Parliament will be in the balance and will eventually be lost to the Whites in this Parliament. That is but one of the prices, but it is a terrible one. But we also know that the price of their policy will be gradual takeover of our public service by the Bantu, the takeover of the defence force and police right through to all the other departments.

As it is now.

No. I should like to see where that is the case. I should like to see where, under this regime, the police, the defence force and the public service are now being taken over by the Bantu. [Interjections.] The hon. member can get up when I have finished and tell us. I say that the price that will have to be paid, is that the segregation we have accomplished in the social and educational spheres, including the university colleges and residential areas in every respect, will be undone. These things will be lost. This is the price under the policy of that side. I also want to say that the great economic stability we are enjoying in South Africa, a stability which is of very high repute—as hon. members opposite will admit with tongue in cheek—will be undermined. In that way the white man in the economic sphere will be ousted until even that stability will disappear. This is so because the economic stability, the economic progress, the entire process which we have in South Africa of extending and establishing civilization is attributable to the guidance and the achievements of the white man here in South Africa. In the implementation of that side’s policy, we shall have to give up those advantages. The existence of the Whites here as a nation as such, will also have to be sacrificed. At first our identity will be threatened by that side’s integration of the Blacks, and eventually we here will also experience what was seen in other countries in Africa, events which have deeply moved the hon. member for South Coast and other hon. members opposite. I am referring to the fact that the white man will have to leave, as he had to in the Congo after being in power for 80 years, as he had to in other East African countries. The Whites will also have to do so here. That will be the price if that side’s policy is implemented. Under our policy Whites are coming to South Africa in large numbers, particularly from other African countries, because they regard this country as a stronghold.

All these points I have mentioned so far— and I can refer to more of them if there were more time—may sound cheap to soulless materialists and cynical worldlings. But to us on this side—and to everybody who is white in South Africa and who has ideals for his children, for his country and for our Christian civilization here in South Africa—to us these prices that I have mentioned are infinitely more costly than the price this Government will have to pay, and it does not matter how many years it will take, for the implementation of our policy of separate development. That is why I said that it did not matter what the price was—we shall implement our policy.

Hon. members opposite must not ask what it will cost. We know that the whole programme cannot be implemented in one year, could not be implemented in 20 years. [Interjections.] How can the work of two centuries be set right in two decades? It cannot be done. We shall continue with it and the people outside, as we call them, know that. That is why time after time they are returning us to Parliament with a strengthened majority and the Opposition with a weakened minority.

I am sorry that I was unable to deal more fully with the other points. In particular I wanted to say more about what I saw was once again being dragged before us this year as though it were the first time it was discussed, and that is, as the Opposition calls it, the utilization of white skill and white capital in the homelands. From my bench here I dealt very fully with this matter in April of last year. I am still adhering to everything I said in that speech. I fail to see why I should repeat that speech to-day. For the sake of saving time as well as for their own manpower productivity, I want to ask hon. members opposite to refrain from bringing up all those points here once again, and simply to read my speech instead. Let us hear new points which we can debate. Our policy is an evolutionary one. [Interjections.] It is a dynamic policy which presents new facets and which necessitates new modes of implementation every day. Let us discuss that. Hon. members on that side need not agree with me. We have enough people on our side for the implementation of our policy. That side should criticize us constructively; I welcome such criticism on our policy. Why must the old stories which have already been discussed here time and again, be repeated? Why this game of political hide and seek as though we have never before discussed these aspects? I invite that side to raise constructive criticism.

Mr. Speaker, I think we were all shocked by the incident which occurred early in the speech of the hon. the Minister. I think all of us experienced a feeling of shame for our country’s sake at the exhibition of the Minister when he was dealing with representatives of a religious group who represent some 600 million people of the world. If the Minister had criticism of the actions, the words or the deeds of a group of priests then he had every right to criticize what they had done. If he had allegations or accusations of misbehaviour then he had every right to make those accusations. But to stand up in the Parliament of South Africa and to mock the dress of the religious leaders of 600 million people … [Interjections.] … is a tragic deed and against the interests of South Africa. No matter how much one may disagree with a man’s deeds, with a man’s actions, I do not believe that any Christian should mock the traditions of another Christian faith. The manner in which the hon. the Minister ridiculed and mocked the garb—the habits—of a religious faith, even though he has every right to disagree with them, is something for which I believe he owes an apology.

At the start of his speech the hon. the Minister said that the Nationalist Party had come to power by putting a policy before the people. It was a policy which comprised one word, the magic word “apartheid”. Only after the Government came to power did it appoint a commission to work out a policy to find out what “apartheid” meant. In a short time apartheid had become “baasskap”. That hon. Minister was one of the authors of pamphlets when they came to power in 1948 which refered to the liberalism of the then Government. They came to power on slogans like “die kaffer in sy plek” and “die koelie uit die land”. Members now sitting in this House stood on public platforms and said “die kaffer op sy plek” and “die koelie uit die land” and in those times that policy was described by the Prime Miniser in this House as one of baasskap. Then suddenly it became separate development. After that it suddenly became separate freedoms and then again it was called separate development. Talk about a party getting into power with a policy! That party came into power with nothing more than a slogan. Our part in this debate is to prove that the policy which has developed from that slogan is nothing but an illusion.

Then the hon. the Minister said, “Dit maak nie saak wat dit kos nie”. We will remind him of that when we ask him to tell South Africa what South Africa must pay for their failure in respect of this policy. The Minister says it makes no difference. He does not care what it costs. But he gives no answer to the question. The hon. the Minister can attack priests at Limehill but he has not told this House yet whether facilities were provided there before the Bantu were moved to Limehill. I ask him now specifically whether the facilities were there before they were moved or not. [Interjection.] No, the facilities were not there before they moved.

I dealt with that in my speech.

No, the hon. the Minister has not answered that question. It is a simple question: were there facilities before they moved these people to Limehill? The Minister can attack and criticize, but my colleague, the hon. member for South Coast, asked a simple question. He asked whether there were facilities and the Minister was not prepared or was unable to say whether there were facilities there before he moved the people in, before there was criticism in the Press and before there were visits and inquiries from outside. Can the Minister deny that there were no facilities there until there was criticism?

wrong.

The hon. the Minister is not prepared to say that there were facilities there.

There were facilities there and they are still being developed.

The Minister now says that there were facilities there.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask the hon. member a question. In terms of their policy in respect of the Bantu, can a black man possibly sit in this Parliament?

Mr. Speaker, I permitted that question deliberately because I wanted to see whether a spell with a top hat on might have improved the standard of questions from that hon. Minister. I now find that there has been no improvement whatsoever. The hon. the Minister left here many years ago with only one question which he used to be able to ask. He has come back without even having learnt to put a tail to the question. He has not even changed the wording. I thought that he would at least have learnt to put it in more diplomatic language.

I now want to answer a challenge posed by the hon. the Prime Minister yesterday, before coming back to the speech of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. Yesterday the Prime Minister challenged us in this House to name any group of people whose living standards are not better to-day than they were two years ago. I think I have interpreted his challenge correctly. [Interjections.] Hon. members assure me that I am correct. I think that this is an important question, because what the hon. the Prime Minister is now saying to all the tens of thousands of people who have requested salary increases—in the Public Service, and in the Railways, and in industry after industry—who have pressed for pay increases on the grounds that their standard of living is dropping, is that they are liars. To every one of those people he is saying that their claims are unjustified. This is all part of the illusion of this Government that everything in South Africa is Utopian. Do they not know what is going on in South Africa? Do they not know of the struggle of tens of thousands of people to exist? Do they not know of this or do they not care? But the Prime Minister states that nobody is worse off than they were two years ago. Ask any housewife who has changed a five rand note and bought a few groceries what she has got for it and how much change she has left. Ask any housewife in South Africa what happens when she goes shopping for her meat or groceries or other essentials. Ask any man in the street whether he is not finding it almost impossible to stretch his pay packet to meet his commitments. And yet the implication of the hon. the Prime Minister’s challenge is that people are living in luxury and that they are wasting their money. [Interjections.] They must be because there is no other conclusion one can come to. If they are better off now than they were two years ago but are still struggling, then what is happening to their money if they are not wasting it? I want to mention a few groups of people to the Prime Minister who I submit are not better off then they were two years ago.

The first consists of the aged in South Africa, the group I prefer to call the “senior citizens” of our country. I want to consider firstly those who live on fixed investments, those who during their working life put away money and invested it in long-term investment and who now live on the interest. In the past two years the income of those people has remained the same in money but that money is worth less to-day. It is worth less and less year after year. Every one of those people who sought to take care of the day when they would no longer be working is to-day worse off and struggling to come out on his interest.

The second group consists of those people who retired and went on pension, and especially those who went on pension some years ago. They now have to exist on the same pensions as they were earning live or six years ago in spite of the inflated living costs and decreased value of money. Those people are not better off. They are struggling. The social pensioner who got the magnificent rise of R1 last year and who is living to-day on R32 per month is not living off the fat of the land today. Are those people better off to-day? Every day of exery week old buildings are being demolished. The people who lived in them have to find new accommodation and when they move into new buildings they have to pay higher rentals. To-day there are tens of thousands of old people in South Africa who have not only given up all their luxuries but are now having to sacrifice the essentials of life. One has only to go to any association dealing with the aged to know of the tragedy and heartbreak with which these organizations have to cope. Appeals come in day after day to social welfare organizations to help these people who cannot come out on their money. This is another group who is worse off to-day than two years ago. The worker and the housewife I have already referred to.

Col. 123:

For lines 39–40, read “THE MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT: You are wrong.”

Another group is the farmers, the hundreds of farmers who have had to leave their farms and take jobs in the cities to exist and to try to save their farms for their children. I have had them coming into my office one after another. They have had to give up their farms, walk off, leave their wives or servants there because they cannot exist. Are they better off because they have got to leave their families and homes to go and seek work in the city?

Then there is another group, namely the home seekers of South Africa, young married couples who want to find a home. What young couple to-day can afford the interest rate— even if they can get a loan, which they cannot —in order to buy a house. The young people of South Africa to-day are being denied the right to obtain a home. Can one say that they are better off than they were two years ago, when they could still get a loan at a reasonable rate of interest?

There is yet another group which is worse off than they were. I do not need to speak on behalf of the public and the railway servants of South Africa. They have spoken on their own behalf through their own organizations, and they have said that their members cannot survive, that the cost of living has swallowed up the increases they have got before the last election and that they cannot survive on their pay to-day. We have had senior men in Government employ admitting that their staff will be decimated unless their conditions can be improved.

Next are the Post Office workers. They have gone over the head of their own Minister to the Prime Minister to seek redress for the difficulties which they faced.

Next comes the small businessman …

[Inaudible.]

The Prime Minister says it is not true. I assume then that he is not prepared to see them. He is not prepared to hear their case.

I am seeing them with the Minister and not over his head. [Interjections.]

I submit that these people have a case. They must have a case if the Prime Minister and the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs are prepared to see them.

There is the small business man, who is being to-day crushed by the credit restrictions and the general financial difficulties. Six separate groups I have named, yet yesterday the Prime Minister said in this House that he challenged any one to name one group of people who are worse off than they were two years ago. I appeal to the people of South Africa. They tend to become punch drunk under this Government. I appeal to the people to let their voice be heard, to put the Prime Minister right, to write letters of complaint to the papers, so that the Prime Minister will not be so misinformed, and will know in future what the difficulties are that the people in South Africa are in fact facing under this Government.

Now I want to return to one of the causes why this is so, one of the reasons why people are having to pay the price of this Government’s failure to find a policy for South Africa, namely the master illusion to which my Leader referred in his opening speech of this debate —the illusion that the Government has an answer to South Africa’s problems. I accept the Prime Minister’s statement that our warnings were rejected by the people in 1966. It is understandable. Nobody likes to have their illusions shattered. It is much more comfortable to live in a dream world and it is uncomfortable to hear warnings that your illusions are in fact not real. And so I can understand their not accepting our warnings. But neither the Prime Minister nor the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration when they referred to 1966, I notice, referred to 1967, to Jeppe, to the seven other by-elections in which Government majorities were reduced. Port Elizabeth (Central) and Pietermaritzburg (South). There is dead silence. Nor did they refer to the later ones in Worcester or in Johannesburg (West). [Interjections.] Some of the hon. the Prime Minister’s followers have memories of the elections. I noticed this. They were walking around with little notebooks afterwards!

The writing is on the wall, indicating that people are starting to become disillusioned, and the disillusionment is so clear that no member of the Government has yet tried to answer the charges from this side of the House. They come back every time with this “tomorrow, tomorrow”. “Tomorrow we are going to do it. In 20 years’ time. Rome was not built in a day.” Our case is not that Rome should be built in a day. Our case is that the Bantustan Rome is not being built at all and that it cannot be built at all. We are not arguing as to whether it has been completed. We are arguing as to whether this policy of the Government has any prospect whatsoever of success, this policy of experimentation, as it has been called. In an article in Dagbreek of last month, the 7th January, 1968, Mr. G. C. Olivier said—

The proponents of Bantustans call this revolutionary policy of the Minister an experiment which has now reached a critical stage. There are others who have examined it further. This particular writer demands that the boundaries should now be established. His solution is to establish boundaries. The Government says: “Oh no, we do not need that.” But I want to refer to another criticism, which appeared in an article written by Dr. J. L. Sadie, professor of economics, towards the end of last year. Strangely enough an extract of this was published in Die Burger only this morning. In this article, after analysing the problems, he comes to this conclusion. “Dit is ’n Herkuleaanse taak wat as mikpunt nie ernstige oorweging verdien nie.” [Interjections.] It is on page 30, the last paragraph. What he is referring to, is the Bantu border area scheme as an adjunct to the solution of the problem as he puts it. He takes a figure of 9,000 per year in border industry and then points out that there are 83,000 new Bantu workers entering the labour market every year. This number by 1975 will go up to 115,000. If one adds to the 83,000 now the 5 per cent, whom the hon. the Deputy Minister wants to send back from the white areas, it becomes 181,000 people for whom new work must be found every year, and the number is increasing as the years go by.

At this stage 181,000 Bantu must find work in or on the border of the Bantu areas if this policy is to be carried out. What are the figures? The Prime Minister spoke at Rosslyn according to the South African Digest of 3rd November and said that he was amazed and that the progress had far exceeded his wildest expectations. What is the progress? Since 1960 44 600 Bantu workers had been established at a cost of R7,309 per Bantu. That is in seven years. These are not my figures but they come from the official South African Digest. That works out at just over 6,000 per annum, less than 8 per cent of the increase in the number of Bantu before you start sending any of them back. And if you start sending them back, the figure you would then have to find becomes R1,260 million every year. Is it any wonder then that Professor Sadie states that this is not even a target which is worth thinking about as a practical possibility?

These, Sir, are hard, cold facts which you cannot avoid. You cannot escape them. As Professor Sadie says in the same iilluminating article, which I suggest the Government should read, it is no use playing about and pretending. He says: “Dit skyn ook onnodig om met verdrag in dié rigting te beweeg, deur middel van ompaaie soos die agentskapbasis.” He says you cannot play about; there is one solution, which is that of the United Party, of white capital to develop the reserves. No, there is no doubt whatsoever that strong supporters of Government policy have come to the conclusion that it will be a total failure as long as it continues in the way in which it is now being handled. And how true is the criticism of a statement made by one of the hon. Ministers who said: “Ons sal liewer arm maar blank bly.” The Deputy Minister says: “Hear, hear!” Of course the correct answer is “rich or black”. That hon. member would rather be poor but white, but he will not be poor and white; he will be poor and black. There is only one way in which the security of South Africa can be ensured for the white man, and that is to be rich, in which case we can remain white. But if we become poor—a miserable third rate nation—where then will this money, these thousands of millions of rands, come from to carry out this dream? But this Government is prepared to make South Africa poor, to bring it to its knees; then where will it find the money? This policy of the Government is nothing but an illusion, a house of cards which will have to fall before the irresistible tide of facts. Our charges remain unanswered, and that is the issue which the people of South Africa have to face. It is an issue which nobody can avoid, namely the fact that the policy of this Government has failed and that they have nothing to put in its place.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) tried to scare me, but strangely enough I feel no more scared now than I felt before he began speaking. He spoke about the workers who were no better off. But I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. the Prime Minister: There is no section of the population which is not better off to-day than it was two years ago. I represent a workers’ constituency. I do not think we should put this kind of thing to the test in Parliament, because we are all equally poor, but let us put it to the test in Vereeniging. Let the hon. member come to Vereeniging and see whether he can rouse the workers as he has now tried to rouse the hon. members here.

Come and put it to the test in Durban (Point).

In Durban (Point) you merely have a lot of hotels and drinkers, there are no workers. Come to Vereeniging instead. The hon. member will be quite safe, even though those workers of mine are difficult customers. But they will not believe his nonsense. Let us put it to the test in Pretoria (West), however. That is a constituency which consists exclusively of workers and salaried men. I do not know whether there is one man in Pretoria (West) who is not dependent upon a salary, a wage or a pension. I will give him a guarantee, however, His Party will not even nominate a candidate there. Nominate one and I will give you R10 towards his election expenses. Politics is now becoming so monotonous that I am quite prepared to pay R10 to put a little life into it, but then I want to take part in the election. The hon. member is talking nonsense. He knows that the position of the people has improved.

But I want to express my bitter disappointment at this debate as regards the Opposition’s contribution to it. They have now, on their own initiative—we did not ask for it; as the hon. member for Yeoville has said, it is the only debate in which they have the initiative —elected to discuss the biggest problem with which South Africa is faced, the problem of human relationships. And it is not the biggest problem in South Africa only. The problem of human relationships is the biggest problem facing every government in the world. There is no easy solution to this problem. The only person in this House who has an easy solution to this problem is the hon. member for Houghton—and her solution is to surrender so that the Blacks can govern. These people pretend to have a solution; we pretend to have a solution. But every sensible person knows that any solution entails difficulties and serious problems. What was the approach of the Opposition in this regard? Not that of confronting policy with policy. They approached this matter with a frivolity which was really repulsive. They tried to exploit the difficulties which the National Party Government is experiencing with its solution, and I am the last man to say that we do not have any difficulties. But they are trying to exploit these difficulties with a great deal of frivolity and many debating points, with a laugh here and there, and then they think that they are doing this country and themselves a service. But they refuse categorically to hold a basic discussion, to hold a penetrating discussion on the basis of policy against policy. I say that our solution presents serious difficulties, and sometimes even superhuman difficulties; but their solution presents as many or even greater difficulties. Their solution would mean the destruction of the Whites in the Republic of South Africa.

What are the practical implications of the National Party’s policy of separate development? Its practical implications, and particularly in so far as I, as Deputy Minister, have to deal with them, are in the first place the restriction of the free inflow of Bantu workers to the white urban areas. That means, certainly, that that flow must be stopped and it means, thirdly, that the flow has to be reversed. Now I say without fear of contradiction that as regards our first goal, we have already made excellent progress in restricting that flow. [Interjection.] In the Cape it presents a much better picture than 5 per cent, but we will discuss that later. I say that we have succeeded in restricting that flow considerably, compared with what it was 10 to 20 years ago. We have not yet succeeded in the second goal, which is to stop that flow. I admit openly that we can only succeed in this if we can succeed in making it possible for the Bantu homelands to absorb their own natural increase within the homelands and within the border industries. That is obvious, and nobody will deny it. We have not yet succeeded in doing so, but we are busy doing so, and that is our next goal, i.e. to absorb the natural increase in the homelands and the border areas. The day we succeed in doing that we will have been successful with our second phase, which is to stop the flow. Hon. members must not try and bait me with 1978 now, because I am not running away from that, just as I refused to do so last year. Another thing, it was not my date, but the late Dr. Verwoerd’s date. I am not running away from it. I think we are fully occupied in dealing with the problem in such a way, i.e. with the Physical Planning Act and with the development in the Bantu homelands and the development of border industries, that I am not prepared to run away from that date. If we do not achieve it in 1978, we shall achieve it in 1979 or in 1980—but we will achieve it. The progress which has already been made, is tremendous. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition mentioned those people who took part in that tour to the homelands, and he said that they were filled with illusions; they maintained there was no development. Let me read what the Financial Mail had to say about that tour—

And this is what my colleague quoted here yesterday—

They then go on to say—

That was on 17th November. I shall mention a few figures in regard to the development of the Bantu homelands presently, but our border industry development has been simply fantastic. More than R300 million has already been invested there. Already there are more than 50,000 Bantu in direct employment, who are keeping in the Bantu homelands considerably more than a half million Bantu who, with their families, would under the policy of that side have found their way to the urban areas. Two days ago I had an experience which afforded me a great deal of pleasure. A preeminent town councillor of Uitenhage came to me and asked me to help them. I asked what it was I should do and he said, “Go and have a chat to Carel De Wet. After the proclamation of his Physical Planning Act, four industrialists who wanted to establish themselves in Uitenhage came to us and told us that they were now going to establish themselves in East London”. I then said, “I will not help you; I shall encourage those industrialists to establish their industries in East London, in a border area, instead of in Uitenhage”.

That I first want to see.

That is the process which will now continue. And then the hon. member says that we have had 20 years’ time. Mr. Speaker, I have dealt with this before. How childish it is to say that we have had 20 years’ time. In the 20 years this Party has been in power, it has had to cope with problems which, humanly speaking, were almost insurmountable. In the first place, there was the economic sabotage shortly after the 1948 election. The Opposition need not tell me anything about that, because they wanted to use me to participate in that, and I refused. Then there was the slum removal round Johannesburg, where some of the worst conditions ever seen in South Africa existed, the slum removal round Johannesburg and other large cities. Then there was the suspicion which they stirred up with the result that the Johannesburg City Council refused to participate in that slum removal until the late Dr. Verwoerd took them by the neck and said to them: “You will do what I tell you to do or I shall do it for you.” Then there was the constitutional struggle which they were the cause of.

And now they accept the constitution.

Yes, now they accept it. The Coloureds may just as well go onto a separate roll now.

Are you talking about that farce, the High Court of Parliament?

The difficulty with the hon. member for Orange Grove is that he should have listened to me 20 years ago, not now; it is too late now. Then there was the establishment of a Republic, and everything connected with that—all the suspicion which was stirred up in that connection. Then there was Sharpeville, when money flowed out of the country; there was simply no money; there was no money for anything. That position had to be thrown into reverse gear. Then there were the weapons boycotts against South Africa. Money had to be found in order to manufacture our own weapons and our own aircraft. Under those circumstances one could not say: Push those things aside and go and spend money on the development of border areas and the homelands. There were the economic boycotts. But we surmounted all those problems. It has only been during the last five to six years that this Government has been able to devote a reasonable share of its time and energy to the practical implementation of its policy of separate development, of homeland and border area development, and I say that the development in those five years has been nothing less than fantastic. Let us look at the development in the Transkei. Sir, these figures which I am now supplying you with are not my figures; they are not the Government’s figures. These figures which I am now supplying you with were obtained from one of our biggest commercial banks in the country, which does business throughout the Transkei. This bank stated in its report …

Which bank?

I do not have the right to mention its name, but I shall let the hon. member have it in private. It is a very respectable bank.

Is it the one which is going to build seven-storey buildings?

I do not know who is going to build seven-storey buildings, but it is a very good bank. The bank takes 1963 as its basic year and sets the index of the financial growth of the Transkei for 1963 at 100; for 1964 at 130; 1965, 172; 1966, 188; 1967, 228. These figures represent an economic growth of approximately 125 per cent, based on the financial turnover dealt with by the bank during the period in question. Let us go further.

Higher salaries for Government officials.

What about that? Is that not part of the growth?

It is the Government officials’ salaries.

If we did not have government officials then the hon. member would not have been as fat as he is. Sir, let us consider the building of towns in the Bantu homelands. I am not talking about small towns now; these are big towns. The number of towns approved is 105; the number developed and partially developed is 54, and the number of houses which have been built in the Bantu homelands in the past years is almost 55,000.

What is a “house”?

A house in which people live, not such a swanky one as the hon. Leader of the Opposition has. I am talking about houses with three or four rooms, residential houses in which Bantu live, completely adequate residential houses. We are not ashamed of them. These houses are much better than the places they lived in when the United Party was in power.

How do you know that?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition asks how I know that. I was a United Party man in my day! Just look at what the Bantu Investment Corporation has done. It has granted business loans worth R3½ million, it has had business premises erected for R¾ million, it has granted housing loans for almost R400,000—a total of R4½ million. And if they continue with the present programme, without any additional progress being made, then the B.I.C. would, by 1972, have granted business loans totalling more than R8 million. Undertakings which are being supported by the Corporation will amount to 80, with a capital of R11 million. The figure for buildings is 47 banks and 11 agencies. Depositors: 25,000; savings deposits: R1½ million; fixed deposits, R3½ million—a total of more than R5 million. These are things which are now being done, which have never been done before. Then the hon. Leader of the Opposition comes along and asks what it costs. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development that when one carries these things into effect, one does not ask what it costs. But I want to say this: That development is much cheaper than the development in Johannesburg. It is much cheaper to employ a Bantu in the homelands than to employ a Bantu in the group areas. It costs millions of rand less than it does in Johannesburg. The taxpayer subsidises the industrialist for the transportation of his Bantu workers from the Bantu residential areas to the urban factories to an amount of almost R11 million per year. Go and look at the great freeways in Johannesburg. What did they cost? Sir, there are not even 30 miles of freeway, and it cost almost R70 million. How many roads could we have built for that amount in the Transkei; how many roads could we have built for that amount in border areas? And then the hon. member comes along here and states that it costs R7,000 to employ one Bantu. I shall take him to just one factory in Johannesburg where it does not cost R7,000 to employ a Bantu but R53,000.

Which one is that?

Precor if the hon. member must know the name. I have their permission to mention their name. In these highly concentrated areas it costs one a great deal more to employ the people than it costs you elsewhere. Over-concentration was the curse of Europe; it was the curse of England, and it will most certainly not become the curse of South Africa. Hon. members of the Opposition came along here and spoke about those people who went on a tour through the Transkei and those other places. They said that the development was too slow. Of course, we would also like to see the development being speeded up, but what does one compare the development in the Transkei and the development in the other Bantu homelands with? What are they comparing these areas with when they say that the development there is too slow? They are comparing it with one thing only, and that is the development in the white areas, the development in Johannesburg and in Cape Town. There are only two ways of testing the rapidity with which development there is taking place. The one way is to compare the development to-day with the development 10 to 20 years ago. But there is another method which one can use, and that is to compare a developing country like the Transkei and the other developing Bantu homelands with other developing countries in the rest of the Continent of Africa. I ask the hon. member for Durban (Point): How does the development of the Transkei compare with the development of Lesotho? There is no comparison, and it was his old mother who looked after Lesotho for 80 years. The development in the rest of our Bantu homelands has been more rapid than in any other country in the west of the Continent of Africa. The income per capita of the population of the Transkei is higher than the income per capita of the population of any other country in the rest of Africa. Is that not true? I challenge the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to present his figures next week.

No, I shall reply on Friday.

Very well, then I shall in turn reply to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition next Wednesday.

Mr. Speaker, take education, the touchstone for the development of any country. Take the number of graduates. The percentage of Bantu graduates in the Republic of South Africa is higher than in the rest of the Continent, not excluding Egypt. Take the number of people attending school. In South Africa the figure is almost 37 per cent, higher than in any other part of the Continent of Africa, including that part which for 80 to 100 years was administered by the British Government.

What has that to do with the homelands?

What has that to do with the homelands! Mr. Speaker, I am so fond of the Leader of the Opposition; should I now take him to task? It has this to do with the homelands: It proves that the development in the homelands, for which the Republican Government of South Africa is responsible, is taking place more rapidly than in any other part of the Continent of Africa.

How many are attending school outside the homelands?

That figure is much higher.

Your figures are wrong.

My figures are not wrong. Sir, we realize that we have a tremendous task, but what is the alternative? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants the Bantu worker, on a family basis, to come to the white areas without any control. [Interjections.] He says he does not want that. He does not say that he wants to do away with influx control, but he does say that the Bantu must have the right to sell their labour in the best market. If they must have the right to sell their labour in the best market, then one cannot impose restrictions on them and prescribe to them where the best market is; one must then allow them to move freely; in other words, one must then do away with influx control. Our solution presents difficulties, but the Opposition’s solution would mean a black Johannesburg, a black Witwatersrand, a black Cape Town, a black Port Elizabeth, within ten years after taking office. Their further solution is the free influx of white capital and white initiative into the Bantu homelands.

Who said “free”?

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that.

Naturally— private capital.

There he repeats it—free private capital.

“Free” meaning “free” as opposed to Government capital.

Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition agree with the hon. member? [Interjections.] He did not say “controlled”; he said “free”. Is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in favour of the influx of free private capital to the Bantu homelands?

Under control.

Are you free?

Of course I am free.

Order! The hon. Deputy Minister cannot reply to every interjection.

Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful for your courtesy. I would have said every foolish interjection. [Interjections.] I am accusing hon. members of wanting to apply the worst form of economic colonialism in the Bantu homelands, and if they were to implement their policy there, I say that within ten to fifteen years there would not be a single Bantu who would have a single square inch of ground in his own name. They would not have a single square inch of ground in their possession. They will sow the seeds of revolution in those places for when they come to power. I know that we are dealing with a problem which is almost impossible to solve. We realize that, but we are living in an impossible country, an impossible continent. And I say again that South Africa is a country with people who are willing to tackle the impossible. South Africa is not a country for sceptics and milksops. If you want a peaceful life, go to socialistic England. Do not stay in South Africa. This is a country where the almost superhuman and the almost impossible has to be done. And because the almost impossible has to be done in South Africa, that is why the National Party is the Party for South Africa. But, as the old saying goes: The difficult we do at once, the impossible takes a little longer. But for them nothing is possible. I have said before that there has not been a single great undertaking in South Africa which was not impossible for them. Iscor, Sasol, Phalaborwa, the homelands, weapon factories and aircraft factories—these were all impossibilities for them. I heard the cynical remarks made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition about the aircraft factory at Kempton Park. Let him continue with his cynicism. It will not prevent us from making progress. No, I say to them that the problems with which the Republic of South Africa has to deal, are problems for adult people. It is the work of adults. And my message to them is: Children, stand aside so that we adults can get on with the job.

Mr. Speaker, we have often in the past heard about economic inflation. When the hon. the Deputy Minister was entertaining us to a flurry of words just now, it occurred to me that perhaps he is guilty of what one may call political inflation. You all know economic inflation is when you have too much money chasing too few goods; political inflation is when you have too many words chasing too few ideas. He at great length quoted from the Financial Mail, which he seldom does. But it happened to suit him this time. He quoted from a particular edition which was written after they had received the propaganda pieces from the Government. But then these industrialists did go on this particular visit. And when you look at the December 15th issue of the Financial Mail you get a completely different story. Even its headline is ‘’Dithering over doctrines; Bantustan progress can move only by dropping the Verwoerdline and opting for an updated Tomlinson version”.

I will not continue with this, because it is there for the hon. the Minister to read. He talks further about over-concentration in cities and says: This must stop. Look at Johannesburg. Look at all the freeways which have been built. But these have not been built for Black people, they were built for white people. I want to tell him that he does not know his history. The very first law that was passed to stop the growth of London, was passed in 1340 by Edward I; the population of London was then less than that of Germiston to-day. There have been other people who have tried to stop the growth of cities too, but it is inherent in your economic system and that hon. Minister or nobody else can stop it, unless he breaks the economic system. Is that what he wants to do?

The hon. the Minister said that we must think deeply about the problem which is before us. I also want to agree with something else he said. He said that the race issue is the fundamental problem before South Africa. He is entirely right. It is our handling of this problem which will determine whether there is a future for us or not.

It is appropriate after 20 years of Nationalist government that we should new probe this issue. It is appropriate that we should match achievement against objective. They have had a mandate from the people; the people have given them 20 years to carry out this mandate, which is as much time as a people ever give a government. Let us look at it and analyse it and see what progress is being made.

Let me say right away that I do not question anybody’s motives. I believe we all fundamentally have exactly the same thing in mind: We want peaceful co-existence of the various population groups in South Africa, we want stability and we want security. So I accent we all ultimately have the same aim in mind. But having said that, let me then also immediately say that we read the signs totally differently.

I believe that our thinking and our approach to this problem stems in the very first instance from our philosophy. What is the Government’s philosophy? As I see it, it is this: They contend that South Africa has many nations, and they see it as their task to lead these nations to full nationhood. Now that sounds good: it is a laudable motive: its morality is unexceptionable. But what does it mean? Do words have the same meaning for us? What is a nation? If I look at dictionaries they tell me that nations are “congeries of people of like language and culture who inhabit defined territory.” If one studies political science, the very first thing one learns is there can be no idea of nationhood unless there is territory. The two are irrevocably tied to one another. Then I ask: Where is the territory in South Africa for the Coloured man after 20 years of Nationalist government? Where is the territory for the Indian, or the Malay or the Chinese? And where is it for the millions of Bantu who live outside the reserves?

What is this policy then? To follow this philosophy to its logical conclusion, it means we must disintegrate South Africa. It means we must fragmentate it, we must break it up. But we must do so in a manner which is just, which is fair, and which is equitable. We are a Christian people, we have a tradition of fairness and a sense of justice which stretch back over many years. How can we fragmentate South Africa in a way that is fair and is just? Where is the territory for the Coloured group who already comprise half of our population? We are told they are not going to get territory and never will. Where is the territory for the Indian? When it comes to the Bantu numbering three-quarters of our total population, where is their territory? The Government tells us that they have the reserves, and we respond by saying that the reserves constitute only 13 per cent of South Africa’s land area. Then they say, and even the hon. the Prime Minister has made himself guilty of this strange form of altruism, that that area is the best part of South Africa. But that is not a line that we dare take because we are so vulnerable. If we take that line the solution is quite obvious. Then we must swop around what we have at the moment. The Whites, who are in the minority, must take the 13 per cent—after all, it is the best!— and then we must assign the remainder to the non-Whites. [Interjections.] They certainly will then have no grounds to grumble and who is there in the outside world who could then come and point an accusing finger at us? No, this approach will not help us at all.

I query in the first instance the philosophy, the basic philosophy because it is not one that can be carried out, and this is illustrated by 20 years of Nationalist government. Where did they start? They did not start with the difficult parts such as the Indians, the Coloureds and the detribalized Bantu. They started at the easiest possible place which is the reserves, and they chose the easiest reserve of all, which is the Transkei. The Transkei has a measure of geographical contiguity, it has existed for many years, and it at least looks like a political entity. Put where are the other reserves? Are they taking shape? During 20 years of government Cabinet Ministers have come and gone, but where is their blueprint? We see none of it. If we look at the Transkei, what do we see? We have all the political trappings, a Prime Minister, flags, anthems. What we want is not the sort of statistic which the hon. the Minister gives us from a bank which he will not identify, saving that the bank’s turnover is going up. What has that got to do with it? It is probably money that they are handling from to the white officials who are doing duty in. the Transkei. We want to know where are the factories. We want to know how the gross national product is increasing. We want to know how many new job opportunities are being created in the Transkei. Even then having concentrated on the Transkei, which is the easiest of all of them, the showpiece, even this is still in a state of emergency under Regulation 400. Can we imagine what is going to happen if we have eight Bantustans, all independent, and another dozen in South West Africa? South Africa would then be in a perpetual state of emergency.

What is your philosophy?

I am dealing with your Government’s approach. [Interjections.] We are dealing with a situation here that does not make any sense. What has happened in the process however is that the Government with its independent Bantustan idea has stimulated deep seated stirrings of nationalism amongst our Bantu people, and these will grow and develop, and surge forward under new and enlightened leadership, and in time to come will merge with a broader nationalism, a broader pan-nationalism, and South Africa will still come to rue the day that we started with this particular policy.

What are they trying to do, in giving independence to small little groups? What will the consequences be? Let me quote from Bertrand Russell, probably the biggest liberal of our time, who should be in favour of this approach of the Government. He says the following—

[Interjections.] Where is the Government going to stop with this process?

Having done all this, where do we end up? Having taken all these steps to make these areas independent, having run the security risks involved, where do we end up? I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Defence, who is not here, whether his defence planners were consulted. Are they happy to take vast chunks of South Africa and hive them off? Are they happy to relinquish control of vast sections of our coastline? Are they happy about these things, in the difficult and hostile world in which we live? I cannot imagine any military planners anywhere in the world agreeing to that sort of approach.

But having made all those sacrifices, what are we left with? More than two-thirds of the Bantu people will still be where they are today. They will still be working in our factories, they will still be on our farms, they will still be paying income tax here. It has not changed the situation. To say to them that they can vote in the Transkei, is tantamount to saying to me or anybody else that we can vote in Holland or Britain, because that is where our forebears came from. It has exactly the same connection.

Their policy they say is one of separate freedoms. For 20 years they have implemented it, and now I ask you, Sir, where is the separation? Do we see it on the farms? Do we see it in our factories? Do we see it in the streets?

Yes.

Separation? [Interjections.] I want to put it to the hon. the Minister this way. Could he take us to one district in South Africa which to-day is less black and more white than it was 20 years ago? If he can show us such a district, I suggest it be declared a national monument, so that we may all go and have a look at the oddity. This is the separation part but there is also the “freedoms”, portion. But we use words in such a loose way. Now, I suggest to hon. gentlemen on the other side that they do an exercise which I did the other day, namely to sit and make a balance sheet and put on the one side all the freedoms which people in South Africa to-day enjoy, freedoms which they did not enjoy 20 years ago. Then you put on the other side the erosion of freedoms, the freedoms that we have lost over 20 years. You end up with a terrible debit balance. That is someting that this Government can never overlook. [Interjections.]

But this is not working, this system of separate freedoms, because the Government has overlooked one fundamental issue, namely the economic issue. One cannot have freedom without an economic base. Here are two issues that we should consider. To begin with, South Africa is fundamentally an economic entity. Tomlinson and his commission said so. They said economic partition was unthinkable. We have one central marketing system, and we have one central cost structure. South Africa cannot be split up in the economic sense. This will dictate quite clearly the political setting in the country. Whereas all these areas are interdependent, the various communities are even more so. Economics is the lifeblood of a nation. I in my own blood have white and red corpuscles, and unless I have a balance of those two, my whole system will wither and die. In the South African economic system there are White and non-White groups, and if you disturb that balance, South Africa will also die. Look at the situation now. after 20 years of separate development. I will tell you this much, Sir. “Separate” and “development” as a concept is irreconcilable. Show me to-day where there is development in South Africa, and I will prove to you there is no separation. Take me to a place where there is separation, and it will be quite obvious to anybody that there is no development. What is happening in our agricultural industries? The ratio of White to non-White now stands at 1 to 17. What happens in the mining industry, which still earns us foreign revenue to the extent of R800 million in a year? If we do not have the non-White labour, much of that gold will remain precisely where it is, 5,000 to 10,000 feet below the surface.

It is all migratory labour.

That is all right. I am talking about the labour that is working there. But look at secondary industries. The latest figures tell us that at the moment non-Whites constitute 76 per cent of the total work force, and it is apparently increasing at the rate of 1 per cent per year, so that in 1971 we will have 80 per cent non-white. This is separate development, Sir? We are completely interrelated. But now they always, as the hon. member for Durban (Point) has said, put us before a false choice. They say to us that in South Africa you can be either White, poor and therefore secure, or you can be rich, Black and insecure. But it does not work this way. Security goes hand in hand with wealth. If South Africa is poor to-day, we would have no chance of facing our enemies. The hon. the Minister himself indicated that it is necessary for South Africa to have wealth in order to defend ourselves. South Africa is integrated and we can have racial peace if there is development. It is far easier to have racial peace in an expanding economic climate than in a declining one. In this sense there is a choice before South Africa: we must either expand or we will explode. But the Government is not dealing with fundamental issues. It is dealing with what is called “marginal” issues. Let me explain this. Once an economic pattern has been established, as ours was in 1930 under a previous Nationalist Government, 90 to 95 per cent of that pattern is predetermined. It is irrevocable and cannot be changed. Five to 10 per cent is what we call “marginal” in the sense that it is influenceable, you can change it. The Government is concentrating entirely on these marginal issues.

Take a matter like influx into the urban areas and plot a graph since the beginning of this century. You find a straight line growth curve. Occasionally you get somebody like the hon. the Deputy Minister coming in with more enthusiasm than good sense, and telling us that he is going to stop all this and reverse the flow and do all the rest of it. So, you may find that for a short period that curve might drop. There might be a point or two below the line. But then his political reputation is at stake, so he will be moved somewhere else, and quite soon you will find that the dots are back to where they were—on a straight line relationship. But has he thought of the consequences of what he has in mind? Assume that the Government in 1930 had decided that they would do what this Government is proposing to do now, stop all influx of Black people into industrial areas. What would the effects have been on our economy to-day? Seventy-five per cent of the factories which exist here would not have been there at all. Our rate of national income would have been a fraction of what it is at present. Our gross national product would have been of an order where we could not have sustained the expenditure of R250 million a year on defence. We would have been surrounded by large masses of Black people, starving and constituting a threat to our whole society. This is what he wants to do now for the future. Does he think that the generation in the year 2,000 will thank him? On the contrary, Sir. They will curse the crass stupidity of a Government who moved in this direction, and who will prevent them to defend themselves because they will not have the tools to do so.

I think after 20 years of Government control we can now ask three questions, as far as their separate freedoms policy is concerned. We can ask in the first instance: “Is the Government genuine in its expression of this policy? Does it really mean what it has in mind? Or is it merely a sop to the electorate?” And quite clearly the answer must be the latter, because it cannot be the former. The Government cannot possibily believe in this policy. Because apartheid is like Father Christmas—one believes in it only until one gets to the stage where one can think for oneself.

But the second criterion is even more important. Is this Government prepared to make the sacrifices necessary to carry out that policy? Has it in any case made a realistic assessment of the sacrifices involved? When I listen to the hon. the Minister talking about this I am left with the impression that he has no idea at this stage of what is involved.

But the third criterion that you must apply, is “will the people pay the price?” I say to the Government that they will not, because it is asking them to pay too much for too little. The Government has had success so far because they have not demanded those sacrifices. If it comes to the stage where it does so, Sir, you will see that the pattern will change.

But, instead of getting down to the bones of this matter, what does the Government do? It is playing with words all the time. It is flirting with words. It is always throwing alternatives at us. It says in South Africa you can have either apartheid or integration, and nothing in between. Who says this? Who can prove that is so? South Africa for 300 years has had neither the one nor the other. And yet it has done quite well. I talked to the man who wrote chapter 25 of the Tomlinson Commission Report, and that is where all this started.

I said: “This is wrong. These are the two extremes. This is a polarization of the problem.” He said: “Of course it is wrong. It is based on false premises.” But he, like the editor of Dagbreek, is at least prepared to admit when he is wrong. If you say that there is either apartheid or integration and nothing in between, then you might as well say that you must have either fission or you must have fusion, and both of these give you a violent-atomic explosion. The same happens in the political field. What has happened in Vietnam and Korea? Did we ever know that they existed until somebody introduced apartheid and said: This is the line? You have heard a lot about these places ever since then. Compulsory fusion one gets in America when irreconcilable elements are put together. If this contention is right then we may as well say that in South Africa in our economic system we must have either a laissez-faire approach or we must have State capitalism. Who is there on the Government side who would say that this is so? Sir, this does not get us anywhere, throwing words like that around which are not meaningful.

But then they go further, and this is what concerns us so in the whole Government approach. In order to draw a red herring across their own meandering trail they come and say that we change our policy. This is what psychologists call projection. I put it specifically to the Chief Whip on the Government side; he will know precisely what this implies. Projection is where you are guilty of something yourself, but you then pass that guilt on to the other man. I suggest to you that South African race relations policy was established initially in the time of the Smuts-Hertzog or Hertzog-Smuts alignment in the ’30s and late ’20s. I suggest to you that we get an impartial observer who can look at our policy to-day and compare it with what we had in the Smuts-Hertzog days. We are much closer to what it was then than the Government is to-day. But look at the Government’s policy, Sir. They started with apartheid, with separate entrances to post offices. It then became parallel development.

Why not rely on the voters for their judgment?

I shall tell you why not. The voters are being bluffed. I put this to the hon. the Minister: The voters have been led astray. Did the majority of Germans not vote for Hitler? Did the majority of Italians not vote for Mussolini? How many of them are there to-day who will say that Hitler and Mussolini were right?

Then the Government goes further by saying that their policy is the traditional policy of South Africa. A tradition is a thing that is old and has existed for a long time. When first did we hear of independent Bantustans? Less than 10 years ago. When I look at history I find that there is only one other man who suggested independent Bantustans as a solution to the South African problem, and that was Dr. Philip, the London Society missionary, and you know how much trouble he caused here. Whatever the merits of this policy, it is not traditional.

I mention another psychological mechanism in operation here. This is what we call rationalization. There is no man so deaf as the one who does not want to hear. There is no one who is so blind as the one who does not want to see. When we mention things like petty apartheid, what does the hon. the Prime Minister say? He says he reads about it in the papers, but as far as he knows, it does not exist. There is an easy way of finding out. Put yourself in the position of the other man. But who is there in South Africa to-day who would willingly exchange his white skin for one that is not so white? There is a further stage and I think this one could call a delusion. It is not merely an illusion, it is a delusion. They tell us the outside world is accepting separate development. Show me one country in the world that has group areas, race classification, or job reservation, this mediaeval form of guildism. If you can show me that they introduce these in their own countries by means of legislation, then you are on sure grounds to say that the world is accepting it as a solution.

The Government has put before us a scheme which is unworkable. The Government is chasing the end of the rainbow and they will never catch up with it. They are bandying words about, but all this is not necessary. There are certain fundamental principles that we must observe. To begin with, white leadership still has a role in South African politics. There are those who stand to the left of us and there are also those who stand to the right of us who say that this is an outmoded concept in the modern world and that there is no longer a place for white leadership. Perhaps I am old fashioned, but I feel that there is a role for white leadership. I can put it this way: white leadership is intrinsically as sound as non-white leadership and it is infinitely preferable to chaos. We see in the South African setting full scope for white leadership. There are three broad levels on which people meet. There are three broad areas which we must handle differently.

The first one is the social area. This is concerned with where people live. It is concerned with the schools their children go to and the swimming baths they use.

And the universities too?

Universities too, if there are adequate facilities for all of them.

[Inaudible.]

There are more non-Whites now at the white universities than there were before legislation was introduced. [Interjection.] The hon. the Chief Whip is now anticipating my remarks. What we suggest is that most communities in South Africa would in any case desire natural segregation, but we say: “Use the magnet to draw each to its kind.” Create decent facilities for them and they would not necessarily wish to share ours. But what has the Government approach been? It has used the carving knife, the chopper. It has tried to sever what in fact one cannot divide. This leaves in its wake wounds, some of which may never heal. That is the basic difference in approach.

Petty apartheid.

That is petty apartheid, yes. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, have you ever heard such a mixed bag of stories in the course of your career as that which you heard this afternoon? I have never. I should like to hear whether any hon. member who has experience of this House will be able to tell me whether he has ever in his life heard the like, whether he has ever heard such a mixed bag of stories. What was the argument and the theme of the speech made by the hon. member? Sir, if anybody can inform me in writing within the next ten minutes what the theme was of the speech made by that hon. member, I shall go from here and collect R1,000 for hospitals. Like other hon. members who used to be in this House and who made the type of speech of which it was said, “Politics will be the death of him”, that hon. member made a speech this afternoon in respect of which I want to say to him that that speech spells his political death in South Africa to whichever party he may belong. The hon. member again risked referring to “white leadership”. Were he a child, perhaps I would have been able to forgive him for not knowing that a terrible hurricane, a tornado, blew up amongst the Bantu races on the continent of the whole of Africa more than ten years ago. They demanded absolute freedom. They wanted political freedom. The late Mr. Jannie Hofmeyr used exactly the same language as that used by the hon. member for Hill-brow this afternoon when he met a Bantu deputation prior to the 1946 strike. He told them, “Look at the fine economic advantages we are giving you, the schools and hospitals”. They told him: “Baas Jannie, that is not what we want; we want political freedom, we want to have control over our national aspirations.” That was the reply of the Bantu. Now the hon. member thinks that because a person is a Bantu, he need not have national aspirations. The hon. member asked what it meant to the Bantu that he was able to vote in the Transkei? It means that one is able to tell him that he has all the political rights that are one’s due, but that he will not have them here. I want to ask the hon. member what it means if he wants to give the Bantu representatives in this white Parliament. He cannot play blind-man’s buff here as far as political matters are concerned. He must not close his eyes to things which every child in South Africa knows about to-day. He must not ask rhetorical questions without replying to a single one of them. That will not get him anywhere. The people of South Africa are in a much more serious mood than he thinks. The electorate wants separate development, however cheap or expensive that may be, however rapid or slow that may be, but the public of South Africa wants separate development because they realize that their protection for the future is to be found in that alone. But the hon. member does not want to open his eyes to those things. He wants the economy alone to be predominant. He said a fine picture had developed over the past 300 years, but he fails to appreciate the claim of the people who have become dissatisfied with that picture. He has forgotten that the former illustrious leader of the United Party, General Smuts, said that the only future for Africa and for South Africa was to be found in the Bantu councils which would provide a political stage to the Bantu who wanted to lead his own nation. But those things the hon. member refuses to see. He wants to speak like the former member for Kimberley; to him the economy is the only consideration. He said that cenuries ago an Act was passed in London to bring about decentralization, and he proved that, in spite of that Act, London became large and the whole of Britain became great. Let me ask the hon. member whether that means that they are opposed to decentralization? Why does he contradict his Leader? His Leader is the person who said that they too were in favour of decentralization, but now the hon. member is poking fun at decentralization. Where do we find ourselves with the United Party?

But let me come back to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He started the debate by intimating that the policy of separate development could not be carried into effect, and he and his henchmen spoke of a period of 20 years until one was bored to tears, just as though the Transkei has been developing separately for a period of 20 years, and as though it did not take many years to formulate the policy and to embody it step by step in legislation until such a stage was reached that one was able to make a start in the Transkei. What did we get during those three different stages of separate development? With the advent of the Transkei, we immediately had to commence the building of an infrastructure which was extremely expensive. The hon. member did not refer to the costs of that infrastructure. It took a great deal of time and it was very expensive. Roads and dams had to be constructed, all of which had to be done at government expense. A great deal of progress had to be made with consolidation before one was able to determine where one’s points of growth were. The hon. member ought to realize that. The process of consolidation has progressed a great deal in spite of the opposition we experienced from the Opposition year after year. The third stage was reached with the activating of the Bantu homelands themselves. One had to have these three stages before one could make progress and before one was able to start reversing the stream to the White areas. Time is required for all of those things and they have not had the blessing of everyone in this country. The hon. member knows that the man who has the strongest stranglehold on industry in South Africa goes out of his way to thwart the Government in connection with border industries and influx control. He knows as well as I do that the most important economic concerns want that paradise in Johannesburg for which he pleaded here this afternoon. Those are all factors which work against separate development, but in spite of them we have proceeded. Separate development has not had the political support or the economic support of all, on the contrary it has had reckless criticism from the Opposition. What else but reckless criticism was the question asked and the statements made by the hon. member here this afternoon? In dealing with these basic things, one welcomes criticism, but one must not say reckless things which are unfounded and which are only meant to destroy. Every sentence uttered by the hon. member was nothing but a sneering remark. What is the alternative? No alternative to separate development has ever been advanced.

Balanced development.

But where has that been advanced? I am saying that an alternative has never been advanced before the electorate in South Africa or across the floor of this House. Can we therefore marvel at the decision of the public that there is no alternative? If we are determined that there is to be a homeland for the Whites in South Africa and to ensure its continued existence, there is no alternative to separate development. At this stage where we have come such a long way that we have completely disarmed the U.N. with its false accusations, we know that this Opposition were the people who provided the U.N. with arguments that we were following a policy of suppression, of political suppression and dependency. Where we have now disproved all of those allegations, they are gradually beginning to object to the future independence of those Bantu homelands. This is the Opposition that has always said that there was a minority government in South Africa. This is the Opposition that said at the U.N. that a minority was governing a majority in South Africa. You cannot deny that. You know that it has been proved that those allegations were false, and that is why you are afraid now that even the dullest eyes on the continent of Africa and elsewhere will open and will see that a white South Africa can continue to exist under the principles of separate development alone. Now the Opposition is changing its tune. They can no longer treat the U.N. on those untruths; they can no longer say there is a minority government in South Africa, because now it is an absolute constitutional fact that there is no such thing as a minority government in this country as the whites govern the majority of the whites in the white area and the Bantu has full franchise in his homelands, with the result that that allegation no longer holds good. Now the Opposition is beginning to change its tune. Now they are saying that we are not promoting separate development rapidly enough. It is for the people of South Africa and for the Government, with the resources at its disposal, to let it develop as rapidly as possible, and we shall not allow the Opposition to dictate to us. But when the Physical Planning Act is implemented, the Opposition must not again put up a hue and cry, because the Leader of the Opposition is the man who alleges that the white areas are becoming more and more black. If constructive attempts are made to prevent it from becoming more black but to make it more white, he must not complain. He must be consistent. Just as they objected in the past when we spoke of “South Africa first” whereas they now maintain that they too stand for South Africa first, in the same way they will claim sometime in the future that they advocated separate development because Sir Graaff criticized the Government in Parliament for not setting about separate development at a fast enough pace. We shall be able to progress much more rapidly if we can get constructive criticism which is not based on a negative attitude like that of the Leader of the Opposition and his henchmen, namely that we must change separate development for proportional development as we heard here this afternoon. This is something new again, proportional or balanced development. The hon. member himself said that as far as he was concerned, only rands and cents carried any weight, but to me and others something else, such as a nation’s survival and honour carries much more weight. The hon. gentleman must be careful. If in the future he makes another speech in connection with this matter, he must be careful not to clash with his Leader so easily; that he does not use terms which will cost them dearly, and I am afraid that that is precisely what he did here this afternoon. Mr. Speaker, one need not be a fortune-teller; one merely has to look at the signs of the times. According to my reading of the signs of the times, the public will insist within a period of ten years that a criminal charge be brought against any person in South Africa who dares to advocate publicly anything in conflict with separate development, in conflict with the maintenance of the colour bar. The public will insist on that. It need not become a matter of policy. One of these days one will find that congresses will insist that a criminal charge be brought against any person or organization advocating such things. All the signs are there. Sir, I too read signs; I also know what is passing through the minds of the people. I know that the public will revolt against the lawless vagrants who do nothing but commit murder on a large scale. The public will go further than we are prepared to go at present. Within ten years’ time absolute segregation, absolute separation, will be demanded as a result of the conditions created by things advocated in this Parliament by the Opposition. There was a time when every crime in South Africa was justified by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition here in this House and attributed to Government policy. There was no crime which he did not attribute to the policy of the Government. The nation regards these things in such a serious light that the time will arrive when the nation will insist that a criminal charge be brought against any person who comes into conflict with the idea of the maintenance of the colour bar between White and non-White. That is what is passing through the minds of the people, and then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition comes here and says that we must depart from the course we have taken, from the policy which means the only salvation for white South Africa. Sir, his people do not want that from him, but there are certain economic bodies and persons that turn the scale as far as the policy of those hon. gentlemen is concerned. Those economic bodies and persons make them speak the way the hon. member for Hillbrow did here this afternoon.

The Oppenheimers.

I feel sorry for him because he appears to one as a very thorough member of this House, but he said something here this afternoon which will dig his political grave in the future. I trust that he will be smart and brilliant enough to depart from the politically bad ways which he tried to follow here this afternoon, and that he will have a living share in the maintenance of a white South Africa. He need not plead for the Mammons of the country; they are strong enough to plead for themselves.

I do not propose to deal with all the highly inaccurate and reckless allegations made by the hon. member for Krugersdorp about the United Party. I do not believe that he was in his best form in making those allegations. In the course of what I am about to say, however, I shall reply to some of the points that he developed.

I would like to come back to some of the things which the hon. the Prime Minister said. First of all, I would like to mention the guarantee which the hon. the Prime Minister gave us about all his men. Sir, this guarantee that he gave us that all his men were 100 per cent, reminds me of an old story. The story goes that a man in arguing with a group of men said, “I know that I am right.” When they asked him, “How can you be so sure?” he said, “Well, I am the only one among you who has a certificate of sanity.” He got it, of course, when he was discharged from Valkenberg. One only needs a certificate of sanity or a guarantee when there has been something wrong with one.

A very poor joke.

Sir, I was very interested in other things that emerged from what the hon. the Prime Minister said, or perhaps I should say things that emerged from what he did not say. I was most surprised that he did not attempt to bolster up his policy, shot full of holes though it has been in this debate. The hon. the Prime Minister made a long speech which took up more than an hour of our time and we listened to him with great interest. He had a great deal to say about every other aspect except his party’s Native policy, the most important question that faces us in South Africa, as many members have rightly said during this debate. One would have expected that he would have reviewed his policy, that he would have told us at what ratio he is aiming between Black and White in the so-called white areas and in the so-called homelands, and whether he still agrees with the White Paper put out by the Government after the publication of the report of the Tomlinson Commission; whether he agrees with the statement in that report that an equality of numbers in the so-called white area in the year 2,000 will ensure security and peace for us, and what other steps he proposes to take to bring about the requisite ration. But, Sir, we had virtually a stony silence from the hon. the Prime Minister as far as this important issue is concerned, an issue which organs supporting the Government would like to see discussed and debated in full. I am also interested in the attitude of hon. members opposite to this whole question I draw an encouraging conclusion; I may be very wide of the mark but I belive that hon. members opposite, like ourselves, are trying like good South Africans to find the best solution for this country and that they honestly see that their approach is not getting us anywhere at all. Sir, what did the hon. the Prime Minister say? What he said and his silence convinced me that he is not going to attempt to put life into the declared policy of the Nationalist Party. I believe that the hon. the Prime Minister realizes that that would be flogging a dead horse. I believe that if this policy is persisted with we will get all the disadvantages of the independent Bantustan policy and none of the advantages that we might have obtained if one had been able to get this separation which hon. members opposite honestly wish we could obtain. I take comfort from the fact that the hon. the Prime Minister and hon. members opposite, judging by their reactions in this debate, do perceive that however hard they may try they cannot physically get the separation which they want. May I reply therefore to the hon. member for Krugersdorp, who said “die kiesers van Suid-Afrika wil afsonderlike ontwikkeling hê, hoe duur dit cok al mag wees,” in the words of the hon. member for Hillbrow where he said that it would cost too much and that you would get too little. I stress particularly: you would get too little. We have already seen something of the cost and I propose, in the course of my speech, to analyse to some extent how little we have got. I believe that hon. members opposite, with absolute integrity and honesty, are coming to adopt the same view.

Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister, in the few words that he did say on Native affairs, indicated that he was committed (gekompromitteer) to the progress of the reserves virtually to independence. He did not use those words but he referred to the constitutional development of the reserves. He also made it clear that he would make no real attempt at keeping the Natives in the reserves and that there was no question at all of sucking them back. What were his words in this regard? These words were largely echoed by hon. Ministers who have spoken on this point. This is what he said in regard to the whole question of development: “Vir my is die toets of die Bantoe kan bybly met die ontwikkeling.” To my mind that shows clearly on which side the hon. the Prime Minister has come down. I say that because there are two schools of thought in Nationalist circles upon this point. He has taken his stand on a basis which is in direct conflict with the attitude of the general Manager of the Bantu Investment Corporation, Dr. Adendorff. At the Sabra conference on 6th October, 1967, Dr. Adendorff read a paper in which he indicated that there was a school of thought which held the view which the hon. the Prime Minister holds, that there must not be greater development than the Bantu can absorb. He then went on to say at page 10 of his speech—

The General Manager of the Bantu Investment Corporation went on in that paper to express the opinion that it would be less dangerous to establish these industries, although they may not be understood by the Bantu, than to have too slow a tempo of development. He said—

He said that was his personal opinion.

He therefore mentions some of the complications that will arise if that development does not take place —namely a feeling of frustration, increasing unemployment—there is evidence of that—and consequently a feeling similar to that of the Negroes in the United States. He makes it perfectly clear that at the present rate of development the Bantu reserves will be quite unable to absorb the growth of the population and provide a worthy existence for the natural increase, let alone the millions who are to be repatriated.

Sir, I say that it is becoming more and more clear that it is a physical impossibility to achieve this separation however much you spend. I think it is important that we should get absolute clarity in this regard as soon as possible. I believe that as far as the Government side is concerned we are getting that clarity at a faster rate than we had hoped, and here I propose to give some figures, but first of all I think it is necessary to dispel some of the mist and the fog created by statements which are often made by the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education. He again talked here to-day of fantastic development and he indicated what had been achieved. But the great point is that, although much money may have been spent, in relation to the problem it is not a drop in the ocean. This, I believe, is the realization which is dawning.

Let us take some facts and figures. In this month’s issue of the official journal of the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut. Volkshandel, the editor writes that there are to-day 13 million Bantu in South Africa. In the homelands there are 4.2 million and outside 8.8 million. Let us see how things should have been, according to Professor Tomlinson. A fair prediction from the Tomlinson Commission report, and I am assuming now that there had been that tempo of development he had called for of the de jure population of the Bantu areas is as follows. I am making this inference clearly from the full report, Volume 16, Chapter 47, page 16. What are those figures? He predicted that the total Bantu population would be 11.2 million, of which he predicted there would be 6.2 million in the “homelands” and 5 million outside. What have we got? In the “homelands” there are 4.2 million, and outside we have 8.8 million. He predicted 6.2 million and 5 million respectively.

You must also add the Kwa Mashu figures to the approximate total.

Yes, that side will doubtless try and reduce the numbers in that way in time to come. In comparison with the Commission’s prediction there are 2 million fewer Bantu in the ’’homelands” to-day than was predicted, whilst there are 3.8 million Bantu more outside the so-called homelands than was predicted. There is therefore an error, a failure to come up to expectations, of 5.8 million in a Bantu population of only 13 million. With great respect to my hon. friends opposite, I suggest that this is a measure of their failure to develop the reserves, alternatively it is a measure of the impossibility of the task. I say it is no good to say that the money is being spent, when the promised results have in fact not been achieved. There is another percentage which is interesting. According to the Tomlinson figures 55 per cent of the Bantu should by now have been in the Bantu areas, whereas only 32 per cent are in fact there to-day. Let us look at the reserves themselves. At the time of the Commission’s report there were inside the reserves 3.6 million Natives. That was in October, 1954. To-day we have 4.2 million there. The Commission hoped for 6.2 million to-day. In other words, the reserves are carrying only 600,000 more Bantu than they did in 1954, whereas they should be carrying 2.6 million more. We know under what conditions of poverty many Bantu are living in the reserves and we know that many of them depend upon money received from outside.

Let us look at the urban areas figures. These figures are typical of what has happened throughout South Africa, including the country areas. I am quoting figures furnished by the South African Bureau of Statistics and set out in Dr. Rhoodie’s book. In 1936 there were 1,246,000 Natives in our urban areas. In 1946, ten years later, they had grown to 1,856,000. In 1951 the figure was 2,391,000, and in 1960 it was 3,471,000. An interesting aspect is that during the ten years of the United Party government, from 1936 to 1946, the increase in our urban areas was 600,000, whilst during the period 1951 to 1960, during which period we had Nationalist rule, the increase was 1.1 million—almost twice as much. I do not say that this was entirely due to an inflow of Bantu to our urban areas. I concede that it was partly because of the natural increase of the Bantu which took place then, and which is still going on now. One wonders what is that figure to-day. I would suggest that, if one projects the other figures I quoted, it is in the region of 4,200,000—that is, the number of Bantu in our urban areas at the present time. In other words, we have a far greater number of Bantu in our urban areas than there are Whites in the whole South Africa.

I believe that these figures, and others, are gradually opening the eyes of hon. members on that side. We must remember that the Native birth rate is approximately 40 per 1.000, which, roughly, means half a million a year.

That is not the increase rate.

No. that is the Hrth rate. The rate of increase is about 24 per 1,000, which is about 312,000 per year. We must remember, as I have indicated, that more than two-thirds of our Native peoples are outside the so-called homelands, and that rate of increase is going on outside these so-called homelands.

There are hon. members opposite and others outside this House who like to shrug off these figures. I was glad to see that hon. members on that side showed less tendency to shrug them off to-day than was the case on previous occasions. We can remember how the late Prime Minister used to say that the presence, or even the increase, of the Bantu people in the white areas did not amount to a violation of his policy. But since then we have had the Physical Planning Bill, and there were signs that there was serious concern about this tendency. But those are negative measures, and I do feel that they are very much too late.

I think that hon. members opposite feel, as we on this side feel, that this policy, which might have made sense if all or at least a vast number of the Natives could have been sucked back into the reserves, makes absolutely no sense in the light of the obvious failure to do this. It must be remembered that one of the motives for this policy was the attitude of General Hertzog who said that we cannot keep the Bantu in our midst without giving them political rights in the Parliament which controls their destiny. That was the line that he took, and it was because of the fact that hon. members opposite wished to give them no say in such Parliament, that they attempted to escape from the difficulty.

I venture to say that there are many Nationalists who do not attempt to shrug off these unfavourable numbers. I wish to mention two people who ought to know the aims and objects of Nationalist policy well. The first person is Dr. Geyer. At the time when he was Chairman of SABRA in October, 1963, he made an important statement. This was nearly five years ago. On that occasion he said—

As I say, these words were spoken nearly five years ago. I do not think anyone in this House will deny that the number of Native people in all the various spheres in the so-called white areas has grown immensely since then. Next I should like to cite a great supporter of the present Government, a great and traditional supporter, namely Die Burger. Ten years ago, in 1958. Die Burger contained the following significant words in a leading article—

Then comes what is for me the significant passage—

This was written ten years ago, at a time when it is fair to say, on the basis of the figures I have given, that there would have been about I million less Natives in our urban areas than there are to-day. This was stated at a time when in our farming areas outside the reserves there would have been probably I million less Natives than there are to-day. It is indeed interesting to find that this same paper still appears to have enthusiasm for a policy and a party which, in its own language, it has stigmatized as supporting a “holle kreet” in view of its failure to implement its promises in this regard.

I wish to close by saying that, to my mind, the lesson of Africa is that where the white man has pulled out, disorder and trouble developed. What was the first trouble that we had in Africa? It was when the British pulled out of Zanzibar. Within weeks of their leaving Zanzibar we had communists grabbing control there, and within months of that development we had Tanzania, or rather, Tanganyika, as it then was, substantially taken over by those who were friendly disposed towards the communists. We have found that in the Belgian Congo, too. Wherever one looks in Africa, one finds that when the white man with his guiding hand has withdrawn and handed over to the people there, the experiment, the change has been a grave mistake. Hon. members on that side often try to make capital out of the fact that there has been disorder in these areas. But they have no right to do that. I say so because their own policy will have the same result, namely for the white man to pull out of areas which to-day have the guiding and helping hand of the white man. It is the policy of hon. members opposite for the white man to pull out—so we are told—of the reserves and to hand over to the black man there. I say there can be no doubt that if that is done, we shall experience a similar deterioration as has been experienced elsewhere. I therefore conclude by saying to hon. members opposite that they are using valuable time by continuing on this road which has been shown to be of no value. Let them realize that even the best-intentioned people can also make mistakes, and let them and the country get on to a road which holds out the greatest prospects for us—let there be a change of government.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pinelands has just made a significant statement. He said the Government had to abandon its policy because the Government and the National Party were taking a wrong course. The course of separate development allegedly was the wrong one, and he appealed to the Government to abandon that course. All the arguments advanced by the hon. member before he made this statement, were aimed at pointing out that this policy was not working at all, that it was not a policy of separate development which was being implemented in this country. I just want to tell the hon. member this. In appealing to this Government to abandon this policy of separate development, he is merely proving that it will be possible for this country to abandon it if this policy is found to be the wrong one. That is so. if the policy of the Party of that hon. member had been applied in this country, the country and the nation would have been faced with an accomplished fact. They would have been committed without being able to deviate from that course at all. It would not even have been possible to make appeals for that course to be abandoned, they would simply have had to accept the consequences, right or wrong. And how very wrong those would have been! In what misery would we as a country and nation not have been plunged under those circumstances? The non. member used his entire speech to advance the argument that the numbers of Blacks in the white areas were increasing. That is so. The numbers have increased. But to what a phenomenal extent has economic development —also as a result of this Government’s policy —not taken place on a larger scale over the past 20 years? What phenomenal increase has there not been in the national product as a result of this Government’s policy? That, as a matter of course, caused a larger number of workers to be attracted to the industrial areas in our country. But this Government, with its policy, is doing everything within its means, within the limits of possibility, to decrease the number of Blacks in the white areas and to keep that number as low as possible. But what would have happened if their policy had been applied? It is their policy which really attracts the non-Whites. They are the ones who offer or promise the Bantu political rights in the white areas. They are the ones who offer the Bantu land-ownership. They are the ones who come out against migratory labour, and who want to encourage family life in the white areas. What would have happened under those circumstances? If this economic development had taken place under their policy—which was not possible—what would the numerical ratio have been at this stage? The Blacks in the white areas would have numbered hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, more than the present figure.

The Government in accordance with its policy, passed the Physical Planning Act last year. It now appears to be a very essential aid to give further implementation to this policy. But the United Party opposed each one of these steps to effect the decrease of the number of Blacks in the white areas. They tried to thwart every possible attempt to reach those ideals. Now the Opposition maintains that the Government’s policy of separate development is an illusion. What they fail to say, however, is that a start was made in 1948, when the Government came into power, with the implementation of this policy in this country. It has been applied consistently, but throughout all these years the Government has been fared with the severest opposition and enmity from that side of this House.

The implementation of the policy of separate development has always met with opposition. Enmity towards this Government was stirred up incessantly, also abroad, in the hope that this Government would come to a fall as a result of pressure from outside and as a result of enmity which could be stirred up outside our borders in countries abroad. All these attempts were made to thwart the National Party. All the misrepresentations of what separate development really was had to be combated. All those things first had to be neutralized. And with what success has that not taken place? In the first instance this policy has gradually come to be accepted, not only by the Whites in the first place and not only by the members of that Party’s supporters in this country, but also by the non-White peoples in this country. Gradually, as this policy is being implemented and as its positive effects are becoming noticeable, the policy is not merely being accepted but it is being given support, and it is being given support not only by this side of this House, not only by the growing numbers outside this House who are joining the ranks of this side, but also by the Whites in this country who are still members of that Party—and they cannot deny that. Take for instance a public meeting of that Party’s supporters anywhere in the country and put certain of the consequences of their policy to them. They will say, “No, we do not want any part of that”. They prefer to have the consequences of the policy of separate development of the National Party in this country. This policy is not only being accepted by the Whites in this country but to a larger extent it is gradually gaining the support of everyone in this country except the extreme liberalists.

In the past the National Party was up against the severest opposition. It was up against people who deliberately tried to create incidents to break this Party. These people tried to create incidents which would have been blamed on separate development, on the policy of apartheid. All those things were done to break this Government. But in spite of those attempts and in spite of everything that was put into operation to halt the progress of the National Party in this country and its attempts to implement its policy, the National Party has still grown. It became even bigger and stronger, and to a much larger extent than that Party it has gained, which is very important, the support of the young people who become entitled to vote from year to year—and I am speaking of both language groups. Surely the election results illustrate that clearly. I think one of those hon. members said that the fact that the support of the National Party was still growing gradually in respect of both these groups, was attributable to the fact that the Government was bluffing the people. I think that is an outrageous injustice those people are doing the electorate. I think that is a gross underestimation of the intelligence of the electorate. The people cannot be bluffed all the time for the period of 20 years without seeing what the real facts in this country are.

Mr. Speaker, what are the consequences of this policy? The hon. member for Pinelands charged the Prime Minister with not discussing the Government’s policy of separate development yesterday. For 20 years that Party has been engaged in opposing and misrepresenting this policy. This policy is discussed in this House every year, and where the Prime Minister did his best yesterday to try and get that Party to discuss a new policy announced by them, they simply refused to say one single word about it. The Bantu policy of the National Party is always under discussion in addition to which it is always being implemented gradually in practice. As the hon. the Minister said to-day, it is an evolutionary policy. But this policy also has the following consequence. Unlike the previous situation in this country, we have in the past number of years, as this policy is coming to be accepted and supported by all sections of the population of this country, been experiencing a greater measure of peace and quiet and stability in this country than ever before. Can those hon. members complain in this Parliament and level the charge at this Government that it is implementing a policy here which is not successful and which is doomed to failure? Can they level such a charge in spite of the consequences of the implementation of this policy over a period of 20 years? The people outside see and experience the consequences of this policy.

You are hiding the facts.

I am now going to discuss the hiding of facts. We shall shortly see where the hiding of facts is taking place in the political constellation of this country. The policy of the Government has met with this success and has achieved these results because it is a policy which is gaining the understanding of more and more people and which is becoming more and more clear. It is a policy of separate development, a policy which does not mean that the white man is superior towards other people in this country, but that the white man is different, and that all the population groups differ from one another. The National Party emphasizes the fact that the Whites are different from the other population groups and that they have their own identity. It is engaged in developing that idea and fighting for the preservation of its own identity. That is being done in this country not for the purpose of creating wealth as the hon. member for Hillbrow advocated. These things are not being done for an economic reason only; they are being done with the specific purpose of perpetuating the white man’s position and of safeguarding the future of the white man in this country.

It is not a policy of superiority. It is not a policy under which we look down upon the other population groups, but we emphasize the difference amongst the various population groups. What is the position as regards the United Party and the Opposition? The position is that the United Party is trying to hide these facts as far as possible. It is trying to gain support outside by doing things and making propaganda which tries to emphasize the fact that we are one multi-racial nation in this country. It tries to talk away and conceal the difference which exists. It goes out of its way to conceal that. There is also the fact that it advocates one Parliament for the entire South Africa in which the various race groups will have representation. It acts on this assumption and its leading figures state quite clearly that the United Party advocates a multi-racial Parliament in which the majority group of its single nation will have a small group of representatives. It maintains that this would gain support for South Africa and the United Party Government in the West. Certain of their speakers stated that very pertinently. Let me just make a few quotations. In an article in The Cape Argus the hon. member for Yeoville said, inter alia, the following in 1962—

Further on it reads—

The hon. member for Durban (North) said, inter alia, the following on an occasion here in Cape Town where he addressed the United Party’s council for the Peninsula. I am quoting from a report in Die Burger (translation)—

[Inaudible.]

Does the hon. member want to deny that that hon. member said that? No. he will not do so. He is known for his quibbling, but if one corners him, one cannot get him to commit himself. Prominent members of that Party make this allegation but I now want them to explain the following fact. Why do Britain and the United States of America reject Rhodesia which does not have a policy of apartheid and which has a multiracial Parliament, the policy the United Party is advocating? Why does the West, on whose support the United Party will rely if they come into power, reject Rhodesia. Why does the West expect only one thing, namely a black government, from Rhodesia? That Party is inconsistent. Why does it not admit the facts as they are? Why does it not admit that its policy is also a policy of discrimination? Or are the things they say simply idle talk?

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry but my time has nearly expired. That Party and even the leaders of that Party do not believe the assurances they give the electorate. They themselves do not believe them. Just consider that prior to the last election this very same deputy leader of the United Party, the hon. member for Yeoville, uttered the following significant words, according to a Sapa report, at Umtata (translation), “White leadership is necessary, and will be necessary for a generation or more to remove racial prejudices with which the population is afflicted.” Now, Mr. Speaker, if the population is afflicted with racial prejudices, what will happen once they have removed those racial prejudices after a generation or more? What are they going to do then? Then all racial prejudices would have been removed. Then we would be a single multi-racial nation and the authority in South Africa would be handed over on a tray by them to the majority group in that multi-racial nation. Who can draw any other conclusion from the words of the hon. member for Yeoville? This direction of the United Party, this policy advocated by them, and the things they say which are really in conflict with their policy, are completely in line and fully consistent with the way of thinking of one of the leading figures in that Party. It is fully consistent with the way of thinking of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. In an article in one of the newspapers which is a strong supporter of his Party, this hon. member made a strong plea in 1965 for the United Party to accept a policy of separate voters’ rolls for the Coloureds. This hon. member did so in conflict with the attitude adopted by his Leader. One of their newspapers, the Free State organ of the United Party, The Friend, said in that regard that it would be a betrayal if the United Party were to do something like that; it would be a betrayal of the policy of the United Party. But this direction which the United Party has now once again taken in regard to their colour policy, is fully consistent with the background of what they actually envisage. It is nothing but a step in the direction of a multi-racial Parliament; it is the first immediate step to establish a multi-racial Parliament here. We shall probably have a great deal more to say about this matter in the course of this Session. Seeing that the United Party is so silent in regard to this policy of theirs, it will be the duty of the National Party, its speakers, and its leaders to inform the people outside of the perils this direction of the United Party holds for the future of South Africa. We can be grateful, Mr. Speaker, that there is not the least danger of the electorate ever putting these people into power, because were that to happen, it would mean Ichabod as regard the future of the white man in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, each time in this debate when a member of the Government and a member of the Nationalist Party speaks, such as the hon. member for Winburg, we on this side are sometimes in a difficult position. This is especially the case when they are discussing the policy of the United Party. Because you see, Sir, our problem is this. One half of our policy they do not understand and the other half, when we look again, they accept. The hon. member for Winburg may perhaps one day still become a semi-satisfactory United Party supporter. And this goes for many other members opposite as well. Indeed, I am not the only one to say that. We had such clear proof of that a few weeks ago in one of the leading Nationalist Party newspapers. I think it is the largest Afrikaans Sunday paper, Dagbreek. Or is Die Beeld the largest now? I am not quite certain these days. There the editor admitted straight out that some of the criticisms levelled in the past at the United Party were unfounded. In the article it was admitted by implication that the United Party had been right. I am referring to the article a few weeks ago by Mr. Dirk Richard, editor of Dagbreek. He mentioned certain instances where the Government knew they had been wrong, but were too scared to admit that they were wrong. The High Court of Parliament was mentioned, the original Group Areas Act and the immigration policy of the Nationalist Party. Oh. how we fought for days on end in this House over these matters! And now the Government and the editor of their largest or second largest newspaper admit that our point of view was right and theirs was wrong. And after a few years the hon. member for Winburg also comes and tells us he was wrong. We shall find that this Government will in fact try to take over the United Party’s policy. I do not know if they will really manage to do that, but they will try their best to do so. My hon. Leader, in his speech in this debate, referred to the illusions existing among members of this Government. There are illusions, figments of the imagination, hallucinations, phantoms that have been created by them, by the Government, and by the great master of illusion, the hon. the Prime Minister, the Merlin the Magician of the Nationalist Party. Today I want to deal with a few of those illusions or pipedreams from which the Government has suffered the past few years. My Leader pointed out that it was a figment of the imagination that that Government was a poor man’s party; that it was a figment of the imagination that they had a stable Bantu policy. They do not have that. And when here and there they see a sudden ray of light in connection with that policy, they then accept the policy of the United Party, as in connection with the use of white capital in the reserves. But then I ask again—while I am on that point—where white capital is, in fact, being implemented on a large scale in the reserves and also in the border areas, as promised; how many companies in which members of the Nationalist Party have a concern have been established in those border areas? I should very much like to ask one of the Deputy Ministers to give us examples and to say who in fact those people are who are at present establishing some companies in the border areas. We should like to know. How many of them are Nationalists?

You have made a mean insinuation.

I am asking a question. Answer it. Let us deal with a few more of these illusions. One of them is that this Government is an efficient government, a government of efficient administrators. I will admit that some of the members of the Government are less inefficient than others. Naturally this is so. But we must always remember that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. The Cabinet is only as strong as its weakest link. And if its weakest links are rusty and the weakest link is about to break, then the whole chain of the Cabinet is as weak. You will say that I am the critic. Well, I am one of them, but there are critics on the other side as well. What is more, they are prominent members, prominent editors. I should like to quote again from an article of 26th November last year by the editor of Dagbreek, in which he said that he thought the hon. the Prime Minister could really get rid of a few of the members of the Cabinet. A few names were mentioned and I do not want to repeat them all. I shall mention three of them. The editor of Dagbreek said that if he could have had his own Cabinet he would, amongst others, immediately have dropped the Minister of Immigration, the Minister of the Interior and, guess who, the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. These are not my words. It is what I read in the newspapers. And then I also read in another newspaper, namely Die Beeld … Now, I understand that Die Beeld is the Afrikaans Sunday newspaper with the largest circulation in South Africa. The hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs can perhaps correct me. Is it so? I am only asking whether Die Beeld has the largest circulation. I am asking the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs about Die Beeld in particular because it seems to me there is something amiss between himself and Die Beeld. According to what I have read he had an interview at Jan Smuts Airport a short while ago at which a reporter of the Sunday Times put certain questions to him in connection with newspapers. The hon. the Minister’s reply then was—if he was reported correctly—that the Sunday Times was not the worst newspaper in South Africa, but that the worst newspaper in South Africa was Die Beeld. I do not know how many of the supporters of the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs agree with him on that. If Die Beeld now is the worst and the Sunday Times the second worst, I can only ask myself: Schalk, what have you done right and, Joel, what have you done wrong?

I refer to Die Beeld, the issue of 18th November, in which the editor said—I think it was Dawie—that Dr. Verwoerd once told him that one of the most difficult burdens of a Prime Minister was the matter of members of the Cabinet not knowing when they ought to resign. And in almost the very next sentence, referring to the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, the writer in Die Beeld exclaimed: How long must we still endure the public attacks on the American Field Service? In other words, how long is there still going to be a Minister in the Cabinet like the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, who proclaims such follies as he has in fact done in connection with the American Field Service. Now, I am only calling their leading newspapers to witness, in so far as urgent changes should be made in the Cabinet. And remember, I am not the one to say so. It is these two newspapers, Afrikaans Sunday newspapers, with the largest circulation in South Africa.

I do not think it is a coincidence that both these newspapers mentioned the same person, namely the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. And in both cases the remarks made were not flattering. Now I wonder if it is not in fact the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs who is perhaps the weakest of the weak links in that chain which is weakening the entire Cabinet. Let us see. Let me mention a few things. The hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs is the head of a department employing more persons than any other department, apart from the Railways. He is responsible for good normal services such as telephone services, telegraph services, etc., to be provided to the public every day. And now I ask the hon. members opposite: Are there any of them who have not yet had complaints in connection with telephone services in their constituencies? On this side I am daily getting more complaints than ever before about the telephone services in South Africa. There are complaints about telephones not being available; about the fact that when any particular numbers are dialled, instead of getting that number, you get Mary and Mazy talking about Madge, or you hear strange noises over the telephone. It is a fact that long-distance calls sometimes take hours to get through. These complaints are increasing. The other day I put a question to the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs to which he was kind enough to reply. We recall that the hon. the Minister increased the telephone rates last year. He was going to use that increase to provide better services to the public.

That is precisely what has happened.

The hon. the Prime Minister says that is precisely what has happened. [Interjections.] He says it will happen. So we do at least get an admission that it has probably not happened yet, not so? But let us see. We are coming to that. The hon. the Minister said that he was going to use the money to provide better services to the public. Now, when we talk of better services it is not the ambition of ordinary people such as ourselves who use the telephone to be able to dial direct to, say, Reykjavik or Yokohama. We simply want to get through from where we are to the persons to whom we want to speak a few miles further away. I want to get through from, say, Johannesburg to Edenvale. I do not want to get through from Cape Town to New York by direct dialling. Nor can that be done at present. But now I come to the point in connection with …

Is there anyone in the country who wants to speak to you?

Unfortunately, yes. And unfortunately they speak about the lack of telephone services and unfortunately they cannot get through half the time. But here are the facts. At the end of December, 1966, there was a shortage of 44,000 telephones in the country. The shock came on Tuesday in the form of the reply given by the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. I asked him what the shortage of telephones was at present. His reply was, not 44,000, but 54,000. This was the position after the rates had been increased and after further millions of rands had been taken from the pockets of the ordinary taxpayer and telephone subscriber in South Africa. Is that an improvement?

The hon. the Prime Minister also knows that in the State President’s opening address, which the Government is of course responsible for, it was stated that the Post Office was now going to be run on business principles. I am glad to hear the admission. Is it the position that it was not run on business principles before? May I ask the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs? Quite possibly that is the position. But then on Tuesday I again asked the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs whether anything had been done in connection with the Wiehahn Report, which stated that there would now be better services and that the Post Office must now be run on business lines. Had anything been done yet? He told me that the Government was still considering the matter. In other words, we heard the State President’s address that the Post Office was going to be run on business lines, but the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs tells me that he does not know yet. The Government is still thinking about it. But now we have at last heard from the hon. the Prime Minister that we are going to get it, that the Post Office is going to be run on business lines. I hope that we shall get particulars from the hon. the Prime Minister or the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs in this connection. We hope that legislation will be introduced, and we hope that positive action will be taken in connection with something about which the Government has apparently again changed its policy and adopted the United Party policy. How long have we not been pleading for it on this side? I can show the hon. the Minister in Hansard. How long have we not been pleading on this side of the House to have the Post Office run on business principles? That the profits made by the Post Office must be used to the benefit of the ordinary telephone subscriber is the United Party’s policy, and I am surprised that no less a person than the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, the leader of the “verkramptes” on that side, is the one to adopt such a good bit of United Party policy. It was going to come some time or other.

If you talk like that, it seems to me that Die Kruithoring was the mouthpiece of the United Party.

No, I understand that Die Kruithoring is no longer even the mouthpiece of the Nationalist Party. Its mouthpiece is at present, I understand, officially Die Burger, probably because I am no longer with it. I think the Prime Minister will admit that Die Burger is far stronger now when it discusses policy matters than Die Vader land or Dagbreek—or the Sunday Times.

To continue, the argument in the past years has always been: We admit that there is a shortage of telephones, but what can we do about it, because there is no money; we admit that there is dissatisfaction among the workers in the Post Office, but there is no money and those people must be patient and the public must be patient. I have studied the latest figures. The Post Office is an active organization. It makes a good deal of money. During the first nine months of last year the Post Office showed a R12 million greater surplus of income over expenditure than in the same period of the previous year. It is R12 million better off, but is the public better off in respect of services, or is the public worse off? Let me go further. Is the Post Office staff better off? Can you name me one organization in the whole of South Africa, Sir, in which the workers are paid overtime at a rate of up to 40 per cent below the rate at which they are paid for their normal duty? In all other industries the worker gets up to one and a half times as much for overtime as for normal duty, but not in the Post Office, where the people have to work 10 million hours overtime per year. Then they call themselves the friends of the workers! In an interjection earlier to-day the hon. the Prime Minister said that the representatives of the postal workers had not gone over the head of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs in approaching him. I accept that. I do not know whether they forced the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs to accompany them or whether the Minister led them, but I do know that it is almost unheard of for a Minister to be unable to solve his problems and for him and his workers to have to go to the Prime Minister to try and find a solution. I cannot think of a similar instance in the history of South Africa. I do not say that the Minister was by-passed in this case. I assume that the Minister was consulted in the matter, and that the Prime Minister also consulted his colleague in the matter, but it remains a very strange phenomenon. There is no money, but I have referred to the R12 million more made by the Post Office in a evenue of R102 million in the first nine months of last year, and to-day we had to hear how they were going to carry out their Bantustan policy, regardless of the cost.

That is because it is the right policy.

For the right policy they are prepared to pay, but is it not the correct policy to look after the Post Office workers and to give the telephone subscribers better services? We on this side silently classify hon. members opposite into those who are open and those who are closed—it is the new terminology—but there is a third class too, and the hon. the Chief Whip belongs to that. It is the class of persons who are both open and closed, and I say that because his mouth is so often the former while his intellect is the latter.

I think we have put our finger on one of the weakest links in the Government at present which weakens the whole chain. No wonder the country is asking when the Government is again going to make a sensible change of policy. When are they going to introduce television? I am waiting for the day when the Prime Minister will make that great announcement, although he will say that there is no change of policy. I do not know whether the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs will be the person to introduce it. The fact remains that we are making our country look ridiculous in the eyes of the rest of the world by this refusal to introduce television. The Natal Daily News recently held a referendum in Natal. It was undertaken as a public service by their writer “Wayfarer”, who held this referendum among his readers to determine whether they wanted television or not. The number in favour of television was approximately 4.500 and against, about 80—a ratio of 50 to 1. I make bold to say that in South Africa as a whole this is the ratio of persons wanting television. But let us clear this matter up; it can be done so easily. Let us hold a referendum among the listeners in South Africa. It is easy to do so. A referendum of all the listeners in South Africa was held as long ago as 20 years—yes or no. I challenge the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs.

You cannot even convince a gathering of women, much less the public.

I do not know what the hon. the Minister is referring to. But let the common sense of the people of South Africa decide about the matter. Let the ordinary listeners vote on the matter. Let us on both sides of the House admit how disappointed we were not to have been able to see the wonderful triumphs in sport and medicine and science of our great men overseas and in South Africa in the past years, and how we are virtually ashamed to have a Government that cannot ever bring these things to us in our homes, while the smallest black state in Africa has that privilege which we are denied by the infinite “verkramptheid” of the Minister.

Israel does not have it either.

Does the hon. the Minister not know that Israel has decided to introduce television? She has also had a couple of wars to fight. Is the hon. the Minister prepared, now that Israel has introduced television, to bring it to South Africa as well? Israel now has it, but will we get it?

I have spoken about the weak link in the Cabinet. The unfortunate thing is that this weak link is in fact causing adjacent links to rust. We find that the hon. the Minister is beginning to lay down policy in connection with matters more relevant to his colleagues, and I should like to hear from his colleagues what they think of it. During the past few months the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs has revealed himself as a great critic of the English universities and the policies applied by them. I now ask: Did he consult his colleague the Minister of Education before he made that remark, or did he just take over a part of his colleague’s task of his own accord? I should like to know from the hon. the Minister of Education if he approves of those words which the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs directed against the English-speaking universities of South Africa. I am referring to the speech made by the hon. the Minister at Olifantsfontein when he attacked the four English-speaking universities, when he attacked the professors and the lecturers and said—I do not have the original Afrikaans here, so I am giving the English version—that professors and lecturers were causing the students to identify themselves with primitive barbarians. Mr. Speaker, for a responsible Minister to compare the students of those four universities in public with primitive barbarians or to intimate that they are heading in that direction, is outrageous. I do not know if these are the actual words which the hon. the Minister used.

Do you believe everything you see in the newspapers?

Does the hon. the Minister not believe everything he sees in Die Beeldl But not only that, the hon. the Minister has also taken over some of the duties of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I am referring the his remarks about the American Field Service and his unfriendly remarks about America in that context. It was so unprecedented that the hon. the Minister was criticized by his own newspapers, if I may call Die Burger one of his own newspapers. He was criticized by his own newspapers about his remarks in connection with the American Field Service. Is it really conceivable that someone can stand up and say in public that the Americans are indoctrinating the youth of South Africa and then through some or other fantastically confused logic come to the conclusion that America has designs on the mineral wealth of South Africa and that that is why America is indoctrinating the youth of South Africa by means of the American Field Service? Only in South Africa can such arguments be used. No wonder that his own newspaper, Die Burger, said that this type of argument must cease, that this type of argument is noted in the homes of Americans, the hosts and hostesses of our children, people who would get the shock of their lives if they should see that they were being associated with subversive activities and subversion of the youth of South Africa. But fortunately there is a light of wisdom here and there; fortunately there are men such as Adv. Dawid de Villiers who also gave his reply to the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs.

Mr. Speaker, I am not the one to tell the Prime Minister what he must do in connection with the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. Personally I would in actual fact miss him if he were to leave this Chamber. I am now talking solely from the political point of view, not from the point of view of the interests of South Africa. If we really must look at the interests of South Africa, I think the answer is very clear as to what the hon. the Prime Minister should do in this matter.

I think hon. members of this House surely have the right to expect a certain degree of originality from an hon. member when he makes a speech and also that an hon. member will not repeat an old speech of his year after year. This was the third time I listened to this same speech from the hon. member for Orange Grove. He comes to this House with a number of personal remarks on certain Ministers, with criticism of the Post Office, and then he speaks about television. The hon. member is as fond of television as a baby is of his bottle. Actually there are only two thoughts expressed by the hon. member about which I want to say a few words. He spoke in the first place of changes in the Cabinet. Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Prime Minister has a brilliant team of men in his Cabinet, and if any changes are to be made, he has an equally brilliant team of men in his second line. While looking at the opposite side to-day I was wondering from where the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would get his Cabinet if ever this country were to be unfortunate enough to get him as Prime Minister. He would definitely have to look for people on this side of the House.

The hon. member for Orange Grove also said that his side of the House did not understand one half of the policy of the United Party and that it did not accept the other half. I think the hon. member is bluffing himself and perhaps it is the position that the entire Opposition is bluffing itself that the people cannot understand its policy. In the past they deliberately stated their policy in such a way that it was very difficult to understand, but they have stated it more clearly now. I just want to tell the hon. member that their policy in respect of racial affairs is crystal clear. The people outside know that their policy or its ultimate object does not differ substantially from that of the hon. member for Houghton. What their policy amounts to is that integration will be practised in this House and that such integration will continue until the white man will no longer be master in his own Parliament.

I should like to come back to what the hon. member for Yeoville said yesterday. In a very dramatic fashion he quoted an incident which had allegedly taken place in my constituency, at Despatch. He held the incident up as an example of how the white workers have turned against this Government. Sir, I should like to rectify the statement of the hon. member because it differs somewhat from what really happened. The light in which he views this matter is merely wishful thinking, just as they have so often indulged in wishful thinking in the past. For example, the hon. member for Newton Park predicted recently at Port Elizabeth that there would be a serious split in the ranks of the National Party and that its members would disperse during the course of this year. The hon. member for Yeoville indulged in the same wishful thinking when he spoke about this incident. Sir, it is pathetic when a party is so bankrupt that it has to jump at such an incident which occurred quite innocently.

Which incident was that?

The one which occurred at Despatch when the workers of Despatch allegedly staged a walk out. It is pathetic when the deputy-leader of the Opposition has to jump at such an incident in order to hold it up as a motion of no-confidence in the Government. What actually happened there, was that the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs and of Labour addressed a meeting at Despatch. It was a very orderly meeting. The people were given full opportunity to put questions. They were satisfied that they had been given full opportunity to put questions. Thereupon a motion of full confidence in the Government and in the speakers was adopted. The motion was carried unanimously and without any commotion. The chairman then asked someone from the audience to speak a few words of thanks and at that stage five or six people got up and left in an orderly fashion.

They were asked to come back and they did not do so.

There was no demonstration; there was no protest against the policy of the Government. Neither was it meant as an insult to the hon. the Minister. Those concerned were people who were not residents of Despatch; I want to put that quite clearly. Those people were not workers from Despatch; neither were they registered members of the constituency of Algoa. Probably they were people who had come from Uitenhage and who had to leave by bus; I do not know. But I want to tell the hon. member for Yeoville that the workers of Despatch are Nationalists. I want to challenge him now. If he thinks there are workers who are dissatisfied with the policy of this Government it gives him the opportunity to come and hold a meeting at Despatch. I want to extend a cordial invitation to him to come to Despatch. I want to give him the assurance that there he will get the political thrashing of his life. I do not think he will find ten people who support his party amongst the 4,000 voters of Despatch. If the loyalty of the workers of Despatch, which was cited by the hon. member for Yeoville, is to serve as an example of how loyal and faithful the workers are towards this Government, the future for the Opposition promises to be even blacker than before.

Mr. Speaker, the people outside have learnt that they can no longer have any confidence in hon. members opposite. This motion under discussion deals with no confidence in this Government. I think we should reverse the motion for a change and ask whether hon. members of the Opposition are still fulfilling their role in the true sense of the word. They have become so few and they are such a small group now that it prevents this House from functioning on a proper democratic basis any longer. The people have lost confidence in the Opposition. They have lost confidence in the Leader of the Opposition. That is quite clear. The simple reason why the people do not trust the United Party any longer is that there is no singleness of purpose, that their policy has no ultimate goal and that there are no positive statements of policy. How can the people have any confidence in a party which for 20 years has been opposing, although in a very pious manner, separate voters’ rolls tooth and nail on grounds of principle as well as on moral grounds and which has now simply accepted separate voters’ rolls as part of its policy at a congress? What meaning do all those hypocritical protests of the United Party have now? What is the meaning of all its promises to the Coloureds in this connection? How can the nation possibly trust people who do things like that? How can the people possibly have confidence in a leader who announced a new colour policy for his party with so much ado and acclamation barely three months ago? The party’s newspapers joyfully announced the new policy in banner headlines. They said, “Now, for the first time since 1948, the Nationalist Party will be forced on the defensive. The change in policy will embarrass the Government seriously”. But then this same Leader who challenged the Prime Minister on various matters and who was only too swaggering before his own people barely three months ago, remained absolutely silent when he had to appear in this arena before the nation to put and defend his policy as an alternative policy which would be followed by an alternative government, that policy which was supposed to embarrass this Government. On the contrary, without any positive statement of policy the hon. Leader stood in this House like a Jeremiah of old and complained bitterly about all the problems and difficulties he foresaw for the future of separate development. It reminded me of the text from the Scripture quoted here by the hon. Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education, namely, “The slothful man saith, ‘There is a lion in the way’”. One can naturally criticize the implementation of the policy of development of each population group along its own lines. It naturally presents difficulties and problems. The policy can naturally not solve our multiracial problems within one day or one year or even within ten years. As a matter of fact, there are problems everywhere in the world where different population groups have to live together in the same country. The problem of relations between people and nations is the major problem of our century. This is no easy matter; this is not a problem which can be solved easily. Look what is happening in England, in Algeria and in the U.S.A. But this is precisely what the United Party’s major problem is. The United Party wants to evade all problems; it wants to push aside all difficulties. It tries to find an even road without any potholes; it tries to find a policy without problems. That is why they formulate a new policy every time and after they have advanced a little along that road and have met with problems they turn back and look for another policy. That is why they have once again adopted a new policy, and that is why they once again remain silent about that policy. Possibly they are once again engaged in shelving that policy. They believe in “Let things develop”. They want to follow an easy policy where they can continually yield to the pressure until they reach the stage where they have to capitulate and where the white man will no longer be master in his own Parliament in his own fatherland.

As against that this party pursues a policy which does indeed demand great sacrifices, a policy which has many obstacles and many problems to be solved. The people nevertheless trust this party because they know that this party is pursuing a policy which has an ultimate goal, the stage where the various nations in South Africa will be living peacefully next to one another, each one in its own area and each one under its own government.

A pipe dream.

For that hon. member it might be a “pipe dream”; for the Leader of the Opposition it might be a farce; it might be an illusion. But for this party and the people it serves it is a matter of the utmost seriousness. White survival rests on that and on that alone. The future of all the people, Whites and non-Whites, within the borders of our country rests on that and on that alone. There will be problems, and adjustments will have to be made continually. But the broad principles of development for each group along its own lines will never be violated or changed because only this policy holds the formula for racial peace in this country. This party has the driving force, the intellectual strength and the pluck to continue with this policy and to tackle and solve problems as they present themselves. This party is not afraid of the lion that may be lurking on the road. This party is not afraid of hardships and sacrifices, because the future of the Whites and the non-Whites is at stake. I want to tell the hon. Leader that the people of South Africa are more squarely behind this party and its young and dynamic leader than ever before. The people of South Africa, Whites as well as non-Whites, believe in this party and in its leaders because they know this party and its leader to be honest and sincere in formulating its ultimate objects. This party has no ulterior motives and it does not look in various fashions for ways and means to bluff and deceive people. This party is pursuing a policy which has an ultimate object, an ultimate aim and an ideal which is worth pursuing.

The road of integration on which the United Party has set out will be totally rejected by the people, not only by the Whites of this country but likewise by the non-Whites. Development along their own lines is being accepted by the non-Whites to-day to a greater extent than ever before. It is a fact that people who have contact with Coloureds and Bantu find that the non-Whites trust this Government and that they accept the policy of development along their own lines. This they do because such a policy offers them something they have never had before, something which they will never be able to get under the policy of that party. The days are past when the black man endeavoured to be a carbon-copy of the white man, not only in this country, but also in the U.S.A. In this connection I want to refer to w at H. F. Sampson wrote in an article which appeared in the Eastern Province Herald of 22nd January, 1968. He writes as follows—

The fact of the matter is that this way of thinking has actually originated among the Negro élite, among the educated Negroes, and not in the ghettos of New York. This shows how foolish it is of propagandists in this country to try and make an integrated white man of the Bantu. This shows the foolishness which will lead to the Bantu in this country being subject to the same frustrations experienced by the Negroes in America.

The hon. member for Hillbrow said, “Economics is the life-blood of a nation.” To me it is a great tragedy that a speaker with exceptional intellectual powers and knowledge should say that the economy should dictate the survival of a nation. In fact, economics is a product of the culture of a people and the culture of a people is utilized in the interests of and to the advantage of that particular people. The economy is only a minor part of the culture. How can one then expect the economy to dictate how the survival of a nation should be arranged and guided. It would indeed be a tragic day if that should happen. But apparently that is the political philosophy of hon. members opposite. According to them everything must be made subordinate to what the economy dictates. I want to tell the hon. member that this side of the House is equally desirous that everything should be well with the country economically. That side of the House created the wrong impression here that this side of the House was prepared to face poverty if only the Whites could survive. We should also like to have wealth if we could have it together with the survival of the Whites. We say, however, that if we were to choose, we would in all respects prefer to safeguard our White skin even though it would be at the expense of our economy because, Sir, the economy should be made subordinate to the destiny of the nation.

I say it would be disastrous if a party which has a philosophy like that should ever get into power. Fortunately we know it will never happen and we know we may sleep peacefully at night. I know want to appeal to the hon. Leader and other hon. members opposite. If they continue to advocate the policy they stand for now, their numbers of this House will dwindle even further, and that will make it almost impossible to carry on the democratic proceedings in this House. For that reason I want to put it to the hon. Leader, who is a very sensible person, that he should not allow himself to be guided by people like the hon. member for Hillbrow but that he should put the interests of the nation of this country first and that he should determine his political philosophy accordingly.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who just sat down, questioned the attitude adopted by the hon. member for Hillbrow, namely that economics is the life-blood of a nation. I believe that in this debate we are giving hon. members on the other side a chance to explain to us just where the hon. member for Hillbrow erred in his statement and his attitude. I listened to the hon. member who has just sat down, and he said nothing at all. I have listened to other hon. members on that side to see how they will refute the statement of the hon. member for Hillbrow. I am waiting to hear how white South Africa is going to continue to exist if the present road is pursued, unless we have the co-operation of Black South Africa. In this respect we have heard absolutely nothing from hon. members on that side. They have by-passed and glossed over this problem completely. That is the problem which faces us in this country, namely how to build a country in this geographical area which is called the Republic of South Africa, a country in which white South Africa and Black South Africa can survive. In order to have adequate time to deal with this tomorrow, I move—

Agreed to.