I move, as an unopposed motion—

We were all very shocked when we heard of the unexpected, sudden death of our colleague, Tossie Barnett. I think that we can rightly refer to him as a friendly member who went through life with laughter in his eyes. I can further state that he was well liked by all of us. Apart from sitting in this House for many years, almost ten years, as representative of the Coloured people in the Boland constituency, he served in the Provincial Council for close on to nine years, and in the Cape Town City Council for 31 years. In addition he also rendered valuable services to this House in his capacity as Whip. He served the interests of the Coloured people, as he saw it, to the best of his ability. He was always willing to plead their cause in and outside this House and to render assistance wherever he possibly could. We tender our heartfelt sympathy to his wife and his family and commend them to the mercy of Almighty God on this day.

Sir, we on this side of the House associate ourselves with the words that have come from the hon. the Prime Minister in respect of our departed friend, Tossie Barnett. One is reminded of the words of the poet “All affairs of men hang by a slender thread”. He was here yesterday, Sir; he was in this House. He greeted his friends; he spoke of his ambitions and his desires for the future. I think there have been few men in this House who have exerted their abilities more for the underdog than Tossie Barnett. I think there have been few members in this House who have had the sense of humour which he had. He was approachable. He tackled the most difficult task in an essentially human and intelligent way. He was a personality who found his own particular niche in this House. I am sure the hon. the Prime Minister will agree with me when I say that he fought fearlessly for what he thought was right and yet he made no enemies because all knew that he was sincere. He was battling for what he believed to be the right answer. His criticisms were very sharp at times but he made no enemies. People understood him; they knew that he was fighting for something in which he really believed. I think, Sir, we have lost a member who was truly representative of the people whom he represented in this House and we want to associate ourselves particularly with this motion of sympathy to his wife and family who sacrificed so much for what he believed were his ideals. He gave a great deal, he sacrificed a lot. We shall miss him. I second the motion.

Sir, for me this is a particularly sad occasion indeed. To-day I mourn the loss of a life-long friend and a very loyal colleague. Charles Barnett, more affectionately known to most of us—indeed to all of us in this House—as Tossie, was closely associated with me for very many years. Although my senior in age by a couple of years, we first met as school boys at the old Normal College at Cape Town where we both matriculated. We were articled to the same firm of attorneys and qualified from the same legal office. We spent over a quarter of a century together as members of the Cape Town City Council; my old friend then followed me into the Cape Provincial Council, and from 1958, as the hon. the Prime Minister has pointed out, he became associated with me as a representative of the Coloured people in this House. It must be obvious that by reason of my long association with him, I am in the envious position of being able to speak of his many attributes. The shock, however, of his sudden death, is so close upon us, that it is not possible for me now to speak of his many attributes. I must confine myself of necessity to what I regard as his outstanding virtue, and that is his deep sense of loyalty to his friends. Speaking for myself, I would say that no man had a more sincere friend or a more loyal colleague. I personally will miss him very much indeed, and I am sure that this House will miss him. It will miss his ready sense of humour to which reference has already been made, and his friendliness, about which the hon. the Prime Minister has spoken, with every section of the House. I am sure that everyone will agree with me that during his ten years of service in this House he did not incur the enmity or the disfavour of a single member. He was one of the friendliest and kindest of men that it has been my privilege to know.

Our thoughts at this time naturally turn to his dear wife and children, whom he has left behind, and it is our fervent prayer that the Almighty may sustain all of them in this very sad period of affliction. I wish to identify myself with the motion before the House.

Motion agreed to unanimously, all the members standing.

Mr. Speaker, it is neither an easy nor pleasant task to have to take up the cudgels again after the moment of solemnity we have just passed through which serves to remind all of us that we sit here in the presence of Death. But it is our task to get on with the job, and it is our task to try to drub some sense into the heads of the Government. I wonder sometimes what kind of explosive force one needs to do it. But we have noticed that since we adjourned last night the winds of change have been blowing and they have been blowing on the Government benches on the other side.

It is noticeable that the first wind of change which blew in South Africa was touched off this side feel that the second wind of change by a speech made by a Britisher. But we on was touched off by a speech made by a ware Afrikaner, and that was the speech made last evening by the hon. member for Orange Grove. That speech left no doubt whatever in the mind of the hon. the Prime Minister that he was no longer able to leave the care of the Post Office in the hands of the hon. Minister who had been relieved of that responsibility. We on this side feel that we are grateful to the Prime Minister and we are quite sure that if he continues to accept the coaching which we give him from this side, this Session will go very well for this side of the House.

The second wind of change is a wind of change which is gusting through the post offices and the business houses and the homes of South Africa, because the people hope that from to-day we will have a modern approach to the provision of telephone and other postal facilities to South Africa. Mr. Speaker, I want to impress upon the new Minister of Posts and Telegraphs the tremendous responsibility that rests upon him to attempt now to tone up the services which this country rightly demands. In order to give him a chance, we are prepared to ask the hon. member for Orange Grove to leave him in peace for a few weeks. We feel that two weeks is a fairly appropriate time. We have not yet had a chance to assess the capabilities of the new Minister, but we are quite sure that he will take an early opportunity, perhaps even in this debate, to announce his policy in regard to that amenity of civilization which has been denied us for so long, namely a television service. This Minister has a chance to establish himself in the halls of immortality of South Africa and we urge him to take it.

Mr. Speaker, the question before the House is a motion of no confidence in this Government by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I should like to return to this question in the way in which I approached it yesterday evening by pointing out that the Government has made no attempt, neither the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration nor any of his deputies, to explain to South Africa what they intend to do about the continuing integration of the black man into the economic life of white South Africa. This is the problem with which we are faced. If there were no integration of the black man into the economic life of white South Africa, the Minister could quite easily remove them. In fact the Deputy Ministers concerned could remove them between them because the Deputy Minister of Agriculture could feed the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration with beans and lend him his wheelbarrow and then the problem would be solved in no time. But it was quite rightly stated by the hon. member for Heilbron that this is not a physical problem but a human problem. We have waited and listened throughout this debate to hear what the Government intends to do and when they intend to start separation. After the 20 years that this Government has been in power, we want to know where separation is. Where does this separation begin? What answers have they got to the problems which are posed by the continuing integration of the Bantu into the white economic society? The policy of separate development which they propose is fraudulent in concept because the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration has denied repeatedly that there is integration of any kind between the Bantu and the Whites. He will not accept that as a fact. He nods his head and persists in saying that there is no integration between White and Black. It is of course to-day more of a reality than ever before. There are to-day, as the hon. member for Pinelands pointed out, over 4 million Bantu residing in the urban areas, that is more than the total white population of South Africa. Bantu are gainfully employed in the lives of every one of the white people in South Africa and we need them. How can we do without them? If this is not integration, then what is it? If the Government does not face the problem, what does it intend to do?

I believe that this is a kind of dream. The Government is living in a dream. The Minister himself and all the hon. the Deputy Ministers and the Minister of Planning have all been called in to give this dream some kind of reality but they are working in a vacuum because they will not face the facts. The sooner they face the facts the better. Integration is taking place in so-called white areas, but what is the solution the Government proposes? The Government wants to move the integration somewhere else. It will still be in white areas, but the Bantu will be living across a theoretical border line in what are called their own homelands. What all this means is that the Government is deliberately penalizing established industrial areas, the areas of the Witwatersrand and the Western Cape which produce the bulk of the wealth of South Africa. These areas have got to produce the wealth that this hon. Minister dismisses with an airy wave of his hand, that he will spend regardless of the cost. He will suck those people dry to carry out a policy which he calls border area development, which solves no problem at all. If it solves the problem the people of South Africa would not have minded paying the price, but how does it solve the problem? Because there are still in the border areas the two factors which make up integration, namely white capital and white skill and Bantu labour. They are still there. They have not moved anything. They have not changed anything. I wonder whether this Government is serious at all in saying that it is attempting to solve the problem, because if it were making serious attempts, it would be working flat out to provide an alternate economic source of life for the Bantu population.

The hon. member for Algoa last night took objection to the fact that my hon. friend from Hillbrow said that economics is the life-blood of a nation. But how does that hon. member expect the Bantu people to survive if they are going to turn their backs on them and force them to go apart and away from the white man? How are they going to survive and live?

What have you done for them?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asks what am I going to do. I want to know what this Government is going to do. Not one single speaker, not any one of them, has told us up till to-day what they intend to do about this problem that we have. [Interjections.] Hon. members say that the Bantu must develop in their own direction. Can they tell us now in what direction that is? Can they understand what they are asking the Bantu to do? We, the white people in this country, have from the beginning, from the first time we met the Bantu, extended our control, our civilization, our way of thought, what we call Western Christian civilization, over them, firstly by conquest and to-day by the incentive that we provide by our economy. We have extended it over them to a point where we have captured the imagination of the Bantu people. And if we are going to survive at all as a white group here at this Southern end of Africa, this is what we have got to do. We have to grasp hold of the imagination and the mind of Black Africa and show them there is something else other than the status and the way of life which pertains in the African countries which these hon. members continue to throw out in our faces. Because if we turned our backs on them and they go in their own direction, forced to do so by this Government, not of their volition, but forced apart by the Government, if they go in the direction of Black Africa, where is our security? How can we survive as a white group at this southern tip of Africa if we are going to force the Bantu people now to go in the direction of black Africa, if we are going to deny them the opportunities that they have to-day from us because of their association with us. Do we expect these people to develop in a Western and a Christian direction? Do hon. members expect the Bantu to develop in a Western and Christian direction, do they believe that the white man has a mission here to fulfil? Do they not believe that the measure of the fulfilment of our mission will guarantee our security, and that if we fail, our security will fail? Is that not the truth of what we are doing here? We are trying to establish a bastion for the Western world, which is going to prove vital. The hon. Minister of Planning, who has been outside and has seen how these things look from other shores, can tell you that I am speaking the truth, namely that a bastion for the white. European Western civilization in Africa is vital. How are these hon. members establishing that bastion for Western civilization here in South Africa? [Interjection.] What they are doing is saving to the Bantu: Go in your own direction, back to the primitiveness, back to the squalor and ignorance of Africa, [Interjections.] Of course they are. they are saving to the Bantu people that they must go away. That is what they are saying. How do they expect the white man to survive here in this country on a basis like that? They have not told us that, and I want to know.

Perhaps hon. members opposite can tell me how they see the future of the Bantu people in South Africa. Do they see them as tribal people, or are they going to be regarded as individuals? Because, surely, the one thing the white man has done here in the southern area of Africa is to create a permanent class of individual Bantu, resident in urban areas and employed by industry. This is the only place in Africa where that has happened. We have done it whilst no one else in Africa has done the same. We have done that by giving them an incentive—something to live for and something to hope for. That is one thing white South Africa has done, i.e. to reach out to these people and to give them something to live for and to hope for. Let me now ask hon. members opposite whether they like to see the Bantu developing as individuals, as members of an industrial society? Or must they go back to tribalism, to what other African countries to the north are offering?

We hear from the opposite side that it is the Government’s intention that these Bantu should be employed in their homelands. But what incentives have they created for the Banu, or for anybody else for that matter, to invest money, for insance, in those areas? The hon. the Deputy Minister came here with figures from a bank showing its turnover to be in the neighbourhood of R1¼ million. Well, to a large extent that money is money paid to white civil servants in the Transkei who repatriate their money to their own homeland. It does, therefore, not remain in the Bantu homeland at all.

The percentage of white civil servants in the Transkei is much lower than what it used to be.

Let me tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that most of that money goes back to the white homeland and does not remain in the black homeland. The Government should set about creating a real alternative economy for the Bantu, something for the Bantu to do in their homelands. From the hon. member for Durban (Point) we have heard of the costs involved—R1,250 million per annum.

If I were you I would take that figure with a pinch of salt.

Sir, I shall accept it with a pinch of salt if it comes from the other side of the House. Then one may well accept it with a pinch of salt. This separation story with which hon. members opposite have been feeding South Africa for so long now has by now worn through. They have failed to justify this separation story; they have given no indication of when they are going to start or what they intend doing. Now the catchword is “Planning!” and we now have a new department which is going to make apartheid, separate development and separate freedoms a reality. We have got a new Minister who has come to put it right for us and he is going round the country posing as a fairy godmother, although he is a little substantial for a fairy godmother. By a nod of his head he can create industries in certain areas, set the hearts of city councillors aflutter and create a boom in land values because he can assign certain industries to certain areas. I want to know from hon. members opposite whether they realize how desperately serious the situation is.

What does your own chamber of industries have to say?

I am coming to that right now. Do hon. members opposite realize how desperately serious it is that practically the whole of Natal has been declared a border area? This may bring us a temporary economic advantage but we shall have to pay a political price for it. There is a political price that Natal shall have to pay for the advantage it will reap from border industries. That political price is the fact that we will be swallowed up in an independent Zulu state. I know the Chamber of Industries will accept all the temporary advantage they can get from the hon. the Deputy Minister because they do not expect him to carry out his policy. [Interjections.] As I was saying, Natal shall have to pay a political price and that price is an independent Zulu state surrounding every single major area in Natal—every single major urban area, every single farming area is to-day being cut across by Bantu areas which will become part of an independent Zulu homeland. Mr. Speaker, you know as well as I do the history of Natal, of how a settlement was made on the basis of what is called a “gridiron”—the Bantu were to be settled amongst the Whites so that the influence of the Whites could civilize the Bantu. But, Sir, a gridiron is a thing for frying raw meat, and this is the prospect which we in Natal have under this Government if its policies are to be carried out. We are not quite as raw as some hon. members opposite think. But this is offering a challenge to which this Government has no answer.

Let me ask hon. members opposite, let me ask the hon. the Deputy Minister in particular whether he will take R500 million to-day to establish an industrial complex in a country such as Tanzania? I do not think he will. And yet to-day there are thousands of millions of rand to be invested in Natal, in an area which is indefensible should this policy of the Government be carried out. That is the position. I think it is important for us to realize that the hon. the Minister of Planning is here to carry out that policy and that there are certain temporary advantages to be derived from it. We must realize that this is the intention of the Government. When the hon. member for South Coast asked the hon. the Minister of Planning whether he could guarantee our security in Natal he said he could. I shall be very grateful to learn how he intends doing that. Our problem is quite a simple one—to contain in this geographical area which we call South Africa different racial groups which to-day are mutually inter-dependent, because neither can survive without the other. This is a problem to which this Government must provide a solution. They have now been talking for 20 years and have not come near any solution yet. What in fact do they propose? They propose cutting out from this geographical area which we call South Africa independent states. But this is turning their backs on the problem; it is running away from it; it means that we are abandoning that which the white man has been put here to do. I believe a very great responsibility rests upon this Prime Minister and on members of his party. They should at least see the wisdom of what my party suggests …

What do you propose?

… by means of a federal system. If the hon. member for Heilbron would only listen he might be able to hear. That might help him a bit. The federal system being proposed by the United Party is able to hold together in this country of ours people who to-day are together, because nobody can deny that to-day they are together. Or do hon. members on the opposite side deny this fact? Do they deny that to-day white and black people are living together in South Africa and are dependent on each other? But is that not a fact? Of course, it is a fact. If you have a policy to undo that, who will benefit? Is not the onus on the Government to show that it will be benefiting both White and Black? He will not benefit anybody at all by attempting to sever the relations between them. The Minister is trying to sever those relations. Perhaps he can tell us what the policy of separate development is all about. If he is not attempting to separate White and Black, what is he trying to do? I am afraid I do not quite understand the hon. the Deputy Minister He has been talking about separate development and separate freedoms and apartheid, and this has been going on for 20 years, but he is not trying to separate White and Black.

He stands for integration.

This is a most productive debate. We are now getting something from the hon. the Deputy Minister; separation is the same as integration. What we have got to achieve is amicable co-operation between White and Black, and this party of mine is convinced that a federal system such as we advocate can do it. That is far preferable to the idea hon. members opposite have, of trying to cut adrift the Bantu population. The only way to get security is to offer the Bantu population something more than they can see anywhere else in Africa, something which offers them more than anything they can get under the communist system, something which offers them an incentive and a chance to go ahead. That can only be done by white leadership. Surely that is self-evident. [Interjections.] We have here some hon. members opposite, particularly the hon. member for Algoa, who almost went into a quake saying that there might be one or two black members in this House, but has the Nationalist Party forgotten the Commonwealth which they proposed at one time, and where it is still the proposal to have eight black Prime Ministers in the same commonwealth with one white Prime Minister? Why do not the hon. members quake in their boots at that thought? Will we have the majority and the strength? I am afraid that the hon. members must come forward with a far more logical and detailed thinking out of what they propose to do in order to ward off a motion of no confidence like this one which was so correctly moved by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

I can well understand that hon. members opposite are very pleased now that a wish they have had for as long as eight years has now been granted, although only partially. I do not think that there are many more of their wishes that will ever be fulfilled again. Nor do I believe that the reasons why they are rejoicing so will be of much use to them. Their wish was granted because of other considerations. I do not wish to go into that. But first of all I just want to come back to the hon. member for Orange Grove and deal with a minor detail in his attack on me.

In his speech he attacked me, inter alia, on what I was supposed to have dared to say about the American Field Service, and to prove the validity of his attack he called in Dawie as well as Dirk Richard. He said Dawie had asked how often we would still have to listen to new attacks on the American Field Serivce, after attacks had already been made on the American Field Service in the past. He said that Dawie had said that the Prime Minister was fond of making changes afer a Parliamentary session, and that the best time for doing so was in August. He was alluding to me. Now, the sin I committed in Dawie’s eyes and the sin the hon. member is imputing to me, is that I attacked the American Field Service after I had already done so in the past. But if any organization is doing harm, is it enough if we simply attack it once and then permit it to continue? If there was an organization which, for instance, physically assaulted the children of our country, would it be my duty to tell them once only to refrain from doing so and subsequently to permit them to do so? Would that not be an abominable neglect of duty on the part of each of us? When an evil is being perpetrated, is it not our duty to go on fighting it until that evil has been stopped? Now you will ask me whether the American Field Service is doing any harm. Let me read to you from one of the authoritative sources from America, Professor Edwin S. Munger’s “Notes on the Formation of South African Foreign Policy”. In that publication Professor Munger deals with all the powerful influences brought to bear by America for the purpose of persuading the population of South Africa to abandon their traditional policy and to liberalize themselves. This is what he says in his book, written in 1965. He mentions five major organizations. He calls it “the major feed-back” of the liberalistic influence on our people, and says—

He names them and he says that the American Field Service is one of them. Then he continues to say—

Here we have the evidence of one of the American experts in this field, i.e. to try to liberalize Afrikaners and to persuade them to abandon their policy.

Is that why you refused him a visa?

The hon. member is always trying to divert attention. Then he says another thing—

When the American child is sent to South Africa to accomplish this interaction he is not sent to a pro-Government family but to an anti-Government family.

How many pro-Government families want to receive them?

He goes on to say—

It is not I who am saying that, but an expert who continually visits South Africa, an expert on the influences for liberalizing our population, and he states how this American Field Service works. Quite innocently they are placing the children with just the right families, those families who are applying gradual pressure—not that those poor host parents are always aware of it.

Do you base your whole obsession on that book?

It is, after all, my duty and also the duty of each of us—if we do not want our nation to be liberalized, if we do not want to allow the traditional views of the youth of our nation to be undermined, our principles of apartheid to be undermined—to counter the influence of the American Field Service, and if people attack one, as hon. members opposite are doing, because on several occasions one dares to point this out and insist on a stop being put to it, then surely, they are trying to hamstring one so that one may not put a stop to those influences; then surely they are identifying themselves with the view that one wants to liberalize the Afrikaner boys and girls and the English-speaking boys and girls, that one wants to brainwash them. If hon. members opposite are of that opinion, then I can understand why, whenever anybody speaks against the American Field Serivce, they are simply trying to squash him and why they are doing everything in their power to try to squash him, because the longer the American Field Service can continue, the more they succeed in neutralizing our point of view.

Mr. Speaker, I was struck by the fact that the hon. member for Orange Grove called Dawie as a witness. I would not take Dawie as a witness whose point of view represents that of the National Party. I do not think that that is the point of view of one single member on this side of the House; I do not think that that is the point of view of the large majority of the white population of South Africa, and if Dawie has to play the part of trying to silence one if one dares to point out those factors which are harmful to our nation, then Dawie’s point of view is the same as that of those people.

The hon. member went further. He also quoted Dirk Richard in the same vein. I say the same thing to Dirk Richard. If Dirk Richard propagates the view that one should criticize any person who opposes liberalizing influences amongst one’s people, then he is propagating the United Party’s point of view, not that of the people of South Africa.

What about Dawid de Villiers? [Interjections.]

I shall say this quite impartially to anybody, even to a company of which I am a director, because it is definitely wrong. I shall not be ashamed of criticizing such a person, even if he is a person employed in a company of which I may be a director.

Let me deal with the substantial charges the hon. member made against me, because this was mainly an attack on me. His main attack concerned the shortage of telephone services in the country. He mentioned the figure 54,000. That is the figure I gave last year. He remembers very well that I predicted that that figure would still increase, but that we would catch up with the shortage after a short while. There is a shortage of telephones all over the world. In London, in Paris, in Rome, in Tokyo, all over the world there is a tremendous shortage of telephones. In Paris, for instance, there is a shortage of roughly 313,000. In Tokyo there is a shortage of more than two million telephones. But that is not all. Mr. Speaker, since Union the Union was governed by the S.A. Party and the United Party and ever since they started governing our country there has been a shortage of telephones. Since 1910 there has been a shortage of telephones; that was their policy. Let us take a look at the facts. The S.A.P. Government and the United Party Government governed South Africa for approximately 39 years. The National Party has governed the country for approximately 29 years. They were in power for a much longer time than the National Party has been. In the initial years and in the period subsequent to that they laid the foundations on which our system developed. They laid the foundations for the Post Office. They laid down the pattern, the pattern on which the entire machinery of state—the Post Office is an enormous machine —was founded, and they accepted the principle that they would milk the Post Office and that they would invest as little capital as possible in the Post Office. The result was that every time the National Party took over the reins of government it had to make up a tremendous backlog as far as the Post Office was concerned. During the 39 years the United Party governed South Africa they invested a total of approximately R40 million in the Post Office, but during the National Party rule of 29 years we have invested more than R350 million in the Post Office system. Can you see now, Mr. Speaker, how they stinted the Post Office and reduced it in size? Eventually the National Party had to build on that and make the system sound again.

And now it is “verkramp”.

The Prime Minister acted correctly in that respect.

Just as our State, we can regard our Post Office as a structure, as a building. Every new generation and every new government builds on the work that was done in the past, but no government has the time or the energy or the manpower to ascertain whether the foundations are sound every time it wants to build a little higher. The National Government could not go back every time to ascertain whether the United Party had laid sound foundations. Eventually we began to see that the plaster was flaking off, then we discovered that the foundations the United Party had laid, were foundations of sand and mud, unsound foundations, foundations we would have to tackle and lay anew.

The hon. member for Orange Grove said yesterday, “We, the United Party, want to place the Post Office on a business basis”. I do not know what the hon. member means by “business basis”, but if the business basis is that basis on which the Post Office was run when the National Party took it over, then it was exceptionally bad business. But we know that the United Party has always opposed all attempts to place the Post Office on a business basis. Do hon. members opposite wish to deny this? In 1959, just after the Post Office had been entrusted to me, I explained in the Other Place what my views in regard to the Post Office were, where all its shortcomings were to be found. I dealt with that matter at great length. I said that there was only one hope for the Post Office, and that was to place it on a purely business basis. [Interjections.] I had hardly said that when the financial leader of the United Party, the hon. member for Constantia—I do not know whether he was the hon. member for Constantia at the time— got up and this is what he said. He was addressing the hon. the Minister of Finance, and, referring to me, he said—

So he continued. That was his version of what I had said. He said further, whilst addressing the Minister of Finance—

referring to the Minister of Finance—

Here we have that point of view, a point of view we have been hearing non-stop. Every attempt the National Government has made at trying to improve the Post Office, as they are still doing, every time the National Government has tried to remove the old foundations of lime and stone and loose sand and to lay sound foundations instead, hon. members opposite have tried to thwart those attempts.

The National Government did that the moment it became aware of these major shortcomings, and it appointed no fewer than five committees, one after the other, to investigate aspect upon aspect, and where necessary to set those aspects right. We began in 1962 with the Strauss Committee—he is the present Postmaster General—and we ended last year with the Wiehahn Committee. Let me kindly remind hon. members opposite of a certain matter. They insisted on the Post Office being treated as an ordinary department. That was their approach. Surely, that cannot be done with a business undertaking, and the Post Office is after all an intricate business undertaking. That cannot be done with a business undertaking which is totally different from an ordinary department. The Post Office is a business undertaking and the employees are paid for the service they render. They must render immediate service. In the Post Office business cannot be carried on in the same way as it is done in an ordinary Government Department where it does not always matter whether a service is rendered to-day, tomorrow or the day after. It matters a great deal if a telephone call cannot be put through immediately, if a cable cannot be sent immediately, if the money paid in at the counter cannot be taken into receipt immediately. It matters a great deal if all those services cannot be rendered immediately. Immediate service is a very important factor in the Post Office. Consequently such an organization cannot be treated like an ordinary department, surely. After all, it is something special. It must be placed on a particular basis, surely. That is why the circumstances of service in the Post Office are totally different from those of other departments. The Post Office must render a continuous service of 24 hours a day. Hon. members also make telephone calls at night, sometimes in the middle of the night, sometimes in the early morning. They want that service, and it is an essential service. The Post Office functions night and day. Its work comes in great quantities. Overtime has to be worked, and most of its ordinary officials work overtime. Since it also has to do work which is mainly of a routine nature, it means that there has to be a large mass of employees dealing with such routine work, and that there are therefore few control posts. In other words, the pattern of promotion in the Post Office is a very different one. That is why the Post Office cannot be placed on the basis of a Government Department. It has to be placed on the basis of distinctive service. Its posts structure should be peculiar to itself and adapted to its own circumstances. That is why its salary structure must often differ from that of the Public Service.

As a result of these various committees the Post Office has undergone major improvements. Step by step over the past few years the various aspects have been examined one by one, and one improvement after the other has been effected. Major improvements have also been effected as regards organizing staff, as I have just explained. Improvements have been effected as regards transport, buildings, everything. But there has always been one shortcoming, one problem we had to solve, and that problem is that we have had too little capital at our disposal. As I have said, every year there has been a shortage of capital amounting to approximately 12 per cent. These shortages have accumulated. During the previous session I pointed out that one of the new, major causes of the Post Office’s problems was the sudden economic revival in South Africa over the past few years. Tremendous economic expansion has taken place. Inflation appeared on the scene and prices increased. Subsequent to that wages increased. Consequently the capital required for the development projects of the Post Office has steadily become more and more inadequate. It should be borne in mind that over the past few years we have been experiencing inflationary conditions here. These conditions have threatened to do our country a tremendous amount of harm. These conditions have been a threat to our country because, when the value of money decreases and inflation increases, it simply means that every single person suffers. Everybody’s savings disappear, his savings become less in value, his wages become less in value, everything becomes less in value and prices increase continually. It was the duty of this Government to put a stop to that inflation. Consequently the Government could not provide the capital required, the capital that was so necessary to enable the Post Office to meet all those needs. Then the Post Office had to find the required capital by itself. As I explained last year, if we had not found that capital by ourselves, a position would have resulted where in Johannesburg and its environs, for instance, there would have been large areas in which not a single extra telephone could have been installed. Quite a number of automatic exchanges, I think it was 19, simply could not manage a single extra telephone line. We had to find the money. That is why the Government took the drastic step last year whereby the Post Office was allowed to find that money by itself. We found that money by increasing the cost of every local call by one cent. That step was approved by the Government.

The figures in question were quoted here and it was shown that for quite a number of years to come the Post Office would have sufficient capital for expansion. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure the hon. Minister of Health will understand if I do not reply to the major part of his speech. He gave us his wind-up speech as Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, and I do not see any point in continuing on these lines. I would, however, just like to say one or two things to him about his attitude towards the American Field Service, which of course he has attacked consistently in this House over the years. The hon. the Minister really has a bee in his bonnet about the A.F.S. He really does imagine that this is a sinister organization to drag innocent South African children overseas and send them back as confirmed liberals. Of course I personally see nothing wrong at all with people being taught a little liberalism. It would be a very good and sound thing if some of our hopelessly indoctrinated children, particularly those from the Afrikaans-medium schools were to go overseas and see how the other nine-tenths of the world lives and thinks, to obtain a few ideals outside of the narrow Nationalist ideals which they imbibe from a very early age. But this is not in fact the object of the American Field Service. I have not the slightest interest in what Mr. Munger has to say about this Service. I think that the hon. the Minister must really get over his obsession about this particular and excellent Service and try to come out of his seventeenth century isolation into a bit of modern thinking. I understand that travel broadens the mind and that it is very good indeed not only for our young people but also for some of these hon. Ministers to travel abroad, possibly at their own expense, privately, and not on State business where they are confined to the particular job they have to do. They must travel abroad and meet people privately and see just how the world regards them and their particular political philosophy.

To return to the debate itself, we have heard a great deal in this House over the last two days about the illusion of Bantustans. Nothing really new has been said and the same ground has been covered, some of it in great detail and with very good debating points. Obviously it is not necessary for me to go over the same ground again. We all knew from the outset that the development of the Bantustan ideal was not going to succeed. It could never offer opportunities for employment equal to the opportunities offered in the industrial areas of South Africa. I might say that the same applies to border industries with the notable exception of those reserves, which happen, by accident of history, to be reserves adjacent to white cities. It is only by accident of history that Umlazi, for instance, is a reserve and Soweto not a reserve. In 1930 and 1936 the land areas were set out, depending on where the African tribes were living at that time. It so happened that there were large concentrations of Africans living at Umlazi and so Durban is lucky enough to be a border area, but Johannesburg with a huge Bantu population at Soweto cannot share the advantages of having a reserve on its doorstep. Pretoria on the other hand again by an accident of fate has nearby Rosslyn as a border area. As I said before, I do not want to cover this particular theme again as it has been dealt with fully in the past and we are going to spend very many more hours on it in the future. Indeed, it is ironical when one reflects that when the Africans were taken off the common roll in 1936. one of the arguments used was that the whole Native problem, as it was known then, would be taken out of the party political arena. In 1960 when Mrs. Ballinger and the other Natives’ representatives were removed from this House, we were told that this would be a further progression towards the removal of the problem from the party political arena. When I came into this House there was one Minister of Native Affairs, as he was called then; now, interestingly enough, there is a Minister of Bantu Administration, plus two Deputy Ministers of Bantu Administration and at least one aspirant Minister of Bantu Administration. I refer to the hon. member for Heilbron. It therefore seems that this problem is becoming of increasingly more importance in this House. I would estimate that we spend more hours debating this question than we spend debating all other subjects put together which come before this House during a Parliamentary session. I therefore want to leave aside this great illusion of the Bantustans.

I want to turn to another great illusion in South Africa. That is an illusion which pertains more to opposition people, opponents and erstwhile opponents of the Government, who are perhaps weary of fighting this battle over and over again with perhaps not much result as far as the elections are concerned and who are looking for an easier way out. I refer to the great illusion that the Nationalist Government under this Prime Minister is more enlightened than it was under his predecessor. I might say that there is always the hopeful ancillary that not only is this Government more enlightened but its actions are subject to disapproval within the Nationalist Party, in other words the so-called “verkrampte-verligte” split about which we hear all the time. I might say that the recent change in the Cabinet probably promoted further hopeful thinking in this direction. I want to say quite categorically that I do not believe in this “verkrampte-verligte” nonsense at all. I do not believe it for one reason. There are no “verligtes” in the Nationalist Party. The whole of the Nationalist Party consists of “verkramptes” as far as I am concerned, with a few exceptions whom I would call “verkrimptes”. These are one stage worse than the “verkramptes”. One can forget about “verligte” Nationalists completely. I say moreover the few “verkrimptes” do not disagree with the “verkramptes”, the vast bulk of the Nationalist Party, on any of the big crucial racial issues which face this country. They disagree only in regard to the minutiae of policy. This includes questions such as whether we should have immigrants of the Catholic faith coming into this country, whether we should allow Maoris to come here with the All-Blacks, whether we should allow D’Oliveira to come with M.C.C. or whether the Prime Minister should receive a black Malawi diplomat. These are the matters on which they disagree; not the basic racial issue facing this country internally. How anyone can consider this hierarchy to be an enlightened one under the present Prime Minister is absolutely beyond me. The lives of the ordinary non-Whites in this country have not been affected one iota by the small fringe changes which the hon. the Prime Minister has introduced as far as his external policy is concerned. I am going to give some examples of this.

I believe that this present Nationalist Government has gone much further in the implementation of policy than even the late Dr. Verwoerd had ever envisaged. Let us consider for example the Planning Act. There was never the slightest intention, and this was announced over and over again by the late Prime Minister, to have what I call “negative compulsion” to remove to border areas, to try to force the industrialists to move their industries to the borders of the reserves. There was to be enticement but never was there to be compulsion. There were never to be the powers of negative compulsion put in the hands of the present Minister of Planning who has no experience of industrialization, who does not understand anything about the flexibility or adaptability which industrialists have to have, who knows nothing about the immediate entrepreneural decisions which have to be taken. Yet into his hot little hands has been placed the whole fate of the Witwatersrand-Vereniging-Pretoria industrial triangle. The decision is his whether industrialists may expand or establish new factories. This was never envisaged by the late Dr. Verwoerd. This Minister with his three-man band has now got the whole economic fate of South Africa under his control, something which the previous Prime Minister never envisaged. I believe that these dedicated “young” Ministers and Deputy Ministers unfortunately mean what they say and that they are going to try to implement this policy, unlike job reservation where we do not feel the effects to their fullest extent because job reservation has not been implemented. I believe that these Ministers really believe that they can implement this policy, even if this will affect the standard of living of all the people in this country. Secondly, the entire administration of existing laws has become much tougher under this Prime Minister’s Cabinet than it ever was in the past. Africans are being ruthlessly stripped of any rights which they had, certainly as far as permanent settlement in the urban areas is concerned. I shall return to the definition of Section 10 shortly. Coloured, Indian and African settled communities are being ruthlessly uprooted and moved elsewhere with scant compensation and very little accommodation being provided beforehand. It has become very clear indeed during this debate that it is the Government’s intention now to turn the entire African labour force into a migratory force despite all the costly moral and material dislocation that this entails, both in the destruction of family life on the one hand and the tremendous industrial inefficiency on the other, inefficiency because of the vast labour turnover involved in the migratory system. This is also an extension of policy as we knew it under the late Dr. Verwoerd. Whether the Minister of Bantu Administration says that Section 10 confers citizenship rights or not, is irrelevant because all Africans are citizens anyway. All Africans are citizens and I do not know what he is talking about. Section 10 certainly did, and at the moment still does, give rights to some Africans which other Africans do not enjoy. Those are Africans who were born in the urban areas or who have been there for 15 consecutive years or who have been with one employer for ten years. Those Africans enjoy the right to seek work in that area without all the restrictions imposed on other Africans and they may have their families with them under certain conditions.

In that area only.

Yes, of course, I am not denying that it is in that area only. It is a very silly law but that is the law as it stands. It is “in that area only”.

Now those are the rights that Section 10 does give. The section is now under siege for the first time. So this is going a good deal further than any of the legislation before. I might point out that Dr. Verwoerd introduced 30-year leases in the townships. There was no question of a man having to be sent back if he lost his job. There were 30-year leases. I believe that anyway implied a certain degree of permanency for a certain class of African. All this is now under siege by the present verligte Prime Minister and his verligte (bar one) Cabinet. But I say that the whole emphasis is now on turning the entire African labour force into a migratory force—all four members concerned, the Minister, the two Deputy Ministers and the aspirant Deputy Minister, who have spoken in this debate. [Interjections.] Yes, there is always room for an extra Minister. All these four members have made it clear that their interest and their sole interest in Africans begins and ends with the black hands that do the work. They have all made it clear. The man, the woman, the human beings to whom those black hands belong, are absolutely irrelevant, as far as they are concerned. Their aspirations, their desire for a normal family life are also completely irrelevant. [Interjections.] This is epitomized by the absolutely cold-blooded approach in dispatching hundreds upon hundreds of women and children to these isolated, miserable villages in the Queenstown district and elsewhere in the Republic of South Africa, where absolutely no provision of any reasonable standard is made for these people.

[Inaudible.]

“What difference does it make,” said the hon. member for Heilbron yesterday, “if a pensioner draws his pension in Sada instead of in Langa? He does not work, anyway.” What difference does it make if children …

[Inaudible.]

Well, then you should be ashamed of yourself. What difference does it make if children do nothing in Sada, in fact they do nothing anyway in Langa. And what difference does it make if women go to Sada, because they did nothing anyway in the townships?” So the sole criterion, as far as these people are concerned, is the fact that they work; otherwise they have no right whatever to remain in areas where many of them have been for decades. Many of them have simply lost their right of continuity of residence because they have left the area for a short time or for some other reason like that. These people are now going to be turned out.

I wonder, if we suggested sending all white pensioners to rural villages, how many of those hon. members would get back to Parliament? I wonder, if we suggested sending white children to live with their grandmothers in the country districts, how many of those members would get back to Parliament. There is a world of difference in this country between having a vote and a white skin and not having a vote and a black skin, a world of difference. There is all the world of difference between possessing elementary human rights and not having any human rights at all.

The far-reaching way in which the Group Areas Act is being imposed by the Government also goes beyond, not only what the previous Government did, but far beyond what this House intended when the original Act was passed. We were never told that the Group Areas Act was going to be the instrument for mass removals of settled populations. We were told it was to be an orderly instrument for the sorting out of multi-racial communities. But now whole communities are being uplifted, settled communities, African communities under one law, Indian and Coloured communities under the other law with absolutely no regard for the suffering and hardship entailed. They do not get paid “verdriet” allowances, as the farmers of South West Africa get paid, in very princely sums indeed, when they sell their farms in order to enlarge the reserves. There is none of this “equal sacrifice” that the original Minister talked about when he introduced the Group Areas Act. That is gone. Because, you see, these sorts of Acts lead to further and tougher implementation every successive year that this Government is in power. The change in the Premiership has made not the slightest difference to that. If anything, as I say, it has increased.

Now let me give another example in my limited time, another glaring example of the way in which laws are being implemented in a tougher way than ever before. When the Anti-Communist Act was passed, Parliament was assured over and over again that the Act would only be used against communists. Only communists would suffer under this Act. Of course, this is not true at all. The Minister ran out of communists long ago. His predecessor, the present Prime Minister, saw to that long before the present Minister took his portfolio. The Government had run out of communists, and its not was being spread in ever-widening circles to take in people who could never ever be considered communistically inclined, never were communists, indeed are strongly anticommunist, hold strong liberal views and are strongly anti-Government. Let us make no bones about that. The banning of Robertson was one such example. But now there is a more recent example that has not yet been mentioned in this House, and it certainly should have been mentioned. That is the disgraceful banning of Dr. Hoffenberg. I want to place on record my strongest objection to the hounding out by the Government of one of South Africa’s most eminent scientists, and I might say a first-class human being at the same time, one of the few South Africans these days who really cares about what happens to his non-White fellow citizens. Now the Minister of Justice has got to take the rap for this, because he imposed the ban. But I have not the slightest doubt that the real villain of the piece, of course, is the Prime Minister, because he is the one who has been conducting a vicious campaign against the politically aware students of the English language universities, and anybody whom he believes to have any influence over those students and their thinking. I say that the Hoffenberg ban is a disgrace to a civilized country. I do not believe that there is one shred of evidence that can stand up to examination in any impartial court of law. I say it and I say it emphatically, and I am not frightened by the Minister of Justice who is wagging his finger at me, either. Last year he said he would tell us all about Defence-and-Aid, and we are still waiting to hear about it. This year he tells me I must be careful. Sir, I challenge him to tell me about Dr. Hoffenberg’s misdemeanours. I think he owes this House an explanation. Let him tell us what Dr. Hoffenberg has done to deserve his being banned and hounded out of the country. He is perfectly willing to stand trial. He was a member of Defence-and-Aid. He makes no bones about it. The Defence-and-Aid Fund was a legal organization when he was the Chairman of Defence-and-Aid. He was on the panel of advisers to Nusas. There is nothing wrong, nothing illegal about that. So what? I challenge the Minister, never mind his wagging his finger at me, to give me chapter and verse what Dr. Hoffenberg has done.

Now I say, and I say this categorically, that I believe that all the Government has done, is to silence a courageous opponent of the Government. I think that the Minister should realize that his special branch is not infallible, that they have made many mistakes in the past and that they will go on making mistakes, for the simple reason that what they do, is not subjected to scrutiny in a court. There is no impartial inquiry and the victims are never ever told anything or given a chance of defending themselves. I conclude now by saying that the whole banning system is repugnant. It is high time that every one of the nearly 700 cases of people banned, house-arrested and restricted, came up for review, and review not by the same department that sentenced them to this fate, but by an independent judicial commission, which is prepared to review each and every case of banning. In these I include Mrs. Helen Joseph, who has recently been subjected to another five years’ house arrest. Finally, I say that this spectacle of this Government, this strong Government, relentlessly pursuing and hounding a woman of 60 in this way is despicable and it brings no credit on South Africa in the eyes of the outside world.

I shall leave the hon. member for Houghton to the hon. Minister of Justice, who will probably furnish a proper reply to all the matters she has expressed concern about. I should like to confine myself to the remarks made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He gave his points of attack the title of “illusions”. The hon. the Leader mentioned various illusions to which he stated the National Party Government really owed its existence, illusions under which the nation of South Africa was allegedly labouring. According to him the nation inhabiting this country must be quite a peculiar one. It is strange to think that there can be a nation which has allowed itself to be misled by illusions for 20 years. But this nation is not as peculiar as all that. On the contrary, the nation of South Africa is one of the most sober and practical nations in the world. We are known for our sobriety, and it is simply incredible that a practical nation such as the people inhabiting this country are, would have allowed themselves to be misled by illusions for 20 years. But let me say at once that we on this side have no illusions in regard to the aims of this illusion-attack of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I am going to confine myself now to one of those illusion-attacks, to the attack in regard to the so-called swamping of our industries by Blacks, with the comcomitant danger the border industries allegedly constitute for the White workers.

I just want to say that this illusion-attack leaves us under no illusion, because in this regard this illusion-attack really has a double purpose. Its first purpose is directed towards the workers’ constituencies, and in particular the by-elections in Pretoria (West) and Bloemfontein, which are to be held shortly. That is the first immediate political purpose of this illusion-attack. The second purpose, which of course is deeply rooted in the United Party, is to promote its actual policy of integration in the sphere of labour under a smoke screen. Those are the two main purposes of this entire illusion-attack in this field.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, as well as the hon. member for Yeoville, who assisted him with much gesture but little argument, gave us to understand how much concern the White worker actually felt in regard to this position, and in the process they juggled with figures. This juggling with figures in order to present to us these things which cause the White workers concern, did not begin with this debate in this House. They began with this juggling of of figures in the recess. In The Star of 13th November, 1966, Mr. Marais Steyn wrote an article under the title “Must African Workers go Unorganized?”, with the subtitle “They constitute two-thirds of our labour force”. Just in passing I want to point out that this article under the title “Must African Workers go Unorganized?”, was written at the time I was struggling with Tucsa in regard to their organization of Bantu trade unions. That is the assistance I received in this regard from the Opposition side at that time, but what I do not want to pretend is that we should expect any assistance from them in this regard. But what amazes me is that in this article, which deals with Bantu trade unions, there is no indication that the hon. member for Yeoville openly advocates the recognition of Bantu trade unions. No, the United Party has never had enough courage to advocate this matter openly, but the entire purport of this article is that there should be Bantu trade unions. And then they base this on the same kind of story we have heard in this debate, namely that there is supposed to be such a large percentage of Bantu in industry. Hence the subtitle “They constitute two-thirds of our labour force”. That was the same refrain as the one we heard here. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, I think the United Party is usually at its most naïve when it elaborates on the presence of black labour in this country. They usually come along, as Mr. Steyn did in this article, and ask us whether we can ignore the presence of the Bantu. What a ridiculous premise ! Who has ever ignored the presence of Blacks in industry? But apart from ignoring them, must they not also make a living? Should the non-Whites not also have opportunities for employment in this country? Should opportunities for employment not be created for them? The United Party is very fond of talking about the fear which the National Party is inculcating in the electorate of South Africa of the black danger. But the very thing the United Party has been doing during the past few months, and has been doing in this debate, is to inculcate by means of a juggling of figures and misrepresentations a fear of the Bantu amongst the White electorate in this country. And as far as the workers are concerned, the purpose of this attack is crystal clear. They want to make the nation, and particularly the White workers, believe that their opportunities for employment in industry are steadily diminishing as a result of the presence of Black labour. They want to make the White workers believe that they will ultimately have no place in industry, and that they will no longer have any opportunities for employment. Coupled with this is the other great bogy, i.e. that the border industries, which are the policy of this Government, are such a threat to the white man and his standard of living that there is simply a danger and a monstrosity. Let us now see what merit attaches to this kind of story, this kind of story with which the United Party, like a Don Quixote, now wants to storm the steel factory of Pretoria West in the coming election. All kinds of fears were quoted in this article. Just let me read the conclusion which Mr. Steyn came to. He stated that between the years 1945 to 1964 the number of Bantu had more than doubled. He stated—

When I saw this article in November, I was also upset, and I made it my task to obtain an analysis from the Department of Census and Statistics. I requested my Department to forward it to the Director of Census Statistics, and to consult other authorities in this regard, I received an analysis of these figures from Census Statistics. I do not want to quote all the figures, only the conclusion, and I want to read to you the reply they furnished me with. The Bureau for Statistics was also consulted, apart from other bodies, and they came to the following conclusion. The Director stated (translation)—

In parentheses, Mr. Steyn also included agriculture in his article—

It is not, as the hon. member for Yeoville stated, that the number of Bantu has more than doubled, and that the Whites have increased by only 40 per cent. But what is important in this entire misrepresentation which the hon. member for Yeoville made in his article, is that he included the farm workers, and that he also included the casual workers. One is very surprized to find them included in an article written under the title “Must African Workers go Unorganized?”. Should that type of Bnatu worker, i.e. those on the farms and the casual workers, also be organized into trade unions in future? What this entire article and all the juggling with figures amounts to is simply this: The United Party want to drag in as many figures as possible, quoting them out of context, for one purpose only, and that is to make the White workers believe that they are going to be overwhelmed by a Black labour force and that they will then no longer have any work. But what is the true position in regard to White employment in the light of this Government’s policy of separate development, because it is against this background that the question is being argued in this House? Is it true that the position of the White worker is as weak as the United Party has chosen to paint it? Are the White workers really being threatened to such an extent as the Opposition has stated here? Is the effectiveness of their trade unions being reduced to such an extent, as the hon. member for Yeoville stated here, as a result of the presence of Black labour in the industry? Fortunately not one of these dire prognostications is true, and I shall deal with one of them now in order to prove on what false grounds this illusion-attack of the United Party is based.

In the first place, as far as the presence of border industries and workers in those industries is concerned, we have almost 50,000 Bantu working there today.

Where do you get the remaining 5,000 from?

It was 45,000 a few years ago and now it is more than 49,000. If that is the only difference between us, then the difference is becoming smaller and smaller. Of course this force working there involves a far greater number than that in the economy, but I am not going to dwell on that. I want to deal with the attack made by the Opposition. In this attack on the border industries it tried to create another fear, that it would be possible to pay any wage in the border industries, in such a way that it could became a threat to the White industrialist in the metropolitan areas. It ought to interest the hon. member to know precisely what the wage position there is. There are to-day 18 wage measures, that is to say wage agreements and wage determinations, which apply to all border industries in the country; that is to say there are 18 national or country-wide wage measures. But apart from the 18 country-wide wage measures which apply to every border industry in the country, there are, as far as Rosslyn is concerned—and this is the case which was mentioned so specifically by the chuckling member for Rondebosch … [Interjection.] Apart from the 18 country-wide wage measures which apply to border areas, there are 33 which apply specifically to factories such as the one at Rosslyn. In other words, there is full wage control in the case of the border industries. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred here, inter alia, to the clothing industry. He asked what was being done “to close the wage gap”? Those were his words. Did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition not read the Government Gazette? He gets it, and I assume he reads it regularly. If he read it, he would have seen that in the Government Gazette of 10th November, 1967, objections to the latest recommendation of the Wage Board in regard to the clothing industry in the uncontrolled areas were being invited. From time to time the Government has an investigation made into the clothing factories in the uncontrolled areas, i.e. in the border industries. These is an existing one, and an investigation has recently been completed, as a result of which this announcement was made inviting objections. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has any objections, then he can submit them himself.

I want to know what you laid down.

The wages?

Yes.

There are of course differentiated wages. The wages in the uncontrolled areas differ. In parentheses, just as the wages in the clothing factories in Salt River differ from the wages in Germiston, so those wages differ. Our entire wage policy is based on differentiation, which is based on productivity. After all, one does not expect the raw Bantu workers of Rosslyn and Rustenburg to have the same productivity as the industrialized workers of Port Elizabeth or Johannesburg. It would be foolish to expect that. Of course there is differentiation, but what is important is, that that differentiation is done on such a basis that it does not affect the existence of factories in the metropolitan areas. I shall give the hon. member the following item of proof in this regard.

Only one?

There are many. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition must kindly listen now to the figures with which I am going to furnish him. The increase in employment in the Transvaal alone between 1961 and 1966 was more than the total number of employees in the areas covered by the Wage Board’s inquiry.

Which areas were those?

They were border areas, uncontrolled areas. The increase in the Transvaal between those years was more than what it was in those border areas as far as the clothing industry is concerned. It is true that there is differentiation there, but we are all aware of the disadvantages, not only the disadvantages connected with establishment but also with the productivity of those people. That is why it is important. Now, as a justification, I should like to furnish you with the conclusion which the Wage Board came to in regard to this very concern expressed here. We have been hearing these stories for several years now. In its latest inquiry the Wage Board went into these specific matters again, and just listen to what the Wage Board has to say about it. It states (translation)—

That is the most recent finding, but now the additional question which has to be answered is to what extent this entire border area development has affected White employment in the country. Now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition may as well laugh again at the following figure which I am going to mention. Do you know what the position to-day is in comparison with that in 1954? In 1954 the number of Whites working in our factories in this country totalled 175,000, and do you know what the number is to-day? In 1967 the total had increased to 255,000. In other words, there are 80,000 more Whites working in our factories to-day than in 1954—and then we are forced to listen to these stories of the Opposition here! …

And how many more non-Whites?

… then we get the cry which has been taken up here that “the Whites are being frozen out of industry due to border industries”. Does an increase of 80,000 in the past number of years look like “a freezing out”? That is the type of specious argument with which the United Party thinks it is going to stampede the workers in this country.

What is the increase as far as non-Whites are concerned?

I am coming now to the crucial question. The question is how it has actually affected the labour pattern in this country. That is the important question. How does it affect the labour pattern, the percentage-ratio between White and non-White workers? It would interest the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to know that the percentage of Whites in our factories in 1954 was 28.9 per cent. In 1963 it increased to 30 per cent. And now I am going to mention something which will please the hon. the Leader of the Opposition tremendously. The percentage then decreased to 25 per cent, but what is significant is that over the past four years this percentage of 25 per cent Whites in our industries has remained constant, which is proof of the success of this Government’s labour policy and its general ideological policy. It proves in the first place that one is affording the non-Whites, the Blacks included, opportunities for employment. This Government is being maligned both at home and abroad because it is ostensibly neglecting to afford those people opportunities of employment. In the first place we did afford them opportunities for employment. But in the second place we maintained the labour pattern in such a way that the position of the White man has been safeguarded, and this pattern is being consistently maintained. As regards the important artisans group in our working class, it is important to note that in 1959 88 per cent of our artisans were Whites. In 1965. quite a number of years later, the number had decreased by 1 per cent; it then stood at 87 per cent. The engineering industry which investigated this matter reached the conclusion in its inquiry that the position of the white artisan has remained constant during the past few years. Is that not an achievement of which we, in the light of our tremendous national development, may be proud? Mr. Speaker, this consistency is of very great importance in the engineering industry because that industry is one of the key industries. But not only did it remain constant in certain facets of the engineering industry; it increased. It increased in the base metal section, and in the metal produce section, as well as in the electrical machinery section, the percentage of Whites has increased in recent years. Is that something this Government should regret? No, in this case we can feel proud to go to the white workers. But reference has been made here to the reclassification of work. Yes, there has been a reclassification of work, and from time to time reclassification of work is still taking place, as happened last year in the mining industry, and it is at present being considered by the engineering trade union. But what is important is the following: That reclassification which is taking place in the various industries, is taking place with the wholehearted consent and co-operation of the white trade unions in question. That is important. This is not being forced upon them by the Government; it is taking place with the wholehearted consent and co-operation of those white trade unions.

The hon. member for Yeoville said that the effectiveness of our white trade unions is being prejudiced by the absence of Blacks. Do you know how the existence of the white trade unions, and the trade union movement, has been affected in the past few years? In 1956 we had 295,000 Whites registered in trade unions in this country, and do you know what the position in 1966 was? After the “deterioration ” which the hon. member for Yeoville spoke about, the number increased by 17,000 to 312,000.

After ten years.

But it is not only the number of Whites which has increased; the number of Indians and Coloureds who may belong to trade unions has also increased, with the result that the total of trade union members to-day is stronger by 56,000 than it was in 1956. If the hon. member asserts that their effectiveness has diminished, then he is not acquainted with the numerous negotiations which have been conducted for wage agreements. Trade unions are carrying on negotiations with their employers daily for new wage agreements, and according to our observations and findings the trade unions in this country are an effective power which is playing an effective role as champion of the white workers of this country.

Where is the Minister of Transport? After all, it was his intention to do away with them.

It is clear, therefore, that this entire illusion-attack made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, as is the case with all their illusions, was founded on nothing. On the one hand complaints are being levelled in regard to the integration of our industries; on the other hand we are being attacked because we are establishing border industries. One has 50,000 Bantu who are already employed in the border industries. If they were not in border industries, where should they have been? Should they, too, have been here in the white cities? Then the Opposition would surely have had extra reason to complain about the integration of our industries. On the one hand we are being attacked because we have work reservation, and on the other hand, because we are ostensibly neglecting to afford the white worker sufficient protection. This distorted thinking on the part of the United Party has only one object and that is to try and promote its one favourite policy of labour integration under this smokescreen. That is their sole object. I now want to make this request to the United Party, i.e. that they should take this concern of theirs in regard to the integration of the industries, in regard to the deterioration of the trade unions, and in regard to work reservation, to the by-elections in Pretoria (West) and Bloemfontein. I am asking them to go and express their concern there, and if they neglect to do so, then we shall do so. We are affording them the opportunity of mounting those platforms—in Pretoria (West), Bloemfontein or wherever— and saying precisely how they themselves advocate Bantu trade unions and how they are opposed to work reservation. Last year, when my colleague, the Minister of Planning, introduced the Bill in regard to Physical Planning here, a measure which was intended to prevent our white cities being overwhelmed by black labour, the Opposition opposed it, and I hope the Opposition will go and inform the electorate of this. If they do not do so, then they need not feel too badly; we shall go and tell the electorate.

In conclusion I just want to tell the United Party this: They can go and confide their illusions to the people outside. I can assure them of one reaction only, and that is that the workers will have no illusions. I can assure them that in these elections which lie ahead they are going to encounter one thing only and that is another great United Party defeat.

The hon. the Minister who has just sat down and members of his party are the last persons to accuse us on the Opposition side of the House of having stirred up hatred, fear and enmity amongst the people of South Africa. Does he not remember the miscegenation poster of 1938? That is the poster that was issued by his party and used against the late General Hertzog’s United Party Government. It was a poster with a pretty picture depicting a mixed residential quarter with a white woman living with a Bantu, half-breed children and mixed playgrounds. Does he not remember the apartheid slogan of his party in 1948? The promises that he and his party made, namely that they would remove the superfluous Bantu from the cities?That they Would repatriate the Indians and that they would separate the Coloureds socially, residentially and politically? Does he not remember that his party won the election by stirring up colour consciousness and colour prejudice amongst the white voters of South Africa? And they accused the United Party— the present Opposition and the then Government—of advocating social integration, mixed residential areas and multi-racialism. Do you remember the promises the Nationalist Party made that they would act firmly and vigorously in regard to the Bantu and Coloureds in the urban areas, because it was only the Nationalist Party who could halt the multi-racialist tendency in South Africa, and that it was only the Nationalist Party who could assure the future of the Whites in South Africa. Does he not remember that the late Dr. Malan said that White and Black must not live together and that apartheid must be applied, especially in the densely populated urban areas, and that the extremistic wing of the then National Party boasted: “We shall sweep the streets of the white cities of South Africa clean.” It is now 20 years later. Are there more or are there fewer non-Whites in the streets of Cape Town to-day? Do hon. members not read the Press reports and the letters so frequently appearing in the Press? I have a few examples here. The first report is dated 18th January, 1967. and reads as follows—

This is not under a United Party government. It is under the government of the Nationalist Party. I have another letter here from someone in the Peninsula which reads as follows—

And I have here a further letter that I want to read—

These are only a few examples of letters that recently appeared in the Press. These are typical conditions in the southern and northern suburbs. The first step that the then Nationalist Party took was to place the Group Areas Act on the Statute Book of South Africa to eliminate friction and racial tension, to remove isolated patches of Whites or non-Whites. And as always they were logical and consistent. The old established Coloured and Malay families of, for example, Claremont and Newlands were removed, and recently group areas were declared in Simonstown and in Kalk Bay. The old established Malay and Coloured families must make way, namely those people who have never caused trouble in the areas in which they reside. But the Government is firm of principle too! The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs has said in this House that there cannot be a group within a group. It would violate the principle of separate residential areas. But what is the position in practice? The Coloured people of Noordhoek are removed to Kommetjie. It is the intention to remove the Kalk Bay Coloured population and the Simonstown Coloured population to Kommetjie. Kommetjie was declared a white area six months ago! Can you believe that, Sir?

I want to quote a second example, because the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs said that there could not be a group within a group. I refer to the Railway camp at Retreat, which is situated in a non-white area. There we find 70 Railway houses segregated from the white section of Retreat and situated in the non-white section. Further examples of groups within groups under this Government’s policy are Tokai, Pollsmoor, Retreat and Westlake, which were declared white areas six years ago. The Government has since erected no fewer than five non-white institutions there for a non-white population of 5,000.

The last example I want to quote is Zeekoevlei—the place where Professor Barnard lives. It is a white area completely surrounded by non-white areas—non-white group areas declared by this Government.

In my opinion the Government is applying a double standard. It makes its own rules. It makes one rule for the man in the street, but applies a different policy to itself.

I have said that the Government is logical and consistent. Let me elaborate on that. They established separate residential areas and subsequently legislation with regard to separate amenities was approved by this House. This was done 15 years ago. Now I ask: Are there more or fewer Bantu and Coloureds on our beaches and in our parks in the white areas of South Africa to-day? A letter written by a certain supporter of the Government recently appeared in Die Burger under the heading “Whites ill at ease in own bioscope”. The letter reads as follows (translation)—

This is not under a United Party government —it is under the Government of the Nationalist Party. The Party which is now in power has accused us on this side of advocating social integration. What is the position at Muizenberg? There are at present more Bantu swimming at Muizenberg than ever before.

The Cape City Council must enforce segregation.

The Administrator has the power to enforce the law. Since when is this Government scared of a city council? Let us look at the position in the Simonstown municipality itself. There we find notice-boards that have been erected by the municipality. Yet we find more non-Whites at Glencairn, Seaforth beach and the Boulders over the week-ends than ever before.

I have said that the Nationalist Party is logical and consistent. Now I ask: Are they logical and consistent in the demarcation of beaches, a subject about which the hon. member for Klip River knows so much? At Simonstown, an area recently declared white, we find a non-white beach right in front of the white Railway houses. Where then can the white children of Simonstown’s Railway people go to swim? The Kalk Bay non-white fishing community have a beach right in front of their houses. It is traditionally the beach used by non-Whites. Although that community have been given 15 years by the Government before they have to move out, the beach right in front of their flats has been declared white.

Fish Hoek is an exclusively white area— there are no non-Whites whatsoever residing in Fish Hoek. But the recommendation of the hon. member for Klip River’s commission is that the coastline of Fish Hoek should be declared “unreserved”.

The hon. the Minister of Transport said 12 years ago that “those who want apartheid must be prepared to pay for it”. It is now 12 years later, and I feel we are entitled to ask how much money has been made available by the Government to the various municipalities of the Peninsula during that period for the provision of separate amenities. How much money is the Government prepared to make available for this purpose in the future? How much have they contributed to the development of separate beaches at Strandfontein? Did the Government make money available to the divisional councils of the Cape Province in respect of the separate amenities which they have established? Does the Government intend to make money available for these purposes, or does it expect the local authorities, which can barely afford it, to find the money? What has the Government done in practice in this connection? Have they built a railway line to Strandfontein? Have they built access roads to give the non-Whites of the neighbouring residential areas access to their own amenities? We are already paying for the entrance halls, the front gables of apartheid. The Government Departments, the Department of Planning, the Government officials, the commissions which the Government has appointed to establish separate amenities, all are being used to achieve the goal. When are we to get the walls of this building?

The Government has created an illusion that they have the answer to the problems of friction and racial tension in South Africa, but in my opinion they do not have the courage to tax the people directly for the completion or the implementation of their policy, nor do they have the moral courage to carry out their policy in a fair albeit unpopular manner.

Mr. Speaker, it is rather ironical that the hon. member who has just sat down should say that this government does not have the moral courage to come out with a policy. I wish that the United Party would make up their minds whether they support apartheid or whether they are against apartheid. All the time they parade as opponents of apartheid, as opponents of this Government and their policy of providing separate facilities and promoting separate development. Yet here the hon. member for Simonstown, who has just sat down, made one string of complaints about the increase of non-Whites in white areas. He quoted from letters in newspapers in which people complain about non-Whites moving about in Sea Point. Sea Point certainly is not a Nationalist area. The hon. member for Sea Point is not a Nationalist, and if the United Party are not in favour of separate facilities, of separate development, of apartheid, then why do the United Party supporters, and possibly the Progressive Party supporters in Sea Point, complain about the presence of non-Whites in their areas? Why should they complain? Only last night there was a letter in the evening paper speaking of “United-Progressive ‘Verkramptes’” in that area referring to the letters complaining about the presence of non-Whites in that area. It was only last year that the Chief Whip of the United Party, the hon. member for Von Brandis, pleaded with the hon. the Minister of Community Development for facilities to be provided for separate housing for the Chinese living in his area. And yet the United Party is opposed to all these measures. I seem to remember, although I was considerably younger in those days, that when the Group Areas Act was introduced and was opposed by the party opposite, the then Prime Minister, Dr. Malan offered Natal, which was under United Party control, the opportunity to be excluded from the provisions of the Act. And Natal at that time certainly did not accept that offer. They were only too pleased to accept the provisions of the Group Areas Act in Natal as well, including the hon. member for Point and the hon. member for South Coast. Yet they continue, from one day to the next, from one year to the next, from one decade to the next, to try and parade on the one side as an opponent of separate development and on the other side as people who plead for this policy to be implemented. They complain about the increase of non-white labourers in industry, and we hear this story from one platform to the next. [Interjections.] It is about time that the United Party make up its mind and tell the public whether they are for apartheid or against apartheid, because we are getting sick and tired of this duplicity, and the voters are also getting tired of it. That is why that party is rightly known, not as the United Party, but as the V.P., the “verkrimpte party”.

Let us come to the fundamental issue in the handling of the relations between the Whites and the non-Whites in this country and examine this whole situation with a view to the future. Let us regard this whole question of the right relations between White and non-White as we see it in the future. Then we must make up our minds whether South Africa is to remain one single country, one homeland, for all the various races in the country, or whether we must provide for the development of separate nations in this country. Let me take for example Europe 150 to 200 years ago. They also had an artificial unity of various peoples, of various nations, brought about by power politics, be it by war or by power politics. They had the holy Roman Empire, consisting of Austrians, Italians, Hungarians, Czechoslovakians and Yugoslavs and all sorts of people were united artificially in one political unity, and for numbers of years they were governed as one political unity. But, because this was an artificial unity, because it was completely unnatural to expect that these different peoples should be continually governed as one political state, they disintegrated and formed separate nations of people belonging together, because there was something inherently binding those people together. Similarly, South Africa is also an artificial unit, created also by power politics, by historical colonialism and all the political events that have followed since that time. South Africa is not one nation. In South Africa we are a people of many nations. There was a time when most of the peoples of the separate nations lived in their homelands. It was only when there was industrial development on the scale that we have seen that these people were drawn out of their homelands to be accommodated in the labour facilities that are provided in the metropolitan areas. It is no use the Opposition saying that we have been governed in this way for 300 years. We have nothing to worry about. We can continue thus for the future. Very well, we have been going in this way for some 300 years, but times have changed completely. For 300 years, there were very few, if any, non-White, independent states on the African continent. It was only when 1960 came that people spoke of the decade of the emancipation of Africa. It was only since 1960 that most of these nations have started gaining Independence, that there has grown political awareness amongst these various peoples, amongst these various nations.

It was obvious, in spite of 25 years of constant propaganda to denationalize all peoples of the world, that the effect of this propaganda is now coming to an end, that despite the pressure of propaganda to denationalize people, there are various signs that people are once again awakening to a national awareness. Only a few weeks ago there was a general election in Denmark. There the more national-minded, the people who are more conscious of a national belonging, came into power. It was only recently that in Canada, in the French province of Quebec, that there was a surge of national awareness amongst the French-speaking people. I have only just come back from a visit to Britain and no one opposite will deny that there is a genuine surge of national awareness on the part of the Scottish people and on the part of the Welsh people.

Are you going to divide South Africa too?

South Africa will also be divided into countries in exactly the same way in which Europe has been divided into countries for the Italians, for the Hungarians, for the Czechoslovakians, for the …

Hollanders, Germans, etc.

Yes. And if you believe that we in South Africa are to be governed permanently as one nation, as one political unity under whatever system, be it a race federation or whatever it is, it means that under your system there must come a time, be it 10 or 20 …

Order! The hon. member must address the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking through you. [Interjections.] I appreciate that you do not want to be insulted by my referring to “your” system, when in fact I was referring to the system of the United Party.

The hon. member must continue with his speech.

I am doing so.

Where is the “Engelsstan”?

In the same way that various new countries in the world have been inhabited by emigrants from Europe, in the same way as the United States has been inhabited by millions of people from Europe and has developed into a national unit, so South Africa and the white peoples of South Africa are still in the process of developing into a single national unit with two languages, with two cultures, but one nation, one national entity. But in the same way as there is a similarity between the Germans and the Dutch in Europe, there are certain similarities between the Xhosas and the Zulus in South Africa. They might have the same origin, there is some similarity in language, but there are fundamental differences in Europe between the Germans and the Hollanders and it is unfeasible to think of Europe developing as one political entity under the system which the United Party or the Progressive Party propose for South Africa. In the same way as there are even greater differences between the Spaniards and the Norwegians, there are greater differences between the Zulus and the Sothos in South Africa. There is not the slightest similarity in language, culture, in way of life or anything between the Zulus and the Sothos and yet the United Party with their propaganda want to tell us that South Africa must develop as a single nation for ever. The only result thereof must be that at some stage, be it in ten, 20, 30 or 100 years, there must be a single central government, be it federal or otherwise, the majority of the people will have the majority say in that Government. That is why the United Party must now make up its mind whether it wants to continue on a basis of progressive integration or whether it will accept the policy of this Government of progressively separating the people so that their national identity can be maintained, accepted and promoted by themselves. There are many ways in which this can be construed. I appreciate that we have not advanced as far as we might want to have advanced at this stage. But, Sir, let me now invite the Opposition: If they are prepared to accept that we shall develop into separate nations, let them not put stumbling blocks in our way all the time.

I want to direct another specific accusation at the United Party. They constantly speak of developing in a single political entity, be it under a federal system or whatever other policy. One after another, yesterday and to-day, speakers opposite have said that we need the labour force of the non-Whites. They cannot do without us and we cannot do without them. I maintain that the only reason why they are not prepared to develop into separate states is because they want to continue to have the reservoir of a cheap labour force of non-Whites constantly at their command. If that were not so they would be prepared to accept the separate development of the non-Whites so that they may have a national identity of their own. They constantly accuse us of not having done enough to develop the non-White, Sir, it is quite true, we might have done more. But we have already done very much more than any other country in the world has done to help underdeveloped peoples. If we regard the assistance to non-Whites within our present political boundaries as foreign aid, comparable to the United States, France, Britain and Germany providing foreign aid, then we have relatively done more than three times as much as the country which does most in foreign aid for underdeveloped peoples.

That is not true.

It is true. The country which provides the biggest proportion of its national income for foreign aid is France, and South Africa does at least three times as much as France in relation to our national income.

Give us the figures.

I do not have the figures here. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that South Africa has done more to assist the progress of the non-Whites than any other country has done in relation to its national income. The United Party simply will not accept that.

Then there is another point. It is not for us to provide all the assistance and all the development for the non-White peoples. Must not something be left to their initiative, to their own desire to help themselves? It is some time ago when Dr. Verwoerd was Minister of Native Affairs. The non-White areas had to be developed. Irrigation and dams had to be provided. He did not just provide all the implements and all the labour to build the dams. He assembled the tribal chiefs and asked them: What services can you provide to build these dams? They conferred and decided how much they could provide themselves. Those services that were not available were then provided by the Department of Native Affairs at the time, and the dams were built. Then the natives were proud of their achievement; of having done something themselves to promote their own development. It is not for us to provide everything on a platter for the development of the non-Whites. If we were to continue to do so they would be nothing else but parasites of the White people all the time. One must encourage them to promote their own development themselves. That is the whole difference between the attitude of the United Party and the attitude of the National Party. We are prepared to assist them to develop separate nations; into separate states, which may eventually be completely independent. We accept all the dangers that go with this. We are not afraid. Only the United Party seems to be afraid. Yesterday the hon. member for Hillbrow asked what defence facilities would be provided. Is he afraid because there are already independent Black states within and on our very borders? Is he afraid of that? Sir, is Israel, with a population of some 2½ million, afraid to maintain its independence as a Jewish state surrounded by some 50 million hostile Arabs? If “fear” is to be the watchword of the United Party, it is certainly not our watchword. We have every confidence in the development of this country and we shall continue to develop on a basis of separate development. If the hon. member for Durban (Point) is worried about defence, let him not worry. We shall protect him [Interjections.]

Another point I should like to deal with is that hon members opposite continually speak of the industrial development of the Bantu areas. They speak as though industrial development is the only development that will assist those people. Any underdeveloped country, be it White or non-White, must at some stage of its progress have gone through a stage of agricultural development. That goes for every single country in Europe and for every single country in Africa. If the people have not grown out of soil and if they do not belong to the soil then they are people without roots. I maintain that what is necessary in South Africa is for extended agricultural development in the Bantu areas. I should like to suggest to the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration that his department should investigate the system of agricultural development which is prevalent in Israel, namely the kibbutz system, whereby there can be planned but centrally controlled agricultural development. This might be for other reasons. The Bantu people may not be as developed and as prepared to display the same drive and initiative as the people of Israel, but at least it is necessary to extend the agricultural development of the Bantu areas. I maintain that that system should be closely investigated to find out whether it would not be possible to provide extensive labour opportunities for the Bantu people in developing their own areas. As their agriculture develops, so also will their standard of living develop, and so also will it come about that they will develop a middle class of their own by their own initiative, without the Whites providing everything for them. As long as we are regarded as the providers of charity, so long will they be prevented from developing. I should like to refer here to the economic development of the Afrikaner people in South Africa. Some 40 years ago there were some 300,000 poor Whites, and most of them were Afrikaners. Because they came together and began doing something serious about their own economic advancement they have achieved tremendous progress within those 30 or 40 years. It is only with this initiative, this will to do something, that something can be achieved. That is exactly what is necessary for the Bantu people. But the United Party wants to continue to sabotage all the initiative of the Bantu people in that they demand that everything must be provided by the White man for the development of the Bantu. That is nothing but sabotage of the national identity of the Bantu people. I maintain that we in South Africa must continue to progress, be it slower or faster; on the path of separate development as the only solution for peaceful existence side by side with the various national entities in this country. In the same way as national awareness is on the increase in the rest of the world, so it is on the increase in South Africa amongst the non-White people. It is only this Government that is seriously doing something to foster national awareness and to ensure progress amongst the Bantu peoples.

I do not intend to give too much attention to the hon. member who has just spoken, and I will tell you why. I found it pathetic to hear the hon. member speaking, and a thought flashed through my mind, when he said that he wanted to recommend in South Africa the system which has been tried in Israel, the kibbutz system. I then thought of how times had changed, that a full-blooded German even wants to go and learn from the Jews these days. It is wonderful how things have changed. The hon. member is making progress. His trouble is that he does not always want to continue making progress; sometimes he retrogresses. So, for example, I understand that the hon. member said that he challenged us. These days any man can challenge another. It no longer takes courage to challenge a man. He challenged us to say whether we were for or against social segregation.

I did not speak of social segregation, but segregation in all its aspects.

I shall tell you why I ask this. He himself had given the reply. My information is that when the hon. member was abroad recently, he said from place to place that there was one thing about which South Africa was absolutely unanimous, both the Opposition and the Government, and that was about social and residential segregation of the races in the country. Now I challenge the hon. member, not because I am very brave, but because the hon. member is very scared. I want to ask him if he said overseas that 45 per cent of the population of South Africa, the United Party, was against social segregation? [Interjections.]

May I reply? [Interjections.]

The hon. member made a peculiar statement. He asked, “What about Europe?” [Interjections.] He said that there was segregation between the national groups and later he went further and spoke of the Zulu and the Basuto. He said that they spoke different languages and had different traditions and cultures and for that reason they must be separated. Now I want to ask the hon. member this. His home language is different to mine, because he is German. There is nothing wrong with that. There are many members in this House with a different home language to mine; they speak English. [Interjections.] And they have different cultures and customs. Is the hon. member being logical if he wants to stop there, or must he speak of English-stans and Afrikaans-stans? But that is not all. He issued a second challenge. I do not want to speak about these matters, but the debates in this House are no longer interesting if one does not discuss colour. The hon. member said he wanted to challenge us about the labour question, and about whether we are going to need black labour here for all time. This is a very easy challenge to answer. I say yes, and this Government will need their labour and they are now making use of it. We must stop this nonsense now. I am sick and tired of listening to figures, while it is so easy to see that the white man cannot continue in this country without black and brown labour, and not only that, but each year we import thousands of white persons to work in South Africa. We also import Bantu to work on the mines. The Minister of Labour is entering into an agreement with Malawi at present. What for? To have those people come and pick flowers here? No, we need them and as long as this Government uses them, I shall not criticize them too severely, but if that hon. member is to advise the Government, it will be the quickest way in which to get rid of the Nationalist Government. I do not want to dwell on this any longer, except to deal with certain remarks made about Sea Point. It is true that we have certain difficulties in Sea Point at the moment, but we shall solve them. Hon. members need not be concerned about that. We shall deal with those persons who abuse their rights and privileges in Sea Point. But do not think that Sea Point is a slum area. Sea Point is so fine an area that every hon. member opposite wishes he could be a Cabinet Minister so that he may reside in Sea Point. The whole lot of them are my constituents. That is one of the reasons why my seat will be safe for a very long time, because with the bracing sea air of Sea Point it is wonderful how clear a man’s mind becomes, and in the end they will all vote for me.

This brings me nearer to the actual point of my speech, which is this. As regards this illusion, with which the Government is trying to bluff the people into thinking that this is a competent Government, I want to take one of those departments and test its competence. I say today that in regard to the Department of Water Affairs I can express a great deal of criticism. I am glad that there is a new Minister now; he has a tremendous task before him. I have great faith in the abilities of the hon. the Deputy Minister, because I have known him for many years and I have faith in his ability to do something about the matter, although it will take a little time because it will be difficult. But I want to tell him what is going on there. In the first place there is no co-ordination between the various Government Departments. There is complete incompetence at the head of this whole organization. There is no co-ordination and apparently no consultation between Water Affairs and the various other Departments concerned in these matters. I heard the Prime Minister say the other day that the whole Nationalist Party stood squarely behind him, and then there was applause even from the gallery, and I also want to say something now, but I do not want everyone to applaud. Every Nationalist agrees with me that this is a poor Department, badly administered, and I shall tell you why. I want to give a few examples. The hon. the Prime Minister appointed a commission and two years ago the Water Planning Commission reported to the Cabinet. What has become of that report? Last year a departmental commission was appointed to investigate matters in the Department of Water Affairs. What were their recommendations and why was it necessary? I think the House has a right to know. Let me ask another question. What has become of the investigation into the general planning of the resources of the Breede River? My information is that the latest and best and most reliable information which the Department has to date in regard to the planning of the resources of the Breede River is based on surveys conducted in 1906.

Let us take a second point. Year after year White Papers come before the House. I want to mention a few. Let us take the Nahoon Scheme. We approved an estimate of R800,000 for it, but what did it cost? Two years later they say that we must pay R1.9 million, an increase of more than 120 per cent. What is the Nahoon Scheme? Let us see what it looks like and what goes on there. What is the increase for? From the White Paper (W.P. K-’66) you will see that one of the aims was irrigation, but how many morgen were to be irrigated? At first it was 700 morgen, and then it was decreased to 250 morgen. Where is the rest of the water going? We thought it was an irrigation scheme, but, Sir, do you know where the water is going? It is going to Cyril Lord, and then they say without turning a hair (translation)—

Then they say—

The real culprit in this instance is the present Minister of the Interior, who was Minister of Water Affairs at the time. Because it is a border area, and Mr. Cyril Lord is doing well there, they are going to pay R1.50 per morgen for irrigation plus R1 for administrative costs, and Mr. Cyril Lord can get 500,000 gallons per day at 5c per 1,000 gallons. I say that here we had an estimate of R800,000 and it is costing R1.95 million. Let us take the Kat River scheme. It was planned and approved for R1 million, but the cost was R3.4 million. I know that it was enlarged slightly, but the comparative figures were R1 million as against R2.4 million. Let us take the Upington Islands Scheme. It was planned for R4.75 million, but now it is costing R9.2 million. Take the Gamtoos Canals. That was planned for R5.2 million and when it was completed, it cost R12 million. Pietersburg: R1.2 million, but when it was completed, it cost R2.2 million. Take Twee Riviere—R3.6 million, and when it was completed, it cost R7 million. Let us take Sanddrif, which was planned for R4.3 million, and when it was completed it cost R9.3 million. Take Gamkapoort. It was planned for R2.3 million and when it was completed, it cost R4 million. I want to ask the Minister how competent a Minister is who allows such things to happen. I think that it is in the Ministers’ constituency. Does the Minister know where the place is? This is the sort of information we get here. He asks us for the sums of money. What for? In passing I just want to say that there is something rather amusing here, namely one of the reasons given for the increased cost of the scheme—

This is after all very near the Minister; he should know that part of the world. I wonder if he does not drive along that road sometimes—

How the terrain became more mountainous after two years, I simply cannot understand. How did the Minister manage to let something like this slip through? Was there no consultation between his Department and the provincial authorities that build roads every day, or does the Minister not know what it costs to build a road?

He “spent for prosperity”.

The reason for my concern is this: He had another survey made since, and what did he then find? I quote again from paragraph (c)—

The deviation of the road is probably not going to be completed, because he says that R1,200,000 is enough for the time being, and then he says—

This is what worried me from the start—

Probably the Minister driving around—

Let us take another example of this lack of co-ordination. We are building the so-called Van der Kloof Scheme, and what happens? The Minister says that to combat inflation, we must not continue with the Van der Kloof Scheme. I do not blame him, because I too have my doubts about it. But what does the Minister do? He does not consult the Minister of Sport. Here in the Government Gazette of 26th January I see that tenders are being called for, Sir, and do you know what for and where? Tenders are being invited for “four all-weather tennis courts and one baseball field” at the Van der Kloof Dam. Who is to go and play there? I understood that “baseball” was a game that is not played in South Africa. Mr. Speaker, what is going on when we say that there is no money to continue with an irrigation scheme, and here tenders are being invited for tennis courts, etc. These tenders close on 22nd February.

Mr. Speaker, these are things that one can still forgive. But we find ourselves in the position to-day that water restrictions are being imposed in Cape Town. The position in Cape Town is not a very easy one. The water consumption in Cape Town has increased rapidly. The municipality of Cape Town must supply approximately 12 municipalities round Cape Town with water. We have had to introduce restrictions this year only because the former Minister of Water Affairs, the present Minister of the Interior, could not decide what to do. We warned him as far back as 1962 what would happen and his reply was: “Leave it to me; I shall develop a large all-embracing scheme.” Where is that scheme? He has forced the Cape Town City Council—there is trouble in that connection and the case is to come before the court on 1st May—to erect a temporary and expensive pumping plant to pump flood water from the Berg River into the Wemmershoek Dam. After a great deal of trouble the Department said: “Look, we shall provide you with five million gallons of water per day from Voëlvlei,” which is of course far too little. Later he came along and said: “Take that to begin with and later we shall give you an additional seven million gallons.” Meanwhile he expects the Cape Town Municipality to erect a filtration plant, first for five million gallons, then a second filtration plant for seven million gallons, and then he says that within a period of approximaely seven years he will provide 40 million gallons a day. The present position is this: Because of the complete negligence of the Department of Water Affairs, Cape Town finds itself in the position that if there is not a great deal of rain next year, more drastic water restrictions will have to be applied and that it will even have to save as much as 24 million gallons per day to ensure that the people have drinking water. What is the Department planning to do? Can the Minister throw any light on the matter? What is the trouble? Why are they having such difficulties? Can one of the Ministers tell me what progress they have made with the Vier-en-Twintig Riviere Scheme to fill Voëlvlei? Why are they not carrying on with it? They know full well that if they begin to-day, they cannot finish by to-morrow. They know full well that they will now have to incur tremendous expenditure in trying to rectify what they bungled as a result of negligence and poor administration.

You have the same position at Stellenbosch. I call the hon. member for Stellenbosch to witness. The hon. member led a deputation to the Minister to ask for water. That was some years ago, in 1962. Who was Minister of Water Affairs at the time? The same Minister, Mr. P. M. K. le Roux, the present Minister of the Interior. [Interjections.] No, I do not want to talk him out of the Cabinet! We do not want to be too harsh. His own record can speak for him. At that time the Minister told that deputation. led by the hon. member for Stellenbosch: “Do not worry; I have a large and all-embracing plan.” He even went as far as naming the dams and saying how big and where they would be. He himself can testify to the truth of it. He said that for that reason they could not give the municipality permission to build the dam, because they were coming with a large scheme. The large scheme was at Jonkershoek, and he gave us the size and the details of the dam. Subsequently he began to construct the foundations at Jonkershoek. He already had his scheme; only then did he begin drilling to determine what the rock formation was. ft leaked out soon enough that the site was not suitable for the construction of a dam. He then abandoned that dam and went to Koelenhof to look for another. His proposal then was to fill the Koelenhof Dam from the Eerste River. He said to Stellenbosch “Don’t worry”, but after a few years the municipality of Stellenbosch became concerned and asked what was going on. After the municipality had repeatedly failed to get any reply to their representations, the Department, at the end of 1964, sent not a letter, but a telegram to the municipality of Stellenbosch to tell them: “We can do nothing; you must get along as best you can and build your own dam.” Stellenbosch then went to a private engineering firm to ask for their assistance and they then drew up a plan for a dam. The dam was completed within 18 months, and that dam cost more than it should have cost—R450,000—because of the fact that they had to pay the private contractors much more because of the urgency of the water. As a result of the action taken by the municipality of Stellenbosch it was then possible for them to impose water rationing for one year only. But what is now to become of the Koelenhof Dam? It is still on the map; it is still there and the Department will not say whether they are continuing with it or not. They did not say so, but I say here this afternoon that they dare not continue with that dam, and do you know why not? Once again there has been a lack of co-ordination. If they continue with that dam, then the Stellenbosch-Muldersvlei railway line will be flooded. Does the Minister know this?

That is an old story.

Of course it is an old story. They also found out that the Group Areas Act was involved here and that the Provincial Administration was also involved, and to this day they have not yet decided what to do with that dam and meanwhile Stellenbosch has had to supply its own water. Mr. Speaker, what does one do with a department such as this? I think it was very wise to have transferred the Minister of Water Affairs to Interior, but one is becoming concerned about what is going to happen to Interior. I think the Minister must realize that the people of South Africa realize that there is a lack of co-ordination, planning and efficiency in this department. A business is only as good as its manager. There is something wrong in this department, and until such time as the Minister tells us what is contained in the report of the inter-departmental commission of inquiry, the people will continue guessing what is going on.

Let us take another case. What places has the Minister had investigated with a view to building a dam where he first asked his previous Department of Agricultural Technical Services: “What can be cultivated there when the dam has been completed?” What are the Minister’s plans? What products that are not already being over-produced does he want to cultivate at some of these schemes? What is he going to grow at Pongola? The Minister laughs. Let him get up and tell me: “We are going to grow this or that product there.” Not one single Government supporter will have the courage of a sparrow to stand up here this afternoon and say: “We are going to grow this or that at Pongola with its R39 million dam.”

Herman.

He will not do it either. I address my challenge to the Minister, not to a Deputy Minister, but I shall be glad if that Deputy Minister, though he no longer has Water Affairs under his charge, will get up and tell me, without mincing his words again: Look, we have been in consultation with Agricultural Technical Services; we have carried out a thorough investigation and the following products are going to be grown there: rice, mealies, sugar, etc. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Sea Point says a business is as good as its manager. If I look at the decline of that party from election to election, I wonder what kind of manager it has. It must be a poor manager. What is more, the kind of manager mentioned by him can only make use of employees who come here with warped ideas and ill-considered proposals, as the hon. member did. I am going to analyse them, and I am straight away going to connect the very first one with the Pongola Dam. The hon. member says that there is no co-ordination. If he looks at the White Paper which was laid upon the Table before the Pongolapoort Dam was announced, he will see that it is based on a survey conducted by the Natural Resources Development Council, which carried out a thorough survey in conjunction with the various departments, including the Department of Commerce and Industries, and which analysed the increase in sugar production and world prices, and worked out a programme accordingly. But the co-ordination goes further. The Department of Agricultural Technical Services not only made soil surveys to determine the precise soil conditions, but also built an experimental station on the two types of soil, that is to say, the expensive alluvial soil and the sandy soil, to determine what type of vegetation would thrive best there. Now the hon. member wants to suggest that there is no co-ordination. But in the meantime tests and soil surveys have been made on the western side of the mountain. If he wants to suggest that there is no coordination and that the dam should not be there. I advise him to look at the speech made by the hon. member for South Coast the other day in which he asked whether his part of the country could not get some of this water too in order to freshen the water of the St. Lucia lakes to some extent, because it has become saline. The Umkuzi River no longer has any water and the water cannot be pushed over that way. If the hon. member looks at the White Paper, he will see that provision has even been made for putting a canal into the Umkuzi River. [Interjections.]

I rose in the first place to congratulate my colleague, Mr. Fanie Botha, on his appointment and to welcome him as Deputy Minister of Water Affairs. Because he has just been appointed, I think that I should reply to the debate since I was Deputy Minister of Water Affairs until his appointment. He only took charge of his portfolio to-day. I therefore do not think it would be fair of the House to expect him to reply to the debate.

We do not expect him to do so.

I want to put it on record that he will find it as difficult as I do to reply to so many meaningless arguments.

I now come to the next point. The hon. member told this House that the Water Planning Commission brought out a report, and he asked what the Government had done with that report. The hon. member is uninformed because the Commission has not yet brought out a final report. The hon. member knows that when that final report is brought out, it will be laid upon the Table here. He tells the House that the report has been issued, and now he wants to know what decisions have been taken concerning that report. The hon. member comes to this House absolutely uninformed and with incorrect facts. The hon. member says that there was a departmental commission which inquired into the Department of Water Affairs. Where does the hon. member get that information?

I will not tell you that, but it is true.

Where does the hon. member get that information? If an hon. member wants to make statements and raise an issue in this House and he does not have the backbone to say where he got his information and whether it is authentic, then I do not know whether this House should take any notice of him. [Interjections.] I am asking the hon. member whether he will get up and tell this House where he got the information about such a commission? [Interjections.]

The hon. member also complained that there was no planning, and he referred to the period of the hon. the Minister who is Minister of the Interior at present. That period happens to coincide with the period for which the present Secretary for Water Affairs has occupied his post. I now want to show the hon. member what planning has been undertaken here in South Africa in that short period, because this is the criterion by which we must judge. In the first instance I am going to analyse what has been done in South Africa in connection with water and water planning. I want to point out what has been achieved since Union until the present Secretary and the present Minister of Interior took over Water Affairs, and what has been achieved since. The first period extends from the time of Union to 8th June. 1960. In that period the total storage capacity of storage dams commenced and completed or under construction in South Africa was 2,131,000 morgen-feet. This is the figure for the whole of that period. From June, 1960, until 31st December, 1967, in this short period, dams with a storage capacity of 5,347,000 morgen-feet were commenced and completed or placed under full construction. In this short period of seven years, 2.5 times as much water storage capacity has been created or initiated as during the period of 50 years extending from the time of Union to 8th June, 1960. If this is not planning, if this is not vigorous action on behalf of South Africa, then I want to ask the hon. member: What is action? What is planning? As a result of the planning carried out since the then Minister and this Government took over, and of the work performed by the present Secretary, South Africa was placed eleventh on the world list as regards water planning and water conservation at the international conference held at Istanbul last year in September. Now the hon. member puts forward a lot of ill-considered statements here, based on incorrect information, and accuses the Government of not having undertaken planning. This is just typical of the hon. member. He does not want to adopt a proud attitude and proclaim to the world what South Africa is doing. In his accusation he wants to insinuate that the Nationalists are also saying that the department and the present Secretary are incompetent and inefficient.

I never mentioned the secretary. I do not attack officials.

He makes this accusation. [Interjections.] I shall analyse the position further, and in a moment I shall come to the specific cases mentioned by the hon. member. Another criterion we must apply in order to see what planning has been undertaken in South Africa, what progress has been made, what service has been rendered despite our shortage of manpower and the depletion of our engineers and technicians, is expenditure. During the period of eight years from 1960 to 1968 an amount of R224,324,000 was transferred from Loan Account to Revenue Account. This sum of money has been productively spent on water conservation. I furnished the other figures some time ago. Now compare these with the figures for the period from 1952 to 1960. Only R82 million was voted during that period. This shows us what the increase was during the past seven years: two and three quarter times as much was spent on water conservation as was spent in the previous period. This is only from the Loan Account Capital with which actual waterworks were built to serve South Africa. I do not even want to compare these figures with those from the Revenue Account. I shall just mention them briefly. During the past eight years R63,996,000 was voted as against R30,642,000 during the period from 1952 to 1960. This represents an increase in the growth of the Department of 2.1 times as much as during the previous period.

The hon. member must realize that if service is rendered in this way, if so large an amount is placed on the Estimates year after year—and the Select Committee for Public Accounts keeps a close watch on the spending of this money—then he cannot complain about lack of planning.

Where is Cape Town’s water?

I am coming to Cape Town’s water. The problem is that this hon. member does not know how this Parliament functions. He uses the Nahoon Dam as an example. He tells this House the Nahoon Dam was to have cost R800,000. Does the hon. member not know that when a White Paper is laid upon the Table here, it is explicitly stated to be a provisional estimate which does not make provision for subsequent changes? But that is not all. When we are dealing with a scheme such as the Nahoon Scheme, additional applications are submitted as soon as the project has been published. There are additional people wanting water, new circumstances emerging. In the subsequent year, or before a larger amount can be voted for the project, another White Paper is laid upon the Table here. Now I want to challenge the hon. member for Sea Point and any other hon. member on that side to tell me which of them, when a second or third White Paper about any of the schemes mentioned by him was laid upon the Table, raised objections when more money for more services and an expansion in the services was asked for? What hon. member on that side stood up and said, “This we are not going to do?” No one. Do you know, Sir, why they did not raise objections? To refer to the Nahoon Dam: they knew that these were additional and new services which people in their constituencies might want, and they were afraid that if they objected at the time, they would be accused of not wanting to make available the additional water for the new developing areas and new circumstances. Now the hon. member wants to come along at a later stage and use the Nahoon Dam as an example. The first point I want to mention is the subsidy for agriculture. Surely the hon. member knows that when a dam is planned for agricultural purposes and it is not a Government dam, it qualifies for a loan and a subsidy. Surely the hon. member knows that all the irrigation schemes in South Africa are subsidized. The hon. member also objects to the fact that provision is made in the White Paper for a subsidy to the Cyril Lord scheme, the textile development scheme and the development of border industries. We took the House of Assembly into our confidence about these matters. But he raised no objections at the time. Surely the hon. member knows it is the policy of this Government to provide certain incentives to make it possible and attractive for the border industrialist to start an industry on the borders, because it fits in with the entire pattern of this Government’s policy. And to-day the hon. member is complaining about that.

What are the facts? When it was decided to build this storage dam on the Nahoon River in order to supply water to the Cyril Lord textile factory, investigations had shown—and all dam schemes are investigated in this way—that about 200 morgen of land were already under irrigation there. But those 200 morgen of land under irrigation had already been proved to be good irrigation land on which people could make a living. There are so many places these days where water supplies have diminished and dried up, and where the people are suffering a shortage of water. Is it then necessary for the Department of Water Affairs again to call in the Department of Agricultural Technical Services in the case of proven irrigation land and to say: You must make new soil surveys now and determine afresh what will grow there? Surely this is a proven irrigation scheme. Surely it is not necessary to incur such extra expenditure.

How many morgen have been scheduled at Nahoon?

When the dam was planned, there were 200 morgen of land along the Nahoon River. This land belonged to owners of holdings and was already under irrigation. This land has all been scheduled. The example I have mentioned relates to the Nahoon Dam.

The hon. member mentioned the Gamtoos Dam. Let me give him a further example of the planning of this Department. At the end of 1960 it was recommended that the Cougha Dam be completed to its second stage in order to supply 40 million gallons of water per day to the City of Port Elizabeth from the scheme, in addition to supplying water for 10,000 morgen of irrigation land. An agreement to that effect was concluded with Port Elizabeth on 24th October, 1963. The entire canal system was then enlarged and extended and a storage and regulating dam near Loerie was included in the scheme as a result of representations. After the White Paper had been laid upon the Table, further representations were received. It was the Municipality of Port Elizabeth that asked: Cannot we please have this other water as well? A supplementary White Paper was therefore tabled in Parliament in 1966 which estimated the cost of the Gamtoos Canal Scheme together with the Loerie Dam at R12 million—as a result of the representations of those people to receive more of the water. Now that hon. member wants to say in this House that the fact that we submitted a second White Paper asking for increased expenditure—and that we took Parliament into our confidence—means that there was no planning. This is not so. It is only as a result of the representations we received for new services and increased services that we had to incur larger expenditure.

Sir, I must make haste, because I see that I do not have much time left. I just want to mention two other points. The other member mentioned the case of the Van der Kloof Dam. He tried to put across a story about the tennis courts there. Let me inform the hon. member that we have staff at the Van der Kloof Dam. We have staff who are responsible for the execution of provisional contracts. We have staff who are responsible for the construction of canals. There are 37 White departmental employees and 28 Whites who are concerned with provisional contracts. This gives a total of 65 Whites. Then there is a group of 85 departmental Coloured workers and 50 Coloured employees concerned with provisional contracts. This gives a total of 135 Coloured employees. The staff consists of Whites, Coloureds and Bantu. [Interjections.] I do not deny that. I do not deny that tennis courts are being built there, but let me continue. I do not deny that tennis courts are being built there. The fact remains that, even if the construction of the Van der Kloof Dam has been delayed as a result of inflation, we nevertheless have staff there who are engaged on canal works, etc. The hon. member must know that wherever we build these dams, we must provide the same facilities to these people, as we provide in the urban areas. They must be provided with the same recreational facilities, because it forms part of their service privileges. Now I want to ask the hon. member: Does he want those employees of ours at the Van der Kloof Dam, or at any of the dams we are constructing, to do without tennis courts, without a bowling-green, and without, as he called it, “basketball”. No, Sir, I think the hon. member’s head is in the basket. Sir, this is our policy. It has always been our policy to provide the same facilities to our employees wherever we build construction townships as we provide for our employees in the urban areas. They are at least entitled to that.

The hon. member has made a great issue of Stellenbosch. I just want to point out to the House again how uninformed this hon. member is. The municipality of Stellenbosch wanted to increase its water supply from the Ida’s Valley Dam, as supplemented by a pipeline fom the Jonkershoek Valley, and quite rightly applied to the Department and asked whether they could not be helped to build a dam near Glen Conner on the Eerste River? The Department made a survey of the site. The Department carried out a survey by means of a diamond testing-drill, but what did they find? The Department found that there were no firm foundations at a reasonable depth. They found that it would be an extremely expensive and risky undertaking. The hon. member himself knows that ravine. [Interjections.] Then it was found that the maximum capacity of the dam would be only one quarter of the drainage. Therefore the Department said: This is not an economical dam to build. We did not recommend it.

May I ask a question?

No, I am busy. Then the possibility was investigated of building a storage dam on the Plankenbrug River which would be fed by water from the Eerste River by means of a flood water canal from a diversion weir in the Eerste River. It would have a contour of 400 feet above sea level. These investigations were carried out as routine long-term investigations for the utilization of the water of the Eerste River for domestic and industrial consumption, as well as for irrigation purposes within the district. Surely this is planning, Sir. One cannot just tell a municipality to carry on before one has made thorough investigations. Because the town’s consumption was increasing so rapidly and there was no immediate prospect of obtaining additional water, and the scheme could not be placed on the Estimates, the municipality was advised to enlarge its existing storage works, which it then did. The town did this so cheaply that it did not even ask for a subsidy. Surely this hon. member is no stranger in Jerusalem. Did he not see what Mr. Fouché said in a speech at Paarl the other day when he was still a Minister? He said that a large and comprehensive water scheme was being planned for the whole area.

For how many years have they been hearing about that?

That is what he told Stellenbosch in 1962. He told them not to build a dam. [Interjections.]

The fact remains that in the recent past this Government was faced with a drought such as South Africa had never known before. It was such a drought that the Government had to take steps in order to give priority to certain works. One example of such a work is the Oppermansdrif Dam, which was built to try and save the Vaal Basin if we should ever again experience a drought in the future. The engineers of the world consider this dam to be one of the projects that have been built the most rapidly and have been tackled the most effectively. This was done so that we would not land ourselves in the same dilemma as that in which we found ourselves in respect of the Vaal Basin during this drought. The fact that we had to undertake these priority schemes meant that we could not do everything simultaneously. Mr. Speaker, do you remember how those hon. members on the other side of the House accused the Government of promoting inflation through this expenditure and by overspending? Do you remember that they harped on that string day and night? They maintained that with the money this Government was spending in South Africa it was promoting inflation. They are still harping on that string. One cannot have your cake and eat it. Those hon. members must decide now. Do they want to give this Government the green light and say: Look, build the necessary capital works in the interests of the state, we shall not put forward these stories about overspending? Surely one cannot say in the first instance that too much is being spent, and then again make the accusation that we are not building rapidly enough.

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon. member has had an opportunity of making his speech.

Sir, I just want to mention one example. In order to provide these facilities in a dynamic, industrially developing country, we had to increase our Loan Account for the construction of dams and water provision from R4,127,900 in 1947 to R53,237,700 in 1967-’68. In these 20 years this Account increased from approximately R4¼ million to nearly R53½ million. This is how this Government and this Department, which has been administered by various National Party Ministers, have undertaken capital services in its planning to meet the water needs of South Africa. Cape Town is not the only city which is faced with water problems. We had to build the Midmar Dam. We also had to build a series of dams in Natal. We also had to build the Jericho Dam, which has the largest scheme for generating electricity in the whole of the Southern Hemisphere. As a result of the development of South Africa we had to undertake various tasks. One cannot undertake everything simultaneously, especially when one has to cope with an Opposition which wanted to sabotage our plans and which helped with the boycott business, an Opposition which then comes back and says, “Now you are spending too much. You must spend less”. No, the hon. member has no reason for complaint. He cannot make out a case that the Department of Water Affairs has not planned properly to work on a basis of priorities in meeting the demands made by the development in South Africa. Cape Town will get its water in terms of the plans on which we are engaged at the moment. Everyone must just exercise a little patience.

Mr. Speaker, hon. members on the Government side rely on the argument that they have a majority in the country, the majority of the seats and the majority of the votes, and that all criticism and expression of no confidence is therefore slightly ridiculous. The previous speaker also said, at the start of his speech, that there had been elections proving that they had the majority, and therefore, according to the logic of members on that side of the House it follows that they are right. But if the argument that one is right by virtue of the fact that one has the majority is valid, then only one conclusion follows, and that is that any elected government anywhere in the world must be right. Then we may just as well tell Sir Alec Douglas Home to go home, because he is on the minority side and is therefore wrong. It is an untenable hypothesis that a man is right by virtue of having a majority. It is most certainly untenable in the circumstances of South Africa; more so than in those of any other country, because in our country the government of the day is constituted by the people of only one of the national groups of the country. There are reasons for this. I do not want to dispute the reasons for this. It is the position and I accept it. But once a government has been elected in our country, then it is assumed that it will know and respect the wishes and the interests of all the people of South Africa. The Government is elected by one group, for such is the system, but it must govern for everyone. In other words, its task is much wider than to satisfy only its own voters. Therefore the success of any government in South Africa in our particular circumstances is not to be measured by the extent to which it satisfies its own small body of voters. Success is to be measured in our country by the amount of support, goodwill and co-operation a government receives from the entire population of South Africa. That is the right criterion. I doubt whether there is one responsible man on that side of the House who will maintain that the Government enjoys the confidence of the country as a whole. As a matter of fact, I can think of no single government in which there is such tremendous lack of confidence outside of Parliament on the part of the inhabitants of the country as there is in this Government.

It is not at all difficult to prove this. When a few years ago we constituted the Coloured Persons Council, for which no election has yet been held, the then hon. Minister, now the Minister of Defence, said in this House that in order to ensure that there would be a number of members who are favourably disposed towards the Government’s point of view, one third of the members of that Council was to be appointed. Take the Indian population. An Indian Council is about to be instituted, but all of the members are to be appointed. Take the Bantu councils in South Africa. There is nowhere one single Bantu council which is representative of the free vote of the Bantu, not even in the model state of the Transkei. Most of the members there are also appointed. In spite of all the talk about separate freedoms the Government continually has to protect itself against its own creations; therefore I maintain that until such time as these bodies that have been constituted for the other sections of the population are elected entirely on a free vote and then sympathize with the administration of the day, it is irrefutable that the Government, no matter how it has been elected, cannot lay claim to the confidence of the population of South Africa in general. Even as far as the white electorate is concerned the position outside this House presents a very different picture from that within this House. The majority in this Parliament is entirely disproportionate to the support this Government enjoys outside the House, and what is more, it is in an entirely irregular and undemocratic way that the majority the Government enjoys to-day is …

Order! I do not think the hon. member should use the word “irregular”.

Mr. Speaker, I am referring to political irregularities. I have not yet completed my sentence.

Order!

Mr. Speaker, then I say that it is being maintained in an undemocratic way in that the Government is utilizing the machinery of state in a one-sided manner, and particularly the radio, for its own political benefit. Surely there is nothing difficult about winning an election in that way? What is difficult about it? Therefore we say that the lack of confidence which is contained in the motion before this House is a true reflection of the sentiments of the vast majority of the inhabitants of South Africa. That is beyond dispute.

In the course of the discussion great play was made of the so-called new policy of the United Party. But what are the facts? Take the Bantu policy. For years it has been the policy of this side of the House that the Bantu population will be represented here by eight white representatives. Rightly or wrongly, no adjustment whatsoever was made by the congress. I say, rightly or wrongly. I do not want to say that the party will have nothing more to say on the matter in future, but no alteration was made. As far as the Indians are concerned, it has long been the policy that the Indian population should also have an opportunity of expressing its views in this body, namely Parliament, where laws are made for them as well. It is an old policy. The only adjustment made was in the policy relating to the Coloured people, where it was decided to accept direct group representation as the basis for a new, broader and more equitable dispensation for all the Coloureds of South Africa. But to seize upon this one amplification of policy as a comprehensive new policy for all groups, is really rather ridiculous.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask the hon. member a question. I want to ask that hon. member the question I have now been asking for five years, and he will give me a reply. In terms of the policy of the United Party, will it be possible for black men to sit in this Parliament?

The congress declared that the representatives were to be Whites. Now, hon. members on that side of the House may argue, if they wish to, that the policy is inadequate. Nobody can blame them if they want to argue that the policy is wrong or inadequate. But there is nothing obscure about the policy.

Let us now consider the policy of that side of the House for a moment. The Government to-day describes its race policy in five different ways. The words used are “apartheid" “separate development”, “separate freedoms”, “self-determination” and “partition”. But one thing is certain: these words do not all have the same meaning; partition and separate freedoms are one thing, but self-determination is something quite different. Partition and separate freedoms imply that the Government will create a homeland, a political territory of its own, for each national group. The Government takes the initiative and divides the country as well or as badly as it chooses. Each national group then has to be satisfied with what it gets. “This is your country, given to you by the Government, and that is the end of it.” This is partition, this is separate freedoms. Partition is therefore a predetermined pattern, the initiative for the determination or which comes from the white government. Self-determination is something different again. In one of its publications the Government itself has given a definition of what it means by self-determination. I am referring to the South-West Africa Survey, in which the Government has described the idea of self-determination. and in which it is stated that this is a policy which veers away from any predetermined political ideas and which is based on the principle of consultation. Take note, not on the principle of separation, but on the principle of consultation. And furthermore, that each national group will declare its own wishes concerning the constitutional future it desires. This is the Government’s own definition. Now, Mr. Speaker, if it means anything, it amounts to this. We know at present that all the national groups are citizens of South Africa. That is the existing political position and it is laid down by legislation. Self-determination means, in their own words, that no predetermined idea will be forced upon any group by the Government. In other words, if the Zulu, or the Xhosa, or the Herero in South-West Africa elect, when the time comes, to continue considering themselves as being South Africans, and refuse to separate themselves from the riches of South Africa, and refuse to exchange the broader citizenship which they now enjoy for a more limited citizenship, then, according to the policy of self-determination, they will have the right to do so.

Mr. Speaker, if this is not the right interpretation, then self-determination has lost its meaning. We therefore find that separate freedoms or partition means division according to a predetermined pattern with the white government as the determinant; while self-determination means a departure from any predetermined ideas, with the people affected, and not the Government, as the determinant. These are two completely separate political concepts. I think the time has come for us to get clarity from the Government, if it claims that it should have the confidence of the country.

The Government should tell us which of the two is its valid policy. The Government should tell us whether its policy in South-West Africa and its policy in the Republic are the same; and, if its policy is partition, that is to say, separate freedoms, whether South-West Africa will then be divided into a series of separate states by a unilateral act of the Government, or, if its policy is self-determination, and not separate freedoms, what political future does the Government envisage for those groups exercising their self-determination in such a way as to tell us: “We consider ourselves as South Africans who are as entitled to the riches of South Africa as any other group, and we refuse to exchange our broader citizenship for a more limited citizenship.” We are anxious to know what will then be the future of these groups. Would we then have reverted to white supremacy as the policy of the Government? I think these are reasonable questions, and if the Government claims to have a distinct and clear policy and to know where it is going, then the Ministers responsible should be able to give a reply to this. But let us make no mistake—the race problem in South Africa is of such predominance and such vital importance to the future of this country that it should be discussed, considered and argued about more than any other issue. The electorate in this country should not be satisfied with any uncertainty, any obscurity, or any wishful thinking in the programme of any political party.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there is another aspect on which we must get clarity. The term commonly used, especially in “verligte” circles, to describe policy is “separate freedoms”. Particularly when members of the Government speak to people from outside, apartheid is presented as a policy of freedom and emancipation for all. And again, in the South-West Africa Survey in particular, the promise of emancipation for all groups occurs time and again. The Coloureds and the Indians are not excluded. But now we know that there are only two ways in which a non-white group can attain freedom in the sense in which the term is used here. The one is that he must share the freedom of the white man in the same state; or it must separate itself territorially to form a state of its own. As far as this is concerned there are only the two alternatives. Admittedly territorial separation is possible in the case of a Bantu area such as the Transkei. Whether it is desirable or acceptable, is a different matter. But it is possible. For the 2 million Coloureds and the half million Indians, however, no possibility of this kind exists. I have never heard one single responsible member on that side saying or even intimating that it will be possible to create for these two groups a separate state of their own in which they can attain separate freedom. At the same time we know that one cannot have two parliaments in the same state with clashing jurisdiction. Even the previous leader of the Government, Dr. Verwoerd, admitted in a speech before the Indian Council in Durban that there cannot be two parliaments in the same state. If this were possible, then surely the entire Bantustan programme is unnecessary. All that needs to be done then is to give everyone a separate parliament within the same state. We know there cannot be two parliaments in the same state. And therefore we ask: Is it honest to describe this policy as one of separate freedoms for the four pillars, as the previous Prime Minister put it—the four large national groups—when one knows that two of the four groups do not qualify for separate freedom. And by the very nature of our situation they can never qualify for it.

I want to go as far as to say that the Coloured group will never be given so much authority over their own affairs, even in their own residential areas, that they will be able to say: “Look, these are our residential areas. Here in our area we want no apartheid. We want no discrimination here. We want to receive whomsoever we wish to, and we do not want the Immorality Act, or whichever Act it may be, here.” I say that the Coloureds will in their own residential areas not even receive that measure of freedom from the hand of the Government. I want to ask: Is it fair of them to tell the country that their policy is separate freedoms for all, knowing that to two of the main groups it can never be given and that it is impracticable in the way in which the Government intends to do it. There is another matter on which we must get clarity, and this concerns the hon. the Prime Minister. The previous leader of the Government seized every opportunity to emphasize that South Africa’s problems were unique and were not found anywhere else, and, as our problem was unique, we needed a unique solution, namely apartheid, which was only applicable to South Africa. These were the pleas we made abroad. This is what our representatives abroad were told to say. They were to say that it was a unique problem with a unique solution. And it was very strongly emphasized that apartheid was not considered as being for export. But the present leader of the Government has sounded a new note. In speech after speech he makes the astounding statement that apartheid is the solution for the whole world. And let me say straight away, and I hope it will be brought to the notice of the hon. the Prime Minister, that circles abroad that stand up for South Africa and are well-disposed towards South Africa, are extremely upset by this statement of the hon. the Prime Minister, because this has placed them in the position of not only having to explain abroad why apartheid is good for South Africa, but also having to perform the impossible task of explaining why apartheid is good for every country in the rest of the world. I think it is the duty of the hon. the Prime Minister to rectify this matter as soon as he can. Our representatives abroad have enough on their shoulders without having to deal with such irresponsible statements as well. The Prime Minister should at least say what he meant.

Who says he has not done so?

No, Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister want to see separate entrances for Whites and non-Whites, separate buses, separate stations, all over the world, all on the basis of colour? Does he want to see the Immorality Act enforced in London, Paris, and in the South American states? Does he want to have the Group Areas Act applied to the teeming millions of the world? Does he want race classification in the rest of the world? Only one country in the world applied it before we did, and the result was the mere mention of the term race classification abroad to-day, fills people with absolute resentment and abhorrence. And the hon. the Prime Minister may just as well ask his Portuguese neighbours what they think of the idea that apartheid is meant for the world. Or he may ask Dr. Banda or Chief Jonathan.

And then he must see what reply he will get. But to prove how unrealistic this attitude of the Government and the Prime Minister is, I want to say the following: He says apartheid is the solution for the whole world. But every time the world comes to South Africa in the person of a distinguished visitor or a diplomat, apartheid has to be suspended because it is so impracticable and because it is so objectionable to them. Surely, if it is such a wonderful thing for the whole world, the Government should give foreigners—including the Japanese and diplomats—a taste of what a wonderful solution it is when they visit us and let every one stay in his own area. But he does not do that. The moment an important foreigner arrives here, he must in various ways be protected against the consequences of the Government’s policy, which is now, according to the hon. the Prime Minister, the solution for the whole world. I must say that there are forces in the world to-day that are very anxious to divide the world on the basis of colour. And the foremost thinkers in this direction are the Chinese Communists, because they know that if they succeed in dividing the world on a basis of colour, they will get the whole of Africa, the whole of Asia and multitudes in America and South America to back them. In fact, the majority of the people in the world are non-White and it will suit them if such a thing were to happen. I wonder whether the hon. the Prime Minister saw what has just happened in New Delhi, where some of our people are attending a conference. There was a demonstration against the presence of South Africa. It started as a demonstration against South Africa, but it ended as a demonstration against the Whites of the world. The cry was against South Africa at first, but ended with: “All Whites go home!” Far from being a solution for the world, apartheid—has become a weapon in the hands of our greatest enemies, the Communists. It is time we realized that nothing in the world stirs up so much emotion as coloured discrimination and emphasis being placed on colour. The division of opposing forces in the world is becoming much less one of communist versus non-communist country. It is more and more becoming one between those countries practising discrimination on the basis of colour and those opposing it. Things are moving in the direction of this becoming the future division. And with this division we are going to become more and more isolated, more and more the target for attack. And therefore our role in the world should be not to extend or to want to extend the field of colour discrimination, but to see where we can eliminate issues that are not of fundamental importance to the preservation of the white people in South Africa, that solve nothing and only give offence to others. Let us get this clear. On one matter all responsible people in South Africa agree, and that is that we in South Africa must avoid domination of the White man by the Black man—because this we will never accept— but also domination of the Blacks by the Whites. There would in any case be no point in exchanging White domination for Black domination on basic principles, avoiding the domination of the one by the other, we are all agreed. Whatever difference there is between us. is a difference as to method. Our principles are the same. Our methods are different. And it is not difficult to defend the principle in the outside world.

[Inaudible.]

In our plea before the World Court our advocates stated that there were 50 countries in the world where there are ethnical groupings and where differences are taken into account, be they differences of an ethnical, cultural—linguistic or politico-religious nature. In other words, the problem of diversity is understood everywhere. It is a fact everywhere in the world that people are sensitive to national identity, to the fact of nationalism. This is a common fact. These 50 countries have adopted different solutions. Some have adopted partition, some have adopted partial partition, others have formed federations, while some have even decided upon assimilation. But the fact of the matter is that the major problem we are up against, is readily understood in the world. And I have never had any trouble in the least to explain that we are striving to avoid domination of the one by the other. Nowhere in the world, however, will one find sympathy for any kind of policy which humiliates people and subjects them to contempt on the ground of their colour alone and which regards them as inferior citizens. And I am referring to petty apartheid—those things that are not fundamental to the survival of the Whites. Things that were newly introduced a few years ago. I repeat that the Government will have to reconsider these matters and will have to clear away minor irritation systematically. It is particularly on this that our lack of confidence is based. We in South Africa will have to move in the direction of eliminating domination of the one by the other. And therefore we on this side stand for the dynamic development, constitutionally, economically and socially, of the heartlands of the Bantu. In principle the Government agrees with us in the matter. [Interjections.] But why does the Government not proceed? Why does the Government not proceed in a realistic way? Here the Government has a golden opportunity, having an opposition at this juncture that encourages rather than opposes it in this matter. What is the Government afraid of? Is it afraid of a handful of ultra-conservatives (verkramotes) who are only fighting a minor rearguard action anyway which they have no hope of winning? The Government must realize that only one policy will succeed in South Africa in the end. It is that policy which will enjoy the co-operation …

Apartheid.

No, whatever policy it is, it will only succeed if it enjoys the co-operation and the goodwill of all the race groups. No policy that does not enjoy the co-operation of everyone, will succeed. Do the hon. Ministers in the Government think that any Bantu group in South Africa will in future voluntarily exchange their broader South African citizenship for citizenship in a desert? They will never accept it unless those areas are made attractive and are developed into viable units. Otherwise their policy will never succeed. And no other policy will succeed unless what you otter enjoys the goodwill of the non-Whites affected. The Government has no alternative but to abandon a dogmatic outlook, and it will have to take industries to the Bantu areas if it wants them to develop. They are continually deriding Britain. I have been to see what Britain has done to relieve the pressure on a city such as London. The Government mere has realized that industry should first be taken to the new cities, and they have gone as far as building entire factories. Only after having completed the buildings do they enter into negotiations to take a firm or an industry there with all its workers. There is no other way. If the Government is not prepared to make the development in the Bantu areas attractive, its policy has no hope whatsoever of succeeding. We differ on the two sides as to the ultimate aims, but in the end these will in any case be determined by the progress that has been made with these areas and by the desires of the Bantu. The Government must get a move on and co-operate in those spheres in which there is agreement; let the intellectual debate on ultimate aims take its own course until the final picture becomes practical politics and we reach the point where we have to decide about it, because at that time we will in any case have to do what is necessary in the light of the circumstances then prevailing. Until such time as we get dynamic action of this kind on the part of the Government, we on this side are fully justified in expressing no confidence in the Government.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout is known to be the greatest political opportunist in this Parliament. To-day I want to congratulate him on the fact that in the end it was left to him to convey to us here the so-called new Coloured policy of the United Party, for after all, he is the father of that baby. It was originally his idea. You will remember that last year in this House we had the triumvirate of the United Party at loggerheads, and that a difference of opinion then arose between the actual Leader, the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in regard to these matters. Quotations were made from various sources to indicate that the three of them differed radically from one another. To-day of course, it is with great satisfaction that we can inform the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that his point of view has now been accepted and that it is the official point of view of the United Party. Once again the tail has wagged the dog. The political opportunism of the hon. member is such that originally, when it appeared that the National Party was going to capture all the seats in South-West, where he was at that time a United Party organizer, he suddenly turned Nationalist, and he came to this House as a member of the National Party.

You do not know what you are talking about.

After the hon. member had been sitting here for a while, Dr. Vervoerd made the important move of granting freedom to the Transkei, and the hon. member immediately felt that that was really going too far, the country would never accept it and the National Party was going to find itself in difficulties. Then he suddenly abandoned ship and returned to the United Party, and once again he was wrong. Then came the third opportunity. At the beginning of 1960 he read in the newspapers, particularly in the Cape, that there was a feeling amongst certain Nationalists that Coloureds ought to be represented in Parliament by Coloureds, and the hon. member immediately thought that this was another opportunistic chance and that if they seized on this policy they could perhaps draw a large number of Nationalists and so embarrass the National Party. Once again it was the action of an opportunist and he began working on it immediately, the upshot being that he has now persuaded his Party and that they have accepted it as policy, that they have broken faith completely with the Coloureds and with their entire attitude in the past and that the standpoint on which Dr. Friedman, Mr. Blaar Coetzee and others left the Party, the standpoint on which they went to the Appeal Court, which was for them at that stage such a tremendously important principle, has callously been thrown overboard because they hoped to catch a number of National Party votes through their political opportunism because the Press seemed to be favourably disposed towards that idea. Now I just want to dispose of another little matter, and I think it is necessary to do so. The question put by the Minister of Planning has been replied to very clearly now this afternoon by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, and the hon. member for Yeoville was very vociferous in his support. The reply was that in terms of their policy it was not possible for a black man to sit in Parliament. Am I correct now in saying that that was the reply? Simultaneously, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout asserted that there had been no change in their policy in respect of the Bantu, because the Bantu would be represented by eight Whites, and that that has been their policy for many years. Surely it is not necessary for me to quote again what I quoted last year, i.e. that the hon. member for Yeoville stated specifically that he believed the day would come when Parliament would allow Bantu to be represented by Bantu in this House. In what respect has the policy changed now? Who has sacrificed anything? The hon. member must not wave his hand about; that is what a cow does with her tail. He must say what happened. What are the true reasons? They maintain that there has been no change in policy, but the hon. member for Yeoville stated as recently as 1965 that the day would come, he saw it coming, when Bantu would be represented here by Bantu. To-day they replied to a specific question put by the Minister of Planning to the effect that no black man would ever sit here. Now I am just wondering where the change has taken place, or whether there has been any change at all?

But I should like to go a little further and analyse the position in regard to the Coloureds. The Leader of the Opposition is going to reply to the debate to-morrow and I think South Africa is entitled to know what it is. According to the present policy of the United Party, eight Whites will sit here to represent the Bantu, six Coloureds or Whites may sit here to represent Coloureds and two Whites will sit here to represent Indians. That is in this House only; I am not talking about the Other Place now. Now, in the first place, I want to ask on what basis they have arrived at these numbers, i.e. eight, six, and two? Have they been snatched out of the air? On what basis are there to be eight Bantu for a population of approximately 13 million, and why are there six Coloureds for a much smaller population, and two Indians for an even smaller one?

On what grounds do you at present have four Coloured representatives?

We can justify that very easily. There is no problem. It is based on the number of voters on the Cape Coloured voters’ roll, which, in comparison with the Whites, entitles them to four constituencies. That is the quota. That is how it happened, but how do these hon. members arrive at eight, six and two, to begin with? It seems to me it has simply been snatched out of the air and that there is no real motivation for it on a scientific basis. And if that is the case, what guarantee do we have that those figures are going to remain as they are? For if they have no grounds for selecting those figures, what guarantee do we have that they will never change them? That is where the difference comes in. And now the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is very disappointed, because he thought he had a very good point here, namely the representation of Coloureds by Coloureds in Parliament. But he is forgetting that the National Party is a growing Party that keeps pace with events, and that the National Party’s point of view is very clear in this respect, i.e. that the Coloured representatives sitting here are the remnants of a former legacy over which we had no control. That is why the point of view is very clear, and this is how it is already being generally accepted, namely that this relic of a former dispensation must disappear from this House. The Prime Minister stated very clearly in his policy motion last year that he was indicating a course for the Coloureds, away from the Whites. It is, in other words, the end of a dispensation; it is not a new point of growth.

Mr. Speaker, I was also overseas with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, we were in the same party and we travelled about as a party, and I can give the assurance here in this House that in Britain, as well as in other countries of Europe, many people are adopting a completely new view of South Africa and our colour policy; and there are specific reasons for this. The first reason is that Europe and Britain in particular have been tremendously shocked at the results of their emancipatory course in Africa, by the irresponsible actions of African leaders, and the fact that the so-called democracy lasts for one election and is followed by a one-man state, a one-man party and a coup d’état; one has “one man one vote once” and subsequently never again. As a result a completely new view is being adopted in regard to the way in which we in South Africa see our problems. The second reason why the eyes of the world are being opened in respect of South Africa, is because the United States of America is being saddled with a similar problem which ought to be much less difficult than ours as a result of the numerical set-up there. The world realizes that America, with its policy of enforced integration, has more Sharpevilles at the moment than we have ever had in South Africa. But it is being disguised and concealed; they are keeping quiet about it. The third reason why Europe is ultimately beginning to view South Africa’s problems in a new light is the fact that Europe is beginning to feel, at first hand, the effect of non-Whites in its own community, that non-Whites are streaming in in large numbers, and that it is now the official policy of the Conservative Party in Britain to close the doors to further non-white immigrants and then do the right thing in the eyes of the world by absorbing, integrating and assimilating completely all those already there. That is at the moment the point of view of the Conservative Party. They are taking preventive measures for all they are worth because there are in Kenya at the moment thousands of Indians with British passports, who are British citizens, who are quite at liberty to return to Britain, and oyer whom they have no control. They are beginning to feel concern in regard to the numerical setup. That is why these people are looking at us to-day with new eyes.

But that is not the only reason and in this regard I want to make the following interesting remark. It was put to me in this way by a very responsible man—the hon. member for Bezuidenhout was present and he is going to testify that this is the case. I am not going to mention this man’s name unless I am challenged to do so. He said: “We in Britain are taking a completely new view of South Africa s colour policy for this simple reason: After the First World War we had a vast number of Poles entering this country, but with the cooperation of the nation we were able to absorb them completely. To-day you cannot pinpoint one of them.” They were able to integrate the Poles; they were capable of being integrated. The same speaker went on to say: “We realize that our people are offering resistance; they do not want the black man here; they do not want to integrate with him; we shall have to do everything in our power to bring our nation to the point where it is prepared to integrate with them. Now it comes as a shock to realize that even if we were to try our very best, and even if our nation were ultimately to agree to integrating the black man fully, we still cannot integrate him because after three generations one will still be able to point him out as a result of his colour, his traditions, his language and his background. We cannot integrate him, and now we are taking a completely new view of South Africa and we are asking ourselves whether you do not perhaps have a solution, because thinking people in Britain are now beginning to view our problem in another light.” If the hon. member for Bezuidenhout wants to deny that this is the case, then I am prepared to mention this person’s name, but I take it that he admits to this, and that is why he is so quiet. Mr. Speaker, that is the pointed view of people in Europe to-day, but the hon. member will not inform us that that is the case. He would rather try and tell us that “petty apartheid” is so disgusting and unacceptable.

I should like to discuss for a while the entire question of so-called petty apartheid with the hon. member, for he is also the father of the idea of petty apartheid. I want to ask the hon. member to tell us where one must draw the line between petty and major apartheid. Where does the one begin and the other end? What is the difference? He is prepared to accept major apartheid. What is he going to do in respect of petty apartheid and major apartheid; where is he going to draw the line? He says that everything which is humiliating to these people, is petty apartheid. I want to ask him at once whether he is prepared to compromise the United Party? Is he prepared to say that they will do away with all those measures which are supposed to be disparaging to or humiliating for these people? Are they prepared to do away with the so-called petty apartheid measures? I want to mention a few by name. Do they intend doing away with separate bus facilities or separate train facilities if they should come into power? Surely it is humiliating for a man if he is not allowed to get into any bus or if he cannot ride in the same motor-car as other people. Are they going to do away with separate train facilities, with white compartments and white coaches, and non-white compartments and coaches, or are they going to herd everybody together in one compartment? For that is supposed to be humiliating to a person, according to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, if he cannot get into the same compartment as you are in. Are they going to do away with those measures? I want to go further. Are they going to do away with apartheid in hotels? It is supposed to be humiliating to say to a man: “You cannot enter this hotel because you are not a White.”

But there is no longer apartheid in hotels.

Are they going to do away with apartheid in our restaurants? I want to go further—and I am coming now to the actual question: What about the schools; what about education? I shall begin with primary education because I know what their attitude in regard to universities is. Can I announce to the world that it is United Party policy that if they should come into power, they will do away with the humiliation for non-white children that they cannot attend the same schools as white children? After all, that is petty apartheid; that is what is humiliating. I am asking the hon. member to react to that. I should like to ascertain from him whether it is their policy?

I shall give you a full reply when I speak again.

I want to put another interesting question to the United Party, and I want to put it specifically to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I hope that he will reply to this whenever he has an opportunity. This entire policy of theirs in respect of the representation of Coloureds in Parliament by Coloureds, contains the implication that they must accept the classification of Coloureds as a separate ethnic group. Are they now going to accept the Race Classification Act, which they rejected in loto, and opposed? How are they going to get the voters on the next voters’ roll if they do not define what a Coloured is?

What are they doing in South West Africa?

In other words, are they now by implication accepting the Race Classification Act introduced by the National Party?

Can you explain to me how a white voters’ roll in South West Africa is being maintained without race classification?

Under this Government?

Yes.

Because the Coloured in South West has never had the franchise. There is a registration of white voters, that is generally accepted. The Coloureds have no representation in South West either, and there has been no attempt there to place the Coloureds on the voters’ roll.

Then I want to proceed to another topic, but before doing so I should just like to say a few words about this question in regard to which the hon. member was so boastful, namely the fact that London is being reduced in size, that city complexes in London are being moved to outside areas. Mr. Speaker. I want to subscribe whole-heartedly to this policy. It has taken place; eight cities have been created around London to reduce the numbers there. But why does the hon. member not also tell us of the development of the thought in Britain that opportunities for employment be taken to the unemployment position, which in Britain is the equivalent of our border industries? What is happening in Wales where the coalmines are now closing down and there is unemployment. Instead of allowing those people to go to Birmingham and stream into the urban areas, factories are specifically being erected in those areas. Economic laws are being abandoned entirely for the sake of broader national interests. Steel and other factories are being erected in these small coalmining towns in order to provide work for the people there. That is the precise equivalent of our border industry development. The opportunity for employment is being taken to the unemployment position and this is being generally accepted there. It is the general opinion that it is a sound economic principle, but w en we want to apply it here for a far more important reason than mere unemployment, for a far more important reason than a mere concentration of people and because of traffic problems in a large city, then it is condemned as being something terrible.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to devote the rest of my speech to the attack which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition directed at the beginning of his speech at education in South Africa—his accusation that the Government was not doing enough for education, that we were behind the rest of the world, and that our policy was wrong. Now I want to confirm at once what the Prime Minister stated so effectively, i.e. that there was no government in any country which could ever do enough for education in that country.

It can try though.

It can try, and it is that very effort that I want to deal with now. I merely want to explain the position now, and I have dealt with the United Party as gently as I could. I have taken the figures and totals indicating their education position in 1947, the last year during which they were in power, the year immediately after the war, so that they cannot say that there was a war on. The war was at an end and at that stage there was no longer any money required for the war. They could vote money for the necessary services. Now I want to mention a few figures which the hon. member can take note of.

In the first place I want to discuss high schools, the number of high schools. The hon. member said that we were not creating sufficient opportunities for the children to further their development, that we were not creating sufficient technical opportunities for them to develop in a technological sphere. In 1947 there were 106 high schools throughout the entire Republic of South Africa, that is to say in the last year of their term of office after they had been in power for donkeys’ years and could have rectified the situation. In 1957 that total had already increased from 106 to 471. It had increased more than fourfold in a mere ten years under National Party Government. But the charge is being levelled at us that we are not doing enough for education in regard to this matter. This is the situation as far as provincial high schools are concerned.

The number of pupils attending high school in 1947 in all provincial high schools totalled 69,000. In 1967 it was 274.800. Yet it is being said that we are not making provision for the children; that we are not creating opportunities for them; that they are walking about in the streets! In 1947 there were 26 vocational schools; in 1967, 66. The total has more than doubled in a period of 20 years. The population has not doubled during that period.

I come now to pupils attending the schools of the Department of Education, Arts and Science. I want to furnish the hon. member with the figures so that he may know what is going on there. In 1947 there were 4,289 full-time pupils in the schools of the Union Education Department. In 1967 that total had increased to 25,400. But we are by no means supplying enough schools! Technical courses have increased from 8 to 84. The number of students attending provincial technical schools has increased from 306 to 4,093.

But let us consider the amount of money which has been voted. After all, money is the real determining factor. How much money did the United Party vote in 1947 for Education, Arts and Science? A mere R4,419,000. The Estimates last year for education alone-—I am not talking now about all the additional factors, and I did not even include the Child Act Schools, this is for education only-—amounted to R45 million. We are spending nine times more on education than they have spent. Where is the reaction now, Mr. Speaker?

I want to mention one or two other cases to make the position very clear. In the nine years from 1938-’39 to 1947-’48, i.e. the last nine years under United Party Government, under the leadership of Field Marshall Smuts, a total of R543,000 was voted for buildings for educational purposes. In the last nine years of this Government rule, i.e. from 1958 to 1967, R35 million has been appropriated for the same vote. That is 70 times as much. But we are being attacked and insulted and challenged before the nation! It is being said that it is an illusion that we are doing enough for education, that we are doing anything at all for education. I am not talking about illusions; I am talking about hard facts derived from departmental records.

We now come to the universities, and more specifically the subsidies to universities, and I shall once more furnish a few figures to prove my point. In 1947 the United Party’s subsidies to all universities in South Africa collectively was R1,400,000. Last year that subsidy for the same universities, plus the new ones—there are quite a few new ones which were established by this Government— was R21 million. Compare R1,400,000 with R21 million! The number of students at our universities who are receiving higher education at that level—and teachers’ colleges are not included in this figure—have increased from 18,000 to 60,000. I do not know whether the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has any figures at his disposal. I am sitting here waiting for one of the educational authorities on that side, somebody who at least knows something about these matters—such as the hon. member for Kensington or the hon. member for Wynberg—to furnish the figures. I have been sitting here the whole week waiting for somebody to elaborate a little on the jab made by the hon. the Leader and supply us with more particulars. However, no particulars have been forthcoming. I now accept that the hon. the Leader made his speech, included those statements in it, and that when the hon. members had to prepare their speeches in support of him and went and looked at the figures, they were such a revelation to them that they decided that they would prefer to keep quiet and not participate in the debate. It then became clear to them that the hon. the Leader had saddled the wrong horse.

I want to mention another point. I admit that no government ever does enough for education in its country. It is impossible because funds do not allow for that. Let us consider the position in other countries. In countries abroad one finds that university education is much cheaper for the student than it is here. There are specific reasons for that. In those centuries-old countries with centuries-old traditions the private sector does a great deal more for university education than the private sector in South Africa is doing. But in one university, for example the University of Ghent in Belgium, there are 3,000 private bursaries to which the State does not contribute a cent. Contributions are made by organizations, by testaments, by trusts or whatever the position may be. At that university alone 3,000 free bursaries are available. One feels that that is one of the main reasons why university training for the student is cheaper overseas. Those countries are not spending proportionally as much as we are on university education because the private sector is contributing its full share. We are still a young country, but in due course that tradition will also take root here and matters will improve. That is the present position. I really feel that the Opposition have saddled the wrong horse in this regard and that they did not realize how fast the horse could run. Our problem with the Opposition in South Africa is that they are continually trying to make political capital out of situations which do not lend themselves at all to political exploitation. One by one the few illusions they mentioned here at the beginning of the debate have been dealt with so thoroughly that there is only illusion remaining now and that is the illusion that this Opposition could possibly be an effective one. I want to ask the hon. the Leader, when making his reply, to explain to the House on the basis of figures how he arrived at the conclusion that we were not doing enough for our education. I want to repeat that it is never possible to do enough. But on the other hand one cannot make such a wild accusation as the hon. the Leader made here without also mentioning the figures in question.

I want to conclude with one last idea. I want to refer in general to our colour policy, which actually became the main topic of this debate. Surely the basic position in this respect is very clear, namely that we in South Africa are accomplishing in a peaceful manner what, 400 to 500 years ago, was accomplished in Europe by means of bloody wars. At that time the nations in Europe changed their boundaries, made haphazard conquests and in this way ultimately demarcated Europe into various territories for the various populations which had been brought together there. In South Africa we are taking people who throughout the centuries have been flocking haphazardly into this country, and we are trying to settle each one in his rightful place in a peaceful way. The Opposition says that it is going to cost too much. I do not want to repeat the arguments presented by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. I only want to say that I feel as he does. We must do so, irrespective of the costs.

Do you agree with him?

I agree wholeheartedly with the Minister. [Interjections.] I should like to put it in this way: What price is too high for the survival of a nation and the survival of a civilization? What price can be too dear for the assurance of our future and what is our own? No price is too high for these things. We are not capitalists or materialists; we are thinking in terms of other concepts. We are engaged in implementing that policy, and we will implement it. To the Opposition I just want to say that this side will, if it is necessary and the nation is prepared to do so, prefer to accept a lower standard of living than the one we are at present enjoying, than have no standard of living at all under their policy. Under their policy there is only one alternative, and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has committed himself on that. The hon. member said that when dealing with population groups there was a basic requirement, i.e. that they should be associated with a territory. Now I want to say at once that if that side regards the South African, White and non-White, as one great nation—and that is what their concept amounts to—then there is only one major territory, and if that side believes in the concept of democracy, then there is only one reply: The majority in that democracy will govern in that territory. There will only be one end result, and that is that the black man with his superior numbers will ultimately govern. The price which we will then have to pay, is a hundred times greater— not a lower standard of living, but the end of a civilization and the end of a standard of living.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Randfontein seems to think that we on this side will not be able to carry out our policy unless we retain the classification register. But we can carry it out without retaining the register, as we did in the past. In the days when the Coloured people were on the common roll they did not fill in the same application forms for the voters’ rolls as the white people did; they filled in different forms. We could distinguish between them and the Whites. There was never any trouble. For over 300 years we have been able to distinguish between the Coloured people and the white people in this country.

We on this side have not changed our Bantu policy. That policy is not influenced by one particular person. Our present policy has been like that for a long time and it was drawn up by the party as a whole. I am a little bit disappointed in the hon. member for Randfontein for his attack on the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, in which he gave us to understand that that hon. member is a political opportunist. We do not accuse the hon. the Minister of Forestry of being a political opportunist.

He is not one. [Interjections.]

He belonged to the United Party, then he switched to the Conservative Party, and later he switched to the Nationalist Party. But we do not accuse him of being a political opportunist. [Interjections.] He switched from the one to the other. We do not accuse the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education of being a political opportunist. He also switched from the one to the other. We believe they are honest in their opinions. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout is absolutely honest in his convictions … [Interjections.]

What about you switching your colour policy?

The hon. the Minister talks about us making a change in our policy. Has the Nationalist Party never made changes in its policy? Are they a static party? [Interjections.] The official organ of the Nationalist Party, namely Die Burger, in an article not very long ago said that the Bantu policy of the Nationalist Party had been “onherkenbaar verander”. That is what Die Burger said about that party’s policy. Owing to the late hour, Sir, I move—

Agreed to.