Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned yesterday I was stating that every sensible white person in the Republic should support the policy of the development of the Bantu reserves. I indicated that, if we did not do so, and do so in a very positive way, the Whites would ultimately, owing to the numerical superiority of the Bantu, lose their place in the Republic. The difference between the attitude of the Government and that of the Opposition lies in the methods of development, and the rate of development.

The legislation envisages the expansion of the Bantu Investment Corporation and the establishment and development of other corporations with the aim of expanding the Bantu economy. However, it makes no provision for the flow of white capital to those areas other than on an agency basis. It remains inexplicable to me what the objection can be to white capital or other capital than that being provided by the Bantu Investment Corporation. We have heard far too often in this debate of the profit-seeking which the investment of white capital will result in, and later on I would like to deal with this aspect as well. Then I should like a reply to the following question to be furnished to us: What is the objection being put forward in regard to white capital in those areas, when it is subject to certain stipulations and regulations? Is it not a fact that all countries are developed by capital and know-how which are derived from many sources, and does the best source of education and experience for immature and under-developed nations in the field of industrialization and commerce not lie in these very things? Would South Africa have made so much progress in the field of industrialization and its advanced commercial techniques if capital and know-how from many nations and sources had not come here to develop it? Can anyone deny that the Bantu in our urban areas are far more advanced, as far as knowhow and technique is concerned, than the Bantu in the rural areas? This is clear proof that the association which it will have with this kind of technique and know-how, is one of the methods of development it can enjoy.

Sir, I am not pleading here for the uncontrolled and unrestricted entry of white capital and know-how into the reserves, but on an agency basis alone the development of the Bantu areas will of necessity be painfully slow.

May I put a question to the hon. member?

No, I am sorry. Any services can be hired on an agency or contractual basis, but even here the profit motive, which is receiving such opposition from the side of the Government, is present. What is the incentive for developing the areas if this is not to be done on a profit basis, or does the development have to be purely philanthropic? I readily concede that other interests than Bantu investment should not be allowed to possess land there, but provision can be made for periodic leases, and in order to prevent such undertakings becoming permanent provision can be made for an option or purchasing right from the undertaking to be granted to a Bantu development corporation and/or individual Bantu to take over a business at a given time according to a predetermined formula. This method will introduce the capital and the know-how of the white man into the reserves, and will avail the Bantu of the opportunity of acquiring managerial ability and techniques much more rapidly than the methods defined in the legislation. I want to use the example of a textile factory which is being established in a Bantu area. Let me say at once that the Transkei is eminently suitable for the establishment of a textile factory, whether it is a wool textile factory or a fibre factory, because fibre is being produced there on a large scale. If an undertaking of this nature is established by private white capital, subject to the provision that after 10 or 15 years, the factory can be taken over by Bantu interests, according to a predetermined formula, then the development must certainly take place more rapidly than would be the case if the Bantu Investment Corporation had to find all the funds, or if a development corporation had to do the same on an agency basis. I want to elaborate on this. The finer techniques in textile manufacture take years to learn, but this can surely be done to better effect in a business undertaking which is managed and administered on a profit motive than in any other form of undertaking. My argument amounts to this that if such an undertaking has to be financed by a corporation and the profit motive is absent, then nothing much will come of it. Anybody who has any knowledge of the textile industry, realizes that the training of workers requires years before they understand the finer techniques of textile manufacture. If there is no profit motive in such an undertaking, if there is no incentive for training the workers in such a way that they will be capable of doing the work? The fact of the matter is that only an undertaking in which there is a profit motive ensures that the undertaking is managed and organized in such a way that the undertaking can yield profits. As regards the proposed development of the Bantu homelands, the hon. the Minister stated that the profit motive would not be the main incentive. But I wonder how a business undertaking can operate at maximum capacity if the profit motive is absent?

There is another form of undertaking which can also accelerate the development of the Bantu areas. It has already Been mentioned by the hon. member for Heilbron, and condemned by him in the same breath, I am talking here about partnership with Whites, with this condition that the Bantu will have an increasing majority share, and wall have the option of taking over the white share-holding after a given time. What objection can there now be to pouring white capital into undertakings in the Bantu areas while the Bantu retain a greater measure of control and will have the option of taking over the white shareholding at a given time? I should like to know what objection hon. members on the opposite side can have to this. If such an undertaking yields dividends, more than half of those do, after all, belong to the Bantu. Would there not be a greater incentive for making a profit in an undertaking if it is run on this joint basis? To my way of thinking, this is elementary and I really cannot see what objection can be made to that. After all, there is no possibility that undertakings in the Bantu area will be dominated by Whites, and there can surely be no exploitation. This principle is, in fact, being applied very successfully in many underdeveloped countries, as well as by one of our own industrialists to whom the distinction has fallen of becoming the economic advisor to the Lesotho Government.

In these two alternatives, which are being totally excluded by this legislation, lie the possibility for a much more rapid development of the Bantu areas than the development which this Bill is making possible. Herein lies the advantage of healthy competition in a democratic economy. It is not a socialistic economy such as that which the Government now wishes to transplant into the Bantu areas like a heart. What is being envisaged by this legislation, is nothing else but a socialistic economy —by the State and for the State for all people. That is what the Bill envisages. The proposals emanating from this side of the House advocate capital formation in a democratic economy as we have come to know it in this country, and as we would like to retain it. The Government has in many respects already commenced with a socializing process. Let us keep it away from the Bantu areas at all costs.

A great deal of nonsense has already been spoken here in regard to the assertion that the Bantu areas should not be developed too rapidly. The hon. member for Heilbron, inter alia, stated that an ethnic group could not develop faster than its absorptive capacity allowed Does the hon. member for Heilbron wish to be the arbitrator of the rate of development of the Bantu child? Who should be the arbitrator of how rapidly the Bantu child should develop? Or does the hon. member want to suggest that the Bantu are too backward to absorb a rapid development, notwithstanding the fact that thousands of them have, under supervision and in conjunction with the Whites, already picked up a high degree of know-how? Or, and this is far worse, is there implicit in this legislation a deliberate aim on the part of the Government to delay the development of the Bantu areas so that the Government does not have to implement the undertaking they have given that the Bantu areas can become independent, that sovereign independence about which the hon. member for Pietersburg said yesterday: The Bantu have only to ask, and it will be given to them?

I have dealt here with a few aspects of the policy of the United Party. There are other methods than those prescribed in the legislation whereby the Bantu areas can be developed. As far as I am concerned, I support the amendment moved by this side of the House. A select committee will be able to investigate and report on these and other aspects of the most efficient development of the Bantu areas. If the hon. the Minister is not prepared to accept this proposal, we will be very inclined to think that the Government is not serious as regards developing these areas as rapidly as possible. Let me state it unequivocably—the United Party advocates the maximum development of the Bantu areas, also with white capital and at the quickest possible rate, because in this is to be found one of the methods of safeguarding the future of the white man in this country. But all this should take place within the ambit of one undivided state. As opposed to that, the National Party stands for separate development, delayed development even, with sovereign independence for the Bantu homelands at the end of the road. That is the real difference between the attitude of the United Party and that of the National Party.

Last night, while I was listening to the way in which the hon. member for East London (City) introduced his speech, I thought that he had undergone some or other kind of political transplant. Today, however, he gave me the impression that the body had rejected the new organ. Hon. members on the opposite side spoke at random about this matter. But actually they only spoke about one thing, i.e. white capital and white know-how. Both sides of the House do not view this legislation in the same light. We view it from a different point of view; the policy of the National Party is aimed at developing the Bantu economically, and in order to do that we must develop the Bantu homelands. The United Party, however, wants to develop the Bantu homelands with white capital at the expense of the economic development of the Bantu themselves. They want to develop the homelands by means of white capital and white know-how so that the industries will remain in the hands of the Whites, and if that happens we know that the Bantu will derive no benefit from it. It is not what we want, and that is why we are not moving in that direction. We have accomplished a great deal already with these corporations. We have already done the spade work by means of development in the agricultural sphere. Surely that is the sphere where the development of any nation begins. We went further and provided the necessary services and created the necessary facilities there, and the stage has now been reached where the homelands must gradually be developed industrially.

The hon. member for Transkei spoke here yesterday afternoon about the textile industry of the Transkei, which he described as the “show piece” of the Transkei, but he said nothing further. That is all the United Party Government actually did, and one of the great tasks of the Bantu Development Corporation to-day is precisely that of sending the development which took place in the homelands with white capital and which kept back the autonomous development of the Bantu in a direction where it will be to the economic benefit of the Bantu. The policy of the United Party in the homelands is the same as the policy they want to implement in other respects. They are not concerned about the development of the Bantu themselves. The policy they are following is a policy of wasteful exploitation. They want to develop the Bantu homelands through the Whites so that the Whites skim off the cream and the Bantu do not derive the benefit of that development. Just think of the Coloured community. The United Party is prepared to skim off the cream of the Coloured community in order to integrate it with the Whites. They are not concerned about what happens to the Coloured community. When the hon. the Leader of the United Party gets a big enough fright he is prepared to lop off a part of his “white leadership policy” and allow eight Bantu to have representation in this House. Their policy varies according to the pressure exercised upon them. The other race groups are not being dealt with honestly so that they will be able to develop in their own directions. The hon. member for Transkei also referred to a certain factory and the opportunities for employment which were being created there for the Bantu. It is not our purpose to establish factories in the Bantu homelands merely in order to create opportunities for employment for the Bantu. We on this side are completely honest in our desire to develop the Bantu there economically so that they will ultimately be able to undertake the further development of their homelands themselves economically. We want to help them to establish themselves; we want to give them a place in their own homelands so that they need not always remain under our wing. If we were to do what the United Party suggests, then the Bantu will never develop to the stage where they can control their own affairs and where they can themselves develop economically. The hon. member for Transkei gave us an account here yesterday of how the Bantu homelands would develop if white capital were allowed in there, how houses would be built, how schools would be built and how many white teachers there would be. Sir, he does not want to call it by its name, but what is it if it is not white integration in the Bantu homelands? [Interjections.] If the hon. member is an advocate of integration, why is he so sensitive if one calls his policy by its name? If that is his policy, he should be courageous enough to admit it.

May I ask the hon. member whether the use of white capital and initiative in the border areas, together with Bantu labour, is not economic integration?

I thought I knew the hon. member for Durban (Point) better than that. The border industry is in the white area. It is white capital which is being used in a white area; there is no integration.

But, in addition, there is black labour.

The black labour —call it migrant labour if you wish—enters the white area from the homeland; the black labourer does his work there; he earns his money there and there is no integration.

As soon as they cross the border, then it is no longer integration.

Sir, I cannot understand the United Party. Hon. members on that side have intimated here that the Bantu Investment Corporation and the Xhosa Investment Corporation have been failures. But if they really and honestly believe that, then they ought to welcome this Bill. Suppose there was a weak link somewhere, as they believe. Since this Bill is making provision for the Trust and the Bantu Investment Corporation to make use of the assistance of sub-corporations which can provide specialized services, the United Party ought to welcome this Bill as an improvement on the existing legislation. If they really believe that these corporations have been a failure up to now, then surely they must agree that an improvement is being effected now with a view to specialization.

Anything would be an improvement on what you have done so far.

Objections have been raised by the other side to the fact that we want to develop the Bantu economically, in proportion to their ability to absorb that development. After all, the rate of development cannot be more rapid than the rate at which those people are able to absorb it. The method we have followed thus far has been to uplift the Bantu gradually and to teach him, in the first place, to provide his own services in the sphere of agriculture, and to build roads, etc. What the United Party wants to do in regard to the development of the homelands is to place a white roof over the head of the Bantu. Under their policy the “know-how” will always have to be supplied by the Whites. If that policy were followed, surely the Bantu would never be able to further their own development; they would simply have to go on supplying labour for the work of development being undertaken by the Whites. [Interjections.] The hon. member is interrupting me; if he wants to ask me a question, I am quite prepared to reply to it, but he is chattering so that I do not know what he wants to say.

The hon. member for Pinelands said that if we were to follow the policy of the United Party of developing the homelands with white capital, then it would be possible to develop the homelands much more rapidly and much more effectively. We do not deny it, but that is not the crux of the matter. The Government has many methods of ensuring that the development of Bantu homelands takes place more rapidly, but that is precisely what we do not want to do. What we do want to do is ensure that the development takes place in such a way that the Bantu can take in and absorb that development, so that they can derive some benefit from it. The hon. member also mentioned South Africa as an example and said that we had developed with the aid of overseas capital. That is so, but would hon. members not agree with me that we would have been much better off if we could have done it with our own capital? Then our position would have been a much sounder and safer one. Another thing we must not lose sight of, is that it was white nations or inhabitants, fellow citizens in many cases, the same kind of people as we are, who helped us in our development, but in this case there is a world of difference. There are two different race groups, and the Bantu will never be able to absorb the development we bring him with our know-how and capital in the same way as we were able to absorb the development from overseas in our country of Whites as opposed to Whites.

The hon. member for East London (City) spoke about profit-making. Surely the issue here is not profit-making. Surely it is the purpose of any person who initiates an undertaking to make a profit. It is not that the Whites should not invest capital because we do not want them to make a profit from it. We are doing it on principle. Objections were raised yesterday to what the hon. the Minister had said, i.e. that such an agent would have to be satisfied with a very small profit margin. It was taken amiss of him, but that was in fact proof of the honesty and sincerity of the hon. the Minister and the Government who are prepared to assist and encourage development even though the profit will not be so great. But there has to be a profit margin. There are projects which it may be possible to develop in the homelands with a small profit margin, and is it not better to develop those projects, and have a small profit margin, and in this way develop those homelands and the Bantu there economically, than to shelve the entire matter simply because the profit margin there is so small? Surely the fact that the Government is prepared to do precisely that in the interests of that population group proves how honest and sincere the Government is. The hon. member for East London (City) also made an expansive gesture in regard to partnership. Surely all of us have a little business sense, and each one of us is surely aware that if a person has some knowledge of business, or the development of minerals, and he is only forced to take in a partner because he cannot otherwise undertake that development, it is as clear as daylight which partner will be on the losing side. After all, we are not prepared to expose those Bantu in the homelands, knowing that they will be outsmarted. [Interjections.] No, I am not ashamed at saying that. I am only being honest about it. It is a fact, and we know that it will happen and that is why it is not to their advantage. I think that if the hon. members on that side, as the hon. member for East London (City) said last night, would honestly recognize that not only the Bantu homelands but the Bantu themselves will develop economically and to their own advantage, they can do nothing else than to support this legislation. What is the idea of asking for a Select Committee? They have only done so with the purpose of using white capital and white knowhow to implement a policy of wasteful exploitation in the Bantu homelands.

Listening to the hon. member for Mayfair, I was absolutely appalled at the monumental incomprehension of hon. members opposite in regard to the attitude of this side of the House. We have stated time and again, and for the benefit of the hon. member I will state it again, that our object in wanting to develop the Bantu Reserves is specifically for the purpose of maintaining as many as possible of the Bantu population there, in order to relieve the pressure on the white urban areas. We have stated many times, as part of our policy, that we should use the means at our disposal, namely, white capital and knowledge and white skills and white leadership and white example, to enable the Bantu population of the Reserves to remain in their own areas gainfully employed. How can the hon. member now say that our object really is “om die room weg te neem”? That is the biggest lot of nonsense I have ever heard. [Interjections.] If the Nationalist Party believes that, then they should have their heads examined, and they should go to a geologist to have their heads looked at, because we have said time and again that we want to build up those areas to enable those areas to maintain as many as possible of their own population. I am surprised at that hon. member, that after so many years in politics he should still have the temerity to speak such nonsense in a debate of this nature.

Yesterday we had the hon. members for Rissik and Primrose saying that this is a human problem. Of course it is. What we are dealing with here is the development of human beings who are to-day undeveloped black human beings. But this debate we are trying to conduct here to-day is mainly an economic debate, and I think we are largely free of the racial overtones we so often find in debates in this House. But it seems to me from what the hon. member for Mayfair has said that they have now lost the urgency that there was once upon a time to develop the Bantu areas. What has now happened to the year 1978? I cannot understand how the Nationalist Party can say, as the hon. member for Heilbron said yesterday, that we are hundreds of years ahead of the Bantu, as if now we have hundreds of years in which to develop the Bantu homelands. Where is the sign of urgency? Is there any speaker opposite who said in this debate that we must get a move on and do it now in order to lessen the pressure on the white areas in South Africa? Not one of them said it; they have not said anything about it at all. [Interjection.] I do not care what the hon. the Deputy Minister thinks Speakers on his side have not supported him, whatever his point of view might be. What we are dealing with here is only one-third of the Bantu people in South Africa, and we have to provide 39,000 jobs a year to cater for the natural increase of the Bantu population in the Reserves. Which of the hon. members opposite have made any effort at all to tell us how we are going to do it? There has not been a single speaker who has told us that the methods adopted by the Minister can provide those jobs. Not one of them has said so. We are dealing here with what are in fact economically depressed areas. That is what the Bantu reserves are; it has been stated before in this debate. If one looks at countries overseas, at an area like Southern Italy, we see that the Italian government went out of its way to develop Calabria, which was an economically depressed area. The Government there brought in capital, it provided the infra-structure, it improved educational facilities, and last but not least it invited foreign capital into the area in order to make a beginning to uplift the people concerned. How can hon. members on that side say that this sort of thing is economic exploitation and economic colonialism? Surely economic colonialism takes place when a foreign country invests its money in another country. How can we by investing white capital from white South Africa in an area which is black South Africa be guilty of economic colonialism, when this is all part of one country? Where does colonialism come into all this, unless it is the Government’s intention to say specifically now that those are going to be independent areas? Will the Government say so? Will the Government say that the Bantu areas are going to be independent countries in the near future and that we are taking white money from our country …

Who said in the near future? Eventually it is quite possible.

This is one of the biggest volte faces we have had here in many years.

Why?

Because it was stated by the previous Prime Minister that they could have independence, and it was stated here yesterday by the hon. member for Pietersburg that they could have independence when they ask for it.

That is nonsense. [Interjections.] He did not say that. I challenge you to bring a statement like that made by the previous Prime Minister.

Is what the hon. member for Pietersburg said nonsense? I wrote it down when he said it.

I do not care what you write down; you are a bad Hansard reporter.

The Deputy Minister is a bad Deputy Minister because he does not listen when hon. members on that side are speaking. This is the simple truth of the matter.

You said the previous Prime Minister said it.

Yes, and he did say it. I heard the hon. member for Pietersburg say it myself. I do not care what the Deputy Minister says. He is now turning about on what his own speaker said, and he cannot get away from it.

He did not say it.

I support this amendment in which we on this side ask for a select committee. Will hon. members on that side tell me why they do not want a select committee? I have not heard from anybody yet. A select committee of this House is the means to bring together the collective wisdom of the whole of South Africa.

For what purpose?

Mr. W. M. SUTTON. To improve this Bill. Will the hon. the Minister tell me this is a perfect Bill?

It is a model Bill and I will say more about it in my reply.

Will the Minister undertake not to amend this Bill in future?

Why not?

If this Bill is so good that it cannot be improved now, what will happen in future to make the hon. the Minister change his mind?

I will tell you.

Sit down and let somebody tell you how Parliament works.

The hon. the Minister of Mines cannot talk a lot of nonsense to me. We on this side have put forward a suggestion which will allow everybody in South Africa who is interested to come and give evidence in an effort to improve this Bill, with the specific objective of developing economically the Bantu homelands. That is the specific purpose of our amendment. If the hon. the Minister and hon. members on the opposite side will not accept it, it means that they regard this Bill as an almost perfect, if not perfect, piece of legislation. The hon. the Minister described it as a model Bill. It must be a model with the wheels falling off. When we on this side studied this Bill we thought this was the occasion for bringing together the ideas of all sections of our population to develop the Bantu areas as rapidly as possible. What we have is a Bill which provides for the development of the Bantu areas by government agencies. It has been said that a camel is a horse designed by a committee.

Have you been the chairman?

The hon. member for Brakpan should go back to Rooikraal and see what his committee looks like. We on this side have throughout this debate attempted to show hon. members opposite how this Bill can be improved. The hon. member for South Coast was at pains to explain to hon. members how the individual ownership was something we regarded as being basic to the capitalist system under which this country is run. The incentive is there for the individual to get ahead, and I do not believe it is possible to provide an incentive for a mass, a huge group of people, to get ahead. What appeals to a person is the benefit he can get from what he does. We believe that that is what is required in the Bantu areas. What is required is employment opportunities for individuals, for people to feel they can better themselves through their own efforts. Work is the only real source of wealth. We on this side believe that what should be done is to inspan the knowledge and the money power of the white man in this country so as to create in the Bantu areas the opportunities for those people to work for themselves and thus get ahead. We believe this Bill falls short of what can be done and what the white man is capable of doing in South Africa. What effort does this Bill make to inspan the efforts of the Bantu groups themselves? This is what we want to know. I believe the hallmark of the Bill is the development of what may be called a “nationstate” or what you like—we on this side call it the Bantu areas. I would be interested to know just where the Bantu areas are that are going to be developed in this way. I think in Zululand there is a large area of land which does not even have the basic requirements to permit its development as an industrial area. In the rest of Natal there are small areas on the borders of white areas, where we cannot develop industry.

Your colonial government brought about this state of affairs—do not put the blame on us.

The hon. member is talking about things that happened before the rinderpest. He wants to tell me this is what the colonial government did. But we have to take cognizance of what happens to-day, in the year 1968. This Government has been battling for 20 years to make some kind of progress. They have not even eliminated the black spots yet; so the hon. member must not come and talk to me about that sort of thing.

I believe the salient features of this Bill to be the following. The white economy is to become the milch cow of Bantu development under this Minister, because as I see this Bill, apart from the agencies, every cent invested in the Bantu areas will come from the white taxpayer through the agency of the Minister and his department. I want to know what will happen if these projects lose money? If the 700 trading stations in the Transkei are taken over under the Bantu Trust and they lose money year after year, who will bear the loss? The white taxpayer? Will the hon. the Minister come to us and ask for more money every year to subsidize and support these people in their business ventures?

We heard that old story with Sasol over and over.

This is not the same thing as Sasol, because we have a departure from what is happening. The white traders are being taken over by the Bantu Trust.

[Inaudible.]

This hon. the Deputy Minister goes on growling and groaning there, but I do not think he is making any impression on anybody. He has not answered the question.

“It does not matter what it is going to cost!”

I would be interested to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister and the hon. members for Rissik and for Primrose whether they are going to invest their money in the Bantu areas?

I have not got any money.

Who are the hon. members who are going to invest their money in the Transkei, for instance? [Interjections.] I am asking a question; I am going on with my “toespraak”.

All of us, the taxpayers.

The hon. members opposite tell us we are going to “invest” our money, but the profit does not matter. They say it is something we are doing for the good of the nation. They pretend it does not really matter whether we make 10 or 15 per cent on our money, because what we are doing is to help our country. What a wonderful ideal. I want to congratulate all the members of the Nationalist Party who support this project. I want to see them support this with money; they must not only talk about support in the House. Let us see them do it.

Wait and see.

I will wait and see, but I bet I will not see anybody from that side supporting this scheme with their money. That hon. member has just been appointed to the Bantu Affairs Commission, and I will ask him in a couple of years’ time how much money he has invested, and then we will know.

One of the points I want to make is that economic discipline is imposed by the profits that one makes or the losses that one suffers. I want to see where this Bill makes provision for the discipline imposed by profit or loss in regard to any of the corporations which are to be set up by the Government. This Parliament through the power of the taxpayer is underwriting all these corporations. The only discipline there is on the way in which you use your money is whether you make a profit or a loss for which you are responsible. That is why we want these corporations to be responsible to Parliament through the Controller and Auditor-General so that we can see every year what is going on. Without that there can be no discipline at all.

I come now to the question of markets. If you take a person to an area and ask him to set up an industry there, the first factor he will consider is markets. I am sure that the hon. the Minister of Planning will agree with me when I say that the first thing that such a person looks for is his market. Where is your mass market in the Transkei? If you establish an industry in the Transkei where is the mass market? The mass market, whether it be black or white, is in the established white urban areas. If you are to give people an incentive to go to the Transkei, of what nature must the incentive be? To begin with they have a primitive area in which to start. They must start training their workmen from scratch. They have a communications system which is inadequate and they must rail everything which is produced for many miles to get it to the market where it will be disposed of. This is true of most of what will be produced there with a few exceptions. As I see it. these exceptions are—and perhaps the Minister can add a few—blankets, to a certain extent textiles, prepared foods, furniture, houses and buildings in the villages which are to be established, and various services, such as garages. What else will be produced in the Bantu areas which will find a ready market in those areas?

Beer and bicycles.

My hon. friend says that beer and bicycles will also find a ready market there. I should think that the summonses for drunken driving in the Transkei are going to increase.

If you are not careful you will be on your bicycle in the next election.

Mr. Speaker, I will make sure that that Deputy Minister is not on my bicycle. I do not know who will speak after me, but I want him to tell me what will be produced in the Bantu areas which will have a ready sale in those areas so as to draw a person who has money to invest, to establish himself in the Bantu areas miles away from his mass market. I want to know how the local people are going to pay for all this because we will be establishing all our industrial activity among the poorest third of the Bantu population. How are they going to pay for this? How can this be done without taking the white man to the Bantu areas on the basis that he will undertake a crash programme— and we cannot emphasize this enough—to get the Bantu people to progress as rapidly as possible. This is what disturbs me about this debate. The whole of the Nationalist Party today appears to have shrugged off all urgency. It does not matter to them whether it takes a hundred years to get these people developed. The hon. member for Heilbron said “ons is honderde jare voor die Bantoe”. It did not concern him. He said that we must limit the pace of development to the pace of the people. But surely in the underdeveloped and depressed areas of Europe these training programmes are very successful. The American job programme, taking people who are literally the dregs of humanity and training them to do a respectable job of work in an industrialized society, will not take a hundred years. They are starting now as hard and as fast as they can to uplift these people by giving them specialized training. These hon. members seem to have turned their backs on this idea. To my mind this is one of the most significant aspects of the whole matter.

I have already asked where the money is to come from. Mr. Speaker, do you realize that four years ago the spending power of the Bantu population in South Africa was over R4 million per day. The bulk of that figure came from the white urban areas. This is a colossal amount of money. How are you going to interest people without giving them substantial incentives? I want to ask the hon. the Minister what incentive he is going to give these people to remove themselves from the areas where the mass markets are and where the spending power is R4 million per day and to go to other areas, unless he is prepared to allow an immediate link-up between the goods produced in the Bantu areas and the mass market. If he is going to allow the link-up between the factories in the Bantu areas and the mass market, how better can he do it than by allowing the companies already active in production for the mass market to go into those areas, produce there, train their own labour there and establish themselves there. This is the logical thing to do. But the hon. the Minister and other hon. members must not tell us that big companies with much money are going to invest there on a philanthropic basis. I do not think that they seriously expect that to happen. I think that we must return again to the question of what this is going to cost us in terms of concessions alone. I am very interested to know whether the Minister has any idea of what this is going to cost in terms of concessions to industrialists to get them to establish themselves in this area. I stress again that only established industrialists. people who know how this work is done and who already have training schools, who can reach out and take the mass of the Bantu people and help them to get ahead soon, are the ones who can help with this problem of Bantu development.

Since when have these industrialists been excluded?

Mr. Speaker, I asked on what basis these industrialists were going to participate in this development. It can only be done by means of incentive. Surely the hon. the Minister of Planning will agree with me that it is only by providing substantial incentives to established industries in the white areas or even in the border areas, will they be induced to go into a relatively undeveloped area such as the Transkei. Nobody is excluded, but they have got to justify their going there economically. I think that the Minister will agree with me that only incentives will make them go there and leave the areas where they are at present, with all the attendant disadvantages. Does the hon. the Minister agree with me or not?

We are doing the same in the border areas.

These industrialists are now going into the Transkei. Will the Government duplicate the same incentives as apply to the border areas in the case of the Transkei? Let us have an answer in this regard. Only a company which goes there prepared to allow the Bantu to rise through the ranks of workers to management posts of some kind, can eventually meet the needs of the area. If you are going to have active cooperation between experienced white industrialists and trainee Bantu industrialists, there must be some medium of communication. At the moment there is a white board and a black board of directors. How do they communicate? Do they communicate by letter? How does the black advisory board communicate with the white board of directors to sort out their ideas and to learn from the experience of the Whites, unless they can come together and have a thorough discussion of present conditions.

By telephone.

We might get a new telephone service from the new Minister of Posts and Telegraphs but we certainly would not have got it from the old one. [Interjections.] Will they have to send a letter in a cleft stick as people used to communicate? In regard to the question of profit it has been established policy in other countries of the world that companies which invest in certain areas are allowed to repatriate their profits over a certain number of years. Then the control of the company lapses into the control of the local people. Has the Minister thought of something along these lines or is he now going to adhere to his present idea? The other point I wish to make is that the Bantu people themselves are unable to develop sufficient capital to develop and expand their own areas. That is why again and again we return to this point, namely that the white man with his capital and knowledge must be allowed to go into the Transkei. To say that we are going there to exploit them and take away from them what is their own and so on, is absolute nonsense. This is a sociological step which has to be taken to enable the Bantu to remain there and to absorb there the natural increase of their population.

Why do you want control? What is all this talk about control? Why can they not be free to go into the Transkei?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Deputy Minister asks why they cannot go in there freely. They can go in to develop industry, to work in those areas, provided we are satisfied that they are going to benefit the people of that area, on the condition that they shall not be allowed to purchase ground, or to upset the holding of the ground of the local inhabitants. This is the most important matter of the whole lot, namely that the area there shall absorb the natural increase of that area. This is what this side of the House says has to be done and has to be done soon. One cannot go on stressing this too much.

The other point that I want to make …

For what period can they stay?

Mr. Speaker, the real danger is this. Let us understand this well.

There are areas in South America, such as Guatemala and others, which we call banana republics, where the United Fruit Company, and other very big American organizations, went in and virtually ruled the country. The Firestone Rubber Company had fantastic holdings in Africa, where they were a tremendous power in the politics of those countries. That is what we do not want to happen. This is why we say we must control; we must see that this is economic development, that these people do not make a banana republic out of the Transkei. Because that is what we are trying to prevent. That is not our object in wanting white capital in those areas. We return again and again to the question of a Select Committee. We ask the hon. the Minister to allow all the people of South Africa, the accumulated wisdom of this country economically. to come before a committee of this House to sort out difficulties which are present in this Bill and give everybody a chance, so that it will not be necessary to come back again and again to amend it and make new dispensations, and particularly to allow the Auditor-General to control the funds which are allocated through this Minister and his Departments to the corporations they are going to set up.

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the hon. member for Mooi River I came once again to the old conclusion that we are dealing with a party which really does not know what it wants. It puts me in mind of the words, “I do not want you, I do not want to leave you; O, teach me to endure the bitter struggle”.

But I am still going to get you!

He may get himself, but what he will not get, is the economic development of the Bantu homelands, not in their way. To mention an example: On the one hand we heard from the hon. member for Pinetown that he was concerned about what the effect would be on the white areas if the Bantu homelands developed rapidly enough. That is what is worrying him.

He never said that.

Of course he said that.

You do not understand English.

You understand neither Afrikaans nor English.

Let me mention another example to you. It is being said: Where will these public corporations find their markets? Now I want to ask the hon. member: Where will the private corporations find their markets? Since when must public corporations have one market and private corporations another? There is really no sense in that. The market of the public corporations will be the same as that of any private business undertaking, whether it is on a contractual basis, or whether it is owned lock, stock and barrel by the Bantu. That market could be in the white homelands, or outside the white homelands both in South Africa or outside South Africa’s borders. That is the normal market for any businessman, any industrialist. I am astonished that the hon. member for Mooi River can ask such questions, questions which he ought to be able to answer himself. Hon. members said that they were disappointed that the hon. the Minister had no dynamic policy, no dynamic scheme.

I did not use those words.

No, you did not; other members on the opposite side used them. I just want to point out, Mr. Speaker, that this is the last party that should talk about anything being dynamic. They do not even have a policy, let alone a dynamic policy! Yesterday they, and particularly the hon. member for South Coast, became very upset about integration. I should like to put a question to that side of the House: Do they support economic integration? We know they are opposed to political integration.

Economic integration is a fact.

They are saying it is a fact. If we tell them it is not a fact …

How can you say that?

I shall tell you presently. Wait just a moment. They also say we are not being objective. Perhaps they are right, because we are two different political parties. But I am going to look up the meaning of integration. I looked it up in the Verklarende Afrikaanse Woordeboek, published by Drs. Schoonees, Swanepoel, Du Toit and Booysen. That is the accepted dictionary. Now I would like to ask those hon. members whether this dictionary has any political purport. Are they prepared to accept it as an authoritative book? [Interjections.] They do not even want to hear what the dictionary says. Listen carefully now.

Do you mean economic integration by that?

I am coming to that now. You have only to listen. I accept it that the Opposition is in favour of economic integration.

It is a fact.

Then you are in favour of it. Listen now (translation)—

[Interjections.]

Order!

This is an authoritative book. Dare hon. members say that they do not accept the definition of these experts?

We do not accept it at all.

They do not accept it, Mr. Speaker. They did not say so before. Only after they heard the definition, did they say that. That shows that there is no objectivity on that side. In such circumstances it is sometimes difficult not to ignore them.

Other matters were raised which I would like to dwell on briefly. They complained endlessly here about the question of public control over corporations, i.e. that there is not sufficient control. I should like to ask that side of the House whether they did not establish public corporations in their day? They did, Mr. Speaker. Why did they not see to it at that time that there was parliamentary control over those corporations? Can they justify that? The first corporation was Iscor, established in 1925.

I thought you established Iscor.

They lost the election in 1948, 23 to 24 years later. In 24 years they were never able to find the time or a reason for introducing public control over those corporations. Why are they suddenly so concerned about that matter now?

You admit that we established Iscor?

No. You established the I.D.C. Why did you not make provision for better Parliamentary control?

We did not waste money.

There has seldom been a time during which as much money was wasted as during the war years. The National Party is also in favour of good control over the corporations and over public spending, but if that side of the House accepts that Parliamentary control is the only method whereby good control may be assured, then they are committing a grave error. I can show you what the position is in Canada, America, in Great Britain and in Germany. Of all those countries Great Britain is the only one where one finds a select committee on public corporations. There is control in all these countries but it differs in practically every country. Because it differs from one country to another and because it is essential that there should be good control—and this side of the House is in agreement in that regard—I would say that a case could be made out for an investigation into the best methods of control, but it is not right to say that there should in fact be Parliamentary control. In England there is Parliamentary control, and do you know what the experts say about that? England, according to them, is the country where control over public corporations is the most inadequate.

Sir, a great fuss was made about the so-called defective control over, and defective planning of the trust funds of the Bantu Trust. I do not know whether the Controller and Auditor-General has planning experts on his staff. We on this side do not want to assert that there is nothing wrong, but I should like to say this: Hon. members know what measures have been applied in the past year or two to deal with the problem of inflation; they know how certain projects had been undertaken and how their implementation had to be delayed.

The building across the road for example.

I can mention other examples as well. There are, for example, the irrigation schemes where houses are standing empty because the Government thought it more important to curb expenditure than to continue with schemes. Bottlenecks have been caused, and we do not deny that. Bottlenecks have also been caused in the Bantu homelands as far as Bantu trust funds are concerned. In addition one has had the problem of the manpower shortage. Sir, whatever hon. members on that side may say, the fact remains that it was better to restrict the development and combat inflation even though this meant that bottlenecks would be caused, which was in fact what happened, in respect of the Bantu homelands as well.

Is that your explanation of the Controller and the Auditor-General’s report?

No, I am not saying that. Much of his criticism may be sound, and it will in due course be discussed in the right place, but it is not right to accept in advance that these conditions are attributable to a lack of planning. It may be the case, but on the other hand it may not.

Hon. members on that side complained about the exemption of the Bantu Investment Corporation and other corporations from the provisions of the Companies Act. If it should be necessary to have a separate Act, why would one then incorporate the provisions of the Companies Act in this Bill. Surely the other Acts would not have been necessary in that case; one could in that case simply have said: Very well, this corporation is going to fall under the Companies Act. Why not? After all, one cannot have two Acts for the same corporation. Sir, the hon. member for Pinetown made certain remarks here which we cannot leave unanswered. I am quoting what he said—

When he was asked what he meant by that, he said—

He referred to a Commission which was still sitting and still hearing evidence, and he intimated that these directors could be prosecuted in terms of that Act. Is that not unheard of?

That is not what he said.

Here it is in the report of his speech. I have just read it out. Why this cloud of suspicion in regard to the Bantu Investment Corporation? How can he condemn one company, which was established under his own Act, in terms of another Act? How can he do that? Then I can also ask how many balance sheets of private companies are illegal in terms of the Bantu Investment Corporation Act? Why this cloud of suspicion? It is a disgraceful statement the hon. member made. I believe the hon. member for Pinetown to be a responsible member on that side of the House, but he cast suspicion on the directors and on the auditors.

Absolute nonsense.

I say that he should withdraw his words, and if he does not do so then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition ought to ignore him.

You are talking nonsense.

I am not talking nonsense.

I endorse everything the hon. member for Pinetown said, and I am not going to withdraw it.

Let the hon. member tell me in what respect this balance sheet falls short in terms of the B I.C.’s own Act? Is this balance sheet and this director’s report less informative than those of most private companies?

But is it a private balance sheet or a public one?

The hon. member compared this balance sheet to that of a private company. It is not I who said that it was a private balance sheet.

Would you invest your money in a company if the directors submitted such a balance sheet to you?

This balance sheet and this director’s report correspond to a large extent with the reports and balance sheets of most public companies except that this balance sheet and this report are more informative than normal. Why this accusation and this cloud of suspicion?

Are you an accountant?

Is the hon. member an accountant?

At least I understand balance sheets.

I took Accountancy III, and I can tell the hon. member that I passed with distinction.

It does not look like it to me.

He is not an accountant, he is an old “shyster” lawyer.

Sir, hon. members on that side came forward here with disjointed, unfair and unjustified criticism which they could not substantiate. But let me return to the purpose for which this Act was placed on the Statute Book, and to the policy of the National Party The policy of the National Party in respect of the development of the Bantu homelands is based on two main foundation stones. The first is to bring about the maximum economic development of the Bantu homelands, not only for immediate results, but particularly for long-term results, for the benefit of the Bantu. If one were to throw open the homelands to private capital, which is what hon. members on that side are pleading for, even with the few conditions which they suggested, after the Government had created the right climate, what would private capital do? I am not talking about exploitation, but private capital which is adjusted to a profit motive will simply pick out the best parts; it will absorb all the good investments which ought in fact to be developed to the benefit of the Bantu. We say: No, those undertakings, which are so profitable, can be tackled from the outset by the Bantu via the Bantu Trust and via the investment corporations. Look how the position in Canada has developed. We know to what extent Canada is dependent upon the United States of America to-day. Canada is at present experiencing another crisis with her monetary unit because it is so economically dependent upon the U.S.A. We do not want the Bantu homelands to become the economic slaves of the Republic.

South Africa was developed by means of British capital.

Mr. Speaker, let me also refer you to Japan. What did Japan do? Japan laid down in legislation that certain industries must be controlled by Japanese. Why? Because even they, who are much further developed than the Bantu in our Bantu homelands, feared that if they did not impose strict restrictions, those industries could be controlled by overseas interests, particularly American. Why did Japan introduce all those control measures? Because they wanted to develop their country to the benefit of their own people, particularly on a long-term basis.

The second cornerstone of our policy is to lay the best foundation for healthy inter-racial, inter-regional and, if need be, inter-state relationships. Mr. Speaker, what have we seen in the rest of Africa? After the parent powers withdrew the relations, except in the case of France, between those states and the parent state deteriorated considerably, and in fact one of the reasons for that was because the states in question, when they became independent, accused the parent country of economic exploitation. We believe that it is extremely important for us here in South Africa to lay the foundations in such a way that good, peaceful relations between white South Africa and those states can be built on that foundation, because if we can succeed in maintaining good relations with our bordering black states, then that fact will play a very important role in establishing and maintaining good relations with other black states in Africa.

Are those neighbouring states also going to allow only white agencies?

They are doing so, and what is happening? Is money pouring in?

The economic development of a country is, inter alia, determined by its own natural resources, by its inter-regional relations and to a large extent by the role played by the Government. At this stage we are not aware of any considerable natural resources in our Bantu homelands. That makes the development here so much more difficult, and of necessity too, so much more the slower. Our assertion is that the potential is not such that private initiative on its own can be allowed entry on a large scale to, as I have already said, pick out the best parts of the region, and the following is proof of that: For how many years was there a complete absence of restrictions on the investment of private capital in the Bantu homelands, including the time of the United Party Government, and what development took place in their time in the Bantu homelands? What did the United Party Government do to develop the Bantu homelands? How many private companies went to establish themselves there? They only had the N.D.C. for the textile corporation in King William’s Town, and they are still boasting about that. This Government believes that it will achieve far more by making use of these public corporations, for a very important reason. In the long run these corporations must of course take the profit motive into consideration as well, but it need not be concerned about immediate dividends. It can pour in money and administration without expecting quick dividends. Now I want to say that if it had not been for these corporations the Bantu homelands to-day would have been much less developed than they are, and that side of the House cannot deny this, for why was there no development in their time when there were no restrictions? Where do they derive their argument from? They do not have an argument. They cannot adduce facts. They have nothing to say.

We were fighting a war.

That is the old reply. Were they fighting a war from 1932 to 1948, and are hey still licking their wounds now?

There is another argument which that side of the House did not say much about, and that is the importance of inter-regional relations. If one wants to develop a country, and particularly a young country, one can only do so by means of import tariffs. One protects one’s young industries. But when the Bantu homelands are still economically part of the Republic, as at present, one cannot make use of that method. When they are an independent state one day—and we are not excluding this either—we say that when Parliament sees fit, and they are ripe for it, they can achieve political independence …

We have become tired of that.

When they become independent, tariffs can be applied, but we do not have such a solution now. A question has been asked and I should like to hear what the Minister has to say about it, but I personally think that the Government will have to grant concessions to industries in the homelands, if they must develop, and I want to know whether the Opposition is opposed to that? A question was asked in regard to wages. Do they want the same wage structures and conditions of service in the Bantu homelands as in the cities? Is it not obvious that the wages and conditions of service will have to be more attractive, and that it will be more necessary to keep pace with the productivity of labour there than in the cities? Is that not the obvious way? Are they opposed to it? No, they are not opposed to it. But now I want to say this. We on this side of the House believe that the best method of developing the Bantu homelands is still, firstly, to increase the agricultural productivity. This remains the best method, and I can quote international sources here to show that that is the position not only in South Africa, but in other African states as well. Here is a U.N. report, i.e. International Symposium on Industrial Development, presented by the Executive Director of the U.N. Industrial Development Organization. Listen to what it says. Hon. Members are so fond of saying that industries are the alpha and the omega of development for the Bantu homelands, but listen to what these people have to say—

Listen carefully now—

And the conclusion is this. He furnishes a list of priorities in regard to the way in which the development of backward areas should be expedited—

This is different in our country because we do not want that labour mobility if we can prevent it; we want the labourers to be able to obtain work in the homelands themselves. The second factor they mention is: “measures tending to improve the agricultural and infrastructural environment in a depressed region”. That is what the Government is engaged on, i.e. increasing the productivity of agriculture. It is a tremendous task, and I can quote numerous examples of what is being done in the agricultural sphere. I just want to mention a few here in the homelands (the Transkei excluded). In 1948 there was 4,738 miles of grass strips in farm-lands. That was in 1948 when that Party fell. In 1966 it was 51,000 miles. It increased from 4,000 to 51,000 miles. Contours and embankments increased from 4,000 to 11,000 miles; fencing increased from 3,300 to 43,000 miles. The number of boreholes increased from 3,000 to 5,000. Roads increased from 8,000 miles to 15,000 miles. [Time expired.]

One of the basic mistakes the hon. member is making, is to view the Bantu areas as colonies, with the Republic in the position of a parent country. It is not only an incorrect view, but really a very dangerous one, and I should like to know whether the hon. the Minister endorses it. The Bantu areas are by no means imperially conquered areas which became colonies in respect of which there had been “exploitation” by the parent country. In our case we are dealing with a South Africa which in the course of history developed as a unitary state; and what is happening now, is a form of decentralization, a form of distribution of power, which is totally different from the position of a parent country in relation to a colony. The hon. member wanted to know whether we were in favour of integration. Sir, it is with the greatest measure of decisiveness that I can say that according to his definition of integration, we are definitely not in favour of it. We stand for the recognition of the identity of the various population groups in South Africa, and for the retention of that identity, but we have been placed together in one country by Providence, and in the interests of everybody—since we are living in one country—we shall be obliged to have cooperation among the various population groups in several spheres, and this should be done in a way which will not threaten the future or continued existence or identity of anybody. There is a very wide difference between the co-operation which is necessary among people living together in one country, and the concept of integration as interpreted by hon. members opposite.

I do not think that a long story is necessary in regard to the Bill before us. We are dealing here with a matter in respect of which we on this side have perfect clarity as to what we want; we are absolutely convinced that we are right. And I do not have the slightest doubt that as the years pass, the Government will steadily be forced in the direction we advocate, if they want to solve the problem at all.

Let us see what the problem before us is, what our approach to the matter is and how the Bill corresponds with our approach. As we see the problem, it is true that over the years a position has resulted here in South Africa where certain parts of the country have developed and others have stood still and remained undeveloped. We all know, of course, that there are certain parts which have greater potential than others. But one never really knows what the potential of a particular area is before one has tamed it and exploited it properly, before one has given it an opportunity to develop. I can think of many parts in South Africa, and particularly in South West Africa, which we previously wrote off as worthless. I am thinking of the Kalahari, for instance, which we had written off as worthless until it was developed into one of the best cattle areas we have. The Namib was regarded as absolutely worthless until karakul sheep were introduced and brought great prosperity to the people there. That was the case in Namaqualand, and before the discovery of gold the position was the same in certain parts of the Free State. It is not at all such a coincidence that those parts of South Africa which have developed, are the white parts, and those parts which have not developed, are the Bantu areas. It is not at all such a coincidence that one has developed and the other has stood still, because the reason is simply that we have been applying different economic laws to the two parts. That is the basic cause why certain parts of the country have stood still and others have developed.

In the parts we call white parts to-day, the usual principles of capitalism have been applied The State has remained in the background as a corrective instrument which only acted correctively where and as soon as capitalism got out of hand or became excessive. In the so-called white parts we have had white initiative as well as non-white labour, and foreign capital as well as South African capital. These have joined forces economically-speaking. This is co-operation, not integration. They joined forces so as to develop the country, and that is why we have had this tremendous success in South Africa. If white initiative and capital and non-white labour had not joined forces, and if foreign capital and South African capital had not joined forces, we would simply not have had this development in the white parts. But in those parts which we call the Bantu areas, all these factors were absent, and that is why they are lagging behind. For all practical purposes they have remained closed areas, and that is why they were given the ugly name of “reserves”; they have remained tribal areas where the people were virtually permitted to lead a pre-historic sort of existence, and the usual economic rules did no apply there. The usual economic laws were simply not permitted to come into play there. Now it seems to me to be good common sense to state that for as long as we in this country continue to have two sets of rules for development, one for the so-called white areas, and the other for the Bantu areas, the Bantu areas will remain stagnant. I do not doubt that in the least, and experts who have since the time of the Tomlinson Commission expressed opinions on this matter, have come to the same conclusion. If the Government does not change its method of development, people will be gardening on the moon long before any of the Bantu areas will have become attractive and viable units. I need not explain to this House what the consequences may be for South Africa if the Bantu areas remain undeveloped. If they remain as undeveloped as they are to-day—so undeveloped that they cannot even absorb their own natural population increase—I can tell the hon. Minister now that not only his Government’s policy, his policy of fragmentation, will fail, but also our policy of federation, and we shall unavoidably be heading for black domination in South Africa. That is why we should like the Government to stop making a party-political issue of this matter, and to approach this matter on a broad South African basis and in a realistic way. Every day that is lost, every day we fail to develop those areas effectively, is taking us further away from the implementation of their policy as well as ours. But no blame can be attached to us for that, because we do not have in our hands the power to put into practice what we regard as essential. Implied in this is also the reason why we would so much like this legislation to be referred to a select committee, so that in that way we may once and for all get to the root of this matter and put forward to Parliament truly practical suggestions.

This legislation does not meet the basic requirements that are necessary for development. On a certain occasion I used the term “free capital” as being a primary requirement for the development of the Bantu areas A number of bon. members opposite—amongst others the hon. the Minister, the hon. the Deputy Minister and the hon. member for Primrose—went along and attached to that term a meaning which is totally inconsistent with what I said. It was easy enough for hon. members to look up and ascertain exactly what I had said. I contrasted Government or Government-controlled capital on the one hand—in other words, where the Government works with the capital of other people—with what I termed “free capital” on the other hand, i.e. private capital, individual capital. In other words, I tried to contrast Government capital on the one hand, with free, private capital, on the other hand. I am still of the opinion that the term “free capital” is a more pure concept than the concept “white capital”, because the investors’ capital we have in mind here, may just as well be Coloured capital; or it may be the capital of a group in which Whites as well as non-Whites have shares; it may even be foreign capital. That is why I believe that “free capital” is a better term, more pure than “white capital”. It means nothing more than private capital.

Hon. members opposite are now advancing the argument that if we were to allow private capital in the Bantu areas, we would be guilty of exploitation. But this is a remarkable argument. The profit motive is, after all, the basis of our country’s economic activities. And if this is supposed to be exploitation, if this were exploitation in the Transkei, then surely it should also be exploitation in the white areas, not so? If this is the case, then surely, we have exploitation all over South Africa; then it means that white business men are not only exploiting the non-Whites but also the Whites themselves. And is the Government satisfied with that? Is it satisfied with the Whites being exploited? If that is really their point of view, i.e. that the profit motive of the capitalistic system is exploitation, what alternative is there? The only alternative is State capitalism, but that forms the basis of communism. I am convinced that there is nobody on the opposite side who wants that, or is there somebody? I regard it as very irresponsible to propagate amongst the non-Whites the idea that the profit motive means exploitation.

Nobody said that. It is a misrepresentation on your part.

I should be very pleased if we could have a finality in regard to this matter. This is the impression we gained from speeches made by members opposite, i.e. that they regarded our capitalistic system as a system of exploitation. Let me state the Opposition’s point of view clearly once again, and let me do so particularly for the information of the hon. the Deputy Minister sitting over there. In 1961 the Party published an election manifesto. I am deliberately going back as far as that, because this point of view has not only been in existence since to-day. The seventh heading in the manifesto, “Development of Bantu Areas”, read as follows: “We believe in large-scale and rapid economic, social and constitutional development of the Bantu areas.” Surely, that is clear. This was followed by two important points, namely that the development of the areas should take place within the framework of the federal idea, and in this respect it is, as far as these areas are concerned, the territorial federal idea.

Is this a new statement of policy?

No. I am reading from the election manifesto of 1961. Many is the time I have read this out in this House. The third point, which I should like to put specifically to the hon. the Deputy Minister, is the following, and I am quoting again: “The development will take place with the aid of White capital …“—what I termed “free” capital—“… enterprise and skill, but with full protection of the interests of the Bantu in the areas”. I think the last few words are the most important, and I shall repeat them: “… but with full protection of the interests of the Bantu in the areas”.

In other words, so that they may not be exploited?

I am in fact replying to the question. On our side there has never been any talk of uncontrolled White capital which would simply be able to take over everything, such as buying up the land there. That would be extremely unwise.

You said so last year.

Where does it say so? Where did I ever say that?

From the bench in which you are standing now.

I should very much like the hon. the Minister to prove that to me. I have never adopted that attitude. If he reads my whole speech, he will see that I have never talked about this matter without quoting from this 1961 manifesto. Our point of view has always been the following. Free capital from abroad helps to develop South Africa, be it from America, or Britain or wherever. The money helps to develop the Republic. But that does not mean that South Africa is not protecting its own interests. We do not simply allow this incoming free capital to do as it pleases. Oh, no. We protect our interests. We on this side are taking exactly the same view in respect of the Bantu areas. Free capital must go from here to the Bantu areas. The private person should be encouraged to invest there, just as he can invest in Lesotho.

How is he to protect his money there?

I shall reply to that question, too. However, we say: protect, on the other hand, the basic interests of the Bantu. In this regard we are thinking in particular of the Bantu’s land rights. Protection of land rights has now been introduced in Lesotho. I do not know all the particulars of the Act that was recently passed in Lesotho. In Lesotho the land also belongs to the nation, but in order to promote industrial development, to attract money and to develop the country, certain legislation was passed there in terms of which transferable possessory rights, but not proprietary rights, are being granted to industrialists. That is the impression I gained of that legislation.

Does the hon. member also regard a long-term lease of 99 years as a possessory right and not as a proprietary right?

I think that it is certainly better than nothing. This is the very type of thing we should like to have investigated. As I have said, I have not gone into the particulars of Lesotho’s legislation, but my impression is that Lesotho has now found a formula, perhaps with the aid of Dr. Anton Rupert, according to which they may protect their land rights and still open the way for private capital to flow in so as to help the country develop. I say that we have a practical example there. However, I believe that the best way of seeing to it that the interests of the Bantu are protected, is to allow all investments to take place with the collaboration and approval of the Bantu authorities in question. If my memory serves me correctly, the Chief Minister of the Transkei stated in public that in his opinion the Transkei would never develop as long as private capital was being kept away from it. In other words, they themselves would like private capital to be allowed there. They know that it is the obvious thing to do. Why should we not place the onus on the Bantu authority in these areas? Let them decide what form of investment they want and what kind of development they desire. Surely, then there can be no talk of exploitation. If they have decided that this is the form of investment of white capital they want, and they give their blessing to it, then, surely they cannot turn round tomorrow and blame the White man for any disappointments or “exploitation”. They will not be able to lodge the complaint that there is improper white intrusion or any exploitation. We want to see that every step that is taken in regard to allowing white capital and utilizing private initiative, takes place with the collaboration of the Bantu authorities concerned in the area concerned. I fail to see why one should wait until they may receive their independence one day before they decide on this. No matter what their political status may be, no matter what their present status may be, I am convinced that the Transkeian authorities are just as capable as the authorities in Lesotho or in Botswana of expressing their wishes in this regard. In fact, I would say that they are much more capable. Why should we wait until those areas will perhaps be independent one day, before we decide to allow private white capital? In other words, this side feels that white capital and initiative should flow into those areas in full collaboration with the Bantu authority in question, so that there may not be any talk of “exploitation” or neo-colonialism or improper white intrusion.

The big question that was asked across the floor of the House, is this. We are asked: “How are you going to see to it that such development will eventually pass into the hands of the Bantu?” This is a very fair question, a question that must be answered. The hon. member for Primrose used the word “eventually”. He asked, “How are you going to see to it that it will ‘eventually’ pass into the hands of the Bantu?” I am satisfied with his using of the word “eventually”, because it will be a slow process. But this is the most natural process in the world, i.e. that it will in fact pass into the hands of the Bantu. I shall tell you why, Sir. In the first place, some of the White investors who will enter the Bantu areas, will do so on the basis of industrial or business partnership, which is, after all, the basis on which well-known entrepreneurs have achieved outstanding success in several parts of the world. We see every day how British, American and Japanese capital is being invested here in South Africa. These entrepreneurs establish their factories, their business concerns, or whatever, on the basis of a business partnership with South Africans.

Is that a parallel?

Certainly, it is a parallel. There are cases where the entire board of directors of. for instance, a Japanese company, consist of South Africans. In such cases, therefore, control simply passes into the hands of local inhabitants straight away. The same thing will happen in the case of the Bantu homelands. I think that the same thing will happen in, for instance, the Transkei if free capital is allowed there. Sensible business men will see immediately that it is in the interests of their business that a form of business partnership should apply. I cannot think of anything more effective than giving to the local inhabitants a share in business undertakings. It is a pity that Lesotho and other countries around us will receive the benefit of this kind of development, whereas our own areas, such as the Transkei, are being denied this benefit by the Government.

The principle of industrial partnership is therefore one way in which justice can be done to Bantu interests. But even where the white entrepreneur enters the field on his own, in the usual way, the process is more or less as follows. To start with, the Bantu are provided with employment. Hon. members opposite will concede that there are people who will remain workers all their lives, people who will never become independent entrepreneurs. They will always remain workers. The workers are provided with employment. In other words, employment immediately passes into the hands of the Bantu.

But, Mr. Speaker, employment also means training. The workers who are capable and display initiative are promoted to higher positions until one of a few things happens. They either become managers, partners or shareholders, or they go on their own with the knowledge they have acquired and establish competing business undertakings. They often establish their own business undertakings with the advantage of a strong sentimental appeal.

Now paint us the picture of the Whites who find themselves in that position.

That is exactly what happened to the rural Afrikaner. As regards the white person who goes there—surely he knows that the circumstances there will be different from those we have here. At first the rural Afrikaners came to the cities as workers. As workers they were trained, and they acquired more and more knowledge. Gradually they began to stand on their own feet and eventually they took over one business concern after the other. This is a process that takes place all over the world, a perfectly natural process, i.e. that the local people take over. I concede that it is a slow process. There is simply no alternative. Every day we see before our eyes how undertakings which grew up here with the aid of foreign capital, gradually transfer their shares, their management and eventually their boards of directors to South Africans, because that is good business. That is simply good, sensible business. I believe that the same thing will happen in regard to private capital which is invested in a Bantu area. However, I am convinced that for as long as the Government maintains the present dualism in the South African economy, for as long as it applies in the Bantu areas rules other than the normal ones, every attempt at developing those areas dynamically, will fail. I want to draw hon. member’s attention to what Dr. Hjalmar Schacht, one of the world’s greatest economists, wrote about this very matter in his book “My first seventy-six years”. He writes that Indonesia, after it had become independent, banned all foreign capital. The result was chaos and recession.

Since when have you been accepting Schacht as an expert?

He certainly is an expert in the economic sphere. Dr. Schacht wrote about it as follows—

Now he comes to the important point—

It is a perfectly natural process. He goes on to say—

He thinks that it is a perfectly natural process that it will pass into the hands of the local people. That is why Dr. Banda of Malawi is asking the Whites to-day to assist him in developing his country. Chief Jonathan in Lesotho is doing exactly the same thing. We absolutely believe that these principles form the only basis on which one can develop the Bantu areas in such a way that they have appeal and can become viable, so that the whole idea of distribution of power becomes practical politics Before that happens, it will never become practical politics. We must face the fact that there is simply no other way than that of the private profit motive, which is the basis on which the rest of South Africa has developed so successfully. Unless we apply in the Bantu areas as nearly as possible the same rules we are applying in the Republic of South Africa, capital will continue to flow towards the white parts and stay away from the non-white parts. The charitable basis is totally unrealistic. On that side there are people who have a great deal of money. Let them raise their hands to show who of them would invest money in the Bantu areas on a charitable basis. [Interjections.] That will simply not happen. Capital is at any rate shy of an excess of government red tape and control by officials. As it is, it will be difficult enough to lure free white capital. I do not anticipate a colossal inflow. What the fears of the Government are based on, I do not know at all. Try as I would, I fail to see how we can have success if we do not proceed in a much more radical manner than is envisaged in this Bill. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who has just spoken, tried to explain for the first time what he meant when he first used the expression “free capital” which may flow to the Bantu homelands.

This was the first time; it is recorded in Hansard.

That may be so, but this is the first time we really heard the explanation. There may perhaps be a reason for his finding it necessary to explain three times what he means by that expression. Perhaps he is using the expression “free flow of capital” to the homelands for development purposes, in order to protect his position in the United Party.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. member, when he speaks of the flow of white capital to the homelands for industrial development, whether he agrees that white skill should accompany such white capital.

Of course. It goes without saying.

Yes, the hon. member says it goes without saying White skill will have to accompany white capital to the Bantu homelands. But it entails more than that. White control will have to accompany white skill even if only in the initial stages. If white skill and white control have to go to the homelands, I assume that a considerable number of white officials will have to go to the homelands to exercise that control. Facilities for Whites will then, I assume, have to be established in the Bantu homelands, for example white schools and other facilities. Or does it not matter to the hon. member what facilities will be offered to this white skill and control? The hon. member should consider that before simply talking about free white capital which may go to the Bantu homelands. White residential areas will have to be established in the Bantu homelands when white skill accompanies white capital to the homelands. Those are questions to which the hon. member should give some consideration.

The hon. member made and tried to justify certain comparisons. The evidence produced by him and the comparisons made by him related to elements which could be assimilated or integrated where such partnerships existed. Is that what the hon. member has in view here, namely that there should eventually be gradual integration, as he put it in all fairness, between the Bantu and the white man who originally invested money and started industries in the Bantu homelands? Does he have in mind the implementation by us along these lines of the integration policy of the United Party as we know it? These are the comparisons which the hon. member made. The comparisons made by him of one country which invested certain capital in another but was eventually taken over by the other group, referred to elements which were assimilable. I want to make the statement that the National Party, unlike the United Party, hold the view that these elements to which we are now referring and which are dealt with in this Bill cannot be integrated and are not assimilable. We have now been listening for nearly two days to the debate on this Bill It is now very clear to me that the Opposition has not succeeded at all in proving the arguments advanced by them. It has not, in the first place, made out a case for referring this Bill to a select committee for examination. I do not think the Opposition has made out any case for this to be done. In the second place, I do not think the Opposition has made out any case for the rejection or modification of the sound principle and the stated policy of the development of the Bantu homelands on an agency basis. In the third place, I do not think the Opposition has succeeded in proving why private initiative should be allowed to establish and develop industries in the homelands.

As far as the first point is concerned, the question may be asked: What is there for a select committee to investigate which was not covered and dealt with by the hon. the Minister in his introductory speech here? The Minister dealt with the Bill clause by clause. The Minister did even more than that. The Minister did not deal with these clauses in chronological order; he grouped them together. Clauses relating to one another he grouped together before dealing with them as a group. In addition he was kind enough to make a copy of his speech available to us. Hon. members opposite thanked him for that. Consequently members of this House were afforded an opportunity of making a study of that speech. My submission is that a select committee may not go beyond the provisions of this Bill when investigating this matter. I submit that a select committee will not be able to add anything new to what the Minister dealt with in this House during his second-reading speech. We must have regard to the fact that this House has every opportunity of discussing this Bill here in the time at its disposal, as we have been doing for two days, and that this Bill will be discussed by a committee of the Whole House after the second reading. During the committee stage hon. members will have ample opportunity of discussing the Bill clause by clause, of moving amendments and debating them. I therefore ask myself why it is necessary to refer a Bill of this nature to a select committee. Having regard to all these things, I submit that the Opposition has not made out any case for this Bill to be referred to a select committee I do not think there is any justification for doing so.

As far as the second point is concerned, I want to say the following. We have the Bantu Investment Corporation. The Act in this regard was placed on the Statute Book as long ago as 1959. We have the Xhosa Investment Corporation, which has been in existence for three years. Last year the Minister explained at great length how money was going to be invested in and made available for development of the homelands on an agency basis. I cannot see for one single moment that there is any reason for rejecting or changing or removing the agency principle. If we have regard to the fact that this Parliament will remain responsible, and if we have regard to the fact that these various corporations will have to report to the South African Bantu Trust and through that body to the Minister, and will be answerable to him, we see there is ample opportunity for this Parliament of putting questions and expressing criticism during the discussion of the Minister’s Vote. Consequently I do not see any reason for rejecting this second principle of an agency basis.

I now come to the third point, namely why private initiative or free capital, as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout preferred to call it, should not be allowed to flow into the Bantu areas to employ private capital there for the development and establishment of industries. That is in fact the heart of the matter. I think the hon. member for Houghton who is not in the House at the moment, actually told us the truth here yesterday afternoon. I do not think that I shall be doing the hon. member for Bezuidenhout any injustice by saying, if I interpret his words correctly, that he said that these people were not going to invest money for the development and establishment of industries in the Bantu homelands from altruistic motives but wanted profits on their money.

That is true of all investments.

The hon. member for Houghton said yesterday that this capital would not be invested there from altruistic motives or for the sake of developing the homelands, but to derive profit from it. To me that is the key to the whole problem and also the reason why free capital should not be allowed to flow to the Bantu homelands. I agree with the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that that is indeed the motive. That is true. That will indeed be the motive behind the investment. Once we accept that, I want to come to the point at issue, namely that these investments will be made for making profits and not for developing the Bantu homelands in the first instance. This will not be done for creating points of growth in the homeland in order to attract the Bantu to his own homeland, but for making large profits. Cruelly enough, this will then lead to the exploitation of the Bantu within his own area. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout also tried to explain how such investors could be denied the right of ownership. I just want to put the following question to him. Supposing vast resources of mineral wealth were discovered there, how would control be exercised for mining development to take place without the investor being granted rights of ownership or rights to mine those vast resources of mineral wealth in that area? I believe we should think twice about that. This is indicative of the very motive on which this Bill is based, namely that our intentions in South Africa—and I do not think anybody need have any doubt about this—in regard to the development of the Bantu homelands are sincere. We do not want to exploit the homelands for the white man, but we want to give the Bantu the opportunity of standing on his own feet eventually. We want them to be able to develop their own industries there We want to train them so that they may eventually manage and control those industries themselves. If my point of view is correct, and also that of the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, namely that the motive is purely one of profit, these opportunities will not pass into the hands of the Bantu, but will remain in the hands of those people who are intent on making profits and exploiting to their own advantage the Bantu in their homelands. It is obvious that this will be the case. It must lead to perpetual serfdom for the Bantu in his own homeland. I want to emphasize the point once again that the Bantu in his own homeland, and the white capital going there through an agency or otherwise, are not assimilable. We cannot integrate and we do not want to integrate, because South Africa does not want to integrate. That is why this Party is in power and why this Government is in power. This Bill makes provision for the continued existence of the Bantu Investment Corporation and the Xhosa Development Corporation and it seeks closer contact between these different corporations under the umbrella of this new South African Bantu Trust which is now being established. There is the possibility of branches which may come into existence and this Bill makes provision for that happening. I do not think that any one of us will object to that.

In conclusion I want to say the following: This Bill should be welcomed by everyone who is in real earnest to create attractive points of growth in the Bantu homelands—and this concerns not only the interests of the white man, but also the interests of the Bantu—for attracting the Bantu to their homeland now as well as in the future and for enabling them to survive there on their own. We want to express our appreciation to the hon. the Minister and his officials for the fact that this Bill is before this House at present still in good time but nearly too late. If we cannot establish points of growth for the Bantu in their own area, then we shall not only stand accused before the white man in South Africa for not having offered the Bantu the opportunities to return to their own areas, but we shall also stand accused for having cleared the way for a stream of non-Whites to the white area eventually submerging the white man in this his own country, South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, if I consider what has been said during this debate in connection with this Bill, it seems to me one may rightly say of the United Party, “They do not practise what they preach”, because when they were in power they did not do any of the things which they now hold up to the National Party Government as a solution Mr. Speaker, I want to confine myself chiefly to the mining industry in the Bantu homelands, but before doing so I should like to say a few words in regard to certain statements made here by hon. members of the United Party as well as by the hon. member for Houghton in particular. The resistance of hon. members of the Opposition may be summarized as being criticism on the way in which Bantu affairs are being administered. It is quite clear that they do not have any confidence in the Government’s administration. The hon. member for Houghton expressed certain misgivings in connection with mining matters, the subject to which I chiefly want to confine myself. In this connection she said that no large company of any standing would be at all interested in the development of the Bantu areas. I want to make the statement here that within the framework of this Act mining companies will be able to follow the same procedure as that being followed by mining companies in the rest of South Africa at present. I now have in mind mining companies which exercise technical control over certain mining activities, for instance, although they do not have the majority shareholding in the mining companies concerned. I imagine that it will be possible to follow the same procedure by exercising technical control over mining activities where the Minister grants certain agencies to mining companies. It is true, of course, that we shall have to create employment for the Bantu outside the field of agriculture; it is absolutely essential to do so. Many of the Bantu are experienced mine-workers and the training of unskilled Bantu ought to be no problem, at least not on the level of semi-skilled manual labourers. When it comes to the question of management and the highly technical level of the mining industry, I do foresee problems because of the shortage of technically trained people in our white economy and because of the total lack of interest on the part of the blacks in certain divisions of the mining industry such as geological and mining survey, mining engineering, electro-technical and metallurgical engineering and mine management. I am of the opinion that it will still take a long time before these divisions in the operation of a mine, upon which the operation of a mine is in fact dependent, can be handed over to the Bantu.

With the experience gained by the black man in association with the white man from the turn of the previous century, the mining industry in the homelands can become, in spite of what the hon. member for Houghton said, the leading industry in the economy of the homelands under the guidance of the white man. It can make the task of upliftment in the socio-economic field much easier than it is at present. Here I readily want to agree with what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said in connection with what had been done in the past with regard to the economic development of the Bantu areas. The hon. member was in point of fact making an accusation against the then United Party Government, because in their time they did nothing in connection with the economic development of the Bantu areas, which they now present to us as an ideal. If a chaotic situation does exist in the Bantu areas, as they now want to suggest, then they are responsible for that.

Sir, mineral and metal resources remain the most important factor to steer the history and development of a country and its people through the troubled waters of world politics. In the national economy of the ethnic groups a mine will have a special feature, not only as a beacon-light of employment opportunities for a group of Bantu, but as an extremely important attraction and point of growth for the community within that group. It will provide the fundamental revenue on which many other activities will be based. Apart from this the exploitation of a mineral deposit always leads to the discovery of other minerals. In this instance I have in mind the Insizwa-Tabankulu-Ingeli-Tonti complex, of which the hon. member for Transkei must be aware. He ought to know that it has a potential economic value because of the presence of low-grade ores such as nickel and copper with traces of silver, gold and platinum. The hon. member for Transkei does not seem to know about these deposits.

What has happened there?

Nothing has happened there, especially under the rule of the United Party Government, but under this Bill possibilities exist for working these deposits. On the basis of our present knowledge the profitable mining of this deposit, measured in terms of a strictly economic yardstick and inspired by the profit or dividend motive, would not have been possible and consequently I welcome the statement by the hon. the Minister that as far as the activities of these corporations were concerned one should not have an eye to large profits only. If the primary object is to provide employment with a small profit as something additional, a profit which has to be ploughed back, then the development of these nickel deposits in the homelands in the Eastern Cape can mean a great deal not only to the Xhosa, the Pondo and the people of the Transkei, but they can also be an economic driving force for the entire Eastern Cape and the entire South Africa, because if it is going well in the Transkei it will also be going well in the rest of South Africa.

Hear, hear! But it is not going well there; that is the trouble.

Personally I am of the opinion that the possibilities of this mineral deposit have not yet come into their own, and I think here the hon. the Minister was quite correct. This, of course, is attributable to various circumstances, inter alia, the remote situation of the deposit with the accompanying heavy transport costs, the absence of cheap power and water supplies, unsystematic prospecting, and, what is extremely important, the shortage of risk capital. In short, the economic infra-structure of that vicinity was such that it was not favourable to the development of the deposits with the result that such development required initial capital which, coupled with the low ore content of the deposit and uncertainty as regards the actual reserves would have made it, upon calculation an unprofitable undertaking for an investment seeking a reasonable dividend. In this connection there is an extremely important aspect which must be taken into account and that is the fact that in the field of minerals, and particularly on the metal market, one must always have regard to the position in the rest of the world, and on that account it was never possible to consider bringing the deposit into production in the past. Under the provisions of this Bill, as explained by the hon. the Minister, I see no reason why the deposit cannot be worked to the immense benefit of the Transkei as well as the rest of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, we have a similar case, with additional problems, in South West Africa as regards the deposits of tin in the Damara homeland. On account of its special physical and metallurgical qualities the tin of this area is a sought-after product. It is known to me that at one of the biggest mining institutions of this area within the homeland the ore content of the run of ore varies from .10 per cent to .125 per cent of tin. Consequently it is a particularly low-grade ore. After it has gone through the process of beneficiation the tailings are .023 per cent. This means that as little as .1 per cent of the tin is recoverable and actually extracted, which, to my mind, is an achievement. But now the problem is that because of the low ore content which varies from .10 per cent to .125 per cent the entire industry as well as the mining of tin is not profitable. If this ore content of the run of ore could be increased by only .01 per cent to .135 per cent it would be possible to put its mining on a profitable basis, but because of the nature of the deposit this simply is not possible. Things which contribute to this unprofitability are costs which again relate to transport, water, power supplies, housing, etc. If these costs could be reduced—which can undoubtedly be done under this Act—it would be possible to continue mining operations for many years to come to the benefit of both the Blacks and non-Blacks in their separate homelands. If the industry could be kept going it would undoubtedly be a central point of growth for many other things in the economy of the Damara.

But it is, of course, not as easy as this—as with many other things in life this also has a reverse side. There is the problem of the human factor. During this debate hon. members have already referred to the fact that the Bantu was slow in absorbing the great benefits created for them within the Bantu homelands. As a matter of fact, when the Vote of the Minister was under discussion last year, we drew attention to this fact and quoted in this connection from the publication of the United Nations “Economic Bulletin for Africa” (United Nations Economic Commission for Africa), in order to illustrate this question of the slow absorption with which we are faced in the case of the Bantu and the fact that their economic development will have to take place at a slower rate so as to give the Bantu the opportunity of adapting himself to that development. Because the Damara, in whose homeland the mine is situated, do not present themselves in sufficient numbers to carry out mining operations, members of other ethnic groups, such as the Ovambo, had to be imported as mine-workers. Even when the Damara, who are also known as the “Mountain Damara”, do present themselves for work, they work for only three or four days per week. For that they advance the reason that the mine pays them enough for a four-day working week and that they have no need to do more work. It is, of course, difficult to keep an industry with continuous and regular working hours in operation with this type of worker. In addition they often prefer their own huts constructed from canes and tin to the brick type of house modelled on those of the Whites, which are so often made available to them. In spite of these and other shortcomings they are, as I know from personal experience, good goatherds and prospectors for tin in the Namib desert. I should like to emphasize that if the mining corporation or the agent of that corporation must be dependent on the native or ethnic group in a homeland for his labour when such labour does not meet his requirements, the problems of the employer will increase in number. Consequently labour problems are being combated and cases like the one I have mentioned are being eliminated in the mining industry by means of mechanization. Whether that is desirable in the case of a mine situated inside a homeland with its supply of labour and in respect of which it is desired that maximum employment opportunities must be provided under point 9 of the Minister’s basic conditions, is a matter requiring more clarity.

Apart from these local problems, an international factor is also involved. With the best will in the world, economically speaking, production cannot be commenced at a large iron deposit in the Kaoko Veld homeland until such time as the grade and content of iron ore reserves elsewhere in the world have decreased to that of the Kaoko Veld, namely 43 per cent and lower. If the Sishen iron deposit of Iscor can produce ore containing 67 per cent of iron and Rhodesia can produce ore containing 63 per cent of iron for export, you will understand, Sir, why a remote deposit such as that of the Kaoko Veld will not be in demand for the present as well as in the near future, unless the Bantu Investment Corporation subsidizes, with the approval of the Trustee, the development thereof at a very high cost. Apart from this, provision will have to be made for water, power and transport, etc., as part of the infra-structure, without the possibility, judged in the light of present data, of profits being ploughed back.

The hon. the Minister said that certain economic projects on which White entrepreneurs would embark would, as in the past, probably be of a mining nature and that 90 such agreements had already been approved. This is a matter which in terms of the Act is being dealt with administratively. I really hope that the hon. the Minister will not be disappointed in the results of these agreements, and that everything will go fine. As the State is accepting responsibility for the provision of roads, water, power and many other things, such as housing, in a spirit of paternalism, I personally believe that the State through its corporations may as well take the next step as well, namely to manage the exploitation and processing of the minerals, not as a dividend seeker, but as a profit-making organization ploughing all its profits back into the homelands. If the agency assistance is not necessary in commerce and industry, it is not clear to me why an exception is made in connection with the mining industry. If Government utility companies, such as the I.D.C., Iscor and Foskor, are, according to reports, doing good work, it is not clear to me why such companies cannot operate, in accordance with this legislation, also in the mineral industry in the Bantu homelands. Here there is an ideal opportunity for a Government mining corporation to operate in the mining industry in contradistinction to private capital and initiative. Mention is often made of the matter that the State should take over the mining industry and while the opportunity is now being created for the State to take this initiative, I believe that it will apparently be easier with the machinery of the State. Here I just want to mention, as regards mining matters in the homelands where the agent acts, that there is the danger of wasteful exploitation in the mining industry, because there is a material profit motive which will stimulate the agent in his activities. Consequently I believe that he will take only the best out of the deposit, and in the long run that will mean that the Bantu will be adversely affected in the future.

Point 6 of the basic conditions of the hon. the Minister which relates to fixed periods for mining agreements creates a problem for me. From the nature of the case mineral deposits differ in their extent and value from place to place. To the same extent as hon. members in this House differ physically and spiritually, mineral deposits differ in their degrees of profitability. In essence this applies also to the occurrence and extent of mineral deposits. The occurrences of gold on the Witwatersrand differ from those at Barberton, Lydenburg, or Pilgrim’s Rest, and the exploitation and capital requirements of the latter are quite different to those on the Rand. To bring a gold mine on the Rand into production from scratch, easily requires R50 million and this is generally regarded as a long-term investment and the stoping of a mine in such a project takes place over an indefinite period depending on economic and unknown political factors. If, in accordance with the wishes of the Minister of Mines, a second Witwatersrand were to be discovered in some Bantu area and an agent had to undertake the exploration and development without a guarantee of sufficient time for recovering all costs and capital expenditure along with a reasonable annual dividend at least equal to that which he could earn on his capital elsewhere, I want to give the assurance that a moneyed agent of any standing would not risk such a project. In the case of other deposits, and I assume that the 90 agreements fall into this category, where the initial capital requirements are small and where it is more a case of machinery and technical manpower being limited to a minimum, the time limit may be practical from time to time.

In connection with point 4, it is not clear to me either how the agent and the corporation will act parallel to each other. For the sake of efficiency and economic principles, joint action is essential as the underground stoping of a mineral deposit cannot be worked on a parallel or separate basis. I nevertheless believe that in the application of the basic conditions of the hon. the Minister, there must be flexibility, and I believe that this is the object particularly after having learned about the way these were applied from time to time in the past. In the application of these basic conditions there must be flexibility within the framework and depending on the circumstances and the capital requirements of each project.

There is something else which I should just like to mention. The hon. the Minister said that as far as the future was concerned, the Bantu Investment Corporation contemplated the establishment of more wholesale businesses such as those which would be established in Ovamboland during 1968. It is generally known that Swanla, the labour recruiting organization operating on a non-profit basis in South West Africa, has also been operating such a wholesalers business together with a retailers business in Ovamboland and the Okavango for a long time. In my humble opinion it has been rendering an excellent service, in co-operation with all bodies, including the Department of Bantu Affairs, to the benefit of both the employers and the Bantu population in the past. For a considerable time there has been talk of the Bantu Investment Corporation taking over the control of Swanla. This created a great deal of uncertainty, with the usual results, and in order to put an end to that uncertainty, discussions were to have taken place on ministerial level approximately four years ago, but as far as I know nothing has as yet come of that. The Minister informed me yesterday that discussions had in fact been conducted with members of the Executive Committee, but the discussions to which I am now referring were to have been discussions with the board of directors of Swanla together with the Executive Committee and the South West Administration. Now it is clear to me that this legislation is creating authority so that one of the corporations which are to be established may negotiate such a take-over. The alternative is, of course, that Swanla continues operating in the Bantu areas in the north of South West Africa as an agent. As Swanla is playing a major role in the economy of South West Africa and as interest in the weal and woe of this organization is considerable—during one election it was even dragged into the political arena—it will be appreciated if the hon. the Minister can give an explanation of the present state of affairs and of the future plans as far as this organization is concerned. I believe that this will remove the uncertainty which is upsetting many things and you, Sir, will realize that especially as far as staff matters are concerned, this uncertainty is detrimental to the efficient operation of the organization.

In conclusion, I just want to point out in this connection that clause 12 does not provide that members of the Legislative Assembly in South West Africa may not become directors of such a corporation as is contemplated in this Bill. In this regard I shall move an amendment during the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Etosha who has just sat down gave us rather an interesting speech here this afternoon, but I felt it was really something which did not belong in this debate and therefore I am not going to spend very much time on him. He did mention one point which I think requires a little bit of elucidation from the hon. the Minister. The hon. member said this Bill was designed expressly for the development of the area around the Insizwa-Sugarloaf area in Pondoland and the mining potential of that area. I am sure the hon. member knows nothing has happened there yet. We were given to understand by certain reports from the Minister’s department, and also through the Press, that there was no hope of development in that area. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister has now got certain secret information to the contrary and that there is, in fact, some future for development in that area I sincerely hope there is. If there is such a possibility, we would like to hear something from the Minister about this.

I want to return for a minute to the hon. member for Wolmaransstad who challenged us on this side of the House because we had suggested that white capital and white initiative should be allowed into the Bantu areas under a measure of control. He said that together with this white capital and initiative would also go management, which would mean that a certain number—perhaps a great number—of white people would have to go into these Bantu areas. He said this would create problems. He said we would have to provide housing units, schools, churches, and other facilities for the white people in these Bantu areas.

I did not say that; that is nonsense.

Who, in terms of this Bill, are going to control the industries and developments in these areas? Are they not going to be Whites? The hon. the Minister, the hon. member for Heilbron and other hon. members have said so.

We say “restrict”.

Will the same problems not be experienced? As I said, the people in control in terms of the Bill will in any case be white people, possibly officials; in all probability officials. The same problems will arise. Therefore I cannot accept the hon. member’s argument at all.

We say “restrict”.

The hon. member went further and asked: “What can a select committee achieve which the Minister has not already achieved in terms of this Bill?” I want to answer that question by putting certain questions directly to the hon the Minister. Who did the Minister consult when he drew this Bill up?

Not you.

That is obvious, because there might have been some sense in the Bill if the Minister had. I ask once again: Who did the Minister consult? Did he consult any of our leading industrialists? Did he consult anybody who has had any experience? Or has the hon. the Minister merely settled back like old Rip van Winkel in a cloud of smoke and had a magnificent dream? He has dreamt this up? The whole object of our amendment is that this measure should go to a select committee. I, and all of us on this side, wholly agree with the Minister inasmuch as there is nothing we want to see more in this country than the rapid economic development of the Bantu areas so that these areas can carry their own people. That is why this side of the House in all earnestness makes this offer to the Minister. We say to him: Let us get together on this matter, not only that side of the House and this side, but we say let us call in the experts, too. Moreover, let us call in the Bantu people themselves. Let us hear their ideas, let us learn what they envisage in the way of development as far as their own areas are concerned. Let us then get together, let us sift all this information, and then we should come up with something positive, not something negative as we have in this Bill. This Bill should not be called the Bill for the Promotion of the Economic Development of Bantu Homelands but rather the Bill to Hinder and to Slow Down the Economic Development of the Bantu Homelands.

The hon. member for Wolmaransstad also tried to deal with the problem of the profit motive. This matter has been argued across the floor of this House for two afternoons, and if the hon. member still cannot grasp the fundamentals of an ordinary balance sheet, then I think I must leave it at that.

I want to get on with something more positive. In a series of talks during April of 1967 in the S.A.B.C. feature “Current Affairs” the Tomlinson Commission report was dealt with. It was said that in terms of this report it was apparent that if there was no development of the reserves, then by the year 2000 the reserves would have the same carrying capacity as it had in the early 1950s. In other words, they would only be capable of carrying 3½ million people. One of the statements made during one of these talks was the following—

That was the conclusion arrived at at the end of a talk one evening. We had the next instalment the next evening.

Do you listen to “Current Affairs”?

Oh, yes, sometimes when I get the opportunity I do.

I am horrified by it.

I agree with that, too. In the next day’s talk the following statement was heard—

In 1961 it was decided that R114 million was to be allocated for the development of the homelands. We have heard from hon. members opposite of the millions that have been spent. If the claims of Deputy Ministers and hon. members on that side are to be believed the amount expended in that five-year programme was far in excess of the R114 million envisaged and referred to in this broadcast. But what has been achieved with this expenditure? We had the assurance of the hon. the Minister only two weeks ago in this House that during the period 1960-’66 in the Bantu areas 35 industries were established and employment was given to all of 945 Bantu and, believe it or not, to 37 Whites.

It was a revolution.

With this massive expenditure on development and industrialization in the Bantu areas—something of which the hon. the Deputy Minister was very proud —that is all that has been achieved. They have provided less than 1,000 jobs for Bantu people. The Minister went on to say the B.I.C. had invested directly R11 million in these enterprises. He continued that it was impossible to say how much had been spent on the provision of services. We leave that for the moment. This direct investments works out at R11,500 per job.

It is cheap.

Did I hear the hon. member say it is cheap? Without the cost of services the cost is R11,500 per Bantu employed. So much for the success of the Government’s five-year plan! This is the measure of achievement of their five-year plan Now I ask hon. members opposite: Has this money been spent or has it been wasted?

Wasted.

And why has it been wasted? Because it has been under the control of a Government department. [Interjections.] I am not referring to the officials; I am not criticizing the officials themselves. My point is that the money is Government-controlled.

Let me quote to hon. members what was said in conclusion by “Current Affairs”, the commentator said—

Let us examine what is planned. When he made his second reading speech the hon. the Minister told us what he is planning. He told us that between 1968 and 1972 the B.I.C. would spend at least R11 million in establishing new industries. It is rather a coincidence that the same figure was spent during the period 1961-’66. I wonder if the Minister will be able to provide more than 1,000 jobs with that money. So much for this “kragdadige” five-year plan which is now starting: We are going to get another 1,000 jobs.

What did Professor Tomlinson say 13 years ago? He said we had to establish 50,000 jobs for the Bantu people in the Bantu areas annually. That was 13 years ago. As he put it, 20,000 industrial opportunities would have to be created for the Bantu, and these would engender the additional 30,000 jobs required in secondary, tertiary and other activities. What have we had in this period? Only 945 jobs. Yet we still have the three blind mice saying they are proud of the development that has taken place. Last year in January the hon. the Deputy Minister said the Bantu areas were then really beginning to get on their feet. Who was he trying to bluff? Or was it compulsive wishful thinking arising from his refusal to recognize the failure of his policy? Now, I must admit that in addition to the 1,000 jobs that were created, in that same period 50,000 jobs—which is the Deputy Minister’s figure—were established in border areas. That means that 51,000 jobs were created in eight years. But that is barely one-third of the figure mentioned by Professor Tomlinson. Moreover, the Government started five years late; they started five years after Professor Tomlinson said they must get on with the job.

As we have heard in this House, Professor Stadler of the University of Pretoria has estimated that in the 15 years, to 1980, 585,000 jobs will have to be created, which means 39,000 per annum, to provide for the natural increase in the Bantu areas. This refers to the natural increase in the Bantu areas alone, apart from what is required outside those areas That is apart from the five million Bantu whom the hon. the Deputy Minister wants to send back to those Bantu areas. Professor Stadler went on and said that his estimate to provide for the total employment of all the natural increase of the Bantu people in and out of the reserves is 90,000 jobs per annum.

This is why I earnestly appeal to the hon. the Minister that we should get together. This is an important matter. It is something that must be solved for the good of South Africa. Let us get together and find a solution; let us find some way of providing these 90,000 jobs per annum. This is no mean task. Accepting as a basis the employment figures in the reserves since 1960 given by the hon. the Minister, and accepting Professor Stadler’s figure of 90,000 employment opportunities per annum to be created, what is going to be the cost to the country, if it is left to this Government, to continue to develop the reserves?

Leave it to Blaar.

I think this should be written in gold letters on the door of the caucus room upstairs as the slogan of the Nationalist Party—“Leave it to Blaar”. What I was saying is that to provide the 90,000 employment opportunities at the rate which the hon. the Minister has decided on, is going to cost this country R1,035 million per annum. My hon. Leader has already challenged the Minister to tell the country what this development will cost. What is it going to cost South Africa to continue with this ideological concept of separate development, of apartheid, with which that party is so obsessed? I am now telling the hon. the Minister that this is a conservative estimate: R1,035 million per annum. How does that compare with what we have in this country? South Africa’s total budget of expenditure on revenue account this year is only R1,387 million. This means that that Minister and the Minister of Finance will have to double the taxation in this country to achieve this. Now this is the question: Does this Bill go any way towards alleviating the position? I submit it does not. There is nothing in this Bill which takes any responsibility away from that hon. Minister for creating these 90,000 employment opportunities. He need not come here with this pipedream of creating agencies, of philanthropists assisting, when members of his own caucus will not undertake this venture. How does he expect the other people in this country to invest under these hare-brained schemes embodied in this Bill?

Mr. Speaker, if this Government is honest in its stated intentions and its policy, this is what it will have to do, because this Bill says precisely that the Government will control all the development, notwithstanding statements made, such as those made by the hon. the Deputy Minister, that “white capital is welcome in South Africa’s Bantu areas”; notwithstanding statements such as that made by Mr. Young, the Chairman of the Xhosa Development Corporation, as reported in the South African Digest of the 26th of January of this year: “Encouragement of white investments will be realistically tackled”; notwithstanding the fact that Chief Kaiser Matanzima told white industrialists visiting the Transkei that “the time has come for you to develop the territory”, and the fact that he then called for talks between the two governments, to allow white capital into the Transkei; and notwithstanding the fact that we were all a bit excited, waiting for this Bill to be presented. Incidentally, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister: Is this Bill the result of negotiations with the Transkei Government? Did he negotiate with them? Did he consult with Chief Kaiser Matanzima on this matter? It appears not. Chief Kaiser, I am sure, must be a very disappointed man.

Are you going to vote against the Bill?

Many people hoped, as I have said, for big things to come from this Bill, especially for the development of the Bantu areas. To-day they are bitterly disappointed that this Minister has not had the courage to accept the reality of the situation in South Africa, to build on that and to go forward from there. He has failed to accept a point which has been argued in this House, that South Africa has an irreversibly integrated economy. He refuses to accept the fact that South Africa is only thriving because of that fact. He continues with this pipedream of separate economies, based on the Nationalist Party’s ideological pipedreams of separate freedoms. There is nothing separate about the economy of South Africa to-day. It is based on a combination of white capital, white initiative, white know-how and non-white labour. It has built on that foundation and it will remain integrated, for so long as we remain a prosperous country. We are only prosperous to-day because of the interdependence and the co-operation of all the various peoples in this country. No one group can stand alone economically.

Is that integration?

This is another member who, no matter how often he is told a thing, cannot grasp it, or will not grasp it. [Interjections.] As I said, no one group can stand alone economically. In this instance, the saying “united we stand, divided we fall” is true. I am sure that that hon. Minister in his heart of hearts knows that it is true, but he will not accept it. When we look at South Africa and the prosperity there is in this country, we find that where there is economic integration, there is prosperity and development.

The hon. member for Rissik referred to the success of the Nationalist Party’s policy of apartheid. I want to say to the hon. member that he is completely and utterly wrong. The development in South Africa has come about because of the failure of this policy of apartheid. Nobody reacted just now when I said it is only when there is economic integration that there is development, success, and prosperity in this country. Do hon. members on that side deny that fact? No. Well, does that not justify my statement? It is only because of the failure of their policy of apartheid that we have this development and prosperity in this country. Let me say that it is in the areas where this Government has achieved the greatest degree of separateness, which is in the Bantu reserves where it has been able to segregate the people to the greatest degree, that we find the least degree of development. That is where we find the least prosperity. This is what prompted one Bantu writer to say in a Zulu newspaper: “Separate, yes, but where is the development?”. Industrialists who went into the Transkei on the invitation of the hon. the Minister’s department, said when they came out: “The tempo of development is too slow”. One of those industrialists put his finger on the crux of the whole matter. He said that there was no momentum. Now we have to create that momentum. How do we create that momentum? Most certainly not through this Bill. What this Bill provides, notwithstanding the glowing picture painted by the Minister in his second-reading speech, is woefully and hopelessly inadequate. No matter what taxes are levied, no matter what sacrifices are demanded of the people, this sort of measure can never achieve the necessary degree of development required to make our Bantu reserves economically able to support their existing population and the natural increase, without the 5 million that the hon. the Deputy Minister wants to return by 1978, 1980, or whenever it may be. This type of legislation is a waste of time and energy. It will only cause more frustration and more resentment amongst those very people that this hon. Minister purports to be helping. Some priority must be given to the economic development of the Bantu areas, which means, primarily industrial development. Without industrial development we are not going to get anywhere. The key to meaningful development in these areas is the admission, on a massive scale and as a matter of extreme urgency, of white capital and white initiative under certain safeguards.

I want to say to this Minister: Do not create another economy. That is what he is trying to do in terms of this Bill. South Africa has one integrated economy and, until this fact is accepted, the absurd slow pace of economic development in the Bantu areas will never improve and separate development will remain the myth that it is to-day. The time has come for this Government to drop its pretence that it can slow down, stop and reverse the flow of Bantu from the reserves. We must get on with the important task of developing the reserves realistically within the framework of our existing economy. I am sure that although there are many members on the other side of the House who have not given this impression, most members of this House want to see the rapid development of the reserves. I support the amendment that this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee for consideration before second reading in order that we may assemble the views and opinions of all the people of South Africa, the best people in South Africa, and produce a measure, instead of the one which we have before us, which will be a positive contribution towards the development of the Bantu reserves.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, had nothing new to say. He said nothing which had not already been said in this debate, and therefore it is not necessary for me to reply specifically to any of the points raised by him. In the course of my speech I shall, however, refer to them.

What is the essence of the Opposition’s attack upon this Bill? The essence of the attack is that the homelands are being developed at too slow a rate. I do not think anyone on this side of the House has ever said that we are satisfied with the development of the homelands. There are certain problems that make the development of the homelands more difficult than development elsewhere. That is why this legislation has been introduced in an attempt to accelerate this development. The mistake made by the Opposition and by many industrialists is that when speaking of the development of the homelands, they say that it is too slow and they compare it with the development in the white areas, They compare the development of the Transkei with the development of Port Elizabeth, and the development of Tswanaland with the development of Johannesburg. This is a totally unrealistic comparison. There are only two fair methods of judging the development in the homelands and of determining whether the necessary progress is being made. They are the following: Compare it with the development which there was ten years ago. I say that if we compare the present development of the homelands with that of ten years ago, then we have made considerable and very good progress. But I go further. A better and more scientific method of judging the progress made in the homelands is to compare it with that in the rest of Africa. If we do this, then the progress which we have made withstands that test perfectly well.

The next fundamental point in the attack made by the Opposition is that they say we should look at the way in which the Republic of South Africa has developed. The development of the Republic has taken place by means of, inter alia, large-scale capital investment from abroad. Now they want us to do precisely the same in the case of the homelands. We must now invest white or free capital there. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout even spoke of capital from abroad. Everything would then run smoothly and we would have the same development in the homelands as we have had in the Republic of South Africa in the past 20 or 30 years. I have never heard a more nonsensical or more unrealistic argument.

Let us look at the position of South Africa in the thirties. In the thirties we were faced with a poor white population of 400,000. After the war, when industrial development began on a large scale, we experienced fantastic development. But we had the human material to make that development possible, material which the homelands do not have. Our white population, i.e. our English-speaking section and our Afrikaans-speaking section, immediately produced the necessary engineers, planners, entrepreneurs, technical people, quantity surveyors, doctors, attorneys and advocates, etc. The white population produced the people necessary to this development.

And the farmers.

Yes, and the farmers. Now I want to ask this question: If you apply all that money in the homelands, where are we to get the engineers, the entrepreneurs and the technical people? Do people not realize that we are here faced with the problem of a shortage of human material? In the whole of the Republic of South Africa we have only one black engineer as yet. In the whole of the Republic of South Africa we have only one black pharmacist as yet. In the field of education the position is that we have done more than any other country in Africa. [Interjections.] In this respect I agree with the hon. member for Rissik, and hon. members may make as much noise as they like. We can pump millions of rands into the homelands, but if the human material is not trained the money will be lost.

Mr Speaker, may I put a question to the hon. the Deputy Minister?

No, Sir. I agree with the hon. member for Rissik and the hon. member for Primrose that our principal task in the Bantu homelands is human development. Unfortunately the progress being made in this regard is extremely slow. The main reason why it is so slow is that our human material is such that it cannot go any faster with the best will in the world. Anyone who fails to appreciate this fact and wants progress in the homelands to take place on a different basis, will create chaos there.

I now want to return to a point raised by the hon. member for South Coast. He threw his hands in the air and said that this Bill was “pure socialism”. The hon. member says that I understood him correctly. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout also said that we were becoming socialists now. I am not frightened by that, because we have other institutions in South Africa in regard to which we have been said to act socialistically, and which have nevertheless functioned very successfully The Railways is also “pure socialism”, and it functions perfectly well. When Iscor was founded, it was also said to be socialism. When Sasol was founded, it was also said to be pure socialism.

Is that based on race?

What has that to do with the matter? This is a question of economic principles. The hon. member who spoke before me, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Musgrave all asked who would pay for these losses. I recall that not so many years ago the hon. member for Pinetown annually delighted in asking, “Who is going to pay for the losses of Sasol?” He said that we would have to buy petrol at 15 shillings a gallon to make Sasol a profitable undertaking. But these undertakings have all functioned very successfully. I have not the slightest doubt that these measures will be as successful.

I want to come to the hon. member for Pinetown. He said here in a sneering way yesterday that there was no technical and vocational training of the Bantu whatsoever. I want to mention a few facts to him The technical junior certificate course which can lead to a senior certificate course has been in existence since 1954 and offers training in and for the following: building construction, general mechanics, electricians, plumbing, plate metal work, woodwork, motor mechanics, surveyor’s assistants, etc. Fourteen courses were offered in 1954 and 27 in 1967. There are no fewer than 28 trade and technical schools, which I can mention to the hon. member, and at which 1,440 students are enrolled. The hon. member for Pinetown, however, says that nothing of this kind exists. In addition there are five technical schools, with 474 pupils. For post-matric training in the technical field there are 40 health inspectors at Edenvale, 46 health and medical orderlies at Pietersburg, 7 surveyor’s assistants at Lovedale, 10 watchmakers at Mamelodi, 20 sister lecturers at the University College of the North, and at the textile school at Mdantsane 1,450 skilled textile workers have already been trained. Last Tuesday 87 students enrolled for commerce and public administration, 30 for law, and 234 for science at the various university colleges. And then hon. members still say that nothing is being done. The fact of the matter is that more has been done in the past 10 years than in the previous 50 years, and by that we measure the progress. The hon. member for South Coast nearly had a fit when one of the hon. members on this side said that the policy of the United Party was integration. Of course that is their policy. There are two kinds of integration—which I will not deal with now, because they bear no relation to the Bill—namely, political integration and social integration. I say plainly that their policy is headed for both forms of integration. Then there is still economic integration as well. They now protest that they are not in favour of economic integration. The hon member for Yeoville boasted that economic integration was a fact, and that we should accept it—“you cannot unscramble an egg”. Why then does the hon. member get so annoyed when we say that he is in favour of integration? [Interjections.] Of course it is his policy. He does not want to unscramble it; he does not want work reservation; he does not want separate development; and he does not want so-called separate economies—to which I shall return later. They stand for naked and increasing economic integration.

The hon. member for South Coast set off on a tale of woe and said that the industries in the Bantu homelands would result in serious competition for the industries in the border areas. Is that his standpoint?

What did you say?

Unfortunately I may not repeat it in English. The hon. member said that there was a great danger that the development in the homelands would present strong competition for the development of border industries.

That is right.

The hon. member for Pinetown went even further and said that the danger of competition from the homelands would be so great that it would hamper the border industries, and that this competition would also be unfair competition for the Whites of South Africa But surely their whole argument is that no development is going to take place? One part of their argument is that under the Government’s plans no development will take place, but at the same time they warn that so much development is going to take place in the homelands that it will present tremendous competition for South Africa. I want to say immediately and explicitly that as far as I am concerned—and I make a gift of it to the hon. member—the more competition there is from the homelands, the more I shall like it. There are hundreds of ways in which to handle competition. South Africa has already experienced competition from Japan. At present dealers are complaining about competition from Rhodesia. I hope that the day soon dawns when we will have to face competition from the homelands as well, because only then will I be satisfied that we have brought about the necessary development in the homelands. Then hon. members on the other side come along with the foolish cry, “What is it going to cost?” It is impossible to say what it will cost. Just as impossible as it was to say how much the Great Trek would cost, what the development of Johannesburg and Pretoria would cost, so impossible is it to say what the development in the homelands will cost. If our forefathers had said that they would not do anything until they knew how much it would cost, we would still have been sitting here catching mullet, and the British settlers would still have been tending goats in Port Elizabeth. Development brings development, and wealth brings wealth. I agree with the hon. the Minister—I do not care what it will cost. It will not necessarily come out of the taxpayer’s pocket. How much money for the border industries comes out of the taxpayer’s pocket? This development does not have to be financed from the taxpayer’s pocket. It is going to be profitable. It is going to cost millions and millions of rands and it is going to yield profits amounting to millions and millions of rands. That is the way in which the economy works. It is ridiculous to ask what it is going to cost. We have made progress, we have made very good progress, in that the Opposition are now for the first time—and I say to them that it is the first time—saying in explicit terms that they do not want to allow free white capital there That capital must be controlled. I now want to know how it must be controlled. Last year, or the year before, I specifically put the question here: If the O.K. Bazaars were to go to Umtata, should they be allowed to purchase land there? Then the reply was “Yes”. And then the question was put that, if the O.K. Bazaars and industrialists were allowed to do so, why the farmers should not be allowed to purchase land in the Transkei. And it was at that point that they suddenly said that they could not buy land there.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, in the white zoned area. The hon. member knows I am talking about the Bantu area.

But it has been zoned.

Order!

The Whites have been zoned in the meantime. Their new point is now that they may not buy land. I now want to put this question to hon. members: May the manufacturer erect his own factory there?

Dr. Verwoerd said they could.

I am not asking Dr. Verwoerd now, I am putting the question to you. It is now their policy. I am putting this question to the hon. member for Transkei: May the white industrialist erect his own buildings in the Bantu areas?

In the white area he may.

In the Bantu area. [Interjections.] Do you see, Sir, these are the people with whom one is supposed to reason seriously. These are the people with whom one has to reason on a select committee. I will put that same question to them on the select committee Then they will probably tell me to go and ask Tielman Roos. They do not want to specify the kind of control. I now put the further question: Can the white entrepreneur go there and take with him as many of his personnel as he likes to?

Can he not do it at present in terms of your policy?

In terms of this policy as set out in the speech of the hon. the Minister, white personnel will be limited to the minimum.

How can you prohibit it?

They will be limited to the absolute minimum, to be replaced gradually. If that is the case, then surely they accept all our restrictions. Then surely they accept our control. I am very glad that hon. members have reached the stage where they are accepting that part of the policy. Then there is in reality no very great difference. And then a select committee is not necessary. Because all that can be decided in a select committee is what form the control should take. And if I now ask them what form that control should take, then I am told to consult deceased persons in the matter. This is childishness, and then hon. members want us to take them seriously Then there was also this other foolish statement to the effect that this hon. Minister is altogether opposed to the application of the profit motive. There must be no profit motive whatsoever. Have hon. members not read his speech? The hon. the Minister said the following—

That is what the hon. the Minister said. He went on to say—

But of course not. The hon. member for Transkei knows as well as I do that there is, for example, a coal project in the Transkei and the Ciskei. In this connection mining interests have already stated that their profits would be too small and that they do not want to tackle it. Does this mean that we must not tackle that project? Of course it must be tackled But the hon. the Minister never said anywhere that the profit motive should be totally ignored. I just want to come back to this point and tell you again what the main consideration in this connection is, a consideration which we cannot get away from. And I am a convert in this matter. I also thought that one could act precipitately in this regard, but having dealt with this matter for two years I can say to you that to act precipitately in the Bantu areas, is to court trouble and to retard the development of the Bantu. We are faced with the human problem. It is not so much a shortage of capital as a shortage of human material. Where do we want better proof of this than in the North African states? Millions and millions of rands are being pumped in there, and can you tell me where the wheels are turning?

A bottomless pit.

A bottomless pit. Where are the wheels turning? And the hon. member for Hillbrow knows why the wheels are not turning. It is because they do not have entrepreneurs, engineers, quantity surveyors and planners. That is the difficulty with which those poor people are faced. And it is going to take us a very long time to reach that stage. Let us make the following test. Take Lesotho and Botswana. When will the wheels start turning there? When shall we see development there? England has never prohibited the investment of private capital in those countries. Why has private capital not been invested in those countries? Why has no private capital gone to Botswana? Why has it not brought about great development? Now hon. members come with the magic formula: You must throw the world open to private capital and then there will be large-scale development. Let the hon. member for Hillbrow or any hon. member speaking after me, tell me in what country, with the possible exception of the coppermines in Zambia, there has been large industrial development purely as a result of the pumping in of capital.

Surely that is the basis of your policy. They must go back.

The hon. member confuses me to such an extent that I become quite disheartened. The hon. member makes the most inappropriate interjections that I have ever heard in my life. And my trouble is that I am rather fond of the man too. Hon. members now come with their magic formula of white capital, private initiative and private entrepreneurs. Then the whole world will come right. It has not worked anywhere else in Africa. It has not worked in Botswana over the past 80 years; it has not worked in Lesotho, Swaziland or Malawi. It has not worked anywhere else. And the only way of getting it to work and of placing it on a firm foundation— and then rather proceeding more slowly—is by means of these corporations, and by first giving attention to two things, namely agricultural development and then the development of the people in that area. And I say that Rome was not built in a day. Since this Government has been able to give its attention to these matters, it has accomplished a good deal in the past years. We have accomplished more than the wealthy United States of America has done in the rest of Africa; we have accomplished more than France in Algeria; we have accomplished more than Belgium in the Congo; and we have accomplished much more than Britain in any of her territories. I am willing to face the world with such a record. I am willing to face the electorate with such a record. I do not mind these attacks. We shall persevere with this development policy and the hon. members may continue, as I have said before, to play a destructive part here. We will remain the builders and the idealists in this country.

May I, on a point of personal explanation, say that I said that the communal ownership of land was a socialist concept, not the creation of these corporations. I have my Hansard here if the hon. the Deputy Minister would like to confirm it.

In that case I accept your explanation.

Then you differ from other members on your side.

That is what I said.

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I think we have reached the point in this debate where the differences in point of view between the parties have become crystallized. Perhaps the contribution which I will attempt to make should be in the nature of a summary of our differing points of view. I hope to refer to quite a number of general points made by the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister. But at this early stage I want to refer to one or two specific items. He started off by saying that the economic development in the Bantu homelands has been far too slow. Of course we accept that. He then quoted different norms that could be used. But surely the most realistic norm in this case was the one set by Professor Tomlinson and his committee 10 years ago. They indicated what should be done. Have we come anywhere near the target set by Professor Tomlinson? Of course we have not. The whole point of our argument is that this development will continue to be too slow, because the Government is using the wrong methods. He said it was too slow and our argument is that it will continue to be too slow. I hope to prove this as I continue. He mentioned Sasol as an example of this cooperative type of undertaking. But then the hon. the Deputy Minister overlooked completely to tell us the amount of capital investment involved, the millions that it cost and the millions that were written off in the process. Is that the type of development he has in mind for the Transkei?

Are you not happy with Sasol to-day?

We claim that it could have been done far more expeditiously and far more cheaply. The hon. the Deputy Minister then harangued us on this question of economic integration. All that we have indicated is that this represents a fact. This is the South African situation after 20 years of Nationalist Government. Now I want to put the following to the hon. the Deputy Minister. In a gold mine—and we have 50 of them—ten black people are employed for every white man. The white people at the moment earn on the average R300 per month, if they work down in a gold mine. If we had to work these gold mines with white labour only and if we maintained the same cost structure—even if we assumed that the Whites were four times as productive as the Blacks—the white man would earn on an average R50 per month. Where are you going to get white people from who will work down a mine for R50 per month? The Deputy Minister may call this economic integration. Perhaps it is economic integration. If the hon. the Deputy Minister does not like the word integration, let us call it economic interdependence. The one group is dependent upon the other. Disturb this partnership to-day and South Africa will be bankrupt in six months’ time.

I Want to return to the Bill before us. This Bill, according to its short title, is a Bill to promote economic development in the homelands. Economic development covers a wide spectrum. It includes also agricultural development. Quite a number of hon. members referred to the importance of agricultural development. The hon. the Deputy Minister who has just sat down also did so. It therefore comes as some surprise to us when we look at the long title of the Bill to find that the words “agriculture” does not feature at all; it is not featured once. This might be an oversight, or it might not be, we can merely speculate on this score. Quite clearly, judged by the long title of the Bill, the objective is to facilitate the economic development of the Bantu homelands and, as specified here, it means primarily the industrial development of the homelands. Let us then confine ourselves to that side of it.

Why do you industrialize a particular area? Why should a Bill of this nature be passed? I think it is generally accepted that you industrialize for two reasons; firstly, because of population pressure on land and, secondly, to improve the living standards of the people. What are the facts as far as the Bantu homelands are concerned? There quite clearly is population pressure upon land. The Tomlinson Commission set the basic farming unit in the homelands at 50 morgen, and if you accept that as a norm, then more than half of the people who are at present in the homelands should move off the land. Quite obviously we must industrialize in order to increase the carrying capacity of the homelands. Secondly, in doing so, we would improve the living standards of the people. Every single survey that has been done, including those by Professor Hobart Houghton and others, indicate that a considerable percentage of the people in the homelands live well below the poverty datum line. There is therefore every reason why these areas should be industrialized. The usefulness of this objective is established, and in that sense we accept the purpose of this Bill. We of all people would not wish to divide South Africa into have-portions and have-not-portions, because what we have learned—and this is the lesson of the world—is that envious neighbours are dangerous neighbours. Hence we want a fair spread of industrial development. But South Africa should in any case industrialize because by external standards we are under-industrialized. I know that there are differences between South Africa and Australia and Canada, but Australia with a much smaller population than South Africa produces twice as much as we do, and in the case of Canada with a population which is the same as ours, the value of their industrial production is almost six times that of South Africa. Perhaps these are norms that we could aspire to.

We therefore accept the purpose and the objectives of this Bill. We support the necessity for the economic development of the homelands and, more particularly, for their industrialization because this is the only way in which their carrying capacity can be increased. Having made that point, we must now measure the adequacy of this Bill, the method which the Government employs, with the magnitude of the task that confronts us. In this regard figures have been quoted by hon. members on both sides of this House. Sir, let us see what really is involved. To industrialize the Bantu homelands would be a formidable task. The hon. member for Houghton demonstrated this quite clearly. They are in general far away from our transportation systems; there is lack of basic raw materials, and there is an absolute dearth of entrepreneurial skills But it is also difficult because of the sheer magnitude of the task. Let me give hon. members the figures, and if they do not agree with them they can tell me so and I will be happy to make adjustments. In 1960 a survey was done and it was estimated that 4½ million Bantu people regard the Bantu homelands as their home. If we accept the Tomlinson criterion of 50 morgen per farming unit, then farming, under the present state of affairs, can only absorb about two million people. There remain 2½ million people who should come off the land and should be absorbed into industry. If we accept an employment ratio of 50 per cent, that 50 per cent of the people are economically active, then it means that jobs must be found for 1¼ million people. Over what period are you going to do this? Let me assume for the moment that we must do this over 20 to 25 years, which is a long period of time; it represents almost a generation. If we take 1¼ million and divide it by 20 or 25 we find that it comes to about 50,000 jobs a year, and that is the figure that Tomlinson also arrived at. But in the meantime there is the natural increase in these areas, an increase which is set at 2 per cent to 2.2 per cent a year. Mr. Speaker, for the population group involved, this gives us another 50,000, so the sort of figure that we are dealing with here is about 100,000 people a year. Now we say, “What will this cost us?” The hon. the Deputy Minister dismisses this. He says that nobody can calculate it; that it is impossible to get an idea, and even if one could calculate it, the cost does not matter; we apparently have money to burn. Sir, I think one can make an estimate of what it costs. Prof. Lewis has estimated that in the established industrial areas it costs at least R2,000 for every worker that is put into employment. But there is probably a more realistic estimate, and that is the estimate made by the hon member for Pine lands, when he worked out the cost of putting an individual worker into employment in the border areas. He arrived at the figure of R6.000 per worker. Let me take an ultra-conservative figure. Let me assume that it only comes to R2,000 per worker per year. What does this signify in terms of our national investment? In 1963 allowing for depreciation and everything else the net national investment in South Africa was R700 million. The estimated cost of R200 million represents more than 25 per cent of this total. This is the additional cost which will be involved.

Mr. Speaker, but this is not the end of the story; the hon. the Deputy Minister still wants to remove 5 per cent of the Bantu per annum from the established urban areas, so the figure just grows. If you want to accommodate Chose as well, then the net national investment involved will be more than a third of the present rate, and where must that money come from? Is the State going to provide it or will it come from the private sector? As you know, Sir, in most categories our people are already being taxed at a higher rate than people in most other countries. If this is to be done in the form of taxation, then I would like the hon. the Deputy Minister to go to the people of South Africa and to tell them that that is his intention.

Let us now look at this instrument which is before us, this Bill. This is the measure which is intended to implement the Government’s policy. Everybody has told us that the Bantu must be drawn back to their homelands, and this is the instrument that the Government has fashioned for the task. It is immediately apparent that here we have a man-sized job and a baby is being used to do it.

The baby is growing up.

This is a Botha baby. Perhaps it will be known one day not as Botha’s baby, but as Botha’s folly. Here we have to move a mountain and instead of coming in with bulldozers, the Government and the hon. the Minister now provide us with a Bill which is in fact a pick and shovel Bill.

And a wheel barrow.

This is the instrument with which we are to do this job.

This is a new law; it takes the place of some previous laws. Sir, this is a very productive Government. I think I can quite truly say— and I am quite sure there is not a single hon. member on the other side who will contradict me—that never before in the history of South Africa have we had a Government that has passed as many laws as this particular Government. Does anybody contradict me? No. But having established that, I think one can also say that South Africa has never had a Government that has to change so many of its own laws. That is why we have this law. The Minister tells us that the existing system does not work, and that is why he has come to the House with this new Bill, and I give the guarantee that within three years he will be back with another Bill to change this one. This Bill covers exactly the same issues that we had before; it has only been embellished a little. But it is precisely the same principle that we had before and we criticize it on three grounds.

We say that this economic and industrial development will not occur without a full flow of white capital and initiative. Development does not occur anywhere in Africa without that This is not a new thing. Sir George Grey, who was Governor of the Cape Colony more than a hundred years ago, when referring to the Bantu homelands, said that if they did not get the stimulus of the white man they would remain stagnant as they had always been. The white man is the catalyst, the yeast that must keep things going, but now this is to be denied to these areas, and what are the reasons advanced from the Government side as to why white capital should not go in there on the basis we suggest? They say it is economic colonialism. Sir, this is the terminology of the communist, the language of Nkrumah. I am surprised that the Deputy Minister should fall into the trap of using such language. South Africa got past the take-off stage precisely because people were prepared to invest money in this country. Have we suffered in any way? We would not even have got off the ground without foreign investment. Quote me one developing country in the world to-day that is developing without foreign investment. [Interjections.] In fact, so important is this question of foreign investment that the Government encourages it even now. The hon. the Minister of Finance only last session said we in South Africa encouraged foreign investment. This motive is so strong that as far as the Japanese are concerned we made them not only White but Western. In this particular case it just shows that pig-iron is more important than pigmentation.

The other argument that has come from the Government side is that the use of white capital would lead to exploitation. What do we mean toy “exploitation”? If a factory is sited at Rosslyn, which is five miles from a Bantu reserve, and if the white industrialist pulls in thousands of black people to work in his factory, then it is not exploitation. But if the factory moves five miles and is just beyond the border of the reserve and the same thing happens, it is exploitation. The Minister says he cannot allow the use of white capital and initiative in the Bantu homelands, because that will clash with the policy of separate development.

Who said that? You are sucking it out of your thumb.

I will not respond to that. The point we make is that the Government is just beating about the bush. They do not want to face up to realities. They quote all sorts of people to substantiate their point of view. The hon. member for Aliwal even quoted some obscure gentleman who is now the Israeli Ambassador at U.N. But why do they not want to quote Professor Sadie? In fact, when I mentioned Professor Sadie’s name, the hon. member for Middelland asked who Professor Sadie was. He is a man who holds a key position at one of our key universities, the man who played a leading role in the compilation of the Tomlinson Report, the man who is the economic adviser to Mr. Smith of Rhodesia. But the hon. member does not know who Professor Sadie is. Why must we quote all these obscure persons when Professor Sadie, an expert, is right here on our doorstep? What does he say about white capital in the Bantu homelands? This is what he says—

Our further objection to this measure is that this is industrialization through bureaucracy. We call them civil servants; perhaps they are not civil servants in the technical sense, but they are officials. Here the Government is creating a complex matrix of all sorts of corporations and organizations and advisory boards and a mass of different things. This is precisely the sort of procedure that constitutes colonialism. This compares very closely with, for example, the Colonial Development Board which the British established for Africa. They tell us they do not want economic colonialism, but they create the very machinery that is associated with it.

Much has been said about the profit motive in this debate. We look askance at the fact that the Government tells us that industrialists must go in there and not be concerned with the profit motive. This apparently means that a business must now be run on charitable lines; they must go there entirely for altruistic reasons. Sir, I remember very well a few years ago there were well-known Afrikaners in South Africa who said that they went into business not to enrich themselves “maar om in diens van die volk te staan”. If we look at them to-day, they seem to have done very well during these years. Whatever service they may have rendered to the country, they have been successful on the financial side.

But this is not an economic measure. You cannot justify it by economic terms. There must be some other reasons for it, and when I begin to look for those reasons I first of all see a sociological reason. This is not a policy which was designed by economists and not even by politicians; it was designed by social anthropologists. They always want to classify and compartmentalize. That is why as a substructure to this whole set-up you have the tribal system. The hon. member for South Coast was quite right. How can you graft industrialization onto a tribal system? That does not exist anywhere in the world. There will be no industrialization in the homelands as long as we persevere with the tribal system. This must be broken down. There is no room for it in an industrial society. But what the hon. members over there want to do is to keep the Bantu homelands as nice little enclaves where the Black people can walk around is their red blankets, where they will virtually become living human zoos, where people can be brought in from the outside to gaze at them. It will not lead to the industrialization of those areas if you follow that procedure. The main reason why the Government does not want to follow our suggestions however is a political one. This we must immediately trace back to their concept of independence for the Bantu homelands. Let me now pose a question to the hon. the Minister and to the gentlemen on the other side supporting him. Let us do away for the moment with this question of giving independence to the Bantu homelands; let us assume that that is not the Government’s policy. How would they then view this matter? After all, in that case these areas would only be depressed areas and as such would be treated in exactly the same way as the border areas at the moment—White capital would go there for investment and white industrialists would be given every encouragement by the Government to do so. Then it will not be exploitation, nor any of these other names assigned to it. Therefore, there is a political reason behind this. Here lies the danger too because they are creating a superstructure of independent Bantustans, governments with all their trappings. But they are not creating the economic base which is necessary to make them viable. And here is where communism comes in— communism has always taken root in countries where real power was lacking, where there was nominal powers only in the hands of the government. I other words, the Government aims at creating a set of puppet governments, governments which will not be viable because of lack of basic economic strength.

In conclusion I want to say that South Africa has had three or four opportunities to opt for real separate development, but every time South Africa did not choose it. And the longer South Africa rejects it the more difficult it becomes and the greater the odds against it. The first time South Africa had the choice was when Jan van Riebeeck landed here. Well, he did not opt for separation. The second occasion was at the time of Union. But our forefathers, for reasons known to all of us, did not accept the challenge to go for real separate development. The third time this choice was before South Africa was at the time of the Tomlinson Commission. But then this Government shirked the responsibility. And now, at this late stage, we can still choose, but the hon. the Minister comes before us with a bill of this kind, a measure which is completely inadequate for the task before us.

Anyone inside or outside this House who thought that the United Party would perhaps accept this legislation would have been living in a fool’s paradise. We expected to be involved in such arguments as were put forward by the hon. member for Hillbrow from the outset. But there is one thing in the hon. member’s speech which throws new light on the policy of the United Party. He intimated that we on this side would attempt to evade the assertion that what we have in South Africa at present is economic integration. But he added that if we did not want to accept economic integration he would be prepared to replace that concept with “economic inter-dependence”. Is this a new policy statement from the United Party now? Are they now running away from economic integration, something which, as they are still trying to make us believe, is the fruit of our policy? Are they now accepting our statement that there has always been “economic inter-dependence” in South Africa and that it must continue as long as we in South Africa are a multi-racial nation? We accept that we shall have “economic inter-dependence” in South Africa. We also accept that we shall always have to attract a labour force from the Bantu homelands to work in the white area, a force which will be economically dependent upon the Whites. Just as Malawi is economically dependent in this respect that its workers have to work in South Africa, just as Botswana’s workers are economically dependent upon employment in South Africa, just as Swaziland and Lesotho are dependent, so we accept that the Bantu in the homelands are economically dependent upon opportunities for employment in the white man’s country—and that is the policy of the National Party. I hope that the hon. member for Hillbrow will now come to understand this, and begin to grasp what the policy of apartheid is. I say that we have already made a great deal of progress with the United Party. All these arguments which the hon. member for Hillbrow put forward so pedantically here, the question which he put about what we were going to do in connection with the thousands of workers for whom opportunities for employment would have to be created in the homelands if we wanted to develop the homelands properly, all these hypotheses of the hon. member fall away if he would accept the policy of the National Party in respect of the economic dependence of these people. Is the hon. member for Hillbrow now repudiating, and dissociating himself, from other United Party policy makers in the Transvaal Provincial Council. For what do they say? They say that homelands must now be established for the non-Whites in the white areas. Soweto must now, in fact, become a non-White homeland so that work can be provided for those people in the adjacent border industries which are to develop there. The National Party policy is clear and lucid, and I see tonight that, since the hon. member for Hillbrow accepts this terminology, the United Party is now accepting our policy. They therefore admit that we do not have economic integration in South Africa, but that all race groups here are economically dependent upon one another.

Can we not say economic co-operation?

Do not jump around; you are known for that.

I am now giving you a better concept.

The hon. member must not run away now from what he said here this afternoon. We shall still return many times in this House to what the hon. member said here this afternoon, and we shall study his speech even more closely. He cannot run away from what he said here. We accept that we shall have to absorb a large concentration of labour in our white areas from time to time, Bantu workers who live in the homelands. I want to say that we have always accepted this. I want to say that it has been the traditional policy of South Africa for many decades already. It is the traditional policy of South Africa as clearly and lucidly put forward by our great leaders, among them men such as General Smuts. He also held the view that the Bantu homelands should be developed in such a way that the people there could eventually become economically independent. But he also added that there would always be a large number of workers in those areas, who would go to the white homelands to find work.

We would have been living under a complete illusion if we had thought that the United Party would accept this legislation just as it stands here. For the United Party supports economic integration in South Africa. That is their policy. The National Party wants nothing to do with that policy and we have rejected it. As the measure now stands, it will be possible for us to let economic development in the homelands progress, as the hon. the Minister explained in his second-reading speech. As far as that is concerned, we can just glance at the objects of this measure. Clause 3 reads as follows—

All the arguments which we have heard here, are concerned with the establishment, the creation and the setting up of industries in these homelands. If we should accept the policy of the United Party, I cannot understand how we can allow large-scale white private enterprise to enter the homelands and develop there. What will then become of the planning, the co-ordination and the financing of these industries? This task can only be carried out under the supervision and management of these corporations. They must see to it that proper planning takes place.

Let us now look at the powers of the investment corporations. Clause 4 (1) (a) reads as follows—

These are the powers. How can all these things be done if these instructions are given to white enterprise outside the homelands? There are still many other powers mentioned in the Bill, and it is clearly an impossible task to entrust all these powers to people from outside the homelands. For that reason, because we accept the guardianship in respect of the development of these people, because we are the trustees who must see to it that all these things are done, we want the authority and powers, as set out in this measure, which will enable us to do it.

The hon. member went further and quoted what Professor Sadie had said He quoted him as an authority to substantiate his statement that outside capital should be allowed into the homelands. I just want to say this. In the same way as we repudiate many other Afrikaners who advocate this policy, and reject their points of view in this connection, we also reject the statements which Professor Sadie has made. It makes no difference if Professor Sadie comes from Stellenbosch University, or where he comes from for that matter, the National Party does not accept him as an advocate of National Party policy. He is quite probably an advocate of the policy of the United Party. The hon. member must not attempt to make an impression on this side of the House by saying that Professor Sadie is a very good authority as far as this matter is concerned. In his time Dr. Verwoerd also repudiated certain policy statements by Professor Sadie in respect of this matter. Why does the hon. member for Hillbrow not rather take over some of the views of a person such as Professor Stadtler. After all, we accept him as an authority in this field. We rather take note of his opinions than of those of Professor Sadie.

The National Party accepts that many, and quite a few Afrikaners, differ from us in connection with this matter. That we must accept. We are, however, prepared to tackle this matter and carry it through as idealists. As previous speakers have said here to-day, we will show the world that our policy, a policy inspired with idealism, will be crowned with success, just as all the other great projects and undertakings of this Government have been successful. The hon. the Deputy Minister has referred here to a few undertakings and consequently I do not have to mention them again.

The hon. member also scornfully referred to the governments of the Bantustans as “puppet governments” that do not have the strong economic vitality it needs to subsist. Let us admit that those people will still have to go through difficult times. But I do not think that the hon. member is doing this country a service by referring to the Governments of the Bantu homelands as “puppet governments”. On the contrary, I think that the hon. member is doing South Africa a disservice. The hon. member is a gifted person, I think that he is a good South African, and I also think that the past has taught him a lesson, namely that if one is dealing with under-developed areas such as these, one must be prepared to do a great deal of spadework, to sow a lot of seed, and one must also be prepared to see that many of those seeds never germinate. But nevertheless, we dare not cease from our labours. That is why I say I am convinced that, in view of the determination with which this matter is being tackled, we shall succeed with this work of upliftment in proving to the world that with this measure we can assist the Bantu to develop economically in their homelands. There is nothing in this Bill which we cannot already implement to-day. Both of these undertakings, the Bantu Investment Corporation and the Xhosa Development Corporation, came into being as a result of legislation passed by Parliament. Hon. members can refer to Hansard and they will see that all the arguments which we are now hearing from that side, were also advanced by them when those two measures were being dealt with here. Nothing new has been said here in respect of this Bill.

That is why I maintain that what is being done here is co-ordinating legislation; we are now placing these two Acts under one awning, we are combining them in one piece of legislation. In terms of this measure the corporations will be expanded in order to make our attempts at development of the homelands more streamlined. Since the principles concerned have already been accepted in the two above-mentioned Acts, I can see no necessity for this legislation being referred to a select committee before the second reading, and before principles included in it are passed What is the implication of legislation being referred to such a committee before the second reading? It means that it will be possible to reconsider the whole principle of the measure. Since the principles embodied in this measure are already contained in the two Acts which are being consolidated here, I see no necessity for having those principles reconsidered by a select committee. Consequently I cannot support the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, throughout this debate which we have had over the last two days I have been trying to find what we looked for eight years ago, namely common ground on which we could get together to find a method of doing what we all want to do.

Our standpoints are too incompatible.

We all want to develop these reserves economically. I think it can be done.

You are trying to imitate us.

I think we can get together. I am much encouraged by the hon. member for Benoni. When the hon. member for Hillbrow quoted an eminent Afrikaans economist, the hon. member for Benoni said he knows Professor Sadie does not represent the views of the party on the other side of the House. He admitted that people are divided on the best methods. I think that is a very strong argument why we should accept the amendment, that this Bill should go to a select committee so that we can hear these people. The hon. member for Benoni asked us why we do not consider their expert. Well, I should like to consider him, I should like to meet him. I have heard certain speeches from hon. members opposite which I should like to discuss with him. At this late stage I should like to move—

Agreed to.