Mr. Chairman, I am rising to reply to a few of the important points which have been raised thus far in the debate. I owe my two Deputies in particular who dealt with so many of the points so thoroughly that there is no need for me to say anything about them, and, to the further disappointment of hon. members on the opposite side, other hon. members on this side who also replied effectively to arguments put forward by the Opposition, a vote of thanks.

The hon. member for Transkei raised a few points here yesterday, to which I want to give attention. He began his speech by referring to a motion which had recently been passed by the Transkeian Legislative Council in which they requested help, as they expressed it, in being trained for independence as quickly as possible. The hon. member for Transkei referred to that, and I think it is perhaps fitting that something more be said in regard to the desire expressed in that motion. I think it is desirable not only for the ears of the Bantu peoples who are interested in such matters, it also seems to me desirable for some of us in this House to say something about that. For both these reasons I consequently want to say something about it, and I want to introduce what I have to say about it by stating that the process of becoming independent, the process of achieving nationhood, the process of developing a self-government system to its maximum, is not a transient process, that it is not a process which can be accomplished over hastily and over-night at as rapid a pace as possible. I should like to put the following question in this regard, and then reply to the question on the basis of a few qualities I want to enumerate. How is a nation or a country or a party or a parliament prepared for independence? This is the cardinal question at issue here. I think that we can accept at once that one cannot allow any country, nation or parliament to achieve its independence by affording it training to that end in a special school or offering a special attenuated course, or by publishing a correspondence course, or something of that nature. I will admit that there are, alas, countries, particularly in Africa, which became independent without even a correspondence course, but look at the trouble being experienced there subsequently. Let us accept that for a country or a nation to achieve its independence, it has to undergo a long and difficult process of growth towards nationhood, a long process of learning by doing, not by learning from hearsay but learning by doing.

I just want to mention a few qualities in this regard. I readily concede that many more qualities are necessary in this process of wanting to become independent than the few which I can mention in the short duration of the time at my disposal. Firstly, I am mentioning a very important quality which is required, i.e. that administrative experience in the administration and the management of departments themselves must be acquired. I am not going to elaborate on these matters. I am going to make statements which are so clear that I think hon. members can themselves elaborate further on them intelligently. I am going to mention a second extremely important quality which, in my opinion, a nation or a community which is desirous of achieving its independence must evince before it qualifies for such independence. This quality is that reliability must become deeply-rooted in the operations and the activities it undertakes, in other words, in the financial responsibility which the nation has to manifest as a state, and in the financial accurateness which has to be applied in its administration. What I have in mind now is such techniques as the drawing up of estimates, the expenditure of funds, the control of expenditure, and the custody of money. All these things go hand in hand with financial administration, with financial responsibility. All these things require, as I have said, a deep-seated reliability in those people.

I shall mention a third extremely important quality for all of us in this Parliament and for any other nation in the world, and that is integrity of conduct in public affairs. That integrity of conduct is not only necessary from juniors issuing receipts and opening files, or from the somewhat more senior officials who can at least write out cheques, or from cashiers who have to receive money across the counter. That integrity is necessary from the highest post to the lowest. It is necessary from the chief minister, from the Prime Minister, from the Head of State, from the King of the country down to the lowest official and to each person who wants to be entrusted with responsibility in that administration. One simply cannot make too great a demand on this integrity. It is necessary in the social affairs of the people, in the personal movements of the individual, in their social intercourse, as well as in the important managerial posts. Friends must not be given preference. What is required is that nepotism should not be practised where so many opportunities for it arise. That is what I mean by integrity. Everybody must acquire it. ¡Not only the Bantu nation in our country, but also those outside must be naturally aware of this.

Perhaps another government should take some lessons in nepotism.

I want to tell the bon. vociferous member on the opposite side that people who want to serve in a government one day must also practise it. They will not be elected by a nation to govern them if they do not display these qualities. This brings me, more fittingly perhaps, to the next quality I want to mention, i.e. a democratic mode of action, the manifestation of a great sense of responsibility, both in the management of national affairs and in the way in which one offers to manage national affairs if one were to be placed in that position of trust. This is intended for the ears of that hon. member as well.

Another very important requirement is that the national administration and the independence one wants to maintain, should, in the public services, in the technical services, in the ordinary administration of the country, be undertaken as far as possible by citizens of one’s own State and one’s own country, much rather than to have this done on a large scale by people of another country or another State, because one does not have the people who are capable of doing this. This applies to everyone. I am not only talking of the Transkei now; I am talking about everyone in general.

So that rules out the Nationalist Government.

No. The hon. member for Durban (Point) must at least concede that an electorate of approximately a million people are in a position to pass a judgment on this matter, and they have already done so on various occasions, and for the Opposition the cruellest judgment still lies ahead.

Another quality which is of great importance—just as the one which I have just mentioned, i.e. occupation of one’s administration by one’s own people—is that the economic development of one’s country and the creation of opportunities for employment for one’s people by one’s own government, is very essential. One must be capable of doing this. These are all tremendously important qualities. I want to mention a further quality, i.e. that the nation which has the responsibility or wants to accept the responsibliity of governing itself independently, must prove by its words as well as by its deeds that it is capable of peaceful coexistence not only with the citizens of its own State, and its own nation, but also of being able to coexist peacefully with other people, with other nations, particularly its neighbours, in this Southern African territory of ours there is a whole series of nations who, whether they like it or not, will have to live together and side by side for all time to come. This is one of the qualities which I rate very highly. There must be that peaceful disposition which will enable nations to live side by side and to tolerate and accept one another. It is necessary amongst our Bantu nations, amongst the Coloureds and the Indians, and particularly amongst our white people, considering the great responsibility which we have towards them all. It is particularly necessary that mutual reassurances be given on these points.

As I have said, it is a long and difficult process which has to be undergone. The few qualities which I have mentioned, are all experience which the people in the Transkei, for example, are acquiring, an experience which they are gaining by means of the political self-activity which they are in fact exercising there with the reasonable measure of national administration which has already been allocated to them. They have already made a great deal of progress. We must admit that. In the past four years during which they have had this new system of theirs, they have themselves made a great deal of progress. I am not going to go into detail by mentioning a host of examples. I am, however, going to mention one example. This is one of those things which I myself rate very highly, namely the acceptance of administrative responsibilities and the occupation of administrative posts by citizens of one’s own country. These figures have been furnished before. However, I want to mention them again. On 31st December, 1963, the establishment of the national administration of the Transkei consisted of 2,446 posts. On 31st December, 1963, 19 per cent of these were occupied by Whites who had been acquired from white South Africa.

During the past four years this position has changed considerably. The establishment has increased by 39 per cent, but the white occupation of that establishment has decreased. It has decreased in actual figures which, when expressed as a percentage, is 10.7. In other words, the Transkeian citizens have progressed in this sense that they have supplied more of their people to occupy the administrative posts in their own administration. It is true that this has taken place to a greater extent in the lower ranks than in the higher, but no tree grows from the top downwards. A national administration, like anything else, grows from the bottom upwards. This is also what will have to take place in that area, with those people. It must be borne in mind that one cannot simply make the first man or woman one comes across, even if he or she is matriculated or has a university degree, a head of a department or the deputy head of a department. A responsible position cannot be occupied by just anybody.

We must realize that at least 30 magistrates are required in the Transkei simply to keep those offices functioning on a minimal basis. We know that recently merely the first two were appointed there. We must realize that there are many other examples which can be mentioned, apart from this one example of magistrates. The same expertize and grounding is needed for numerous other posts in a national administration. For positions such as these people must be prepared by service training, because there is no attenuated course through which they can be rushed and then come out thinking they are perfect. Nor must it be thought that if one has a number of departments, or that if the number of departments has increased, one will necessarily acquire the status of independence as a result of that alone. Independence has nothing to do with the number of State departments one has; it has to do only with the fact that those departments which exist must be administered and managed in a correct, reliable and exemplary manner. That is what is involved. That which one does, one must do well in order to succeed.

Above all, I should like the people in the Transkei to know that the work they are doing there dare not be a total failure. The work they are doing in a single department, or in all their departments, must be of such a nature that they do not make serious blunders. All of us make blunders in our national administration, but they dare not make serious blunders which would evince a dearth of those qualities which I said were necessary a moment ago. It must be realized, particularly by them, because I want to address my words specifically to those people in the Transkei, that there are enough people who are jealous of their system, or who are hostile towards their system. Those people will be only too grateful for things which can be exposed as blatant irresponsibilities or serious blunders which do not justify their undergoing any further development. That is why they must see to it that there should be no setback which will retard them in their efforts to go forward. Those things are principally in their own hands.

I said a moment ago that there were many Bantu nations in South Africa, alongside the other nations in South Africa, i.e. the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians, who all have to coexist. I want to repeat now what I have said on a former occasion, and I should like to address it to our Bantu nations. The future of all our non-white nations, and of our Whites, whether we are in a partially, or in a full stage of independence, is dependent upon a pattern of what I call “inter-dependence”, mutual dependence, of one nation upon another. Everybody, the Whites as well, is included in this. This pattern of inter-dependence upon one another is the only pattern which can ensure a peaceful coexistence in South Africa for this entire constellation of nations. We are mutually dependent upon one another in all kinds of ways. We as Whites admit that we are dependent upon the nonwhite nations in South Africa for their labour, and they are in turn dependent upon us for all kinds of labour, requiring more expertize. But that is not the only form of dependence upon one another.

You are becoming soft now.

Oh no. I do not want to set myself up as a prophet, but I want to tell hon. members that they must realize, and we must all realize, that the constellation of nations in South Africa is going to develop in this direction that, as some nation or other achieves a high form or a general form of independence, it will still not mean that it will be able to do all its work itself as a nation. It is quite possible that a nation can be independent, but that its entire system of communications or transport for example will have to be supplied by the white nation of South Africa. That is not excluded. Within the geographical boundaries of South Africa there is even now an independent black state which I believe does not have a hundred yards of railway line, or any other mean of communication. That same state has representation in the U.N. as an independent state. As far as I know, it could not defend itself against a squadron of cadets.

What does that prove?

It proves a great deal, if one would only listen. It proves what I have said, i.e. that the future, peace and prosperity of this entire constellation of numerous nations alongside one another in South Africa depends upon whether we accept and help one another mutually. This will have to develop to an increasing extent in South Africa, and it is the only way to ensure our independent survival. But we will achieve nothing if all those nations, according to the ¡Opposition’s policy, want to sit in this Parliament and govern one another. That will not work. I think I have said enough arising out of the discussion which has taken place on that motion. I think hon. members may as well go and reflect on it a little now.

The hon. member for Transkei, as if he did not know what our attitude was, once again broached the question of Port St. John’s, Matatiele, Elliot and its environs, because it had been said in the Transkei that those territories should be ceded to them.

“Asked”.

It has previously been stated, very authoritatively, from this side of the House—and I repeat: There is not the slightest intention of ceding those white territories of Matatiele, Maclear, Kokstad, Port St. John’s, etc., to the Transkeian territory. Must we repeat it now, a month later? Will we have to repeat it next year as well? This is being persistently said from our side of the House. [Interjections.]

They demanded it.

Listen to the frogs’ chorus on the opposite side of the House, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member for Durban (Point) is actually saying that they have demanded it. They have not demanded it. It was mentioned ¡there, and I have here the spoken statement of Matanzima himself that that motion and the passing thereof “must not be regarded as the starting point of a tug-of-war with the Government in Cape Town”. He stated that they would put their case to us again in a dignified way, and that they would hear what we had to say about it. He said that it was not a demand. He stated emphatically that, “It is not the starting point of a tug-of-war”. The hon. member for Durban (Point) and the hon. member for Hillbrow want a “tug-of-war”. This is, in fact, the objection I have to the hon. Opposition, and which I have stated so often already. Let us argue here about the contents of our policies, but let us not argue in such a way that one white party sides with the Bantu against another white party. That is what the hon. Opposition is doing. The way in which hon. members on the opposite side raised these matters here, meant that they, in some cases by implication, and in other cases directly, ranged themselves on the side of the people asking for these things.

It is a result of your policy.

No. Hon. members must display their responsibility in a better way than behaving thus. The hon. member for

Transkei spoke derogatorily about border industry areas, or tried to. I want to ask the hon. member whether he honestly desires border industry areas around the Transkei, or is he grateful that there is little or nothing of that nature and whether he regrets the fact that here is little or nothing?

I know that they cannot be there. That is why I am asking for industrial areas in the Transkei.

It is a kind of reply, but it is not a direct reply. The hon. member has still not told me whether he desires it.

I know that it is impossible.

I do not want to play a game of verbal ping-pong with the hon. member, and I do not want to waste time. I want to remind the hon. member ¡that, strictly speaking, if he seriously desires border area industries there, and he thinks that there are too few, he cannot really discuss it under my Vote. I am not pleased about this, but the hon. member knows that all initiative and organization in regard to the establishment of border industries should fall under the Economic Votes. My Department is concerned with the consequential work, i.e. the provision of housing, et., for the people who have to work in those border industries. I want to tell the hon. member that even though there are no officially declared ¡border industry areas around the Transkei—and it is true that there are no officially declared border industry areas, in the same way as Hammarsdale is an officially declared border industry area—there are nevertheless quite a number of towns around the Transkei which find themselves in the same position as a declared border industry area would be.

Mention one to me.

I shall now mention quite a few. The hon. member must understand that one finds the officially declared border industry areas on the borders of the Bantu areas. This is where all those concessions and incentives apply in regard to any settlement disadvantages which may exist. One also finds ¡border industry towns, which I want to call the practical order industries, which are not officially declared places, but which can develop. These places sometimes do not need the incentive wages, and can be such areas in practice. In this way, for example, Durban is in practice nothing but a border industry area, without receiving the benefits. Durban does not need the benefits of a ¡border industry development area, because the homeland is situated close by. Around the Transkei there are quite a number of places—and the hon. member ought to know this—such as Elliot, Matatiele, Maclear, Kokstad, Harding and Port St.John’s, which lie adjacent to and within ten miles from the Transkei. Some of these places are within the constituency of the hon. member for Transkei. I now want to ask him whether he wants us to develop, declare and recognize Kokstad, Port St. John’s and Matatiele as border industry areas?

Yes, of course I want it. They are all inside the Transkei.

I am glad that there is support from the Opposition side for the concept of border industries. I do not want to reproach them in any way about that matter, and I am not going to stick out my tongue at them because of this. I am grateful for every respect in which ¡the Opposition wants to support us in implementing our policy. I am glad that the hon. member supports it, because in former years they did not support it. Let us be candid and admit that it is not always easy to declare as a border industry area each town which wants to be declared one. There are all kinds of problems involved. However, if that hon. member states that he welcomes it, it is a step forward for us and also for the other members of the Opposition. I hope that he will not run into any trouble with his colleagues as a result of this.

As far as the hon. member for Port Natal is concerned, I just want to furnish a reply to one point which he mentioned. I could not follow what he was saying very easily, but it seemed to me as if he was objecting to the fact that at Lime Hill there were cases where people had to pay 50 cents per journey for transport. I want to tell the hon. member that he must give me more details concerning this matter, and not merely raise a general point. It appears to me to be a highly impossible example of what can actually happen. Throughout the country, at these places where the Bantu have to journey from Bantu areas to white areas for work or other similar reasons, the tariff charged on buses is usually, and very seldom more than, 2 cents per mile. In other words, if that person is paying more than 50 cents for a single journey, it means a journey of 25 miles. As far as I know those distances are not as long as all that. If that hon. member for Port Natal, who scarcely knows where Lime Hill is, has a genuine interest in … [Interjections.]

Order!

If I could give that young member some advice, he should sit and listen, and he should not sit there crying like a baby who has woken up at the wrong time. If the hon. member for Port Natal has a genuine interest in, and wants to see these cases rectified, I want to give him the good advice of bringing it to our attention Departmentally, with full details. He is more likely to achieve success by doing so than by trying to make political capital out of the matter here during a debate.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) also mentioned two wild examples. He spoke about a woman teacher from Umzimkulu who was unable to find work, as well as the case of a worker in a butchery who was also unable to find work. I cannot form a judgment about such generalities, with so few details. The hon. member also enquired what the position was in respect of Hammarsdale, and the reply I am going to give him will deal with the principles. The reply I want to give him is quite a long one. In principle the position at Hammarsdale, the Bantu residential area in the Bantu homeland, is in fact identical to the position at Umlazi. The same applies to any other Bantu township. People who work in a nearby white area ought to be living there, but the hon. member must realize that people will and are able to live there who themselves work much further away and who perhaps merely allow their dependents to live in that town, while they visit them once a week or once a month or on even rarer occasions, or even travel there over long distances. There are also people who will live in Hammarsdale but who will perhaps not work at all, i.e. retired people, aged people or people who are dependants in some other way. That, according to the principles, is the position in Hammarsdale.

May I ask whether the inhabitants of that township will be limited only to Bantu registered in the Camperdown district, and secondly, will those inhabitants be limited only to Zulus, or will members of the other ethnic groups also be allowed to reside there?

From the nature of the case, those people who are workers in that district will be given preference in that township, but one cannot simply have only those people living in the town who are tied to that district. As regards the other ethnic groups: In all these Bantu townships, the policy we are implementing as strictly as possible is that those townships should not become cosmopolitan as far as the Bantu are concerned. In other words, it would be wrong to allow Shangaans, Vendas, South Sotho’s and such people to reside permanently in that township. But sometimes it is in fact necessary, during a temporary transition period, to allow such people to reside there, and the cases are subsequently sorted out. It cannot always be implemented 100 per cent correctly from the very first day.

The hon. member for Potchefstroom. also inquired about the Bantu Affairs building there; I know that building. I was there, and I know that it is a difficult case. I just want to give him the assurance that both my Department and Public Works are fully aware of the condition of those buildings, and we hope thatbefore long, even if it has to be done by means of a rearrangement of the position, it will be possible to effect an improvement there. I do not want to make any promises, and more than that I cannot say to-day.

The hon. member for South Coast raised certain matters to which the hon. the Deputy Minister replied very effectively. I merely wish to add something in regard to one point. He asked whether a farm labourer must always remain a farm labourer. The Deputy Minister for Bantu Development has replied to that, but I want to repeat it. A farm labourer does not always have to remain a farm labourer; but if he wants to do some other kind of work, he must obtain it through the right channels, through the bureau system, and not on his own accord by his own actions or by unilateral actions on the part of the employer by whom he wants to be employed. That is the position.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) raised a few miscellaneous points, and he tried to be amusing last night when he said here that one only has to say “abracadabra” and then Durban, or any other place, becomes a border industry. He continued in this vein until the hon. the Chairman subsequently had to tell the hon. member that he could not speak foreign languages here. It seems to me the hon. member should be careful that people do not accuse him of having originated as a politician as a result of the word “abracadabra”. He must be careful that people do not acccuse him of that. I am not going to accuse him of that.

That is a word used by white witch doctors.

The hon. member referred to Durban and East London, which he stated had merely originated with a magic word like “abracadabra”. (Laughter.] The hon. members can laugh, but I am not speaking English now. I want to inform the hon. member that whether Umlazi is now being regarded as a border industry for the Bantu or not, places like Durban and East London and the Bantu areas there are historically adjacent areas. We did not cause a border industry to be established there.

It must have happened by accident.

We did not even say: “Let us bring the Bantu area up to here, and then up to here it is a border industry area.” Umlazi was not made a Bantu town because we wanted a border industry there. Durban has not up to now been declared a border industry town. It is one in practice, as I hay said, which it can be without the allocated benefits. Umlazi was where it is to-day long befote the concept of border industries originated. We have simply expanded the township there, but the Bantu area has always been there. The same happened at East London, except that there were certain purchases of land, and at Umlazi there were also certain restricted land transactions, of which one went through Parliament this year. Thus I do not know what the hon. member is trying to imply by saying that with a wave of the wand the position there has been changed. No position has been changed with a wave of the wand. The circumstances there have been adjusted to the entire concept. That is all.

I then come to the hon. member for Walmer. He asked a question about Middelburg in the Cape. I just want to inform him that the position in regard to the Middelburg Bantu residential area, as far as I know, is that new planning for that town was approved quite recently. We realize that, particularly in the rural areas, many of these smaller towns have difficulties with their Bantu residential areas. The housing schemes in Bantu residential areas depend upon the economic structure prevailing in the local towns. The Bantu must pay rental for the houses they occupy, and they must pay transportation costs, if it is necessary to travel back and forth. The rent instalments on the houses they occupy cannot be disproportionate to their own wage structures. It depends a great deal upon the economy of the local town. This is one of the problems which makes it difficult for the smaller towns such as Middelburg and others to have a Bantu residential area of the same standard as a place such as East London, for example, or at a place such as Kroonstad or Pretoria or Cape Town, where there is a very high economic structure in that town or city. But the townships are being laid out, and there are three methods according to which this can take place. There is the method of selfconstruction, and that is often the solution for these smaller towns, i.e., that the municipality support them with certain basic requirements and that the Bantu themselves build the houses on those premises. Good houses can be built in this way. There are many examples of that. Oudtshoorn is an example of this method, and there are more such examples. The second method is that those townships come into being with loans which are obtained from the State, and then the houses are leased to the Bantu. These can be sub-economic loan schemes, or economic loan schemes. But circumstances have changed to such an extent in the past 20 years, since we came into power, that where in 1948 it was the case that almost 100 per cent of the loans allocated were sub-economiic, the position has now been reversed and it is almost 100 per cent on an economic basis. This is attributable to many reasons» inter alia, to the major and important improvements which have been introduced under our guidance as Government to establish economic, good and cheaper houses in the Bantu residential areas. With these words I do not want to intimate that Middelburg is going to have a sub-economic housing scheme, becausewe are trying our level best to avoid sub-economic housing schemes, because they cannot always be justified. But these are the schemes which apply, and the Department assures me that new planning was recently approved for Middelburg and that this can apply in a similar way to other towns, where it is justified.

What the hon. member for Etosha actually did was to advocate that it was quite essential to build up a good infrastructure in the ¡Bantu areas of South West Africa. I think the hon. member, who is well acquainted with those areas, will concede that a great deal has already been done in that direction during the past few years. I just want to give hon. members the assurance that we are earnestly aware of those matters. But Rome was not built in a day and, so help me, not Ovamboland either, or any other Bantu area, nor any other white city or town. In the present year only large amounts have been appropriated, departmentally and in terms of the trust and also by the South West Africa Administration, which under the old arrangement still has to look after many aspects there, to establish facilities such as buildings, roads, bridges, dipping troughs, irrigation works, water provision, the necessary machinery, forest utilization, soil conservation and reclamation, fencing and Bantu townships. I have just enumerated the kind of physical things which can be classified under the term “infrastructure”. Then there are still a great many other things such as agricultural activities, schools and education, which have been tackled. But I can assure the hon. member that we are all thoroughly aware of the need for these things.

The hon. member for Pinelands also deserves some comment on my part, firstly in regard to my Potchefstroom speech. I am of course deeply grateful that the hon. member underwent the sound edification of reading that speech of mine, but I do want to say to that hon. member that I know him to be a courteous man and he should at least understand my words in their context and quote them in context. The hon. member quoted a portion of my speech here. I am not going to qualify or withdraw one syllable of that speech. I am quoting what I said, and I am now reading from the original, not from a newspaper report—

I elaborated at length on the emancipatory process, and in regard to this process I also said the following, inter alia—

The consummation of the policy implies that each one of these nations is being assisted in this process of emancipation. Wherever the various ethnic members find themselves at the moment, whether within or outside their respective homelands, is not of decisive importance …

Listen how—

I stated very emphatically in that same speech that it was not possible to accomplish in one go a spectacular removal of those people to their homelands, but that it remained the endeavour and policy to let them return, to a maximum extent, to their own homelands. Now I am asking the hon. member what is wrong with that. All that is wrong, is his omission of the second part; that is all.

That is not the point I made.

The first part I read out was the point the hon. member made, and many other people also tried to make the point that I had supposedly said that it was not at all essential that the people should return to their homelands any longer. There is no such thing, Sir. The policy remains as I stated it in my speech.

The hon. member for Pinelands must also be reprimanded in regard to what he said here about the three courses which he ascribed to Professor Van den Haag, a very eminent person who gave outstanding evidence for us in the World Court case. The hon. member, if I am correot, quoted from a newspaper report. I was placed on an almost equally improper pedestal as the one he was placed on. He quoted this from the newspaper report, which is certainly not correct. I could not lay my hands on the original evidence this morning, but at least I did get hold of a better source than a newspaper report, and I went into it a lititle. It may be as he put it that Professor Van den Haag stated that there are three alternatives for such countries, or such areas, which have multi-racial populations. It is true that he states that there are three courses. There is the course of separate development, or the course of integration, or the course of haying various groups altogether in one joint authority. The third is nothing else but a combination of the first two, and it remains my standpoint that there are two practical courses. There are some people who think perhaps that there is a third experimental course, namely of combining the two. I know that the Opposition maintains this; it is stated in their yellow brochure, that it is their policy to apply the “good aspects of separate development” under their federation policy.

You are also trying to do so.

No. Things have now gone so far that the hon. Senators in the Other Place are already telling me that distinctive development is their policy as well. Let me just inform the hon. member for Pinelands that I persist in believing that basically there are only two courses, namely the course of political separate development, or the course of political integration. That is as far as the government of these various human groups which live together geographically are concerned. The hon. member should read the rest of what Professor Van den Haag had to say, and then he would see that he was being very unfair if he wanted to pretend or if he wanted other people to deduce that Professor Van den Haag advocated the third method. Professor Van den Haag did not advocate that third method in this evidence.

In certain circumstances he did.

He did not advocate it. The hon. member must accept that Professor Van den Haag stated very clearly that where such multi-racial population compositions existed, each case had to be reviewed, approached and considered on its own merits. He stated very clearly that where there were major group differences between the various groups, he would not advocate the application of such a process of equalization by throwing them all together under one authority, and that what should rather take place there was that the people should be kept separated to a greater extent, by keeping them more isolated from one another. The hon. member mentioned the evidence of Professor Van den Haag here as if it were proof that the race federation policy of throwing everybody into one political conglomeration, was his standpoint.

I did not say that. I said various groups, but one government.

If the hon. member wants to enumerate methods, then he might even be able to enumerate ten methods, but any methods other than these two I mentioned are mere combinations of the two basic methods, namely integration or apartheid. These are the only two methods.

Is there nothing between verkramp and veriig?

In other words, there cannot be a policy for the Coloureds.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think that any more points were raised here which I need reply to now. Some of the minor points are of an administrative nature, and I can reply to them later.

Sir, may I ask for the privilege of the other half hour? I know that the hon. the Minister will not expect me to comment at all on his speech because he was largely answering speeches made last night by other hon. members on this side of the House. I want to say this to him, having listened to him at length this afternoon, that I am quite prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt that he sincerely believes in the concept of separate development; that he really believes that this ethical concept is something which can ultimately be realized. How he manages to persuade himself of this in the teeth of all the evidence to the contrary is beyond me, but I will at least say that he probably does believe that it can be done. I cannot say the same for other members of this House. I believe that a lot of people pay lip service to this ideal of separate development but the vast majority of the supporters of the Government and many of the members of this House, in spite of everything that they say about the ethical concept, in fact simply want the maintenance of the status quo. And that is, to put it quite bluntly, the maintenance of vast reservoirs of cheap black labour for the benefit of white employers in this country and the maintenance of white domination. That is all they want.

Sir, I want to come back to some of the speeches that were made last night, particularly by the two Deputy Ministers of Bantu Administration and by the hon. member for Heilbron. Last night we heard the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education thundering away about all the misstatements that have been made on this side of the House about endorsements-out. He said, inter alia, that only tsotsis were endorsed out of the urban areas … [Interjections.] I have not finished yet; I am going to quote all his absolutely peerless words. He said that only tsotsis were endorsed out of the urban areas and that every one of those had appeared in the courts of law. Secondly he said that only people who were unlawfully in the urban areas were endorsed out. I want to deal with both these remarks. The first one is, of course, just not true. [Interjections.] Sir, everybody heard him say that. He said that only tsotsis were endorsed out of the urban areas …

He dealt with the statement that had been made here that they were taken out handcuffed.

Sir, I did not mention handcuffs. The hon. member must not distract me with nonsense. The point is that that statement is untrue. In every single (Bantu Administration office throughout the country there are officials who spend all their days on the unproductive exercise of stamping reference books “endorsed out of the urban areas; not permitted to be in urban areas”. This applies to people who have never been near a court of law. Now let us come to the secondconcept and that is that only people who are unlawfully in an urban area are ever sent out. I want to know whether the hon. the Deputy Minister has any idea how almost impossible it is to-day for an urban African to prove that he is lawfully in an urban area; how the Government have circumvented section 10 to such an extent that it is virtually impossible for any law-abiding African to prove that he has the right to be in an urban area under section 10.

It is nonsense.

It is not nonsense and J will tell the Minister why. Let me give him some examples. First of all to prove that he or she is eligible under section 10 (1) (a), that is the section that refers to the African being born in the urban area, the African has to produce a birth certificate. We all know births are not compulsory in this country. They certainly were not several years ago.

Quite, births are not compulsory …

I mean the registration of African births. As I said, the registration of births is not compulsory for Africans, and therefore the production of a birth certificate in itself is practically an impossibility in the case of the vast majority of Africans, especially those who were born some years ago. Nobody knew about »this law of having to produce some proof that they were born in the area and therefore they were not registered by compulsion as white people or Coloured people are. Therefore that in itself is impossible. The officials demand proof and this proof is very difficult indeed to produce. What is more, even if he produces a birth certificate, the African still has to prove that he lived continuously in the area because if he has had a break in service, if he has even been sent out by his own firm with whom he had been continuously employed to another municipal area, that can be counted as a break in his continuous residence in the urban area. That is another so-called unlawful “concept” according to these Ministers. [Interjections.] I wonder if the Deputy Ministers will let me develop my argument. They can reply again, they have lots of ten minute periods at their disposal, and they have about 120 members who can reply. In the Cape in particular where this policy is being very stringently applied indeed the divisional and Cape Town municipal areas were only split in 1960. So this technicality is applied over and over again to Cape Town Africans who have been here since birth. If they happened to work in the divisional area but were born in the municipal area, and as I said, the separation for the purposes of Bantu administration only took place in 1960, they have had it. They are no longer lawfully in the area. But they are not tsotsis, they are not people who do not want to work, as the other Deputy Minister said. They are people in employment or people who want to continue in employment perhaps with another firm. They have the greatest difficulty in obtaining permission.

Let us come to the other group of people who are entitled “lawfully” to be in the urban area. I am referring to the section I (b) and (c) Africans. Paragraph (b) as we all know lays down that the man must have been in the urban area continuously for 15 years or employed by one employer for ten years. I want to point out to the Minister and the Deputy Ministers that this Act only came into existence in 1952 but the official provision for registration of Africans came later. The machinery came in 1956 in some cases. Compulsory registration only came in 1959 in some centres and in Johannesburg even later. How do Africans ever produce the proof? Although the law was introduced in 1952, which is just over 16 years ago, the actual provision for the official registration was only introduced two or three years later, that is to say, the actual offices and everything else that went with it, and it was not made compulsory until several years later. So again Africans who in fact have been in the urban areas for 15 years continuously and in fact have been with one employer for ten years are unable to produce the proof and they are endorsed out, or certainly they run a risk of being endorsed out. As for the wretched women who really have a terrible time, particularly in the Cape, section 10 (1) (c) of the Act applies more particularly to them. They are the dependants of wives of the persons who qualify under either section 10 (1) (a) or (b). Just as difficulties of proving legitimate urban residence under paragraphs (a) and (b) have increased all the time, so equally have the difficulties of proving dependence on a man lawfully in the area. Not only that. The whole question of registration for women came much later and they too have the greatest difficulty in proving that they are lawfully in the area, that they entered lawfully originally, and that they were ordinarily resident with their husbands, which is of course another difficulty which has been added by this Government. So in every possible way things are made almost impossible for an African to be lawfully within the urban area and if officials use their powers to the full they can in fact endorse out practically every one of the urban Africans, if they did not require their labour. This is the point.

As for the women, there is an absolutely callous disregard for the position of African women. The hon. the Minister can shake his head. I know from personal experience. Let met tell the Minister what happens. These hon. members sit here passing laws but they never have the slightest contact with the individuals who suffer as a result of those laws.

They have no contact whatever with the individuals. They are not confronted with those dejected creatures who find their whole lives cut away from under them by virtue of the laws that these men pass. The officials who are duty bound to administer these wretched laws, this gaggle, this welter of laws, those unfortunate individuals do not have to take the responsibility of having passed the laws. [Interjections.] You can say what you like after I have sat down.

You are the one hon. member who has never brought a single case to my attention. You are not interested in them; you are only interested in the political capital you can make.

I have hundreds and hundreds of cases but I know that it is useless. I am not looking for exceptions to the rule. What is the good of that? What is the good of bringing to the Minister’s attention a few individual hard-luck cases when I know that thousands of cases are suffering in the same way? That is why I have no patience really with the special pleading of the hon. member for Transkei on behalf of the predikant. I do not care about the individual cases. I know there are hundreds of cases like that. Why should the Deputy Minister be allowed to get away with it by saying he gave that man permission to have his wife in the area, when I know there are hundreds of cases where permission is refused? What if the man does not happen to be a predikant and a member of Parliament has not taken up his case. What is the good of that? I am not looking for exceptions to the rule; I am trying to have the rules altered so as to make people’s lives en masse bearable in this country as far as the Africans are concerned.

You are making political propaganda, that is all.

Rubbish. That is always the Deputy Ministers answer. He never answers factually. He replies by means of personal abuse and talking a lot of nonsense. The bon. member asks about these cases. Lett me tell him what happens to these women. If a woman is divorced, or if she is deserted, as happens over and over again in the urban areas, if her husband dies, and we know that happens to many woman sooner or later, then she loses her right to remain the head of the household and she loses her right to retain the house. She can get special permission if the Chief Bantu Affairs Commissioner of a particular area gives his permission, but the right to have the house goes. The woman is the only breadwinner at this stage and; these women always have small children dependent on them. What are they told? They are told to find lodgings. A woman with five small children has to go and find lodgings. She has to give up the house which she and her husband had lived in for years because the husband has died, deserted or divorced her, and she has to go and find lodgings with small children, which is an impossibility in view of the shortage of accommodation. The older children are made to go and live in hostels. They have to pay for staying there, and immediately it is impossible for them to assist the woman to maintain the home and her household. They cannot help to bring in some extra income for the benefit of the povertystricken family. What has the Deputy Minister got to say about that? Am I looking for propaganda?

Of course you are.

Or is this a rotten regulation? That is what it is. It is a disgrace to a so-called civilized country. It is absolutely shocking. As for hostel accommodation, let me tell the Minister in Johannesburg alone there are 14,000 people on waiting lists for hostel accommodation. These women are told to go and find hostel accommodation. A section I (c) woman does not appear to have any rights at all. The others can get it with special permission. A woman who is simply the dependant of a deceased man, and who is not there in her own right, just does not have a chance at all. She cannot have her name put on a waiting list even for housing accommodation in Johannesburg.

It is high time the Government did something about this disgraceful situation, instead of saying, as the hon. member for Heilbron did, “Let us get rid of all these surplus women and children; let them go to the rural areas, who cares about them?” These women are very often the breadwinners of the family. Why can they not go and do nothing there? he asked. Does he think that that sort of speech coming from a senior Government member does not do more harm to South Africa overseas than my protesting against this sort of thing? What does he think does more harm: His statement about the women and children or my protestations about the laws? Which does he think does more harm to this country? It is disgraceful. What we need badly is an inquiry into the position of African women who are trapped on the one hand by the terrible laws in the urban areas and on the other hand also by the conflict between the tribal laws, for which I do not blame this Government for once, and all the effects of urbanization. Some years ago the hon. the Minister’s predecessor appointed an interdepartmental committee to go into the whole question of the position of urban Africans. Then it was abandoned because nobody really cares about it anyway. I say it is time that that committee is re-appointed. It is time that it was turned into a commission of inquiry and that the commission’s terms of referencewere widened to include a full-scale inquiry into the position of the urban Africans and, as the Johannesburg non-European Affairs Department suggested, their role in the fields of education, transport, housing and employment in the urban areas. It is no good the hon. the Minister just sitting there and saying that we know what their role is. Let us see what the results are on the human beings concerned. We know what their role is because they are of course allowed into the urban areas as long as their labour is needed and not otherwise. But even when they want to work—and this is where I take issue with the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development—their position is not as simple as that. He said yesterday that only those who do not want to work are told to leave. That is not true. If he says that, he does not know what is going on in his own department. People come in in order to look for work and then they are not allowed to look for work. If they find work they are sent back and then they have to start the whole process all over again.

This brings me to the question of farm labour. The hon. the Minister said very blithely that everything in this regard is very easy for the Africans. He said that they just leave the farms and then go to the labour bureaux. Then they can become anything they like. That is what the hon. the Deputy Minister also said. He said that they must go back to their tribal areas, register as migrant workers and then they can come in in another capacity again. What does he think happens to those men’s families in the meantime? What happens about those men who had been on farms for generations with their families, as all of us know happens? Where are they to leave their families? There is no land for them in the reserves. Will the Bantu Commissioner sign such a Bantu off if the farmer still wants him—no, of course not. It is not true to say that there is slave labour in South Africa. I do not say that.

Now you are talking nonsense.

No, I am not talking nonsense. Can the hon. member tell me in what respects it is nonsense. I shall, however, return to this hon. member in a moment. It is not true to say that there is slave labour in South Africa. I do not exaggerate the position, because it is not necessary to do it. Things are bad enough in this department as it is without having to exaggerate. I will, however, say this about farm labourers. They are as tied to the landowners as were the serfs of mediaeval England. That much I will say. They are tied to the landowner because they cannot leave unless the farmer signs them off. They cannot leave unless the Bantu Commissioner gives the right to do so. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, I read fairy stories for bedtime reading. I must have something to brighten my day after I leave the House. I read fairy stories and I find them in Bantu.

The May issue of Bantu has a lovely fairytale in it. It is headed “Thirteen years of Prosperity” and it brought tears to my eyes. It reads as follows:

About 13 years ago when Eliazer Nenugwi was 32 years old, he had not yet made any attempt to earn his own living. He lived in Vendaland and relied on his friends and family to provide for his daily needs. During the rainy season he ploughed his brother’s piece of land, but this did not supply him with an income. One fine day Eliazer suddenly realized that one could make no progress if one did not work in order to receive an income. He then travelled to Johannesburg.

He simply travelled to Johannesburg without having to get the permission of a Bantu Commissioner and no permission from Influx Control on the other—

[Interjections.] Hon. members must not become impatient, because there is a happy ending to this fairy story—

Again there are no influx control problems’ for lucky old Eliazer. He decided where he would work, as if an African coming from Vendaland can up-stakes, come to Johannesburg, decide he is not very keen on his employer there and then transfer himself to Pretoria.

What about his cat?

I do not know, because it does not give us the details, but it does go on to tell us—

Unfortunately I do not have time to go into’ any more details of this story. It does, however, tell us how he went back to Vendaland where he was given a piece of land. He got his irrigation plot of 11 morgen and it was a great joy to him. By this time he had practically got a country estate.

Has he got a Cadillac?

No, he does not have a Cadillac yet but he has got a very nice tractor. What is more, he has got his own farm labourers working for him. That is a lovely story and I wish it were true. So much, therefore, for all these fairy stories about farm labourers.

I come now to another question, namely the unlawful presence of Africans in certain urban areas. I have been trying to get a lot of statistics from the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Ministers. I must say that the hon. the Deputy Minister for Bantu Administration and Education showed an unusual reticence in this regard. I cannot get any figures from him any more.

You have not asked me for any.

I have all the evidence here. Would the hon. the Deputy Minister like to see how many times he has told me that the statistics are not available or that owing to the large volume of work, the statistics are not kept, and so on? These hon. Ministers are all very cagey. The interesting thing is that I could get precisely those statistics last year. When other hon. members do not pinch my questions I usually put the same questions over and over again from year to year. [Interjections.] As a matter of fact the hon. member for Transkei has pinched a few of my questions. I do not mind. If this all adds to our stock of information, I am all for it. I am delighted to have got everybody going in that way.

They are all stock questions.

Yes, stock questions if you like. But it does seem to me that we have run out of stock, because I cannot get any answers any more. I will tell the hon. the Minister why I cannot get replies to my questions. I do not believe that they are not really available. It might be that they have not been assembled in the desired form. They are available but they are too damaging. The hon. the Minister does not want to give this House and the country this information. That is the reason why. These replies are too damaging and embarrassing. The hon. the Minister does not tell us of the endorsements out or the number of contract labourers. One could get answers to all these questions before. He could not even tell me how many people were illegally in the urban areas. He cannot tell me the numbers who qualify under section 10. He has abolished 30-year home ownership, but he cannot even tell me how many people were involved. He seems to know nothing at all about this. He is shy, coy and reticent—or should I say just common cagey. He does not want to give the answers to these questions because he knows how embarrassing they are. The same applies to all these pass offences and the large number of people arrested. One has to sift through the newspapers and watch for speeches made by people such as Justice Steyn.

One has also to take note of speeches made at the Institute of non-European Administrators to collect a few figures. These figures reveal an absolutely shocking state of affairs. The number of arrests for petty offences under these pass laws is approximately half a million in one year. Most of these people serve very short prison sentences. This does not fall specifically under this department but these are all arrestees under the welter of laws produced by this gaggle of Ministers. All this means in the end that thousands of Africans go to gaol every year for these petty offences. There is the great loss of man-hours it entails as well as the terrible effect it has on people on their being sent to gaol.

It is a ludicrous situation where we deliberately impound people who should be working as productive members of our society. I could give statistics in this regard, but I do not think I will have the time. As I have said the whole picture of Bantu administration is utterly depressing. [Interjections.] The hon. the Deputy Minister can mutter in his beard. I want him to stand up and answer what I am saying without telling me that I am “beswaddering” South Africa. There we have the “beswadderaars”. They are the people who pass the laws and not the people who object to the laws. The whole picture of Bantu administration is utterly depressing. It is the picture of an all-powerful, ruthless Government pushing people around without even realizing the conditions in areas to which they are pushing them. Look at these terrible resettlement areas, the Sadas and Hinges or whatever they are called, all 24 of them, where at least 50,000 to 70,000 people are living under the most abject conditions. They have no employment opportunities and live in places of utter dejection and despair, with women, children, the aged and the disabled sitting their while their men are working as migratory labourers. I remember that some time in the distant past the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education pronounced that he hated migrant labour. Does he remember doing that ever? He said that he hated the system of migrant labour.

I? You are talking nonsense. I do not even hate you.

I can only tell hon. members that I remember him saying that he did not like that system and that he hated it.

You are just boring me now.

I might be boring you. I might be frightening you, because I might fish out the quotation one of these days. In those days he was relying, and other hon. members too, on the border areas or the Bantustans themselves to support the people whowere to be drawn back. Of course the hon. the Deputy Minister has staked his whole political future on getting everybody back at a certain date. Why he should have done this to himself, heaven knows, but he has. Now he has to approve of migrant labour, because he knows this is going to be the only way he can do it. It is not that the physical presence of Africans is going to be lessened; it is just that their status is going to be changed. They are going to be there de facto, but they are not going to have any right to be there.

Of course, the Deputy Minister used to be a Hofmeyr man, so one never knows when he is going to change his mind. He will not deny standing on a platform in Parktown and saying that he was a Hofmeyr man because I was there. [Interjections.] Let me just get on.

At that time I spoke as much nonsense as you do now.

He thinks that, if he just banishes people to these places, they disappear altogether. They do not. They do not vanish into thin air. They are still ar-ound. The population of South Africa still includes 11 million Africans.

The hon. member for Heilbron talked yesterday about this new labour system which I mentioned during the Budget Debate—I do not want to go into details again—with the regulations concerning migratory labour, etc. By the way, before I forget, has the hon. the Deputy Minister arranged that the man concerned sees the contract? Has he at least done that, as I asked him to? He professed to be shocked at this at one stage. Has he seen to it that the regulations are changed, so that the worker himself gets a copy of his work contract? Will he undertake to do at least that in all fairness, and not spitefully sit and sulk the way he is now doing?

Nkrumah can do much better than that.

Nkrumah is out. Forget about Nkrumah. The Minister must get a more up to date public enemy number one.

The hon. member for Heilbron had a lot to say about this sytem of putting everybody on the same basis as Malawians. They come in under contract and they go back. But he is not dealing with foreign Africans. Can I just rouse him from his little dream? He is dealing with South African citizens, and not Malawians, Botswanas or Lesotho. He has no right to put those people on the same basis as foreign Africans. Just let me point that out to him.

The whole matter really is just too depressing for words. All I can say is that I am glad that I am not going to be around in 50 years’ time to see the results of this system. If there is one thing that throws me completely, it is the arrogance of this Government in believing that it can go on in this way, turning the screws every tighter, treating people like aliens in the land of their birth, denying them even the most elementary human rights, such as the right to live with their families in the urban areas, or where they are spending most of their working life, and then imagining that there is never going to be a come-back. Well, I have news for the hon. the Minister. History has proved otherwise. They will not be able to go on like this. They should realize that they are endangering the security of South Africa in their arrogance, in believing that they can go on without let nor hindrance in this utterly irresponsible and heartless fashion. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, they say that a woman’s vocabulary consists of approximately 500 words, but that the turnover is tremendous. We had a very striking example of that this afternoon. If I should come home one evening and my wife should rant and rave the way the hon. member for Houghton did this afternoon, there would be only one of two things that one could do to her. And I am a very mild-natured man. The one would be to give her a jolly good hiding, and the other would be simply to ignore her. That is really what one should do to her this afternoon, because it was an example, coming from a lady, of a really uncivilized speech that we heard here this afternoon.

Order! The hon. member is not allowed to say that the hon. member for Houghton made an uncivilized speech. I cannot allow that.

Then it was a shameless speech, Mr. Chairman, and it did come rather close to being a primitive speech. The hon. member pretends, with a great flurry of words, to care so much for the Bantu and the Coloureds in South Africa, but I want to suggest that, if one went into the matter to some extent, one would find that she does not have such a wonderful record of really caring for these people. She can get up in this House and make an extremely irresponsible speech and just talk and talk, but if one inquires into the deeds, one finds that the hon. member for Houghton cannot even mention any examples to the hon. the Deputy Minister, who repeatedly asks her to mention examples. I think that by this time we have had enough of this from the hon, member for Houghton. The speech she made here this afternoon with a great flurry of words was made with one purpose only, and that is to stir up unrest in the Republic of South Africa. That is the point. It is irresponsible. I want to go further, and if it is unparliamentary, Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, but we have to deal with a certain degree of lawlessness (verwildering) which is manifesting itself in many ways in the West.

I want to suggest that the hon. member for Houghton was a typical example in the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa this afternoon of the cause of this lawlessness which is taking root in the West. For that she has to be chastized.

And, typical of the hon. member for Houghton, she made another equally flagrant error. Her speech was probably the most illogical one that we have heard in this House this Session. Just to give you an example, Sir: She began by telling the National Party and the Government in a terribly dramatic and theatrical way that they “are only paying lip service, but they do not mean it” as far as the implementation of the policy of each developing along his own lines is concerned. Then she went on to make the extremely irresponsible statement that we “keep the Bantu only as a reservoir of cheap labour”. She made these sweeping statements without realizing what their implications are. In her typically illogical way she then went on to negate the very statement she had made, because she then mentioned numerous examples of how this same Government was doing everything in its power to move the Bantu from the urban areas, in other words, not to use them as a “reservoir of cheap labour”, but to remove them. That is quite illogical. Her entire speech was therefore devoid of any logical basis, facts or examples. I really want to express the hope that this afternoon we heard the last of this type of speech from the hon. member for Houghton in this House. I now want to address a challenge to her: If she cannot mention examples to the hon. the Deputy Minister to support and substantiate these allegations which she makes left, right and centre, she must expect that in future we shall take no notice of her in this House at all.

Finally I want to tell her—and I know this will hurt a little—that I think she deserves a good hiding. What she did this afternoon, is a sign of typical feminine age. In making so irresponsible and, may I say now, so shameless a speech in a responsible House, she is not worthy of her sex. She makes us rather impatient. But if I were to ask her a simple question, namely whether she believes in white supremacy in the Republic …

No.

She has already given her reply. I want to leave her at that, and I want to ask the Opposition, those who joined her in her laughter, and those who always support that hon. member, and who are sitting over there as an integration party, whether they believe in white supremacy in the Republic.

White leadership.

Why does the hon. member now draw the distinction between supremacy and leadership? I am asking him a simple question. The hon. member for Houghton, who is a woman, at least had the courage of her convictions in saying that she did not believe in white supremacy, with a resonant “No”. I again ask those hon. members whether they believe in supremacy in South Africa, and I am not referring to leadership now.

What did Mr. Strydom say ten years ago?

I just want to obtain some clarity on a very important point. I am asking this for the third time now. We know that they stand for white leadership “for the foreseeable future”, but I want to repeat my question. There are a large number of members sitting over there, such as the hon. member for Durban (Point), a very talkative member, and the hon. member for Transkei and all the other hon. members. I am putting a perfectly simple question to these members, whom I accused the other day of being the “bandwagon” party that just wants to climb onto the National Party’s bandwagon. I am putting the same question to them as I put to the hon. member for Houghton. I am asking them whether they stand for white supremacy.

No. (Interjections.]

I have tried three or four times now. They all speak at the same time. No one says “yes” or “no”.

Stop distorting our policy.

What did the hon. member say?

I said: “Stop distorting our policy.”

Do you have a policy to distort?

I want the entire country to see that they cannot reply to my question. [Interjections.] I repeat my question: Do you believe in white supremacy, yes or no?

No.

Now we have made some progress. Why do they say “no”? I shall tell you why, Sir. It is because the United Party, as a result of the fact that it does not accept the principle of multi-nationality, is still trying to lead the electorate of South Africa up the garden path, to mislead the voters in that they say they stand for white leadership “for the foreseeable future”. They dare not say supremacy, because theyactually stand for economic and political integration, and those are two things which cannot be reconciled with each other. Supremacy and integration are like oil and water; they do not mix, and they will never mix. While I am not at all appreciative of what the hon. member for Houghton said here this afternoon, she at least has a standpoint, but the United Party has no standpoint, as their own Sunday newspapers told them last Sunday. They now want to ride on the National Party’s wagon, but we shall push them off head over heals into the dust. We have the courage of our convictions and we say that we stand for white supremacy in the white areas and that we shall do so for all time to come and that we shall maintain and defend it by force. [Time expired.]

I too want to refer to the hon. member for Houghton and I want to tell her that in my opinion her entire speech was larded with a lot of distortions.

What did the hon. member say?

I said her speech was larded with distortions.

The hon. member may proceed.

We have knowledge of the application of this legislation and I am convinced that we in this House to-day can have only the greatest respect for the officials who are charged with implementing this legislation. I want to issue a challenge to the hon. member for Houghton. We as a House accept the responsibility for this legislation and I think that it is the duty of this hon. member to advance concrete examples.

This is the law I told you about.

There is no point in talking about the law. The hon. member made a direct accusation about the application of this law and she said: “It is virtually impossible for any Bantu to prove that he is lawfully in any urban area.” But surely this is not so. Does the hon. member have concrete examples of any Bantu who has proved that he was lawfully in any urban area at the time when he was endorsed out of that area? [Interjections.] I simply do not accept it. I say we have always been fully confident that the officials are fair to the Bantu population in this country in the application of this legislation.

But I want to devote my time to what was said by the hon. member for Pinelands. I think the hon. member tried to get away with a few things last night to which we must react. The hon. member referred to the conditions which prevailed prior to 1948. He said that when the National Party came into power in 1948, the prestige of South Africa had never been higher abroad. He said money and immigrants were pouring into this country in 1948. He said conditions were so good that it was as easy as changing a glove for this Government to take over. I want to quote what he said—

Is there really any need for me to-day to repeat to the hon. member for Pinelands the entire history of the constitutional struggle to have our policy implemented which we have had to wage from 1948 when we came into power? Where was the hon. member during this entire struggle for him to say now that the change-over when the present Government took over happened as smoothly as the changing of a glove? Is it impossible for him to remember? Was he asleep, politically speaking, at that time, or was he in a coma? Is it impossible for him to remember the struggle we waged from 1948 up to 1959 when the last phase was reached in removing the Bantu Representatives from this House? In those years the United Party had at its side the Progressive Party, which is represented here to-day by the hon. member for Houghton, as well as the Liberal Party, which to-day no longer has any representation in this House. I want to bring a few matters forcibly to the attention of the hon. member. He said things went so smoothly. Does he still recall the predictions of doom of this Government coming to a rapid fall and of economic conditions changing to such an extent that the banks would close which were made by them along with the Progressives and others whom they had under their wings when we came into power in 1948?

What does that have to do with chaotic conditions?

But the hon. member said things went so smoothly. Does he not recall that we were faced with the suspicion of the U.N. in 1948? Does he not recall how General Smuts crossed swords across the floor of the U.N. with Mrs. Nehru under the instigation in this country of the Indian National Congress and of the A.N.C., and of people who shared the views of the present hon. member for Houghton and others? What I am talking about is history. Does he not recall the chaos which existed in our large cities and elsewhere, as far as nonwhite housing was concerned, in 1948? Justthink what conditions used to be in places such as Pretoria and Johannesburg, even here on the Cape Flats, and in other smaller towns and cities. What chaos prevailed! One could hardly drive along a mQin road at that time without seeing the unsightly non-white squatters’ camps. This Government had to clear up those conditions under very difficult circumstances which had been created by the previous Government. From this chaos the National Party had to create order and I challenge anyone to point out to-day a single squatters’ camp along our main roads or near our large cities. What does one fine to-day? One finds order throughout the country. Those who have eyes to see can see what proper housing has been provided in the large cities and towns. The hon. member said that everyt ling was “rosy in the garden” in 1948. Can he still recall the uncontrolled influx of Bantu into our towns and cities? When we discussed these matters in this House the other day, an hon. member opposite stood up and said that as far as Johannesburg was concerned, a United Party authority was not in power at that time, but those things were allowed to happen under a United Party Government when the Labour Party was in power in the City Council of Johannesburg. To-day under this National Party Government we see to it that the implementation of this legislation in our cities is as good as it can possibly be. We do not hide behind the fact that United Party supporters are in power in cities like Cape Town and Johannesburg. We tell them, “You have to implement this Act, and if you do not do so, we shall see to it that new legislation will be passed to force you to do these things”. Sir, every time we bring this accusation against the United Party, they tell us, “There was a war on”. But let us not overlook the fact, and let us have no illusions in this regard, that the National Party has been fighting a war since 1948. That war started when the U.N. came into existence. We have been fighting a cold war in which South Africa has been making as many sacrifices and has been spending as much money as the United Party Government did in their time. [Time expired.]

We have just witnessed two hon. members on the opposite side of this House, the hon. member for Primrose and the hon. member for Benoni, devoting a major part of their speeches to attacking the hon. member for Houghton. One of these hon. members devoted more than half of his speech to doing so and the other also devoted a large part of his speech to attacking the hon. member, whereupon they proceeded to tell us in what a chaotic condition they found the country in 1948. They had the audacity to say that we always made the excuse that a war was on. To me it is surprising that someone of high intellect—and I want to give the hon. member credit for that—should try to create the impression here that countries which fought that war, those who were victorious as well as those who were not, did not suffer as a result of the war, and that this Government was the only one which h s been able to rehabilitate the level. What about a country such as Japan, which lost the war, and which has developed tremendously during the post-war years? Mr. Chairman, I am not going to bother about arguments of that nature. I have asked the hon. member for Primrose to be present here, because I want to reply to a remark made here by him.

He has left for Willowmore. He has apologized for being unable to be present.

I shall nevertheless say what I intended telling him and someone else can convey my remarks to him. The hon. member spoke of the damage which the speech of the hon. member for Houghton was going to cause. Sir, not for a very long time have I listened to a more irresponsible speech by a responsible member on the opposite side of this House. The hon. member spoke here of a thorough hiding which the hon. member for Houghton ought to get. I am surprised that something like that was allowed in this House. I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. member for Houghton that there are hon. members opposite who suffer from a superabundance of conceit and who are extremely “insolent”, an English word for which we do not have a good Afrikaans equivalent. The hon. member for Primrose is one of the members who are both conceited and insolent.

There is a good Afrikaans word for that.

I want to come back to the speech of the hon. the Minister. When the hon. the Minister replied to a part of the debate, he delivered a long lecture to us on the prerequisites for independence. He emphasized the fact that the coming of independence could take a long time, a very long time. I should like to know what the Minister had at the back of his mind when he used those words. By implication he condemned the independence of Lesotho, Botswana and Swaziland.

Nonsense.

Yes, of course he did. Those countries did not, after all, comply with the prerequisites mentioned here by him. They became independent quite suddenly; their independence was granted to them by the country which had protected them up to now. We boast of those countries governing themselves with a certain measure of responsibility; we boast of the good neighbourliness which we expect of them, but now the hon. the Minister tells this Committee that it takes a very long time before a country can becomeindependent and that there are a whole number of prerequisites for independence. We have told the Government time and again that the time-table is taken out of its hands when it has promised sovereign independence to a country. It will not always be for this Parliament to decide when the time is ripe for independence. We see what is happening in the world. Things will get as out of hand as a horse which has broken its reins.

The hon. the Minister went on to say that he was very satisfied with the replies to the debate given by his two Deputy Ministers yesterday. I must say that the hon. the Minister is satisfied with very little. We on this side are of the opinion that poorer contributions to the debate on this Vote by hon. members opposite, and especially by the two Deputy Ministers, have never been made. One of the Deputy Ministers devoted all his time to making a personal attack on the hon. member for Durban (Point) about two minor points to which he did not reply in the end. The hon. member for Heilbron dealt with the question of border areas with such a degree of trepidation that he eventually said, when speaking of the area bordering on King William’s Town and East London, “You should realize that conditions at Hammanskraal differ from those at East London; in the area near East London there are no raw materials, no power and water”.

And on top of that you are there.

Do you know, Sir, why his reply was so luke-warm? The reason for that is that neither the hon. the Deputy Minister nor other hon. members opposite believe that it is possible to create a number of independent Bantu states and to succeed in removing the majority of Bantu from the white areas so that the majority of the population in the white areas will be white. As long as we have the position that the majority of the population in the white areas consists of Bantu—and as far as I can see that will be the position forever and a day—we shall have breeding ground for dissatisfaction here in view of the fact that people work here whose homeland is goodness knows where. Mr. Chairman, were we convinced that the Government’s policy of creating independent sovereign Bantu states and of having a confederation of states was a practical one, it would be our duty to support it, because all of us are in fact seeking a solution to the Bantu problem in a country in which we have, and there are no two ways about this, a mixture of races consisting of a vast majority of Bantu, a large Coloured population and a smaller white population. In dealing with this problem, it is the duty of all of us to give deep thought to this matter and to try and find a solution to this problem. If there were any reason or justification for believing that we could create 8, 12 or 14 independent Bantu states here and in South West Africa and that we would be able to draw, instead of to force, the majority of the Bantu population to those areas, then it would be our duty to support that policy, but we do not believe that it will be possible to do so. It is impossible; it cannot be done. It cannot be done because the economic and industrial development of South Africa at present and for many years to come is and will be dependent on that Bantu labour.

We have experience of the problems attaching to immigration. We know what a struggle we have to bring immigrants to this country; we know how many people are emigrating from South Africa to states in the north. We know what the rate of immigration is which we are able to maintain. We know at what rate the Bantu population as well as the Coloured population is increasing. We know that we live in a country of different population groups. We must squarely face up to the problem. We should not follow an ostrich policy of burying our heads in the sand, and we should not imagine that we can drug the public. The Government’s policy is nothing but an attempt to drug the public; to bring the public under the impression that they may rest assured and that the stream to the white areas will eventually be checked and reversed.

Mr. Chairman, I do not have any more time to devote to this matter. I should like to come to the situation in the Ciskei. I do not want to be accused of dealing with the Ciskei or the Transkei only, but there are certain particulars as regards the Ciskei which I should like to mention. The eastern border of the Ciskei involves a whole number of white towns: Peddie, East London, King William’s Town, Victoria East, Fort Beaufort, Stutterheim, Queenstown, Lady Grey, Herschel, Comgha, Indwe, Cathcart and Elliot. Within these 13 so-called white districts there are 764,000 morgen of Bantu property. [Time expired.]

I take it amiss of the hon. member for East London (City), who has just sat down, for actually having made excuses for and associating himself with the speech of the hon. member for Houghton. We in this House have seldom heard a tirade such as that which came from the hon. member for Houghton this afternoon. I think decisive replies have been given to her, but I repeat that I take it amiss of the hon. member for East London (City) for actually having taken the hon. member for Houghton under his protection as regards the contents of her speech.

The hon. member for Houghton is still a U.P. member.

We know how the members of the United Party revelled in the speech made by the hon. member for Houghton. Therefore she did not speak for the Progressive Party only; it was very clearthat she also spoke for members of the official Opposition in this House.

Sir, when I participate in this debate and the discussion of the Bantu Administration and Development Vote, I am very deeply conscious of the calling which the white people have in South Africa, the calling which they have in Africa, and I do not try to make any political capital but I try to have regard, at all times to the task we have here in Africa. In discussing this Vote, separate development springs to mind involuntarily, separate development as it has taken shape during the past 20 years, particularly since 1948 when this Government came into power. The policy which this Government has been implementing for 20 years, came to it as a challenge in 1948, and this challenge was the regulation of race relations amongst the various populations in South Africa. Our first and greatest task was to set about untying the population knot which had been tied in the course of 300 years in South Africa, and we know that as a result of this policy unprecedented hatred and blind prejudice have been built up against us in the international sphere. That hatred and prejudice in the international sphere have been fed from this House. Speeches made by members of the Opposition in this House have been feeding the international opinion against South Africa in its honest and sincere attempt to regulate race relations in South Africa.

[Inaudible.]

I shall shortly oome to that hon. member. He should please exercise some patience. In the time which I have at my disposal, I hope to come to him before long. In its application of the policy of separate development this Government—and I have no hesitation in saying this—has taken mainly three factors into account. We have taken Christianity into account: and I am not apologizing for mentioning this. We have taken fairness to all the various nations in South Africa into account and we have taken morality into account. In implementing this policy we have been taking these things into account over the past 20 years, and hon. members of the Opposition who may refer to this scornfully, know that this is so. We know that this is so, and that has been our inspiration for going ahead with this. This Government and the National Party have committed themselves to this voluntarily. It will always adhere to, inter alia, these three basic principles. We have asked ourselves, the question what we want to attain in this oountry with separate development. These three objects which I am going to mention are not my own original ideas but come from our respected Prime Minister. We are seeking the retention of identity, not only the identity of the white man in South Africa, but also an identity for the Bantu of South Africa. There is no need for us to go into this. Nobody in the world can accuse us of having ignored the question of identity or of confusing identities in the application of our policy of separate development.

Also as regards the Coloureds.

Yes, that is correct, but under this Vote I may not discuss the Coloureds. With our policy of separate development we, unlike the United Party, are seeking the retention of identity. They want to make politics out of this matter. They are not seeking the retention of the identity cf either the white man or the Bantu. Under the policy of separate development, as applied by this Government and built on the foundations we have laid, we are seeking the retention of an identity of our own. In the second place, we are seeking the elimination of points of friction amongst the Bantu and other population groups. I think that we have succeeded in doing so to a large extent. Call this petty apartheid if you wish; call it whatever you wish. We are seeking the elimination, and in this we have succeeded, of points of friction amongst the various Bantu population groups and other population groups in South Africa. Under the policy of separate development we are seeking, in the third place, the creation of opportunities for the white man, for the Bantu and for every population group in this country. I want to ask the hon. member for East London (City) to test this in a spirit of fairness and honesty. Let us forget politics for the moment. Seeing that we are discussing the Bantu Administration and Development Vote, let us apply the test to see whether we have succeeded in creating opportunities for the Bantu. We have succeeded to a larger extent in creating opportunities than we have ever succeeded in the past 300 years. During the past 20 years this Government has succeeded to create more opportunities. Therefore my uneou’vocal reoly is that we. have in fact succeeded to achieve our basic objects. No one will deny that many problems and difficulties will crop up in the application of this policy. Many of these problems and difficulties are ones wh’h arise from speeches made in this House. The opposition in the international snhere has been built up and inspired from this House as a result of speeches made by hon. members of the Opposition. When have there ever been more education opportunities for the Bantu than those which have heen created under this Government during the past 20 years? What did the hon. the Opposition do when they were in power to create opportunities in the sphere of justice for the Bantu? This Government has created those opportunities and the world may take corniance of this fact. Un to this stage— belittle this if vou wish—we have already appointed two Bantu magistrates for the Rantu, which has been something new in the history of South Africa. Let us therefore be honest and give acknowledgement where acknowledgement is due. Let us criticize whatever deserves criticism, but let us also give acknowledgement where acknowledgement is due for the services which have been rendered and fcr the opportunities which have been created.

As regards the field of business, I want to ask when more opportunities have been created for the Bantu in his own areas for business undertakings, industrial development and agricultural than have been created during the 20 years for which this Government has been in power? Under the policy of separate development we have given them these opportunities. This Government is creating a governing class, and in spite of that we had the allegation by the hon. member for Durban (Point) last night, something which was said for world consumption, that slave labour was prevalent in South Africa.

That is not true.

The hon. member said slave labour was prevalent in South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I have no intention of following the hon. member who just sat down in the flights of fantasy in which he engaged. He said he was not original in his thought. He was quoting something that had been said by the hon. the Prime Minister and it seemed to me he was talking about things we have heard before in this House, especially during this debate.

I want to revert to a remark made by the Minister when he said he felt that replies had been given very adequately by the hon. the Deputy Ministers who spoke during the debate. We have remarked before the Minister seems to be very easily satisfied. It seems to me whenever the Nationalist Party, particularly the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education, is in trouble, he seizes upon one or two words used in a speech and then makes a blustering, roaring and thundering speech on that word or two. He thereby tries to obscure the whole issue on which the speech was based from which he plucked the word. That is What he did yesterday. He did that with three words he had heard in three speeches made during a 30 minutes’ attack on the Government and so tried to obscure the whole issue. He makes a few iokes, a few cracks, and he draws a few laughs from hon. members on that side. They way those hon. members enjoyed his speeches one could think he was a great comedian. It may well be that he is one. One might think he was Dick Bentley or somebody. But we on this side do not think he is Dick Bentley; we think he is just a bit “dik” mentally.

I want to raise a matter which is local to my own people; it concerns my own constituency, and not only my own constituency because it is a matter of great importance throughout the whole of South Africa. I refer to the matter cf soil erosion in Bantu areas. This matter was brought pertinently to the fore in an article in the Natal Mercury under the heading of “Setback over Soil Erosion”. The report reads as follows—

This is a problem which is local to my area, the area of Ixopo. Highflats. and the whole southern area of Natal. It is tied up also with the clearing of three Bantu locations in the area of Ixopo. the provision of housing, a Bantu village of some sort, for all the Bantu population who serve the Ixopo area, and the removal of the other Bantu from those locations to Platts Estates or to other parts in the immediate area of Ixopo and Highflats. In 1966 I asked the Minister when it was intended to go ahead with a Bantu area for Ixopo and the reply was no date had been set and the matter was still being investigated and considered.

Recently there was a movement afoot amongst the five farmers’ associations throughout the whole of the area to get together to form one common body to deal with agricultural problems. I want to ask the Minister whether departmental officials can meet that body when it gets going, in an effort to settle these two questions. The one is the provision of Bantu housing for Ixopo village. This has been going on now for 20 years. I appreciate the Minister’s difficulties and I know he has got difficulties there. It relates specifically to the three locations which we understand are to be cleared up. The other matter is that of soil conservation in the Bantu areas. While I am on that subject, something appeared in a newspaper report, and I should like the hon. the Minister to confirm or deny it. If he will tell me it is not true, I will be only too pleased.

The heading of the report says “Fanners angry at soil conservation sackings”. The report reads as follows—

[Inaudible.]

The Deputy Minister can tell me whether it is true or not.

You have already decided it is true.

I am asking whether this is true. If it is then it is evidence of the utmost short-sightedness. Farmers say this is a calamity. This is what one farmer said—

Let me say also I recognize, and I am pleased to recognize, the work that has been done by those people. A lot of work has been done. If it is true that there have been sacking of workers in this vital work, the conservation of soil in the Bantu areas, then I regard it as inexcusable. I concede it is as a result of the Government’s credit squeeze and the Minister had to get rid of some people and to cut down on departmental expenses somewhere. But I do not think soil conservation in these areas is being tackled energetically enough and I appeal to the hon. the Minister to inspan the forces of the white farmers in the area who are concerned about soil conservation. If help is necessary, and if they can help, then their assistance must be sought and made use of. I am certain they can. In this area, from Underberg right down to the coast, we have one of the most productive, progressive, well-farmed and best-conserved areas in the entire country. It is discouraging for those farmers who are incurring expenses and who are making efforts in the sphere of soil conservation to look over the fence and see what is going on in Bantu areas, to realize that things are going backwards. The Chief of the Natal region of the Department of Agriculture says we are going backwards as far as soil conservation is concerned in the Bantu areas.

I ask the Minister to consider at least meeting the white farmers in that area to see whether they can be of help in any way. Perhaps we can get together and help the department with steps now, before it becomes too late and before serious damage is done which cannot be put right.

I know this is perhaps a local matter, but I feel it is indeed more than a local matter because it goes on right through the constituency. Through this constituency flow the Umzimkulu tnd the Umkomaas rivers as well as other big Natal rivers. Along every one of those *re thickly populated Bantu settlements and in certain areas the only solution I can see is to gather the Bantu people together, get them into village communities, and to afforest these areas, because the grass and the topsoil are gone. Only by careful tending and planting of forests and avoiding fires and keeping out goats can the soil be retained in places. The Minister knows the area if one goes across the Umkomaas River going up between Impendhle, Boston and Bulwer, and he will know the sort of area I mean. He may well have problems there as there are roads and all sorts of things involved. But some action has got to be taken now and I should like to suggest that we on our side are prepared to help where we possibly can. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, at the beginning of his speech the hon. member for Mooi River took a hand in disparaging the two Deputy Ministers of the departments concerned. This Opposition is making a deliberate attempt to disparage these two hon. gentlemen who are occupying their positions in the departments very efficiently and purposefully. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Durban (Point), who spoke last night of his “abracadabra” and his “magic wand”, waves nothing but a club. I do not want to talk to him in a spirit of goodwill and respect. If one consults Hansard, one will find the irresponsible statement made by the hon. member for Durban (Point), namely—

Earlier on he said—

I do not know whether the hon. member for Durban (Point) knows what “compress” means, but if ever he should have “compressed” a statement, then it was that one.

When we take an objective view of this debate, we find that the official Opposition has not been prepared to contrast one policy to another. They have been indulging in gossip and in petty personal agitations against the hon. the Minister and his department.

Parliamentary courtesy, like courtesy in any other field, requires one to give replies to questions which have been put to one. Can one blame the Deputy Ministers for the way in which they replied to the Opposition? Their replies were on the level of the questions which had been put to them. The hon. member for Houghton, who is sneaking in behind my back, always is on the same low level. I have become accustomed to her sneaking in behind my back. But let me put it very clearly this afternoon: This Opposition had the opportunity last night and again to-day of making a positive contribution to this debate if they were interested in this Vote. That little bright one, the hon. member for Mooi River, was the only one who congratulated them on the agricultural aspect. But he was merely indulging in flattery. He was subtle, just as subtle as his oolleague, that front bencher, the hon. member for Durban (Point).

When are you going to start making your speech?

We are faced here with an official Opposition who is trying to disguise its policy. At the beginning of this year when the hon. the Minister stated that in spite, of the costs which might be involved in making separate development a reality, this would be done, the Opposition made a great fuss. Last night they suddenly said. “There is famine, nothing is being done for the development of the Bantu homelands”. Why do they not consult the Estimates and the Loan Account? Why do they not have regard to the amount which was spent last year on the development of the homelands, namely no less than R38 million? This year more than R39 million have been spent. Why do they not consult the. Revenue Account? Last year more than R6 million was given to the Bantu Trust Fund as a grant-in-aid, and I understand that the estimate for this year is the same. This expenditure is incurred for the Bantu in the Bantu areas in order to remove the points of friction in the white cities, to give the Bantu hospitals in their own homelands.

[Inaudible.]

When the hon. member for East London (City) wanted the establishment of border industries at East London the other night, he spoke of “the shape of things to come”. What the hon. member knows about that is shocking. Let us see what is being spent on the development of the homelands. Let us take agriculture, which is an important aspect. On irrigation R1.204 million is being spent annually. On livestock R135.000 is being spent, whereas R 190.000 is being spent on veterinary services. The figure for afforestation is R2 million. But nothing is being done in the homelands!

I am now speaking about my own area, the Tswana homeland. The hon. member for Houghton should pay some attention for a change, but she should not come to have a look, because if she were to do so, she would noison and distort everything, and that I,do not like. This is the real state of affairs. During the past five years a Bantu township, Thlabane, has been erected there, a model township. This provides not only accommodation to the Bantu but also various facilities. There are snorting facilities, schools, and training centres. This is not merely in the interests of the Bantu. Do hon. members know that the City Council of Rustenburg has the privilege of being one, of the first councils which have been able to implement the policy of one Bantu per residential site? That community now displays a wonderful attitude as regards the Department of Bantu Administration, an attitude which flows from their gratitude for what has been spent on this Bantu township. Do hon. members know that peace and quiet prevail there? I want to make the statement to-day that things are going excellently in the Tswana Bantu homeland. I have this from the lips of Tedimane Pilane, the Paramount Chief, who said the following at a function when the administrative offices at Pilanesberg were opened. Pilane, the chief of the regional authority, pleaded in the presence of thousands of Bantu from the metropolitan areas for an acceleration in the establishment of border industries as his people wanted to remain closer to their traditions and customs. To-day we hear the hon. member for East London (City) saying that this cannot work. The Bantu Chief can see this working and can see this as the logical outcome of the policy, but the hon. member for East London (City) simply cannot lift the lid to see this. The hon. member for Houghton is one of those who are constantly trying to make policy statements from her lah-de-dah residential area of Houghton. Where do we find any of her people in the homelands? Where do we find any of the supporters of her party in the mission hospitals? In the Tswana area hon. members may go and have a look to see what a D.R. mission hospital looks like. They can go and see what the George Stegmann Hospital looks like and what is being done for tuberculosis sufferers. Where have I ever seen supporters of her Progressive Party who are prepared to go there …

Are you a missionary?

I am not a missionary, but I do thank the missionaries of South Africa for the missionary work which is being done. On many occasions in this House we have discussed what is being done in the African states by our missionaries. But I want to put it to you, however, that in the Bantuhomelands, where our own Bantu are going through the process of becoming nations, the missionaries have played an extremely important role in that process in respect of all ethnic groups. Hon. members should just go and have a look at what has been done by the missionaries. With the greatest respect for the Bantu’s traditions they have been doing inspired work as regards the evolution of the Bantu, and the missionaries have been teaching them the Gospel. To the missionaries of South Africa we can only express our sincere appreciation for what they have been doing in our homelands.

Mr. Chairman, grant me the opportunity of stating very explicitly that a mine is being worked in the Tswana homeland with its mineral riches. Jor the information of the hon. member for Houghton, I may say that she will unfortunately not be able to buy or acquire those shares. Consequently profiteering is out of the question as far as she is concerned. Union Corporation is engaged in developing a mine of R42 million, an enormous project, which is situated partially on tribal land and partially in the homeland. Of the taxable profits 13 per cent will go to the tribal authorities to be spent on the development of the area. Any businessman knows that when a mining company wants R42 million, the annual income from that source will be tremendous. Not only platinum, but also granite are being mined there. Let there be no misunderstanding as regards the fact that the Tswana homeland, in my humble opinion, is in the process of obtaining its own identity and on the way to achieving peaceful coexistence and ensuring its survival alongside the white area. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Rustenburg spoke of the tremendous development in and expressed his satisfaction with Tswanaland. That may be true, because I do not know precisely what the position there is. But let us consider What has happened in the most highly developed homeland that we have, namely the Transkei. Just recently they unanimously adopted another motion there to the effect that the country should develop more rapidly and that white capital should be used both inside and outside the Transkei for the establishment of industries. What many people do not know is that one of the most successful border industries as such to-day is situated inside a Bantu area. That is the Goodhope Textiles factory, which is referred to so often in this House. The Goodhope Textiles factory is situated inside a Bantu area. It is situated in a border area as seen from the other side and it is successful. Where is the exploitation we hear so much about? Where is the exploitation of the Bantu in this case? It is an ideal state of affairs and that is why we say that the idea of border industries as such should be relinquished. Our industries should indeed be decentralized, but they should also be brought inside the Bantu areas. The exploitation we hear so much about will not take place there.

I want to return Jo the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development. He was terribly indignant here last night. He asked how it was possible that there was still someone who did not know what white South Africa was. Various challenges were flung to and fro. Now I also want to address a challenge to the hon. the Deputy Minister. He must please tell us —and I am limiting my question to the Border area, although it is equally applicable to other areas—where white South Africa ends or begins and where the Black Ciskei ends or begins. I should very much like to know, on account of the consolidation programme which is being undertaken at the moment and the acceptance now that total consolidation is no longer necessary, what the practical governable unit for a Bantu homeland is going to be. What norm is going to be applied? Is it going to be the number of islands as such, the population within the island, the size of the islands or even the availability of compensatory land that will determine it? We know, for example, that there are more than 200 Bantu areas in Natal. They now have to be consolidated. Are there going to be 3, 13 or 30 eventually, or is it the Government’s attitude that we should carry on with the work and simply see how far we get one day? again taking the Ciskei as an example, we find that we have quite a number of black spots there and, inter alia, seven locations which, according to this hon. Deputy Minister, are going to be consolidated. But he did not mention the other disconnected areas, such as Glen Grey, Herschel, Whittlesea, etc. Are these areas going to be islands? Are they islands in the nature of nuclei? These are questions to which we should like to receive replies. It is very interesting that the hon. the Minister said, in reply to a question of mine, that these seven existing locations were black spots which are going to be separated. He added that in being cleared up they would either be consolidated or shifted. But now we accept that consolidation means removal. The only other way in which consolidation can be effected is by buying out the white land separating those spots in order to connect those spots to the heart-land. I have already asked this question twice. I now have to accept that, if I do not receive a reply to it this time, it means that the hon.. the Deputy Minister agrees with my deduction.

This brings me to the question of our corridor or passage. It must be noted, of course, that no corridor in the world has ever been a success, but now we have one between the Ciskei and the Transkei. In a previous debate I referred to difficulties being experienced by our industrialists in that corridor. But there is an important point which I did not mention at the time. It is something which affects not only the industrialists, but everyone in that area, namely the uncertainty as a result of the fact that the boundaries of this corridor have not been defined. We may accept the northernboundary of this corridor as being the Kei River. But in this regard one does not feel too reassured either when one hears of the motions recently adopted in the Transkeian Legislative Assembly. The hon. the Minister referred to this matter this afternoon and mentioned a long list of conditions for independence. This is, of course, no more than what we have been telling the Government all these years. They have nevertheless asked for more powers and for more rapid progress towards independence. But what is much more important is that they have asked for more land. Now one wonders where it is going to end, when under the present circumstances we already have this conflict between our Government and that Government. Although, as the hon. the Minister said, the Chief Minister of the Transkei stated that it was not going to be a tug of war, we should realize that this is only the beginning. One wonders where it is going to end. For how long can one continue having these conflicting outlooks and still maintain peace and good neighbourliness? In addition there is the amalgamation of the Transkei and the Ciskei. This would implicate the corridor to an even greater extent. I should therefore like to know what the position is, since we have until now made no progress at all as far as determining those boundaries is concerned. There may be something in the reasons which are furnished when it is said that the boundaries cannot be determined at this stage. Then I want to plead that we should make a compromise and start with one boundary. Let us determine the northern boundary of the Ciskei or the southern boundary of the corridor. Unofficially this was of course the road from East London and King William’s Town to the north, but this road has again been rerouted now. Does the boundary of the Ciskei change as a result of that? We should like to know. I think we may say that it would not affect the Government in any way if they determined that northern boundary of the Black Ciskei for us. That would determine the southern boundary of the corridor and give some certainty to that area. The Government would still have a good deal of latitude within the limits that would remain.

The rural towns have also been mentioned here a good deal. I want to return to this point. The hon. member for Heilbron had quite a lot to say about the way in which these removals to the new townships were being carried out. Of course, it looks fine on paper, as read out by the hon. member for Potchefstroom, but we all know that this is only the theory of it. It is not what happens in practice. The hon. member for Heilbron knows that it is not true. When, for example, did he visit Limehill? How long after the first removal had taken place did he visit that place? How much have the circumstances not changed in the meantime? [Time expired.]

Before I come to the hon. member for King William’s Town, permit me to say a few things to the hon. member for Mooi River. I was astonished to hear this afternoon that the hon. member for Mooi River wanted to discuss the Estimates as well, because he is virtually the first member on the other side who began to discuss the Estimates.

The hon. member for Mooi River made the assertion that officials dealing with soil conservation had been discharged. I may say that it may have happened there. I cannot tell him at the mcment that no persons were discharged in that specific area, but the position is that we are almost going beyond the capacity of the Department in exerting ourselves for soil conservation. We are in great earnest about this matter, and seeing that the hon. member for Mooi River made the offer that officials of our Department should get in touch with farmers there in order to discuss matters, I readily accept that offer. Our officials will gladly cooperate. I want to tell him that in the Other Place I recently furnished the figures in respect of what we are spending on soil conservation, how many contours have been made, how many dams have been built and how many wire fences have been erected, etc. I do not have the time at my disposal this afternoon to repeat these figures, but on that occasion I also gave figures for Natal separately in order to show that we are in earnest about this matter and that we are working at it. It is true that many of the areas there are still badly eroded. We experience difficulties where there are tribal lands and the tribes do not want to accept improvements, but we are breaking down that resistance gradually. We are coming up against the position that planning is almost being asked for more rapidly than we have the staff to do the work.

I have to point out, however, that I have visited quite a number of those areas and that I was very disappointed with the position, even in the white areas there. I even notice that there are many people who vehemently criticize the Bantu areas, while the position is not much better in their own areas. The hon. member will know what I am referring to. I am referring to the area around Weenen, or I can refer him to Estcourt, at Locations Nos. 1 and 2, where we are already carrying out betterment works. But if one looks at the vicinity, there is still an enormous amount to be done on the white side. I can give the hon. member the assurance that we shall appreciate the co-operation of the Whites there, if we can get it.

I now come to the hon. member for King William’s Town, who does not know where white South Africa is, and I only feel sorry for him if he does not know where the white areas or the Bantu areas are. The hon. member comes from the Ciskei and he ought to know how the various Bantu areas were demarcated in the Schedule to the Bantu Trust and Land Act of 1936.

But you are continually changing it.

I just want to correct the hon. member. I never referred to seven black spots there. (When I mentioned Sheshego and Wartburg and all the other Bantu areas, I did not refer to seven black spots. I referred to seven poorly situated reserves, scheduled areas. They were scheduled in that way in the 1936 Act, and for all practical purposes they are Bantu areas and are recognized as such. They are occupied by (Bantu and are ruled by Bantu chiefs. But the ihon. member’s people—and they are not always only my supporters, but also his—have already said prior to 1936, because those areas were proclaimed as Bantu areas as far back as 1913. that these disconnected black areas in the Ciskei could not remain like that and had to be consolidated; and the 1936 Act also provided for that to be done. That is why the 1936 Act provided that you could make exchanges and inter-changes as long as you give land of equal agricultural value. Now the hon. member should not try to put the blame on us; he should put it on the people who made the 1936 Act. But the hon. member surprises me, because after I had repeatedly asked his Leader whether he recognized the 1936 Act and whether he would implement it, he told me that he would implement it; and if he is going to implement it, he still has a lot of quota land which he will have to buy up in the Cape in terms of the 1936 Act. Do they now expect the superhuman of me. or do they want me to buy this land now immediately, when they are sowing suspicion in those areas as to which areas are going to become black and which are going to remain white? The hon. member now wants to know where the boundaries are. Will he now stand up and say that the Bantu areas which I have mentioned here and the other disconnected areas should remain just as they are and that only the additional quota land should be bought?

That was not the point.

Oh no, he will not have a point now. He only has a point when he gets up at a political meeting in the Eastern Cape and sows suspicion and asks where the boundaries of the Bantu areas are going to be and then wants to suggest that this Government takes land away from the Whites for the black man. What they say then is this: “Do you see what the National Government is doing? It takes the land of the white man and gives it to the Kaffirs.” Then they do not talk of Bantu any more. Now he says that that was not the point, and asks that I should determine, one boundary. ([Interjection.]

But the hon. member has the boundaries as they were laid down in the 1936 Act, and he knows that quota land has to be acquired for the Cape in three areas. Either it has to be acquired in the North-West in the vicinity of Mafeking, Kuruman and Vryburg, or it has to be acquired in the vicinity of the Ciskei, or it has to be acquired in the vicinity of Herschel. That would be logical, or are we expected to acquire quota land here in Cape Town and to develop a Bantustan here so that labour can be at hand? Quota land has to be acquired in those areas and the hon. member knows that we are buying quota land very slowly, that we rather buy land in order to clear up black spots. Black spots are lands owned by Bantu and situated in white areas. Surely the hon. member knows of such lands. They are not even scheduled, but the 1936 Act, which he praises as an Act of his Party, provided that even when these black spots are cleared up compensatory land has to be given in exchange. We are clearing up those black spots. We are clearing up poorly situated Bantu areas where we are carrying out consolidation. We are clearing them up as the capital to do so becomes available. You will see that this amount has been reduced by R3 million this year. Last year R8 million was provided for this. We are now providing R5 million to continue with this work gradually throughout the country.

But now the hon. member wants to put words into my mouth which I never used. Now he wants to say that I said consolidation was not necessary and that consolidation has now been abandoned. I would have liked to repeat, if I had the time, what I said at the Sabra congress and on numerous other occasions, i.e. that the prerequisite for self-government for ‘the Bantu is not that they should have one geographic homeland. If he can understand that, we shall have progressed. They can be in more than one area, and the Minister and my colleague and others have also pointed out that we are no exception either. The Bantu areas which will get selfgovernment in this way will not be exceptions, because there are numerous other countries where the same thing happens, and examples have been given. [Time expired.]

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 46,—Bantu Education: Special Education, R342,000; Loan Vote Q,— Bantu Education, R1,600,000; and Estimates of Expenditure from Bantu Education Account [R.P. 9—’68], R32,300,000:

I am just standing up to say that the Deputy Minister will deal with the Bantu Education Vote, but while I am on my feet, I should like to make use of the opportunity under this Vote of taking official leave of the Secretary for Bantu Education, who, as hon. members perhaps know, is to retire on pension in June this year owing to the inevitability of the way of all flesh. I think that hon. members of this Committee also got to know *Mr. J. H. van Dyk in the years in which he was connected with Bantu Education, as I have in the past two years in particular been able to get to know him intimately, as someone who can indeed be called a recognized educationist, a man well-equipped in his profession and with a very mature experience of education and of life, a man who was a very fortunate choice as head of this Department. We know that after he had been associated with education in the white sector for many years, he became associated with the Department of Bantu Education, first as undersecretary for a long time, and thereafter, since 1961, as Secretary for Bantu Education. He served on many bodies and councils, interdepartmentally as well, and he was very highly respected everywhere. I think that nowhere was he more highly respected than among his own staff, both White and non-White, of whom there are tens of thousands in our country. I should also like to express my personal appreciation to him and I want to say to him that in my association with him I found him to be a man of extreme courtesy, and the co-operation between us could not be improved upon. Our co-operation was very cordial and was marked by mutual trust. For that I want to thank him personally, and I think I am right in saying that he can retire on pension a happy man, in the knowledge that he leaves behind him such a good name and such a fine record. I therefore wish him everything of the best in his retirement and I hope that the years of his retirement will still be a constructive and productive time for the benefit of all of us.

It is my privilege to associate myself and those of us on this side of the House with the words spoken by the hon. the Minister on this the last occasion on which the present Secretary for Bantu Education will be with us to be associated with this debate on this most important subject. We agree wholly with what the hon. the Minister has said, and we also hope that he will have a long and happy period on pension. We appreciate the way in which he and his staff have dealt with us in the past when we have taken our problems to him.

We have just finished the debate on Bantu Administration, and during that debate the statement was made that, important as the economic development of the Bantu areas was. it was still not as important as the educational development of the Bantu peoples as a whole. The point was made that the Bantu people had to be developed to the point where they could handle their own administration, where they could govern themselves. Sir. this they cannot do without education. Admirable as the achievements of this Department may have been, let me say that I am sorry that they have fallen woefully short of what is required. I do not think it is necessary for me at this stage to give a long list of statistics. We all have the privilege of receiving the report of the Department, which shows the figures, and an analysis of those figures shows that there is a woeful shortfall as regards Bantu who go beyond Std. VI on to J.C. and matriculation and further. There are various reasons given for this shortfall in the numbers who go beyond Std. VI. I want to put a pertinent question to the hon. the Deputy Minister who is handling this Vote and through him to the Nationalist Party Government. I want to ask him why there is this discrimination against Bantu school pupils and the parents of those pupils. Last session we had a National Education Bill presented to this House, a Bill which has now become law, a main principle of which was that there shall be free education for white children in South Africa. The hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs has recently announced that education for certain Coloureds is going to be free, but we find that in Bantu education there is no such provision. They still have to pay for education. I know that the hon. the Deputy Minister is going to say that in many instances no school fees are levied. But the Bill which was presented to us last year, went so far as to say that white children must even receive free school books, which no Bantu children receive.

Are you advocating free Bantu education?

The hon. the chief Whip knows our policy with regard to education. Our policy is that every child shall be given every opportunity to develop to his full potential; that no child shall be held back through lack of finance in his family. This is why I want to know why they are practising this discrimination against Bantu children. This is the sort of thing we have: I have here a copy of a receipt dated the 3rd February. 1968, in respect of a young man who wanted to go on with his education after Std. VIII. He had waited two years since he was last at school because his parents could not afford the school fees. He was helped, fortunately, by his father’s employer to raise the amount. The school would not admit him as a pupil until he had raised his fees. Sir, this receipt is for an amount of R120 for school fees. Then he still has to buy books and clothes. Sir, this is the pertinent question which I want to put to the Minister. I have figures here which show what it costs just to purchase books from Sub A to Form V. This is a Bantu child.

Where do you want to get the finance?

Sir, the hon. member has the audacity to ask a question like that at this stage in this House after the statements which have been made on that side that we will have separate development, cost what it may, and when we know perfectly well for how many years the Bantu Education Vote has been pegged at this ridiculously small sum.

I want to know what you want to do.

I am afraid that the hon. member has once again spoken out of turn. What I was saying to the ihon. the Deputy Minister was this: According to the figures it costs a minimum of R280 to educate, purchase the books, including exercise books and the necessary text books required, for a child to reach Form V from Sub A. In most schools there is a levy made on the children. This levy varies from R1 a quarter to 10 cents per month. This levy is paid by the parents and they make many sacrifices to pay these levies because they want to see their children educated. These levies are paid voluntarily; they are not compelled by the Minister’s Department, but they are there for the school boards to be able to supplement the salaries of teachers so that they will remain in the Department as teachers and not be drawn away to commerce and other sectors which are offering better salaries. These are voluntary contributions which are being made by the Bantu people. The iniquitous thing is that anyone of us in this House can put our children through school, in terms of the new national education policy, from Sub A through to matriculation without spending one cent. We need not spend one cent, yet the Bantu has to pay for his education, and I want to ask the hon. the Minister why there is this discrimination.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District), who has just resumed his seat, spoke of “woeful shortcomings” in the Bantu Education policy, and in one single sentence he referred to the decrease in the number of pupils who complete their schooling beyond Std. VI. Sir, do those hon. members not want to realize that we are dealing with people who are coming into contact with education for the first time and that it is a slow process; that they have not yet gained an awareness of the value of schooling, and that we must slowly educate the people from the beginning for them to be able to assimilate that education? We cannot place them in matric immediately and say: “Now they are matriculants”. For example, he referred to the fact that Bantu children do not receive free books, etc., in all instances. He is aware that the total amount paid in Bantu taxation is paid into the Bantu Education Account. Is he in favour of our increasing this Bantu taxation? I put the question to him.

What has that got to do with the matter?

It has everything to do with it. It is a question of finances. But I am asking him whether he is prepared to increase this Bantu taxation. I am asking him the pertinent question; he need only answer “yes” or “no”. Mr. Chairman, I receive no reply.

But I want to conduct this debate on a somewhat higher level. It is generally realized and conceded that agriculture is the cornerstone of the development of our Bantu homelands and that this statement is particularly true in respect of our Xhosa national units, the Transkei and the Ciskei. The need for agricultural graduate education for Bantu is steadily increasing and the demand on the part of the Bantu to receive this graduate education is becoming stronger and stronger. In the latest annual report of the Xhosa Development Corporation, the following statement is made in paragraph 3.14—

What is advocated here can, in my opinion, only be achieved if the Xhosa receive proper guidance by means of properly trained agricultural experts who have obtained degrees in this field. Together with my colleagues on the council of the University College of Fort Hare, I am deeply under the impression of the great need existing in this field, and I therefore want to advocate very strongly that a full-fledged agricultural faculty, which can offer a graduate course, be established at this institution as soon as possible. Admittedly there are 13 white graduate agricultural experts and one Bantu agricultural graduate in the Transkei at present. In the Ciskei there are four white agricultural graduates. These people are doing very valuable work in this field, but in the light of the fact that at this level we are also experiencing a serious manpower shortage in our white agricultural sector, it is imperative that these white graduates be replaced by Bantu as soon as possible. I believe furthermore that in his striving towards self-determination, the Bantu must be helped to be self-sufficient in this field as well. The University College of Fort Hare has the necessary facilities at its disposal as far as buildings and an agricultural experimental farm are concerned. It can therefore meet the immediate needs of such an agricultural faculty. With the spectacular development taking place at the moment, especially in the Ciskei, through the agency the Department of Bantu Development, there are more than enough facilities in the immediate vicinity of the University College of Fort Hare to provide, these students with practical training and ‘the facilities for it.

Mr. Chairman, you will also permit me at this stage to pay tribute to the present rector,Professor Ross, who is soon to retire, a man who not only pursued the highest ideals of higher education, but also succeeded in making the University College of Fort Hare an asset to the Republic in general and to the Xhosa in particular. Thanks to his dedication, his faith in his calling and his purposeful pursuit of his ultimate goal, Professor Ross has succeeded in developing this University College into a splendid institution compelling even the admiration of academics from abroad. Since it has already been announced by the bon. the Minister that the University College will attain full-fledged university status next year, the establishment of a full-fledged agricultural faculty will not only give full content to the newly acquired status, but will also serve as a tribute to this professor who has exerted himself for this faculty for so many years.

I believe that the Bantu will take much more notice of guidance which he receives from a graduate of his own race and colour. I realize that the process of making him aware of the value of the soil and of the fact that he must preserve that soil for posterity is a slow one. This makes it all the more necessary for this full-fledged faculty to be established at an early date at the University College of Fort Hare. The Bantu are only too inclined still to regard the soil merely as a provider of food; to regard a tree as something in the shade of which you lie when it is hot and which you chop down when you want to use it for firewood when it is cold. This attitude of the Bantu can change and the correct attitude in regard to the soil can be furthered only if we provide guidance for him through his own people, and this can only be done when graduate Bantu agricultural experts are placed at the disposal of the Bantu homelands.

Mr. Chairman, I think the. hon. member for Cradock is not familiar with the policy of his own party. The policy of his party, as it has been adumbrated in this Committee and in the House from time to time, is that every section of the four sections of our population will be educated to the highest extent to give the necessary leadership their people require. Hon. members on that side say these people are being educated so that they can control their own countries, their own homelands. In fact, we have been told here that when it comes to educating them, which is the fundamental reason, then the “sky is the limit”. That is the story we have heard over and over again. Now the hon. member is squeamish because the case has been raised that the money is not available. I should like to say a word or two about the money.

Before doing so, I should like to associate myself with the expressions of appreciation of a senior civil servant who is leaving us. I hope an opportunity will be found for him for further service. It always seems to me a tragedy that a man with ripe experience of a subject such as Bantu education should be lost to us. Either in the colleges or somewhere else we must find an opportunity for these men to give us further service. I associate myself with what the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) and hon. members on the other side have said.

I want to have a word about this policy again, and I want to quote from a newspaper report about a speech made by the hon. the Deputy Minister who I am pleased to say, is taking the Vote this afternoon. I am told that early in August when opening four African schools at Cradock—the Deputy Minister made two statements. He said, firstly, that South Africa was doing as much for African education as the African could absorb, and secondly, if the Government did more for African education than it was doing at present, this would be a waste of time and energy. I sincerely trust that is not true; I sincerely trust the Deputy Minister never made a statement of that kind because it is contrary to statements of policy we have had in this House from time to time. Provided they were having the education that was necessary for them to develop their own section of the population, then “the sky was the limit”, and funds would be made available, was stated here. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) has raised the question of finance and the hon. member for Cradock has also spoken about finance. I too should like to say a word about the financing of Bantu education.

I have never understood why in the beginning, in 1955, it was necessary ito have a separate Bantu Education Account. There is no separate account for Bantu Administration and Development. Why should these children be left out in the cold? When are we going to bring them in under the Bantu Vote so that we can consider them with the others? If we look at the Accounts we see a certain amount is made available for Bantu Education. There are two main items. I am ignoring the Rif million for university colleges and I am ignoring the R1 million that was received in fees and so on. They do not enter into this calculation. There are two main items. The first is R13 million which is pegged and the second is money derived from their poll tax which is R10.5 million. This R13 million I should like to speak about because that is the Government contribution and this amount was fixed in the original Bill that I am referring to in 1955-’56. That was 13 years ago. The depreciation in the value of money is approximately 2½ per cent to 3 per cent per annum, and if R13 million was made available 13 years ago it is a very simple calculation to say 13 times 2½, that is simple interest, not compound interest, is 32½ per cent, or 13 times three, which is 39.

We pegged that after the 1953 election.

Yes, you pegged it all right; there is no doubt about that. I remember the debate on the Bill when you pegged it. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Kensington may proceed.

My point is this. If it was R13 million 13 years ago then to-day obviously it must be a figure between R18 million and R21 million, not to give an increase but to maintain the status quo in value. That is quite obvious. There is no point in saying it must be pegged at R13 million. Why peg it? Where is finance ever pegged anywhere in this country? Where have we ever pegged any amount in all our accounts in this House? We do not say we are going to peg the various amounts for the departments we have here. We do not peg the amount for Coloured education. Do we peg the amount for Indian education? What have these children done that they should be treated worse? Here we are today boasting to the world that the Coloured children will get free books and here for Bantu children the amount is pegged.

I want to go a little further. If that is the case, will the Deputy Minister explain to me why we should year after year keep on saying, as we do at the bottom of the account here, “Estimated adverse balance of Bantu Education Account as at 31st March, 1968 …”? If the Bantu Education Account has to have capital funds they have to borrow from the Main Account and they are debited with it. If any of the other departments have to borrow money on Loan Account, what happens to it? It goes on to the General Loan Account of the country. But not these children; they do not get that opportunity.

I want to go on a little bit further. I say this R13 million and RIO.5 million is not sufficient. What happened? We know it is not sufficient. The department will tell us it is not sufficient. So what happens to-day? Believe it or not, the parents of these poor children have to pay for some of their own teachers. I have worked out the figure, which is between 12½ per cent and 14 per cent. They have to employ their own teachers because there are not sufficient in the schools. That does not only apply to the lower primary schools but to the high schools as well. People are being asked to pay for their own teachers when we are telling the world that we are giving free education to everybody. As for the Transvaal, they are pouring money into education.

I want to go a little bit further than this. It is not only for their teachers they are paying. They do not get a fair allocation for books. They have to contribute for the building of their own schools. Here ‘the poorest section of the South African community have to make these sacrifices. I do not want to make this matter racial. We have the four sections in this country, we are told by hon. members on the other side. We are all developing our own sections., While ail the others are well financed and have the money they require, these people are told to contribute the money themselves. And what do we say to the world? We tell the world we have two million children in school. Under what conditions? I say under conditions that we as Whites should be ashamed of. I am not giving this information to the world. Here it is in Unesco’s book about the whole system. The book is called “Apartheid”, and they devote a considerable portion of this book to Bantu Education. They do not tell any stories. They tell what we say in this House. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should also like to begin this afternoon by expressing my personal thanks and appreciation to Mr. I. H. van Dyk, who will retire this year as Secretary for Bantu Education. My first personal acquaintance with Mr. Van Dyk dates back to the years from 1947 to 1951, when I was a pupil at the Ermelo High School. Mr. Van Dyk was my principal at the time. There I got to know him as a man of particularly strong principles and one who could lead with strong conviction. There he was already a thoroughly scientific and solicitous educator. He was strict but always fair. These are also the qualities which made him an excellent administrator in this post. I think that his period of office as Secretary for Bantu Education will also be remembered as a period of positive and purposeful growth. We trust—and this is about the only point on which I want to agree with the hon. member for Kensington—that his talents will not be lost to us after this, but that they will still be available to our society in all its facets and with all its population groups. I also want to express a word of personal congratulation to Dr. Van Zyl, who will be the new Secretary. He is someone who has already made his mark as a good administrator and also as a scientist. As a student I did not really struggle with it, but there was enough to be found in the works which he wrote, inter alia about the Bakgatla, and I am certain that under his leadership in his particular position the firm foundations which have already been laid for Bantu education will go from strength to strength.

I now want to return to the hon. United Party. I want to make the statement right away that that Party is an integration party. They stand for integration of the various cultures and race groups in South Africa. As regards almost any aspect of policy that is mentioned in South Africa to-day, the source of that Party’s attitudes in South Africa is the urge to destroy the existing patterns of life in South Africa. In actual fact this policy of the United Party is only blazing a trail for the enemies of South Africa, and if they were to come into power, all the population patterns of our country would be destroyed within a matter of ten years. I want to illustrate this this afternoon on the basis of their attitude towardstertiary education, and particularly as regards their attitude towards university education for the Bantu.

It is by no means unknown that when the university colleges were established by this Government, the United Party fought their establishment tooth and nail. I say that that Party opposed the establishment of separate universities for the Bantu in South Africa. I now want to quote certain passages from Hansard, inter alia what the hon. member for Kensington said. I first want to come to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He said the following during the discussions here on the University College of Fort Hare Transfer Bill, as recorded in Hansard, vol. 99, col. 1553—

In his speech he went on to say the following—

There was another speaker, Mr. Butcher, who said the following (col. 1562)—

Then there is the hon. member for Kensington. The Minister of Bantu Education was speaking, and said the following (col 1564)—

Then the hon. member for Kensington replied, “Yes”. In other words, his attitude in respect of university education is that, if there is no Black person present at any particular university, it is an inferior university. If there are no white students present at the Bantu universities, they are also inferior universities. I just want to refer to this for a moment in order to develop my argument further. These objections were not raised for the sake of academic freedom, university autonomy or typical Western university traditions, but they are objections born of a specific education policy which the United Party wants to apply, namely that the children and the youth of South Africa. White and Black, should be educated and trained in integrated, tertiary institutions. In other words, they disregard the survival of the respective cultural and race groups.

Although we speak of primary, secondary and tertiary education, it iis very clear, when one deals with education, that primary, secondary and tertiary education cannot be seen as isolated from one another. They form a growing integrated unity which must serve the entire community of the group concerned. Only in that way can they serve other communities and the world. The United Party’s declared policy in respect of university education is one of integration of the Bantu, Coloureds, Indians and Whites. That is their declared attitude, but where does a policy of integration on the tertiary level lead us on the level of secondary and primary education? If the United Party were to gain control of affairs, they would simply carry through this integrated education policy on the tertiary level to the secondary and primary levels as well. They cannot restrict integration to the university level alone. They must carry it through to the secondary and primary schools. This is the direction in which the United Party wants to guide its education policy in respect of the Bantu. In other words, they are bluffing the public with fine concepts such as academic freedom, Western university traditions and university autonomy. But the ultimate goal is integration in all fields. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to worry about the hon. member who has just sat down. It is not my business to defend United Party policy. I can only speak for myself. I can say right away that I think this country took a tragic direction when it took the direction of separate university education. and so removed the only contact which educated white South Africans have with educated non-white South Africans, the contact which is badly needed, because the average white South African of to-day gets no such contact whatever with non-Whites, and all his relationships are on a master-servant basis. We are all going to live in this country together, whatever the hon. member and his Government do.

This is a multi-racial country and it will remain so.

I want to ask one question, however, about the separate universities which have been established: How on earth can hon. members think, however well equipped these universities are and however many laboratories, etc., they have, that they can begin to compare with the huge universities which the African, Coloured and Indian students used to attend? Not only did they have the interchange of ideas, there were thousands of other students. [Interjection.] There were at least enough students to make the university a university in something more than name.

Have you ever been to Fort Hare?

Let us take the existing universities. The non-white colleges, of which most are sited in remote rural areas …

What is wrong with that?

Because the greatest difficulty is then experienced by the vast mass of the urbanized Africans, who happen to be the most advanced section of the African people, to attend those universities. They cannot afford it. It is as simple as that. When a university is supplied for poorer sections of the population, there is always a transitional period where there should be large numbers of part-time classes so that the students can earn some money to help their families on the one hand and also to help pay the fees on the other, while they are studying. This has been the normal transition in every country that has had to set up universities from scratch with a population not fully developed. Hon. members do not seem to understand that. If a young man has to go away to a university in these remote areas, it will be extremely difficult for him to do so. Take for instance the University College of Zululand. The great professor from Zululand is unfortunately not here. But to the best of my knowledge there are 341 students at that whole university, of whom only 186 are taking degree courses. There is one teacher for every six students. This is ludicrous. I think the whole situation is out of proportion. The expenditure compared to the number of students is ridiculously disproportionate, while in the schools themselves there are 50 to 60 students per class to one teacher. It is ludicrous.

Why is it ludicrous?

Because, for the sake of an ideological belief the non-white students who could easily have been absorbed into existing white universities, have been segregated and a university which, by sheer lack of numbers, cannot be considered a proper university, is set up. That is why it is ludicrous. These showplaces do not mean any

thing because there are not sufficient students to populate them. There are not the students because of the very good reasons suggested by the hon. members for Kensington and Pietermaritzburg (District), namely that the African parents cannot afford to spend money on fees and books which they have to spend on their children. One hon. member there asked: Where should the money come from? It should come from the coffers of the central Government. Where else? We put every possible restriction in the way of Africans to become fully productive citizens in South Africa with influx control, by not providing free education, etc. There are only 2,046 African income taxpayers, out of the vast African population of 11 million, earning a taxable income. Then we expect them to pay for their education. It is a disgrace.

Now I want to come to a specific point, because I have only ten minutes. I am very anxious to get a proper explanation from the hon. the Deputy Minister as to why he took the, I think, really mean step of closing the African night schools in Johannesburg and Cape Town. He can say to me: “These schools were of course infringing the Group Areas Act or the Bantu Education Act.” But it lies within his powers to make exceptions and to give extensions. He did give extensions for a number of years. What makes him now close down these schools when there are no adequate substitutes in the townships themselves, when the white people, who are largely responsible for teaching at these schools, are unable to go into the townships to the African night schools? The schools that existed in Nyanga and Langa, just to give an example, were in fact almost entirely financed from the proceeds of money from absolutely dedicated men and women, who have been running these schools for something like 27 years. The same applies to Johannesburg. The University of Witwatersrand ran a night school, largely for domestic servants in the white areas, because this is the only way these people can get any education. They have trained thousands upon thousands of Africans, who otherwise would ¡have had no adult education whatever. They have trained them from primary school right up to Matric, and many of them have gone on into the professions to take up teaching, nursing and medicine to swell the thin ranks of professional Africans who are so desperately needed, even in terms of the Government’s apartheid policy. Even if the hon. Deputy Minister’s promise is to be fulfilled, namely that all Africans will go streaming back to the homelands, where are all the professional people going to come from? Here we have a nucleus of Africans eager to learn and eager to spend their leisure time in productive work and the Government closes the doors to them. The Government says that the night-schools must close because they are infringing the Group Areas Act. I think that this is such an unnecessary action. There were about 230 pupils at the Capeschools and about 550 in Johannesburg. Why could the hon. the Minister not have allowed that to continue? What makes him take this harsh action against people who should be encouraged to spend their leisure hours in learning how to qualify for better jobs and improving their basic standard of education. When Africans who are absolutely desperate because these things have been taken from them, turn to other less productive and, I would say, much less advantageous activities vis-à-visthe white population and activities in their leisure hours, they are all condemned as being an irresponsible lot of people. That was one point I wanted to raise very specifically with the hon. the Minister.

I should also like to mention again the wastage of pupils. This situation is still as bad as it ever was. I had a private members’ motion last year and I was told that I was irresponsible and that I was providing ammunition for U Thant, and all the other usual nonsense I get in this House. I never get a single rebuttal of the facts I bring. There is always plenty of personal abuse but very little rebuttal of facts. I submit the salient fact that there is a tremendous wastage in the Bantu schools. The vast majority of the two million pupils who we are always hearing are at school are in the first three standards, namely the two sub-standards and standard one, and after that the graph representing the number of children at schools slopes downwards pathetically, so that by the time that we get to the higher primary and the secondary schools the number is infinitesimal. Only a few hundred pupils each year reach matric and most of those pupils do not get a matric exemption for going on to university. This is a parlous state of affairs. There is a desperate shortage of teachers. As the hon. member for Kensington pointed out, the African community, the poorest seotion of our population, have to find the money to pay for their own teachers. It is a terrible situation. I am always being jeered at because I come from Houghton. [Interjections.] If hon. members who came from less affluent areas say that all the taxes collected in Houghton should be used only for the Houghton residents I would say that they were talking nonsense. It is an accepted principle of modern democracy that the richer section of the community helps to pay for the poorer seotion. That should apply to the aid of Whites to non-Whites as well and for the help of the Whites to the Blacks particularly. The number of children in each class in the schools is far too high. There are 50 to 60 students and double sessions are still continuing, with underpaid and overworked teachers doing their best to keep pace with the demands of African education. Thousands of children are turned away each year in townships such as Soweto. These children cannot get into schools. Now there is also this terrible policy which lays down that no new schools, from Junior Certificate to Matric are to be set up in the urban townships. How are the urban Africans to get the higher education they desperately need for their children and which the Government in terms of its own policy desperately needs, if it is to develop the Bantustans? This is a self-generating hopeless position. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, before I reply to what the hon. member for Houghton said, and this must always be negative, since her speeches are always of a very negative nature, I want to deal with a few positive things first. Firstly, I, too, want to express my gratitude and appreciation to Mr. Van Dyk, the retiring Secretary for this Department. Many of the matters to which I shall refer later on in my speech, can be attributed to his dedicated service to the cause of Bantu education. I also want to pay tribute to his contribution towards building up a very good and fine organization. At the same time I want to congratulate Dr. Van Zyl who is going to take over the reins from Mr. Van Dyk. Dr. Van Zyl and I have served on several committees of the Department, and I have always known him as a person who speaks from knowledge and understanding and as a person who always has a positive contribution to make. I have great expectations from Bantu education under his administration. In view of these changes that are now being effected as regards the persons occupying these various posts, it is perhaps the appropriate time for us to take stock of what has happened in Bantu education since 1954, when in terms of the Bantu Education Act the Government took Bantu education in hand. In that year the system was changed over from one of mission schools to one of community schools, in terms of which the Bantu parent community was for the first time given a share in the education of their children. Before that time they did in point of fact have no say in this matter. We all know that for good education there must be close liaison between the parents and the teaching profession. This principle was applied for the first time at that stage. At that time the Opposition and those sharing their views condemned the Bantu Education Act. They said that it was going to be a collosal failure. It is unnecessary for me to read their speeches from Hansard. We know that one and all they acted as prophets of doom. Now I want to look at what has happened in the meantime. In spite of the objections raised by the Opposition a huge organization has been built up in the Department of Bantu Education over these 14 years. I just want to mention a few figures: 9,258 schools have been established; there are 38,403 Bantu teachers in those schools; there are 2,241,469 pupils in those schools. This is a huge number. Most of these educational services are being provided in the Bantu homelands, and not in the white homelands. I want to advise the hon. member for Houghton to look at what is being done in the schools in the Bantu homelands. Then she might gain abetter understanding of ¡Bantu education than the one she is gaining in Houghton through the informers who come to her backyard. The curriculum is suah that the pupils in these primary schools receive basic instruction which prepares them for further training at a later stage, and gives them a basis not only for theoretical, academic education, but also for subsequent training in service. But it does not only go as far as that. Vocational training is also provided. I want to mention a few examples, namely training for teachers, nurses, builders, motor mechanics, electricians, and many more. Under this Bantu Education Act such training is now being provided for the first time. Secondary education has not been neglected either, for we know that the public servants of thp homelands are to be drawn from the ranks of the pupils who receive secondary education. The fact that more and more of the Bantu in the homelands are working in their own public service, bears testimony to the major success achieved through this secondary education. Now I come to university training. Previously we merely had integration at the so-called “open” universities. When we introduced the measure in terms of which the three university colleges for the Bantu were established, which are today excellent institutions with an enrolment of 1,400, the United Party said that these so-called “tribal colleges” would not be able to train one single teacher. What is the position to-day? You must remember, Sir, that in 40 years’ time the so-called “open” universities did not train one single teacher for the Bantu. To-day we find that the three university colleges for the Bantu are rendering good services in various fields, each to its particular population group.

But we also find ourselves on the eve of further development. It is known that in terms of the hon. the Minister’s plans a public service is going to be established for each homeland. Tn this way, for instance, each Bantu homeland will receive its own Department of Education. It will fall under the territorial authority of the homeland in question. In these developments the Department of Bantu Education has a major task on its hands, and at present it is making arrangements for drafting a central, co-ordinated system of education to ensure that as regards standards nothing will be lost, but that all of them will have the same curricula, the same examinations, the same certificates, etc. The object is to ensure that with the proposed decentralization of education, nothing will be lost as regards the standard of that education. The policy is to convert Bantu schools and educational institutions, which are not location-orientated, into symbols, symbols of progress and service, which can be of economic significance to the Bantu in their own areas. Accordingly all training schools will from now on be established in the Bantu homelands themselves. In addition to that all trade schools will be moved there, as well as most of the technical and senior secondary schools. In addition to this hostels will, of course, have to be provided to accommodate pupils from urban areas. All of this will assist in making it possible for the Bantu of the cities to become homeland-orientated again, as the hon. the Minister put it here this afternoon. I mention these things because I want to see an understanding developing of the major tasks envisaged by the Department of Bantu Education.

Agricultural training is not being neglected either. In this regard I just want to mention the fact that 450 guidance officers have been trained by the Department of Bantu Administration and Development in close collaboration with the Department of Bantu Education.

In conclusion I want to come to the hon. member for Houghton. It is a pity that she has left the House. All I want to say about her, is that her criterion of what a good educational institution is, is based on numbers. According to her a small class of three or four persons does not lend status to such an institution—ffiere must necessarily be 60 or 600. {Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in the first instance I want to associate myself with the remarks made by previous speakers in connection with the tribute they have paid to Mr. Van Dyk. who is due to retire. I would like to express my personal appreciation to him for the extreme courtesy with which he has always met my requests for information. I would also like to wish his successor success, and I trust that the efforts of the Official Opposition in trying to persuade the Government to adopt a more realistic and pragmatic approach to Bantu education and the financing thereof, will make this gentleman’s path a little easier than that of his immediate predecessors.

The hon. member for Heilbron quoted various figures. These figures we can usually get from publications put out by the Department of Information or by the particular Department itself. I have no desire to refute these figures but I think that it is sometimes advisable, if one wishes to be objective, to equate them with other figures and other situations which exist in South Africa. Before I do so I want to say that as far as I am concerned I regard the financing of Bantu education as a large blot on the Nationalists copybook. I believe it makes nonsense of the so-called “separate but equal” claim which is so often advanced and it highlights the apparent reluctance of the Nationalists to implement their independent Bantustan policies. We have heard it said, and it is true, that no other racial group in South Africa is restricted to a fixed financial expenditure as the case is with Bantu education. We know all about the taxation question.

I wish that we in this House could receive some clarity and some accuracy in regard to that position. For several years I have sought by way of questions and by approaches tothe hon. the Deputy Minister for an explanation regarding the estimated amount of outstanding taxes and what the position is. I have failed to gain any clarity. All I can say is that the position is most distressing. During the last four years 734,000 Bantu have been on trial for tax infringements. When information is sought in regard to the amount of tax involved the answer is given that statistics for this type of information are not available. Comparisons are odious, but let us compare the Transkei and at the same time the number of Bantu in the Transkei who have been on trial for tax infringements. Over the same period the figure amounts to just over 10,000, a mere 1.3 per cent, compared to the figures in the Republic. To me. it reveals as far as the Government is concerned, that the Government is incapable of assessing the income which should be spent on Bantu education and that it is incompetent to collect the taxes.

I believe that whatever progress has been made in regard to Bantu education, has been achieved through the loyalty and the dedication of the people in charge of Bantu education, but I believe that they are severely handicapped in their genuine efforts. The concern that we on this side of the House express from year to year is borne out by other comments. If hon. members want authoritative criticism I would refer them to the findings of the Education Panel and to the Financial Mail’s article “Bantu Education Blunders” and to the numerous editorials which have been appearing recently in the lay Press which indicate the deep concern which exists in regard to this question of Bantu education.

Finally, and possibly as my best witness, I would call the Department itself. I now refer to the latest report of the Department of Bantu Education. The report is for 1966, already a year behind. If we refer to the report, we find the comment that the products of the school “must lead the various Bantu nations to independent and self-reliance”. They say: “For this purpose more than literacy is required.” They go on and say: “Urgent need for trained Bantu in the medical, paramedical, surveying and other professions, as well as in commerce and the public service exists.” The need for the latter is emphasized. What do we find? We find that during the last two years a mere 234 Bantu out of a population of approximately 17 million have obtained a matric exemption pass with mathematics which would equip them for studying further in the various professions.

When one realizes that out of the total enrolment about which the hon. member for Heilbro-n boasted, .1 per cent is in matric standard, it is easy to see that there is no immediate hope of an improvement in the figure of people who will be available to attend the ethnic Bantu university colleges about which so much is said. Here again, in comparison. let us look at the loan expenditure in the last seven years. We find that State expenditure on school building over the last seven years, according to the Loan Vote, has been a mere R3½ million for roughly 2 million pupils. We find, as far as the Bantu colleges are concerned, that over the same period the Loan Account reflects an amount of R5f million as having been spent for roughly 1,100 students.

When we come to the other racial groups in the Republic we find that if we take the Coloured group on the Loan Vote, the expenditure for Coloured schools within the last seven years amounted to iR34 million for just more than 400,000 Coloured students. If we take the amount spent for the building of Indian schools—and here I am not including the R4 million for the takeover of the Natal Indian schools—we find that in three years R6½ million has been voted for approximately 130,000 Indian pupils. If we go back to the Loan Vote as far as Bantu education is concerned, we find that a paltry figure of only R35,000 has been voted for Bantu high and secondary schools for this financial year.

A great deal has been said about the contribution of parents to Bantu education. I do not wish to cover that ground again, but I merely wish to say that in addition to the proceeds of the general tax which they pay and which goes towards Bantu education, the Bantu people, who are the lowest wage earners in the Republic, are called upon to contribute substantially to State funds also by means of indirect taxation. As far as school books are concerned, previous hon. members have indicated the position and I believe that the serious gap is between the primary and university level where the parent at a difficult stage in the child’s life is called upon to foot what can be regarded as an extremely heavy bill. What about the Bantu pupils themselves?

We find, as the hon. member has said, that as far as the Republic is concerned the latest enrolment figure is 1.8 million, 96 per cent of whom are in primary schools; 72,400, a mere 3.83 per cent, are in secondary schools. These are largely the products from the Bantu Education Act of 1954. What do we find as far as expenditure per pupil per annum is concerned? We find that the expenditure per pupil per annum on Bantu education falls by the year. Costs go up but this figure drops. The comparative figures show that in primary schools the amount is approximately R12. In the Transkei. strangely enough, it is R14 and as far as Indian pupils are concerned the figure is R53 per pupil per year. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, a few moments ago I made the statement, and so far the United Party has not denied it. that their policy of tertiary or university training would and must inevitably also lead to a policy of integration in the field of secondary and primary education. But I want to return to the hon. member for Kensington who, in reply to a question put by the hon. the Minister, said that our South African universities could not really maintain an academic standard equal to that of therest of the world if Whites and Blacks were not studying at the same institutions. The very learned hon. member for Hillbrow is a University of Pretoria graduate. Now I want to ask the hon. member whether the hon. member for Hillbrow’s academic training is second-rate and not of world standard. Apparently the hon. member does not want to listen to me.

Another matter broached here to-day was the growth of the university colleges which was not rapid enough for the Bantu. I just want to refer the hon. Opposition back to the history of the white universities in our own country, and ask them what circumstances gave birth to the University of the Witwaters rand and how long it took that University to become a full-fledged university. How long did it take the University of Pretoria to develop from a university college into a full-fledged university? I also want to mention examples taken from foreign countries, and ask how long it took the University of Sheffield, for instance, to develop from a university college to a full-fledged university. From 1879 to 1905. How long did it take the University College of Southampton to develop into a full-fledged university? However, we have the position in South Africa that, against the will of a mighty world opinion and attended by the bitter hostility of the hon. Opposition, it took us less t-han 10 years to start university colleges from scratch and to develop them to what they are to-day. We had to deal with human material which for many centuries had never, and had perhaps never in the history of their existence, made contact with Western university standards. In 10 years’ time we had made so much progress that it was possible for the hon. the Prime Minister to say the following in a statement (translation)—

The concluding paragraph of this statement reads as follows—

I should like to know from the hon. Opposition whether they agree with this statement, or whether they want to suggest this afternoon that the teaching staff at our Bantu university colleges consists of persons who are academically incapable of teaching their particular subjects. I ask them this frank question. Does the hon. member for Kensington want to reply to this, or the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District), or the hon. member for Berea? I also want to ask whether the students trained there had received second-rate training? Are the training and the syllabuses taught there inferior to those at other universities? I want to refer to the report of the Department of Bantu Education for the calendar year 1966, where amongst other things the following is being said in respect of Bantu university colleges—

I now want to ask, if we want to look into the future, what the Opposition wants to do with the non-white students who, under their policy of tertiary training, would in all probability become professors and teaching members of staff later on. Would it be possible for those people to become professors at their universities? Would it be possible for them to become rectors? What would they, for instance, do with the whole social pattern? After all, the students and lecturers at the university have been drawn together into a community for a threefold task, not only that of giving instruction and doing research, but also that of educating. In addition, the number of students has risen since 1964 by 222, or 23.6 per cent, to 1,161. This is the first year in which the enrolment has passed the 1,000 mark. This figure reveals that a constant rate of growth is being maintained. Then, in all fairness to the teaching staff and to the department, one must add here that, although there has been student uprising and riots throughout the world, one is dealing here with three university colleges, where an atmosphere of calm has been prevailing, where gradual but stable development has taken place and where the academic standard and the threefold function which we associate with a university have in fact been very evident.

Then we come to new courses. The following new courses were introduced at the university colleges: at the University College of Fort Hare: a Lower Diploma Course in Librarianship; at the University College of the North: a Diploma Course in School Librarianship, as well as the subjects Hebrew. Municipal and Rural Administration, and Private Law. According to the questions they asked in the course of the year, the Opposition wanted to know how many engineering students there were. Sir. I want to ask you when the University of Pretoria acquired a faculty of engineering, after how many years? And if it had not been for the National Government and ifthe United Party had remained in power, we would still not have had it. The whole approach of the National Party is not to introduce a mushroom policy; it is not to establish mushrooms, but to establish university colleges which for centuries will be the pride of the respective population groups which are to be served by them. You and I, Sir, will not live to see it, but posterity will see this record of the National Party, and these university colleges will make their contribution and will develop into universities of which the rest of the world need not be ashamed.

Then, as regards degrees and diplomas, a total of 103 degrees and 91 diplomas were obtained by full-time students at the university colleges at the end of 1966; 154 of these were awarded to men and 40 to women students. Even the hon. member for Wynberg will not be able to say that the National Party discriminates against the weaker sex.

Then, as regards buildings and physical extensions, extensions to and amounts spent on buildings are shown in Chapter 5. The report states that “it is, however, of interest to note that a start has been made with the erection of bigger building complexes. For example, it is planned to feed from 2,500 to 4,000 students by means of the cafeteria system. The first of these cafeterias has been successfully put into operation at the University College of the North. Here also a start has been made with a hostel unit of 7 to 12 storeys which will ultimately house 2,500 students who will be served by 10 cafeteria kitchens.” We who studied at white universities often feel rather jealous of the possibilities the Bantu students are being afforded. If one takes our existing white universities, one sees that it is sometimes very difficult to purchase extra land for additional extensions, but in this respect one finds that the Government, which the Opposition and the rest of the world regard as being the oppressor of the Bantu, provides these universities with a start which most of the other white universities were unable to have. That is why I want to congratulate the department, the Minister and the two Deputy Ministers this afternoon on what they are doing in regard to providing our Bantu with training and stability. [Time expired.]

Before saying a few words about what the hon. member for Rissik had to say, I should like to refer to the fact that the annual reports of this department come out very late. I know there must be a good reason for it, but we have just received, a week or two ago. the annual report for 1966. When we had the debate on white education we had the report much earlier in the Session; we had the 1967 report in our hands well before the time. I know there must be some reason for this delay, but I should like to say that now that we have the report, what I like about it is the statistical part. It is certainly most valuable. Most of the figures we hear quoted in this House are contained in it.

It is, however, rather unfortunate that it comes so late.

Now I should like to say a word about what the hon. member for Rissik had to say about our attitude towards the establishment of non-white university colleges. He referred to Fort Hare. He seems to think that Fort Hare is a university college established by this Government, but long before he was born it was a flourishing university college. Have hon. members never heard the names of men as famous as Prof. Jabavu and Prof. Z. K. Matthews, who was afterwards the Christian Union representative for the Continent of Africa at Geneva and who represented Botswana at U.N., who in spite of the manner in which he was treated by this Government when Fort Hare was dissolved, remained a friend of this country? These are some of the great men who were associated with Fort Hare. This Fort Hare which the Government has created is not the original Fort Hare. We spoke of the rape of Fort Hare. This Government destroyed Fort Hare in order to create their new colleges. Fort Hare drew students from the whole of Southern Africa and even further north. The head of one of the neighbouring states was a graduate of Fort Hare. Wherever one goes and meets the leaders in Africa, one finds they were graduates of Fort Hare. It was a tragedy that we destroyed Fort Hare when it was on the brink of becoming a university, and the manner in which we treated some of those lecturers who refused to serve in a Government institution was shocking. What he is referring to is the fact that we objected to its becoming a Government institution when it was a university college with a measure of autonomy. That is the story of the original Fort Hare.

Now we come to the establishment of these new university colleges for non-Whites, not only for the Bantu but also for Indians and the one in the Western Cape. We never opposed that. I am sorry to say that men of higher rank than the hon. member in the Nationalist Party have made that statement. We never opposed the establishment of any of these university colleges—never.

What did you call them? Did you not call them “tribal colleges”?

I was a member of the Select Committee and of the Commission, and if you want to know what our attitude was, you will find it in the minority report of that Commission. If the hon. member wishes to have a copy, I will lend him one, where he will see our attitude described. What was our attitude? It was a perfectly simple one. We said: By all means establish these colleges if you wish to do so, and we said that we were prepared to assist in establishing them. And that is exactly what has happened. We said: If you wish to establish more colleges, by all means do so, but do not destroy the colleges already in existence and do not impair the efficiency of the method we have alreadyevolved for educating non-Whites. We never opposed it; we were anxious to give them more facilities, not less.

Hansard tells a different story.

But you do not read your Hansard. The objection to Fort Hare was this. We objected to Fort Hare becoming a Government institution. It was a university college which had a measure of autonomy and it was on the point of becoming a university. This Government came along and destroyed its autonomy, and not only that; they had a council at that university consisting of Whites and non-Whites. White nominees of the Government, including distinguished Afrikaans-speaking educationists, served on that council. They had a senate of white and nonwhite professors and the Government destroyed that. The Government said, “You may not have a mixed council; it must be White.” These African professors I have mentioned were to serve in just an advisory senate. The Government said that people interested in the college could serve on an advisory council but they could not have a mixed council. Well, the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs has changed all that. He has a mixed council in Durban now. It is quite erroneous to confuse the old Fort Hare with this new creation. I am not going to discuss how they are going to become universities now. I wish the hon. the Prime Minister, when he made the statement, had given more details. I do not know whether there is anything else I can tell the hon. member. If he can get a few of the younger members of the Nationalist Party together I will be quite prepared to give them a lecture.

Sir, I want to pursue the theme of financing Bantu education as far as children are concerned. not as far as the colleges are concerned. After all, as far as the colleges are concerned, we have heard from the hon. member for Houghton that the ratio is 1 to 6. It is sometimes as low as 1 to 31. I think the average is about 1 to 51. Well, they are spending plenty of money there. I want a bit of money spent at the other end on the children going to school. I have said, Sir, that these parents are called upon to make great sacrifices. On many occasions they have to pay the salaries of the teachers because the numbers of teachers provided by the department are insufficient. But that is not the worst. I think the worst choice that has ever been placed before the parents of any Bantu child was the choice placed before them by this Government. The Government said to them, “You can have school feeding or we will use the money for more education,” and as the money for education was insufficient these people, who are so anxious for education. said: “Give us education.” The Bantu children nevertheless still go to school. Hon. members no doubt saw the stories in the Press about Soweto. The Press carried pictures of children going to school in the cold weather, not able to get into a building, not being fed before they go to school …

What a shame!

That is our system of education.

That is civilization!

I am anxious to do something better. I have some confidence in the hon. the Deputy Minister. I regret he should ever have made the statement which I mentioned at the beginning, but that is by the way. Fancy being placed before the choice: “Which will you have: School feeding or more education?” These children have not got books; they have to pay for practically everything—one book to last four years! I want to ask hon. members who were school masters just to imagine a Bantu home with a book lasting four years. The pupils cannot take their books home. How can they take them home? They will not last six months. I have figures to show what it will cost to provide books for these children. They do not get what they should have.

Sir, I want to go a bit further. I want to speak about this book published by Unesco. It is called “Apartheid: Its effects upon Education, Science, Culture and Information: A study of South Africa.” When they talk about Bantu education here, they are on very firm ground because the things they quote are the reports of our departments, the replies of Ministers to questions in the House and extracts from Government speakers in debate. There is no doubt about the facts. We cannot say that these people are trying to blacken the good image of South Africa. They are not. To be quite honest, I tried to find something wrong.

How does it compare with the rest of Africa?

I am very glad the hon. member asked that question. I will deal with it. [Time expired.]

In most eloquent language the hon. member for Kensington told this Committee about the glorious days of the United Party’s Bantu education policy, and about their grand achievements at Fort Hare. If I were the hon. member. I would not have referred to that. After all, that was the integrationist course which they caused South Africa to follow at that time. When this Government came into power, a change had to be effected in that regard: otherwise we would have been heading for disaster and the whole system would have had to be replanned from scratch. Mr. Chairman, the aim of all education—and this is also the case in all other countries of the world and amongst other nations—must after all be to prepare thepupil for an adult life so that he as an adult may render the greatest possible contribution to the nation or community to which he belongs. To achieve this aim the educationists must therefore, when they plan an educational system for a particular group or a particular nation, bear in mind not only the interests of the pupils themselves, but also the needs and problems of the nation to which those pupils belong. Therefore, apart from certain basic principles which hold good for all educational systems, the educational system of each nation will have particular characteristics which differ from those of other nations. It is for that reason that a particular educational system had to be designed for the Bantu as well, a system which makes allowances for their particular needs and their particular problems. Unfortunately it is a fact that this generally accepted educational principle is not always appreciated or understood, nor applied, by hon. members opposite. This becomes very apparent from the speeches we once again heard from them to-day, but unfortunately for the Bantu, who were the sufferers in this regard, this was also very apparent from the implementation of their policy when they were in power 20 years ago. Their aim in regard to Bantu education was to foster amongst Bantu pupils a feeling of inferiority and abhorrence in respect of their own language, their own culture and their own nation. Their aim was to cause every Bantu pupil to develop into an English speaking Westerner who despised his own nation and his own culture. The consequences of this policy were fatal and disastrous for the Bantu. This led to a feeling of frustration and inferiority amongst them; the result of this was a feeling of hatred towards the Whites, because they felt that they would never be able to equal the Whites in every respect. But, above all, their system had the effect that the people they had trained at Fort Hare and elsewhere, refused to return as leaders of their own people, that they tried to adjust themselves to being Westerners, and in cases where they could not do so, they became agitators and instigators. That is why the Bantu are experiencing this dire shortage of leaders to-day. If we listen to the pedantic speeches hon. members opposite are making on this topic to-day, and if we compare them with their actions and achievements 20 years ago, then it presents, as far as they are concerned, a very dismal picture indeed. Whereas in 1948 there were barely 734,000 pupils at school, i.e. barely 9 per cent of the Bantu population, 2,200,000 Bantu pupils are attending school to-day, i.e. 17 per cent of the Bantu population. But much more significant than this meteoric rise in numbers, is the fact that Bantu education is directed at the nation today, that it has as its aim national service in the highest and purest form. That is why the National Party’s victory 20 years ago was not only a deliverance and a blessing for white South Africa, but also a deliverance and a blessing for the non-white peoples of South Africa. I foresee the day when the Bantu peoples of South Africa will celebrate 26th May, 1948, as a national festival day, because it marked the beginning of the rebirth of their emergence as a nation.

Yes, that I can believe.

When a nation itself does not have the leaders and the educationists to plan for itself an educational system according to these principles, it is very fortunate if it has other people who can do so on its behalf. Sir, I shall read from the latest report of the Department of Bantu Education a few sentences to show you how our educational system is directed at the nation—

In this way the whole nation is involved in the school and the education of their children. A stage of mass literacy has been reached. Instruction through the medium of the vernacular has taken on and become established. The Bantu have accepted education as something of their own. That is the difference between the educational system of this party and that of that party. How fortunate is such a nation, and how gratifying this report must be to the Bantu nations to whom their development as a nation is a matter of earnest! How I wish that at a stage when my people needed it, there could have been other people who could have planned for us in such a way!

There were other people, but they planned wrongly.

Yes, they planned differently. But I want to point out that the hon. member for Houghton and other hon. members opposite always level the accusation at this side that this nationally orientated education is aimed at leading the Bantu back to the kraal and the porridge-pot. To show them to what extent they are mistaken, I shall read from the Unesco report on a conference, “United Nations Seminar on the Multi-national Society”, which was held in Yugoslavia from 8th to 21st July, 1965. I shall read the following extract—

This was not written by the National Party. These are the friends of the hon. member for Houghton, namely Unesco. She can see, therefore, to what extent she has lost the way.

I want to extend to the hon. the Minister and his Department my cordial congratulations on their wonderful achievement in this field. To my mind the work done by this Department ranks among the most important tasks in our present set-up. because in this Department the future of nations is being built and shaped in a way unparalleled anywhere else in the world. When we look at their unique achievements, we must always bear in mind that we cannot compare Bantu education with white education in our country or in countries abroad. The achievements of the Department of Bantu Education can only be compared with the achievements of Bantu education in the African states. If we look at that picture and try to draw a comparison, we see how favourably our achievements compare. According to the Unesco report of 1961 the average number of Bantu children attending schools in African states was only 16 per cent, whereas in South Africa 90 per cent of all 11-year-old Bantu children are attending schools at present. The respective figures for the various countries are as follows: Ethiopia —13 per cent; Liberia (the country which brought a charge against us at the World Court)—12 per cent; Ghana—28 per cent; Nigeria—25 per cent; Kenya—35 per cent. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Algoa is another one of these chaps …

Order!

… is one of the hon. members who can do nothing but put up a political diatribe. One can almost imagine him on a platteland political platform talking all this nonsense he talked this afternoon. [Interjections.] I hear the hon. the Minister’s interjection, but I intend to ignore him this time.

He will not lead me astray this time; I have other things to say.

I want to make one point. He said that up to 1948, when the United Party Government went out of power, we spent nothing on Bantu education. But the hon. member is asleep. In 1948 it was thrown at us on this side that Jan Hofmeyr, the then Minister, was a “kaffer boetie” because he dared to spend RIO million on Bantu education. They fought an election on that issue. ’[Interjections.] I am sorry but I do not have time to waste on the hon. member. I want to come back to the hon. member for Rissik. He started off by saying we had criticized the Bantu university colleges as being of a lower status. What did he do when he got up a second time? He quoted a speech of the hon. the Prime Minister in which the Prime Minister admitted they were of an inferior status to a university. I have here a copy of a speech delivered by the Minister on the 11th May of this year at the Ngoya university in Zululand. He spoke about the “apprenticeship period” which this university had gone through. He said it was time the ties with the University of South Africa were cut. He also said the necessary legislation was being drafted. He said—

The word “universiteit” was underlined and placed in inverted commas in my copy of his prepared speech. He himself admitted these university colleges for the Bantu people were not and are not to-day full universities. Is this not in line with what the hon. member for Kensington has just said, namely that the minority report of the commission which investigated this matter said: “Let us have an interim period wherein we can build these institutions up to the stage where they will then be able to have universities of their own.” What have we had as a result of the failure to adopt that recommendation? We have wasted the past eight years.

I want to get away from the hon. member and his nonsense and I want to talk about the provision of schools by the department, particularly in and around the urban areas. We find one-third of our Bantu population in the urban areas. How many schools do we find there? What schooling facilities are there? In my own particular area in Pietermaritzburg we have on the outskirts of the city the Bantu township of Imbali. The first houses there were occupied in May of 1965, three years ago. There are presently 1,486 houses occupied with an estimated population of 11,440 people. What schooling facilities are there for the Bantu in that area? In reply to a question, the Deputy Minister said there was one lower primary school of 10 classrooms built toaccommodate 800 pupils, which at present has an enrolment of 1,200. There is a population in that township of 11,000 people, of whom at least 8,000 must be children. We can assume 4,000 are of school-going age, but only one school for 800 pupils is provided. Admittedly in the buffer zone outside the township there is a combined higher and lower primary school for 550 pupils. So we find a total provision for children within walking distance of their homes for 1,350 pupils where there is at least a potential of 4,000 children who want to go to school. Let me say these are Bantu people who are thirsting for knowledge. They are prepared to make sacrifices to get this knowledge, as I pointed out a little earlier.

How many houses are there?

1,486. Let me go further and point out to the Deputy Minister that this township is in a so-called Bantu homeland. it is not in the white man’s land. This is why Pietermaritzburg is a border industry area. What do we find has been provided in that township? The Department of Bantu Administration and Development has provided a Bantu beer brewery, a Bantu beer and liquor outlet. They have provided a magnificent community hall. I am not arguing about that. But when we look at the magnificent structures that have been put up and when we know they have been erected at a fantastic cost, why was that money not rather spent on the provision of educational facilities? It goes further. Where do these people get their secondary education, their higher education? There is no provision for them in and around Pietermaritzburg. They have to be sent away and once again this adds to the expense, as I pointed out earlier, when they try to get some sort of education for their children.

As was pointed out by the hon. member for Berea there are only 3.8 per cent of the total number of Bantu pupils in secondary schools. Before the Deputy Minister says those are all who are capable of attaining that standard of education and this is the reason why there are so many drop-outs, let me say that an analysis of the figures of the total number of schools provided shows that out of a total of 7,222 schools only 282 were of secondary and higher status. That is the same figure of 3.8 per cent. So it is quite evident there is no further accommodation for any more pupils in the higher standards. There is no provision for education for them. There are those children who do wish to go on but who cannot afford it because they must be sent away to other schools. I know what is happening at Hammarsdale. I drew the Deputy Minister’s attention to it last year. There is a secondary school at Hammarsdale and it is supposed to serve the whole of the area from Durban to Pietermaritzburg. There is a tremendous business that has developed there, namely of boarding children who come to school. They have to live some where. They are being boarded and their parents are being charged for the boarding of their children by individuals who happen to have homes in the vicinity of the schools. Once more it is further expense for the unfortunate parents who have to pay for the education of their children.

The hon. member for Algoa, who unfortunately is not here now, criticized us for supporting a statement of Unesco that the Government was keeping the Bantu people down, and so on and so forth. I am sorry but I think this is the inference which must be drawn from the facts and figures which are presented in the report of the hon. the Minister’s department. We find that there are adequate facilities up to standard four and little beyond that. Is this a deliberate attempt on the part of the Government to try to keep those people below that standard of education? It is something which can be inferred from these figures and I should like to hear the Deputy Minister’s comments on this because this is what is being said overseas.

But we nearly doubled the number over the last ten years.

But only up to standard four, this is the point.

No.

Then have you doubled the number of pupils ¡beyond standard four? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, before I proceed to the matter to which I really want to devote my attention. I just want to say the following to the hon. member for Kensington. He must remember, when he speaks about the financing of Bantu education, that the statements as they now appear in the Bantu Education Account do not tell the complete story, because he must bear in mind that in the urban areas school buildings are provided by the local authorities. This does not appear in that Account. The local authorities incur heavy capital expenditure for the Bantu in this regard. In the Bantu areas school buildings and facilities for the Bantu are provided by the Trust. That expenditure will not appear in that Account either. He must take this into account too before he associates himself completely with the little Unesco report he quoted here with so much relish this afternoon.

I actually want to devote my attention to the matter in which I am particularly interested, and that is trade and technical training. The trade and technical training provided by the Department of Bantu Education accords with the policy of the Government to developthe Bantu’s full potential in the professions, in the trades, in the industries and in the administrations in their respective homelands for their respective national units. Their industrial and economic development must be stepped up, and the Department is therefore very well aware of having to pay special attention to trade and technical training for the Bantu. The training provided by the Department is aimed at training the Bantu for service to his own community, as I have already said. The intention is not that he should compete with the Whites in the white areas. The certificate issued to him after successful completion of such a course is valid only in Bantu areas, and not outside those areas. The object is gradually to replace the Whites who are still working in Bantu areas by trained Bantu so that those Whites can render their services in their white homeland for their own white population. It is also the policy not to establish the trade and technical schools in the white homelands, but in the Bantu homelands themselves. The products of these schools are intended in the first place for the development programme of the Bantu homelands and in the second place for the establishment of housing schemes in urban Bantu residential areas and in the townships which are being established in the Bantu areas.

Now I want to furnish a few figures. There are 28 trade and technical schools at present. Some of these institutions have a trade as well as a technical division, while in a few cases technical division are attached to ordinary secondary and training schools. The enrolment figures are as follows. Trade training is provided to 1,483 pupils, and technical training to 455 pupils, which brings the total to 1,938.

Trade training is understood to mean vocational training. The courses are mainly of a practical nature, to teach the pupils how to handle and care for tools and to process the materials concerned. The minimum entrance requirement is a standard six school-leaving certificate, and the course takes two years. I now want to read out what courses are offered, in order to give the Committee some idea of the work that is being done in these institutions.

Concrete-work, masonry and plaster-work; carpentry, joinery and cabinet-making; general and motor mechanics; electrical-work and housewiring; plumbing, drain-laying and sheetmetal-work; painting and glass-work; tailoring; leather-work and upholstery; spinning and weaving; brickmaking and baking. There is also a variety of courses for female students, namely tailoring, millinery, hairstyling and home management.

The technical junior certificate course provides for theoretical and general technical pre occupational training which can lead to employment as operators in factories or to preliminary training for artisans. A technical junior certificate course takes three years, with the standard six continuation certificate as minimum entrance qualification. The following technical junior certificate courses are offered at present: Building construction; general mechanics; carpentry, joinery and cabinetmaking; drawing and design; workshop calculations; electro-technics; radiotricians; and motor mechanics. At a few institutions the courses go through to the technical senior certificate.

There is also post-matric training in a technical direction. At Edendale, health inspectors are trained. This is near Pietermaritzburg. Surveyor’s assistants are trained at Lovedale. Watch-makers are trained at Mamelodi, near Pretoria. Sister lecturers are trained at the University College of the North.

There is also other training in a technical direction. Medical orderlies are trained at Thutamaphelo, Pietersburg. Agricultural extension officers are trained at the four agricultural colleges of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, while the faculty of agriculture of the University College of Fort Hare offers various diploma courses.

The bon. member for Cradock pleaded this afternoon that degree courses should also be offered there. Engineering technicians are being trained at Thutamaphelo, Pietersburg, as from this year. For the time being, courses in agricultural and civil engineering are offered. With the introduction of these courses an important milestone in the training of the Bantu was reached. There are also the textile workers who are trained at the Mdantsane School of Textiles in East London at a rate of approximately 360 pupils per annum.

What is being envisaged for the future? The training of technicians and artisans must keep pace with the development of the homelands. The anticipated industrial development in the homelands and in the border areas will lead to the creation of more employment opportunities and a greater demand for trained Bantu technicians and artisans. The Department of Bantu Education is continually watching the situation, and provides more training facilities and expands existing courses as the demand arises.

At present the Department is also considering the establishment of subsidized vocational schools attached to border industries, for the training of factory workers and operators on a co-operative basis.