Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

I now move—

Agreed to.

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

It will be seen that the motion is in general terms. When one has regard to the number of subjects which we wish to discuss with the hon. the Prime Minister during the course of this Session then I should say it is correctly phrased. You see, Sir, there have been a number of controversial administrative decisions, there have been questions like manpower, research, the drought, and what the Government’s agricultural policy is in connection with that drought. There has been growing dissatisfaction in the civil service and there has been a deterioration of Post Office facilities. There is moreover a host of other matters crying out for attention. At the same time, when one examines the legislative programme of the Government in so far as it has been revealed in the State President’s speech, and the flexibility of the new procedure which we hope to adopt in this House this Session, then I think it is clear that opportunities will arise later for a discussion of all those matters.

I have therefore decided this afternoon to concentrate on what is perhaps the fundamental matter in South African politics, namely the race relations issue. I was constrained to say on a former occasion in this House that it was an illusion to believe what this Government was doing was in any way providing a solution to that problem. Another year has passed since then and during that time it has become increasingly clear, not only to me but also to many members of the public outside, and I believe to many supporters of the Nationalist Party that the Government’s policy in this regard is an arrant failure.

I believe the Prime Minister is in a dilemma: I believe he has three groups amongst his supporters. I limit it to three groups at this stage, though we may agree to extend the number later. I think the first group consists of those who believe that, if only the Prime Minister would spend more money on developing the Bantu reserves, and developing them more rapidly, he could still rake the chestnuts out of the fire and make a success of his policy.

Then there is a second group. They believe he is already spending too much money on the Bantu and too little on the Whites. They are showing signs of resentment. To put it mildly, they are showing a lack of enthusiasm for his policy.

Then there is a third group, who accept that the ultimate objectives of the Prime Minister’s policy are unattainable. They are urging him to settle for limited objectives and to give us blueprints of the steps which the Government are going to take to achieve those limited objectives.

Then the Prime Minister is faced with two other very important and very awkward facts. The first is that, whatever may be the position of the Bantu in South Africa generally, the standard of living of the Bantu in the reserves over the last 15 or 16 years has either been static or it has fallen. The second fact is that the figures on which the policy was originally based have turned out to be inaccurate figures. It seems that there must have been some mistake in that 1951 census. It is quite clear now that the projections for the year 2000 are very different from what they were when this policy was originally formulated. The Prime Minister is faced with the fact that in the next 25 or 30 years he will have to make provision, not for the number of Bantu originally envisaged, but for at least 8 million additional Bantu, all of whom will probably be outside the reserves. That means that they are going to be 18 or 19 million in all outside the reserves, even if he achieves the rate of development laid down by the Tomlinson Commission. The question is: How does he fit them into his policy?

If one has regard to these facts and the impact they have had upon the public, it is small wonder that there have been calls for a “volkskongres”. The calls for a “volkskongres” seem to have come from two quarters. Die Vaderland says that there should be a “volkskongres” to reaffirm the belief in the sovereign independence of the different races uncompromisingly before the world, and to mobilize the people of South Africa for the biggest attempt in their history to make separate development a reality in the next 10 years.

Professor Rhoodie of Pretoria University believes that they should take the initiative at a “volkskongres” in providing South Africa with a blueprint of minimum objectives, since the maximum targets of the apartheid policy will never be achieved. I believe that the policy has failed already. I do not believe that a “volkskongres” is needed to find that out. Therefore I would say that, even before a “volkskongres” let us try and decide what the targets of this policy really are. I think the main objectives are twofold.

The first objective is the separation of Black from White. The second is the establishment of separate states, what hon. members opposite regard as separate nations. [Interjections.] When hon. gentlemen opposite have been able to rearrange their thoughts, let me remind them of the election manifesto of 1948 of the Nationalist Party, on which the policy was based, and which set out what were called the “fundamental principles of apartheid”, stating that the Natives would be given the chance to develop morally, economically, and politically, “maar alles op hul eie terrein”.

Dr. Malan enlarged on this and said that theoretically the objective of the policy of apartheid can be fully achieved by dividing the country into two states, all the Whites in one and all the Blacks in another. Then SABRA went on and said the purpose should be to develop the Native territories so intensively as to draw in all those Bantu who are resident in the European area. Dr. Verwoerd was Minister of Native Affairs at the time and he responded in the Senate by saying that the attitudes of the churches, the Sabra people and his own were the same and he deplored any attempts to drive wedges between them. In later statements he made it clear that his objective at that time was not only to give a home for the natural increase of those who were there already but also for those who were outside the homelands in the White areas. The fact of the matter is that when you read those early speeches you come to the conclusion that originally the idea of apartheid was complete separation between Black and White. One gets the idea that that was their target. I know that this idea has been modified and I am not going to hold hon. members opposite to this. They have quite obviously changed their ideas, because when the White Paper was issued on the Tomlinson Report we were told that they will be satisfied if, within 50 years, there were equal numbers of Black and White in the White areas. I have indicated in this House before what the implications of such a policy are, but I think it will be well to refresh the memories of hon. members as we are going to discuss this matter in some detail. Hon. members will recall that this White Paper was published in 1956. The elapse of 50 years will bring us to about the year 2000. This was the furthest date for which we had realistic population projections. Our latest population figures were estimated in 1967. It was estimated that there were 3.6 million Whites, 12.7 million Bantu, of whom only 4.5 million were in the reserves. Previous to these projections it was estimated that by the year 2000 there would be 6 million Whites. That means that if the objective of the party was to be achieved, namely equal numbers of Whites and Blacks in the White areas, only 6 million Blacks could be left in the White areas. Since there are already 4.5 million in the reserves, and assuming that they can absorb the natural increase in the reserves, it means that approximately 8 million Bantu would have to be moved from the White areas to the reserves over the next 32 years. This means an average of about 250,000 a year. I do not say that it is a quarter of a million every year, as, obviously, smaller numbers will be moved at the start. If one has regard to the numbers which have to be moved the average will be 250,000 a year. The figures on which that projection was based have been proved to be wrong and the present Director of Census, Dr. Stoker, has made it clear that he believes that by the year 2000 there will be 7 million Europeans, but that there will be round about 28 million Bantu. If one wants to achieve one’s objective with those figures, it means that one will not have to move 250,000 a year, but that one will have to start by moving 400,000 a year in order to get them all back into the reserves in 32 years time. One will then be left with equal numbers of Whites and Blacks in the White area. This is always assuming that the reserves can absorb their own natural increase. This is what is meant by separation in accordance with the policy of the Nationalist Party.

Now, Sir, let us deal with the target of creating separate states for what hon. members opposite call “separate nations”. This is supposed to be the second target of their policy. This has been stated on many occasions, but I should like to recall only two speeches made by Dr. Verwoerd when he was still Prime Minister. In 1963 he said that—

He made it clear on many occasions that what he meant was sovereign independent states for the various ethnic groups, now called separate nations. Then the present Prime Minister gave unequivocal support for that policy when he took over from Dr. Verwoerd, and made it quite clear that he believed in the policy of separate development, not only as a philosophy, so he said, but as the only solution, the only practical solution to do justice to every population group as well as to every one of their members. I want to be fair to hon. members opposite and say that I believe that this is their moral justification for their policy. I believe that this is the moral justification which, they believe, can be reconciled with Christian principles. For that reason I am sure it came as no surprise to them to find that the Afrikaanse Galvinistiese Beweging indicated that the Church would have to fight apartheid unless there was such an intensification of development as to make it clear that discriminatory measures at present being applied were justified only as transitional measures and not as permanent measures. It was stated that if there were not development to indicate that these measures were only transitional measures, these measures would become oppressive and intolerable and that as such the Church would have to fight them.

I know, Sir, that it is easy to grant independence. One can grant independence to any group of people living within a state on their own, but I say that it is extremely irresponsible to grant independence unless the group concerned conform to certain requirements. The Minister of Bantu Administration and Development has made it clear that he regards one of those requirements to be the requirement that the State concerned should be reasonably viable and that it should be able to create employment possibilities at decent standards of living for a large section of its population, if not for everyone of them. I do not think I am doing the hon. the Minister an injustice by putting it in this way. But, Sir, if these are the objectives—I think hon. members opposite would agree that I am doing them no injustice in stating their objectives in this way—let us then ask, how far has this Government got in reaching those objectives? I have certain facts and figures available. We do not, of course, always agree with one another and how these facts and figures should be interpreted. Therefore I should like to give the views of one or two intellectuals, one or two experts, one or two moral leaders, even one or two leader writers of the otherwise subservient Nationalist Press, to see what they think about the progress that is being made.

That is a new phrase I have never heard before … “subservient Press”!

Subservient like you!

You should understand that, Frankie?

Mr. Speaker, I can understand the perfectly understandable disquiet of the hon. the Minister. After all, he was Minister of Information for some time. Hence he should be an expert on this matter. However, I want to start by quoting the views expressed by Professor Rhoodie of the University of Pretoria. Professor Rhoodie is the professor in anthropology and Bantu administration. His writings have often been quoted in this House by hon. members opposite. In fact, so well-known is he that I believe the Ministry of Information supplies copies of certain of his books to its offices throughout the world so that these books may be available to those wishing to study South African affairs, especially people whom they want to impress. I have already quoted Professor Rhoodie as having said at Kempton Park that the maximum targets of the apartheid policy would never be achieved. In making that statement, he was quite clearly unhappy about what the Government had done so far to develop the homelands. He was, quite clearly, unhappy about what they have done to make separation a reality. He stressed that the development of the homelands was the key to the successful application of apartheid. He made two observations which I think are very important. He said—

That, I think, speaks for itself. Later on he dealt with the tempo of the development in the reserves. He examined it carefully and felt that it was far behind what was necessary to create the economic magnetism which would attract the Bantu out of the White areas into the reserves. He went on to say that if one reviewed the figures, there were massive arrears and that the figures in respect of the job needs of the Bantu tell the same story. To put it in his own words—

That, Sir, is his view. And he is not alone in expressing this view. It is quite clear from the October issue of Woord en Daad that what upset the Calvinistiese Beweging was disillusionment and disappointment at the slow rate of development within the reserves. Furthermore, there was a spate of reaction from the Afrikaans Press. There were two long editorials in Die Transvaler, expressing deep concern about the slow development and calling for a massive Volkskongres “to make the average White aware of the urgency of the issue”. They also indicated that although they thought there had been progress, the pace had been far too slow. They expressed the opinion that the policy can only succeed if the Government get the co-operation of the public. They went on to make this extraordinary statement—

It can only do you good to read Die Transvaler.

Mr. Speaker, I read Die Transvaler very often indeed and it is so that there are few other papers which amuse me more. I have already quoted Die Vaderland. Then there was Dagbreek as well. Dagbreek posed the question whether it would be possible materially to reduce the Bantu labour force without reducing the tempo of economic development in the White areas and without getting it below the 5 per cent annually aimed at by the Government. They lay emphasis on the key question, i.e. the more rapid development of the homelands. The editor went on to write that at the present rate of development there was little prospect, as development would be far short of the 180,000 new jobs annually which would be required from 1975 onwards to cope with the “tuisland-inwoners en hulle natuurlike aanwas”.

Why do you see this problem only as a problem of numbers?

The hon. gentleman wants to know why I see this problem only as a problem of numbers. It is because if it is quite clear that the policy is impracticable, then theories about it will not help you. This is the trouble with hon. members opposite—they have the most beautiful theories and they satisfy their consciences with those theories although these theories are quite unrealistic when they try to put them into practice. Here you have the editor of Dagbreek indicating that if the Government is to develop the reserves to get anywhere within reach of its objectives, then it will have to be supplying 180.000 new jobs annually for the inhabitants of the reserves; and it realizes that there is no possibility whatever of that happening. They say—

Then the hon. gentleman goes on to indicate that he believes that the only way to do this or to be realistic about it is to allow in private White capital, which the United Party has been pleading for for many years.

Sir, I have quoted these views just as a background, because I think they are an impressive contradiction of the Prime Minister’s publicly expressed belief that the race problem has been solved in practice and in theory in South Africa.

Now let us come to the facts and figures of which this House should be aware and in respect of which I want to refresh their memories. If the present new projections are correct, then the average rate of removal from the White areas to the reserves must be at a tempo of 400.000 per year over the next 32 years. Now, what has been happening up to now? First of all, there is the period 1951 to 1960, and here I am dealing only with the urban areas in South Africa and not with the rural areas. In the nine-year period, 1951 to 1960, the Whites in the urban areas increased by 486.000, but the Bantu by 1,080.000. Then comes a projection for 1967, which comes from the Department of Statistics, and it suggests that over that seven-year period, while the Whites in the urban areas increased by 559,000, the Bantu increased by 996,000. If those figures are correct, then between 1951 and 1967, under this apartheid Government, one of whose objectives is separating Whites from Blacks, the number of Bantu in our urban areas has increased by over 2 million. Sir, what does that mean? It means that between 1951 and 1960 the Bantu in the urban areas were increasing by 120,000 a year, and between 1961 and 1967 the pace has gone up to 142,000 or 143,000 a year.

But opportunities for work also went up.

The hon. gentleman is perfectly correct. How is he going to separate the Bantu from the work opportunities; and having separated them, how is he going to maintain the economic standards of the Bantu and maintain the tempo of economic development in the White areas? Is this the separation of the races? [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. the Leader of the Opposition a chance to make his speech.

Is this the separation of the races? And you will notice, Sir, that I have made no mention of the rural areas. I am not satisfied with those figures and I prefer not to be associated with them. But there are indications of a very large increase as well.

Now, let us look at it from another angle. Take the figures for the manufacturing industry in South Africa, and you find that in 1961, in manufacturing industry, there were 30 per cent White workers in industry. By 1967 the figure was down to 25.4 per cent, and in 14 out of the 22 major industries in the manufacturing industry field there was an increase of Bantu. By 1971 it is estimated that the percentage of Whites in manufacturing industry will be 20 per cent. For just one year. 1966-’67, there was a news release from the Bureau of Statistics and they indicated that in certain leading industries, mining, manufacturing, construction, electricity, Railways and the Post Office, there was an increase of 38,000 Bantu in one year and a decrease of 3.000 Whites. Sir. I would say that these figures leave no doubt whatsoever that the South African economy is entirely dependent on the use of its non-White labour force. I think this was borne out last year when in October Mr. Tom Murray, the secretary of the Boilermakers’ Union, suggested to the Government that they should apply their own job reservation policy in the engineering industry in the White areas only. But what happened? There was an immediate reaction from the Minister of Labour who was most indignant. He wanted to know what was going to happen to the 200-odd thousand Bantu in the engineering industry; where they were going to get employment, and he wanted to know where the Whites were to be obtained who were going to do their work. He said it would create chaos in the industry. Mr. Speaker, I agree with him; it would have created chaos in the steel industry. But by the same token is there any industry in South Africa in which there would not be chaos if the Bantu labour force were removed?

That is the problem, Sir, and the whole fact of the matter is that separation is not taking place; integration is taking place and at a faster rate than at any time in our history. And yet their objective, Sir, is separation of the White from the Black. I know the Government has been trying desperately to window-dress the situation. First of all, there was the job reservation policy. Sir, that has not reduced the number of Bantu in white industries. In any event, it affects only 2 per cent of the entire working population. Now we have the Physical Planning Act, and one of the objectives of that is to decrease the number of Bantu labourers in the metropolitan areas. The hon. the Minister is on record as saying: “If any new zoning of industrial land meant an increase of Bantu workers then I would not give permission for it. Even a ratio of one white worker to one Bantu worker would mean an increase of Bantu labour and therefore would be disallowed.” Sir, that is all very well, but there are certain hard facts of life about South African industry, and the first is that in only one industry of the 22 major industries do Whites outnumber Bantu, and the second is that in the rest, Bantu outnumber Whites by approximately three to one. But when you come to agriculture and mining, of course, the figure is nine to one. If the Minister is planning to reduce that labour force, then he is planning something very drastic indeed. I believe he is not going to succeed, number one, because white industries need Black labour; and number two, because the Government is failing to create sufficient employment for the Bantu in their own areas, and that is one of the vital things. Then, Sir, there has been another device and that is to turn all Bantu labour in the Republic into migrant labour. We know what is happening. They are allowed to work here for a period; then they have to go back to the reserves and queue up to come again, and there seems a danger that in due course they may lose the protection which some of them have under Section 10. I suppose the object is to strengthen their bonds with the reserves and to create the impression with the public that they are only here temporarily. But, Sir, is that going to reduce the number of Black workers? I do not believe that it is going to reduce the number. I believe it is merely going to mean that all of them are going to be foreigners and migrants and that we shall find that 80 per cent of our labour force consists of foreigners and migrants and that we have all the evils of migrant labour attaching to the full 80 per cent of our labour force. Hon. members opposite are very conversant with the evils of migrant labour. They were well dealt with in Die Kerkbode of October last year by Dominee A. M. Scheffler. This is what he said (translation)—

Then, Sir, he went on to deal with immorality, homosexuality and the unhealthy state of affairs of these people being away from their homes, crowded together as they are, and pointed out that everybody who knew anything about it knew that this evil was on the increase.

Do you object to mine labour?

Sir, this is the parrot-cry that comes from the other side of the House when this matter is discussed. Let me deal with it at once. Quite obviously in the reserves and amongst the Bantu population there are numbers of young men who are not yet married for whom migrant labour is a very useful outlet. Obviously also there are certain industries in which it is very difficult to spend capital on housing because they are of a temporary nature, and the hon. gentlemen know only too well that mining is one of those.

The Chamber of Mines …

The hon. member talks about the Chamber of Mines. Why was it that when the new minefields were opened in the Free State and the people involved in opening those mines asked permission to have a certain percentage of their labourers permanently there with home ownership and their families with them, it was turned down by this Government? Why was it? If migrant labour on the mines is a bad thing, why extend it? I am saying that migratory labour is open to many evils and I am saying that the system which is now being embarked upon by this Government is going to lead to greater inefficiency in our labour, a lack of permanency, a lack of training, and a lack of benefits not only to the employer but the employee as well.

Are you in favour of every Black worker coming here bringing his whole family along?

No, of course not. How can the hon. gentleman ask such idiotic questions? I have said where possible I am extremely anxious for them to enjoy family life and home ownership. I realize I cannot change South Africa overnight. I am not like one of these Ministers who think they can say “abracadabra” and the Bantu question is gone. I am a realist, I know what is happening in South Africa, and I can tell this hon. the Minister that one can cut migratory labour down a great deal and it will result in greater efficiency in the labour force, greater productivity, a greater rate of economic growth, and far more settled and happier conditions for everybody in this country.

It is against this background of failure that I think we have to look at the border industry policy and we have to find out what contribution that is making. The first thing one has to notice about the border industry policy is that the industries are still in the white areas, they are not in the Bantu areas,

The intention has always been for them to be in the white areas.

The hon. the Deputy Minister says that is the intention. Quite right, and therefore the integration between Black and White economically is going on just the same as before. The only difference is it is going on at a far greater rate because they are encouraged in the border industries to use more and more Black workers and to let them do jobs which Whites are doing in other industries at lower rates of pay. The result is that the ratio in border industries is round about seven Blacks to one white. So one cannot say that border industries are doing much to separate the people. The only really successful border industries have been near the big cities, and whether the industries are developed there or at places like Vereeniging and Springs, is meaningless when you judge the number of Bantu in white areas and the separation of the races. I think the only significant advance in border industries, and that I give hon. members opposite as a present, it that it does help solve some sociological problems in that you get rid of migrant labour for border industries on the whole, you allow those people to live with their own families, a few hundred yards away, perhaps, or a mile or two away across the border in the Bantu reserve.

What has been achieved with this policy so far? According to the report, by 1967 there were employed in border industries in South Africa some 60,000 souls of which 47,000 were Bantu. This is only a drop in the ocean when you realize that our labour force is 2¼ million employed in the main industries of whom 1,418,000 are Bantu. Of the 1,418,000 Bantu 46,000 or 47,000 are now employed in border industries.

Where did you get that figure?

I think the Bureau gave it.

The figure of 47,000 is not correct.

I will accept the hon. the Minister’s denial.

Those are additional.

I accept that; the hon. the Minister is quite right: These are the additional people for whom work has been found over the last six or seven years. But the actual figure, if you have regard to those who were there when the Government took over, who were put there by the old United Party government … [Interjections.] I give it to him as a present. So we find that 46,000 more have been employed in this last six-year period. What has it cost per job per Bantu employed? If one adds up what has been spent by the Government and by private enterprise, it works out at roundabout R10,000 per job. No wonder the Minister of Planning says that border development is too slow.

Now we find that the industrialists are reluctant to undertake new projects until there is greater certainty about future development, the industrial climate and a stable domestic market. I know the Government has tried to provide even greater inducements for those engaging in border industries, and already there is a very impressive list. We have had a new list of growth points, some of which obviously are going to be developed by the expenditure of vast sums of Government money, like the Richards Bay-Empangeni complex. But nevertheless, there seems to be no prospect whatever that by 1971 border industries will give annually work to an additional 23,500 Bantu, which the I.D.C. regards as the minimum, because of the activities of the Minister of Planning and the desire to limit Bantu employment in white areas. But if employment is given to 23,500 a year, what is it going to cost to create those jobs?

At the present rate of expenditure it means that that development is going to cost R235 million a year. Where is that money coming from? 23,500 a year is only a drop in the ocean when one has regard to the fact that Bantu should be moved back into the reserves at the rate of approximately 400,000 per annum. One must never forget that before we can move Bantu back into the reserves, one has to create sufficient jobs for over 90,000 in natural increase in the reserves to be supported in the reserves each year. The trouble with this border industry development is that it militates against development inside the reserves, because these industries tend to be the kind that could be developed in the reserves. They militate against it, and development tends towards the nearest White growth centre outside the reserve where the industry is. It does not tend to development inside.

The second fact is that development of large towns on the borders of homelands of workers working in border industries leads to a lopsided and undesirable development of the reserves. Even the engineer advising the Department of Bantu Administration and Development made great play of that fact in a lecture in Pretoria.

The third question is: Is it going to work successfully? At Cape Town there is a lecturer in regional planning, Professor Barac. He dealt with this matter in a lecture which he delivered in November of last year:

The establishment of new growth points should be done on a preferential basis, and only in the areas where a thorough investigation shows that they have a chance of undertaking their own economic development.

What is his comment, Mr. Speaker? He knew of no such investigation in the border areas. He pointed to what is happening in Britain. He showed how they had these ideas and how they failed, how finally they only moved industries to areas where there was an industrial infrastructure existing, and where there was such an existing network of transport and industry already that they had a chance of developing. He concluded his lecture by saying:

One of the matters that is worrying about this establishment of border industries is that the Government has a positive policy: But it also has a negative policy. It is discouraging the growth and extension of industries in many of the existing industrial areas where economic conditions are most favourable.

Is it not lopsided?

Yes, it is quite lopsided. Here is what was said by Professor Viljoen of the Department of Planning at the University of Pretoria—

Are they being encouraged there, Mr. Speaker? What is happening in the Western Cape at the moment? Try to get a Bantu for an industry in the Western Cape. The only man allowed to have them is the hon. the Minister of Transport. He gets additional ones. Who else gets additional Bantu labour in this area?

Blaar has given his permission.

Yes, I forgot about the hon. the Minister. How do we sum the situation up? I suggest that we sum it up in this way: The border industries are developed at a great expense. They are developed by means of negative as well as positive measures. They assist in the solution of certain sociological problems, but as a means of achieving the Government’s ideal of separation they are an utter failure. They do not separate Black from White economically, but instead bring them together faster in new areas. They do not create separate nations or states, but I think they illustrate the futility of such a concept in South Africa.

What other means can the Government use to promote separation and the development of the separate states? Quite obviously one method is massive development in the reserves to support a greater population and to magnetize labour from the White areas into the reserves. Do you know how much industrial development there is at the present time in the reserves, Mr. Speaker? I believe that in the Transkei 1,700 are employed in industries and that during the last six years new jobs in industry have been created for less than 1,000 Bantu in all the reserves in South Africa. If one should say that the mountain bore a mouse, I think that one would be insulting the mouse in this case. For these 945 jobs R1,100,000 has been spent on new factories. What has been spent on transport, housing, water, and other things we do not know. What is so interesting about this is that 12 years ago Tomlinson realized that the objectives which he set out were very limited, namely 10 million people in the reserves by 1990. He did not envisage the moving of 400,000 Bantu a year. Tomlinson believed that if he was to get 10 million Bantu in the reserves by about 1990, they would have to create, on an average, 20,000 new jobs in industry every year in the reserves. This means that during the last six years we should have created 120,000 new jobs in industry. We only created 945. This is the massive development in the reserves. A year ago there was a tour of those reserves by city councillors, managers of Bantu Affairs departments, and people of that kind. Practically everyone who came back and reported was disappointed at what they had seen and pointed out that those reserves would not take one-quarter of the number that will be necessary to carry out the Government’s policy. While this delay is taking place the inhabitants of the reserves are getting poorer and poorer and not richer and richer. At the time of the Tomlinson Commission it was estimated that they were earning R25.8 per head in the reserves. To-day Dr. Adendorff says that they are earning only R22 per head in the reserves. Tomlinson estimated that the annual income per head in the reserves was R48. They got the rest from outside. It was being sent to them by people working outside. To-day, 16 years later, it is R53 per head. Have regard to the value of money, and you see that the standard of living of those people has been falling. It has not risen. This is the “massive development”, Sir. This is what the Nationalist Party propaganda describes as “oreating a decent living fit for humans as soon as possible in the Bantu homelands, as the Christian principles of the apartheid policy demands”. At this rate, Sir, it is perfectly clear that there is no hope whatever that the majority of the Bantu will ever be able to live in those homelands in decent circumstances. It is absolutely cynical for this Government to turn around and tell people that they can have their rights in those homelands when they know that they will never be able to support themselves there for as far as we can see into the future.

I want to say something else about this. On a previous occasion in this House I challenged the Government to disprove that if the reserves were to be developed at anything like the rate that Tomlinson envisaged, it would mean the resettlement of 400,000 families and that it would probably cost R800 million. That has never been denied, Sir. I have never been challenged on it. I want to mention an example of what has been happening. The example I want to take is the example of the Zulu nation, whose condition has recently been pretty competently examined by the agricultural editor of the Mercury. Here is what he found: He found that at a conservative estimate, there are 2 million Bantu in Natal who are going to have to be resettled and that for a large number of them jobs would have to be found. In the Tugela Basin alone he estimated that there was 500,000 unemployed. Sir, I visited the Tugela Basin, not so long ago with the hon. member for South Coast. I cannot describe to you what I saw there. I cannot describe to you the poverty that exists there. I cannot tell you what the soil looks like. But, Sir, I know that the Department of Bantu Administration and Development is already planning for Natal. They are planning 40 new Bantu towns in Natal to house 800,000 people. But it is not just 800.000 that have to be moved. The number is going to increase to 2 million very soon if it has not reached that figure already. This is going to require 300,000 new houses which, with the cost of resettlement, is going to mean an expenditure of approximately R200 million. But while 300,000 houses are necessary, only between 600 and 700 houses of a presentable type have been built outside the Port Natal area.

That is one problem. The other problem is that of these 2 million people. 1½ million are not going to be able to make a living agriculturally in the future. They are going to have to be settled in industrial areas. So, quite apart from the cost of resettlement, what do you imagine it is going to cost to provide jobs for those 1½ million breadwinners? I know that they will not all be breadwinners. Perhaps one in three or one in four will be breadwinners, but what is it going to cost? You see, Sir, this is the extent of the problem in Natal alone, leaving aside the Government’s ideological aims and just looking at it as a sociological problem. You tell me, Sir, what hope has the Government of transforming these impoverished areas, each one a socio-economic problem of overwhelming magnitude on its own, into nation states that will afford acceptable outlets for the social, economic, political and other desires and ambitions of the Bantu people? Their only hope of rehabilitation is that they are part of a prosperous South Africa and that South African enterprise all over the country is offering them opportunities to work and to earn and eventually to prosper themselves.

The Government has been warned by many authorities of the dangers of delay and the dangers of allowing political progress to outstrip economic progress. We had a warning last year from Dr. Olivier, the Commissioner-General for Ovamboland, who warned that if the process of decreasing the numbers of Africans in the White areas proceeded at a slower rate, it might as well be abandoned. He went on to say that large-scale development of the homelands was the only possibility of making the policy a success. We had warnings from Professor Coetzee of Potchefstroom University, who warned that a slow rate of development or stagnation could lead to revolution, which could lead to other things of a less desirable nature. He made it clear that time and numbers were formidable allies in the fight against the Government. One must try to estimate what it is going to cost to develop these reserves in order to get this policy off the ground. I have repeatedly asked in this House what it will cost. I have had no cooperation from the Government so far. I know that there is a five-year plan which is being applied, and that it is expected that about R100 million per year will be spent up to the year 1971. Then I know that there are 400.000 families to be moved at a cost of R800 million. Possibly ten years could be set aside for that. That should be an additional R80 million per year. Then there is work to be found in industry for the natural increase of 39,000 in the reserves each year. What will that cost, Sir? Then there is the question of border industries. Money will have to be spent. It will be spent outside the reserves, it is true. If one totals the lot up, Sir, one reaches a figure of between R600 and R700 million annually, just to get this policy off the ground; just to reach a stage where one may find a platform from which to start.

If they work on the Witwatersrand, it will not cost anything!

The hon. gentleman says that if they work on the Witwatersrand, it will not cost anything. Mr. Speaker, if you have regard to the vast numbers of unemployed, then this is over and above what would have to be spent on the Witwatersrand. If you have regard to the fact that the infra-structure for industry already exists up there and that many factories have the opportunity of merely expanding and extending, then I think the hon. gentleman begins to realize how foolish that remark of his was. You see, Sir, we are not helped by the vague statement we had from the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development last year. When we asked him what it was going to cost, what was his reply? He said: This is our policy and we are carrying it out. It does not matter what it costs. [Interjections.] Does it not, Mr. Speaker? He is going to repeat it. You know, Sir, I am beginning to think that there are two possible reasons for this reticence of the hon. the Minister. Either the fact is that he does not know, or he does know and the figure is so large that he realizes that the whole policy is impracticable. The more I look into the figures, the more I begin to think that the second is the real cause. He is afraid to tell the public of South Africa what it has cost to get this policy off the ground. That is the difficulty he is up against. I think that it is time we had a frank confession from the hon. the Prime Minister. I think he owes it to the public of South Africa. They have been told that they will have to make sacrifices. How big are those sacrifices going to be? What is the effect going to be on the economy of development of this kind and expenditure of this kind, and of a removal or change of the centre of industrial development from the White complexes to the non-White complexes? I know that the hon. the Prime Minister is in a difficult position. He has, as I have said before, three groups, each eagerly wanting to know where they stand with him. There are the sincere idealists in his party, quite prepared to make any sacrifice to carry out the policy, or almost any sacrifice. Then he has got the realists, who, after 20 years of frustration, are prepared to accept limited objectives, but want blueprints to know what the Government is going to do and what it is going to cost. Then, Sir, he has the blunt and the bluff, the true-blooded Nationalists, the people who have never believed that he intended to give the Bantustans sovereign independence, the people steeped in the pre-1948 tradition who are adamant about not spending money on the Bantu if they can possibly help it. These are the three groups the hon. gentleman faces. They are not going to have significant amounts of money spent on non-White peoples. But each of those three groups is entitled to know from the Prime Minister where he stands, and whether the Nationalist Party under this Prime Minister is still worthy of its support, because I have difficulty in seeing how all three groups can stay in one party like that. But above all, the people have a right to know who are the people of South Africa who are being called upon to make the sacrifices. They have a right to be told what is expected of them. At present it is just a case of blind man’s buff and they do not know where they are going, and they doubt whether the Prime Minister knows where he is taking them.

Let me say that for our part, on this side of the House, it is really not of much importance what the Prime Minister answers. We are satisfied in our own minds that this policy has failed. We believe that every day that passes and every month that passes is going to show more and more to the public of South Africa that this policy has failed. I think the cardinal question to-day is not whether this policy can succeed or not. The cardinal question is what policy can be substituted for it. [Interjection.] Sir, I have said before in this House complete integration is as unacceptable as separate nation states are impracticable and dangerous. I have said before in this House that obviously the reserves must be developed to carry the maximum possible population and to release the pressures of their impoverished people on those areas already economically developed by the White people. Obviously the Bantu in the reserves, because of their poverty, can make very little contribution. Therefore it is going to fall on the White economy. But I believe the development of the reserve? must be achieved on a practical and realistic basis which the people of South Africa can afford, and without disrupting the existing economy. I believe that to achieve this objective the greatest single weapon which the Government could use, the weapon we would certainly use, is to employ private White capital and the economic skill and initiative of the White man, subject to proper safeguards, not only to enter the reserves, but to be used to encourage and activate the economy of the reserves. We stated our policy in that regard as early as 1954. May I read it to you, Sir—

Sir, there are many converts to that point of view to-day. There are intellectuals in the Nationalist Party; we have had members of SABRA; we have had church leaders; we have even had some of the Nationalist newspapers accepting that view. Does not the Government side realize that by the use of private White capital, subject to the right safeguards, they could develop those reserves at infinitely less cost to the State and the taxpayer? Do they not realize that by making use of private White capital they could develop those reserves very much more rapidly?

How do you know White capital will go there?

Why do you stop it then?

We are realistic enough at the same time to realize that no matter how the reserves develop, neither now nor in the future will it be possible for us to dispense with the Bantu labour force in our existing industrial and mining areas, on our farms and in our homes, just as we accept that it will not be possible to squeeze the entire Native population into the reserves. Even Tomlinson realized that, despite the fact that he envisaged development at a far greater tempo than this Government has ever undertaken. I want to say, Sir, that it will be our aim to establish this labour force as a stable element with, wherever possible, rights to family life and home ownership and with a real stake in maintaining a law-abiding South African society, an element, in fact, in marked contrast to the rightless, rootless mass of migrants with which this Government is encircling our industrial centres. But at the same time potential points of friction will be avoided and race harmony fostered by accepting that social and residential separation have become part of the convention and the traditions of the South African way of life.

Sir, there is another point, and that is that while we accept the permanence of both an urban and a rural Bantu labour force, that acceptance does not mean that we can dispense with influx control. That control remains necessary to prevent social chaos and economic injustice. The hon. gentlemen know what I mean by that. The labour force will be encouraged to make its contribution to the production of our national wealth, and to that end will be afforded training and education within the framework of our industrial democracy. We cannot compete in world markets and compete against highly trained labour forces with a labour force that is illiterate and untrained or semi-trained. But at the same time we make it clear that in no circumstances will the employment of that labour force be permitted to undermine the standards already achieved by other population groups. In this matter the Government will share the vigilance of our existing trade union movement. I am convinced that such a policy will open new vistas of achievement in the South African economy from which all sections of the population will benefit most substantially. Of course, Sir, what worries most South Africans is not the economic side but the political structure of the South Africa of the future. I want to say I share that concern, because White South Africans, outnumbered as they are by many millions of Bantu, very often at a very low state of development, a primitive state of development, have fears for the future which I believe are reasonable. I do not believe the concept of apartheid as it is now developing will ever allay those fears, because the policy is being shown to be more and more impracticable. The races in South Africa are not separated economically, politically and territorially. We can practise conventional separation, especially on the social and residential levels, and I have already indicated that that is sensible. But to think that we can live in separate states, divorced from one another, I believe is a complete impracticability. Now, as I have indicated, we cannot contemplate a completely integrated society. That would be to ignore the truth and to deny the facts and to create disorder and utter confusion in South Africa. We recognize that instead of offering a policy that will not work, and instead of seeking the doubtful security of a smaller South Africa, and eventually a defenceless South Africa, with 80 per cent of its labour force consisting of foreigners, surrounded by eight independent Black states, we want to see real security and happiness offered to all sections of the South African community.

We believe that we can obtain that security and have loyalty on the part of all sections of the population to one State by adopting a federal form of constitution. South Africa will remain a multi-racial state. We accept that. It will continue to contain peoples with different languages and different colours and at various stages of development. Our goal is a State in which each racial community or group will control matters intimately concerning itself to the full extent which is consistent with the stability and welfare both of the whole State and of the other constituent communities. I want to emphasize that as far as we can see ahead, the peace and the necessary progress of our people can only be achieved by maintaining the leadership and the political control of the White people in South Africa. I know I will be told by the idealists on the other side that this means there will not be equality between the various race groups in the federation that we propose. Of course they will not.

What about Japie’s federation?

The hon. member will find that that is the same if he looks into the problem. Sir, I know I will be told that there is not equality between the groups. Of course there is not. Why should there be? If the real interests of South Africa as a whole as well as the interests of every community here can best be served and advanced by leadership of the White group, why should we deny that leadership to the people of South Africa? We believe that that leadership is the responsibility of the White man in South Africa …

How can you guarantee it?

… and we believe it is the responsibility which we dare not shirk as this Government is wanting to do with its policy. We say that we are willing to share our civilization but we are not willing to sacrifice it.

Is that not a pipe dream?

The accent of our policy will be on the development of all the groups in South Africa. They will be kept under one Government but not brought into one social system.

And supposing they reach the same stage of development?

Mr. Speaker, this is a question which the hon. the Prime Minister has put before to-day and I replied to him by saving that 300 years ago when we came to South Africa there was a big difference between the civilization of the European and the non-European. Three hundred years have passed. Have we stood still in that time? Are we at the same stage that Jan van Riebeeck was?

Do you then envisage equal development?

Sir, so far as I can see into the future I have faith that the White man can maintain his position in South Africa. I think that is the fundamental difference between the Prime Minister and myself. I think he has not got faith in the White man. Look at the different standards of civilization to-day between Whites and non-Whites in South Africa. Is it going to change over the next 300 years?

Do you therefore envisage permanent White political domination in South Africa?

Mr. Speaker, I prefer the word “leadership”; it has another connotation and the hon. the Minister knows it. Sir. I believe that the various races will still be able to satisfy the natural inclination in people to be governed by and to associate with their own kind. The picture of our federal system then emerges as follows—I want to try to clarify it to the best of my ability for hon. members opposite: Firstly, a separate voters’ roll for each group; secondly, a communal council or councils …

How would you compile those rolls?

Sir, I do not quite understand the implication of the question.

Would you make use of the population register to compile those rolls?

I do not think it is necessary. [Interjections.] I do not think it is necessary for the following reasons: From the time of Union we had Coloureds on a separate roll from Whites; we had Coloureds going to different schools from Whites; we never had a population register. From 1936 until this Government abolished the Bantu Representatives in this House we had representatives of the Bantu people and a separate roll for the Bantu. I do not recall a population register being used. That is the sort of non-sensical question one gets from that side. Sir, let me start again. The picture of our federal system emerges as follows: Firstly, separate voters’ rolls for each group; secondly, a communal council or councils for each of the non-White groups; thirdly, defined representation for each group in the central Parliament and, fourthly, links between the groups in their various communal councils and the central Parliament by a system of statutory standing committees. Specifically, the position of the Bantu under this system will be (a) that he will have separate voting rights; (b) he will elect eight White representatives to the House of Assembly and six to the Senate; (c) he will enjoy a high level of self-administration in the reserves and also in the separate areas which he occupies in urban and rural South Africa; and (d) his interests will be further served by statutory standing committees linking Parliament with the authorities in the reserves and the Bantu communal councils representing those permanently outside the reserves.

What about the Coloureds and the Indians [Interjections.]

Sir, let me help the Minister of Transport. He and I have a little dialogue every year. This is the result of a resolution taken at the Central Congress of the party the year before last and discussed in this House, particularly when we discussed the question of the Coloureds going on to a separate roll and the recommendation of the Select Committee that there be a standing Select Committee to liaise with that Coloured Council. If the hon. the Minister would look at the Part Appropriation debate he will find that I dealt with it there very fully.

Now, Sir, having brought the hon. gentleman up to date, may I say that that will be the political structure of the federal state. But what I want to emphasize is that it will not be subject to sudden changes and abuses by chance majorities. Indeed we guarantee and will see that it is written into the Constitution that no change can be made in the parliamentary representation of the Bantu or the other non-White races or communities without the approval of the White electorate specifically obtained at a general election or a referendum.

By the Whites only?

By the Whites only—the White veto, if you like to put it that way. Sir, I know that I am going to be told by hon. members opposite that there will be non-White groups desiring greater repre sentation, that they may bring pressure to bear on the Government of the day, especially if that Government depends for its maintenance of a majority on non-White support, and I will be told that because of that they will be unable to resist that pressure. Sir, there is no chance of horse-trading of that kind under our policy. They will have to go back to the electorate and get the approval of the electorate at a general election or a referendum of the White voters of South Africa. I believe that that is the strongest guarantee of the maintenance of White leadership that we can hope to have in any Constitution.

How does the territorial federation that the hon. member over there advocates differ from that scheme?

Sir, I leave the hon. member to deal with the Minister. I think he is getting a little confused. He was confused about the standing committees and he is even more confused about this issue.

He is just confused.

Let us go a little further. It is clear that our idea of a federal state is a concrete and practical alternative to what I regard as a theoretical and utterly impractical policy advocated by the Government. I believe that the Government’s failure is going to become more and more apparent every day and, I believe, the public are going to become more and more ready to accept a policy based on this federal concept as the failure of the Government’s policy becomes more apparent. You see, Sir, we cannot go on as we are doing. The whole security of South Africa is being endangered and undermined by the failure of the Government’s policy. We are now in the position that the reserves cannot absorb their own natural increase, let alone those whom the Minister is wanting to send back. We are reaching a position where labour is being restricted in certain areas and there is surplus labour in other areas and we are finding many thousands of them unemployed and not allowed to come into the areas where they would like to have additional labour but are being prevented from doing so for ideological reasons by this Government. In fact, the whole policy is crumbling around the ears of the hon. the Prime Minister. I want to say to him quite bluntly this afternoon that it is not statesmanship to continue stubbornly on a road which is sign-posted to disaster. The time has come for a re-appraisal and an admission and that admission is that there is a third road between complete integration and complete separation. Sir, the hon. gentleman points an accusing finger at me. What is the Government’s road in respect of Coloureds and Indians—complete integration or complete segregation?

Zip!

You see, Sir, these hon. gentlemen opposite, who are wonderful theorists, have told us for years that there are only two roads—complete separation or complete integration. Where are they going with the Coloureds and Indians? You see, Sir, South Africa in fact followed a middle road for 300 years. This Government was forced off that road, a road which was neither complete separation, neither complete integration. It was forced off this road by forces which Dr. Verwoerd admitted were brought into play from outside South Africa. “When we have regard to forces which ‘toesak op ons’ ”, were his words. I believe these outside pressures were instigated by and came from the propaganda put out by the Communists and by the Afro-Asian block. I think that the time has come to get away from the foreign influence road that we are on and to come back to a home-made policy, a policy related to the realities and the fundamental truths of the South African situation. And one of these truths, perhaps the most fundamental of them all, is that South Africa, all South Africa, needs White leadership. Sir, the Prime Minister’s policy denies that. We on this side of the House, because of our experience and our history, are constrained to think that White leadership is necessary, and this is one of the reasons why we have no confidence in the Government.

Mr. Speaker, although I do not feel that I shall need it, I am nevertheless requesting the privilege of the hour. Year after year we have to listen to the speech of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and read in the newspapers that this time it was his poorest speech. Well, this year I want to anticipate everybody, even your own train of thought, Mr. Speaker, by saying that the speech which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has just made was in fact his poorest speech ever. In fact, it is a speech which can only be described as primitive, because that is all it was. It is a primitive one for a person who wants to bring a mighty Government down—a mighty Government such as this one—and even more primitive for a trivial little Opposition that wants to take over the government of the country. It was, in fact, a primitive speech.

You should rather state your arguments.

I shall do so as soon as the hon. member has woken up. [Interjections.] As far as the speech of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is concerned, I do not want to say much about it now, since I shall be returning in the course of my speech to several of the points he made. From his poor speech it became clear to us, if we think back to their congresses, why so many aspiring leaders are now making their appearance in his Party. If it is so easy for us to spot the deterioration in the leadership of the United Party from outside, then they probably accept it far more regretfully themselves from the inside. In the process, as we know, the hon. member for Durban (Point) of course lost his own little job in Natal. In addition the speech of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was a speech without vision. Towards the end the Leader of the Opposition did in fact try to present himself in a better light by trying to put forward something as an alternative, so as not merely to express a lack of confidence, but to present something of his own programme as well. But in reply to an interjection from this side he had to acknowledge that what he dished up for us here was merely old warmed up left-overs. I think I must now leave my general impressions of his speech at that.

In his speech he sounded two vague notes. The one was that the tempo of development and the application of separate development by this Government was allegedly too slow; the other, that the application of our policy had already failed. Of that his side of the House, so he said, was convinced. Well, Mr. Speaker, I expected him to sound more notes but these will probably come from the bigger guns on his side. At this juncture I want to dwell for a moment on the two notes in the speech of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition; the so-called failure of our policy and the so-called insufficiently rapid tempo of development.

If one listened to the underlying motivation of his speech, then it is a tragedy that he should criticise us on this side because, as he said, we were not doing enough, or not doing what we did rapidly enough to achieve our objectives in regard to apartheid, but stated in the same breath that if we wanted to do more than we were already doing it was going to cost so much that our country would not be able to afford it. The tragic aspect of this is that he does not in actual fact want what he is asking us to proceed more rapidly towards. It is thus very difficult to follow the logic of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in this connection. He quoted individuals in support of his point of view, people who want nothing to do with him. All these people are amongst the most confirmed supporters of the policy of this side of the House. In fact, if there is anything which would cause them sleepless nights, it is the possibility, even the vague possibility, that he may succeed in coming into power with his policy. In other words, he is calling upon false witnesses to support his case. In reply to an interjection from this side of the House, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition stated that if his policy were to be applied, the price to be paid for it would be very much lower, very much lower on the Witwatersrand and in our urban areas in general. These are of course generalizations and spurious arguments. I maintain that in actual currency it will not be cheaper. But apart from that, what really alarms us are the other things we shall have to sacrifice. There are many things we would have to sacrifice. The first of these would be the illusionary White leadership of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. That is the first thing which would have to be sacrificed. Gradually more things would have to be sacrificed, and ultimately our identity as Whites would also have to be sacrificed. That is why I want to repeat what I said last year, i.e. that it makes no difference what the application of our policy is going to cost, we are going to apply it.

When?

We shall do it, as we have always maintained, gradually, year after year, as circumstances permit. I shall return to this argument later. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has stated that complete integration was equally unacceptable to him. But it is of no avail their preaching and telling us in empty words that complete integration is unacceptable to them. If complete integration is supposedly unacceptable to them, then they must not toy with half and quarter integration, because the partial integration with which they are toying, leads them inevitably to complete integration.

And what about the Coloureds?

The point I am dealing with is the question of the United Party’s policy. The hon. member can raise his points when he is given the opportunity to speak, and I shall reply to him when it is necessary.

Why do you not reply to me now?

I am dealing with my own argument now. Hon. members opposite need not be afraid that they will not get all the answers. We shall be busy here for six months.

But I should like to take a closer look at the two notes in the speech of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. As far as these matters are concerned, there are certain general principles which one must first discuss. My old friend the Minister of Planning quite rightly reminded me that I would have to instruct the Opposition in fundamental principles this afternoon. He was quite right, although I have no intention of doing so from A to Z this afternoon. Nevertheless, there are certain general principles which one must take into account when one has to discuss these two notes in the speech of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. In addition, there is specific information on which attention must be focused in order to indicate what tendencies are displayed by the development, i.e. acceleration, improvements, etc. In all the discussion and writings we have recently had, particularly from the side of the Opposition, we have heard very little about such a fundamental approach and such a comprehensive summary. They never came forward with particulars, it was simply stated in general terms that the policy had failed and that the tempo was too slow. But with this application of our policy, with all the success which we are meeting with from year to year …

Where?

In South Africa, of course … what we are getting from the Opposition and from their newspapers is precisely the same recipe as we are getting from the U.N. As we achieve success with the objectives we set ourselves, so they cry louder and louder that we are failing. The greater the success we achieve in the international sphere as well as with the application of our policy and those things which annoy the people at U.N., the louder they shout there that we are endangering the safety of the world here, and that we in South Africa constitute a threat to all. The Opposition does the same thing. The greater our success the louder the noise they make, and next year and the year after that the noise is going to be even louder than it is this year, because our successes are multiplying.

The picture we must have of our policy and the assessment of the rate of our work depends upon the reconciliation, of the balance, which must be brought about among the following five principles—I want to call them the five realities. I am not going to elaborate very much on each one of them; in fact, I am simply going to mention them because I have already discussed them extensively. It depends upon the human ability of the Bantu nations to absorb that development. That is number one. In the second place it depends upon the natural innate desire for self-realization of each of those Bantu nations, in the same way as any nation in the world has an innate desire for self-realization. That must be taken into account. In the third place it depends upon the financial means available for that development, available from those nations themselves and available from us who are their guardians and who want to aid them. In the second place it depends upon the general consent of the white community to the continuation of that development and the Opposition ought to know that. In the fifth place it depends upon the rapid passage of time, because we do not have an eternity in which to do everything. But there is one factor which the Opposition must realize, particularly my good friends who want the policy implemented so rapidly. We need not finalize the policy in the present day and age and in our own lifetimes. They must strike a balance as far as the coherence of these five very important factors is concerned, each of which plays its own role. I say to you, Sir, that the Government is prepared, and proves this every day, to do everything in its power from day to day to allow the development to take place as rapidly as possible, but “rapidly as possible” depends upon the factors which I have just outlined.

However, we must realize that it is not only the Government which has a role to play in this matter. There is also the public, the white public as well as the Bantu public, which has a role to play in this matter. I have already said enough about that. In this connection we must remember that it is extremely important that each one of these nations in question should generate its own development, rather than that it should be done for them from the outside, while they remain mere spectators. That truth we find implicit in a very well-known expression with which we have been well acquainted in Afrikaans for many years, i.e. the words of Father Kestell, who said, “A nation saves itself”. We find that same concept implied in the following words which were spoken by the American Chinese—or Chinese American—Dr. James Yen, who wrote the following—

That is the principle on which we are operating, but the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and many interested parties, do not realize this fact thoroughly enough. They want everything to be pumped in from outside, and what is more with the greatest speed and haste. I want to say this to you, Sir: We have had a gigantic task merely to gain the co-operation of the Bantu as far as production and labour are concerned, and in that regard we have already achieved a tremendously large measure of success in South Africa. If you glance at the statistics you will see that, expressed as a percentage, the number of economically active Bantu and the number of economically active Whites in South Africa are approximately the same. As a percentage there are almost as many economically active Bantu in South Africa as there are economically active Whites in South Africa. This proves that a large measure of willingness to work has already been instilled in the Bantu. But that is not all which must count. In addition to that there is also the ability to work, the ability to work perseveringly and continuously.

Hon. members opposite and all those people who talk about tempo must realize that one can quite appropriately use the image of the motor-car here, i.e. that one also starts off in first gear, and subsequently moves into second, and then into third and finally into fourth gear. After all, one does not jump from the first to the third gear. I think that too many people in South Africa, sociologists in particular, want us to tackle and implement everything in the homelands for the sake of speed, without the Bantu playing their own part in this. We know that anything of that kind is wrong. The uniformed do not know at what tempo development in respect of Bantu matters in the homelands has already been accelerated during the past few years, what our Department has done, how our Department has been reorganized, how its work and its methods have been reorganized, how we have been fortunate over the years in obtaining increased means with which to do things, and what development has taken place. Those people are unaware of these things. They do not contact us; they are unaware of these things, and the Opposition even more so. They do what the Opposition M.P.s do who go to the Bantu areas and make a point of avoiding the Bantu officials in those areas, of refraining from contacting them because they are afraid that they will hear something favourable about what is going on there. This has happened from Limehill to Msinga, throughout, everywhere the hon. members went.

That is not true.

I say it is true.

I say that I was with the officials when I was there.

I am not saying that all the hon. members opposite avoid the officials. Perhaps the hon. member did visit them, and I know that there is one other hon. member opposite who did the same, but the heroes of Limehill, the Fisher’s and the Suzman’s, and people like that, avoided the officials. I know what I am talking about because I went there to observe and hear for myself; I even had complaints there about the movements of hon. members opposite. [Interjections.] Yes, as a matter of fact I am sorry they did not sound that note because I brought along my hymn book for that note but now I cannot sing from it.

Too many people think, and it seems to me the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is one of them, that in order to reduce the numbers of Bantu in the white areas is our only task, and that that is the only criterion for ascertaining whether apartheid is succeeding or not. I want what I am now saying to be thoroughly understood. I do not want people who listen to me with half an ear to distort my words afterwards. I am saying that the reduction of the numbers of Bantu in white areas is an extremely important criterion and that it is a very important task, but it is not the only criterion. And do you know what, Sir? It is not even the most important criterion. There are various criteria, and our task is for more comprehensive than just that. There are in addition other points which also have to be taken into account. For example, I want to mention the following as being undoubtedly the most important criterion. I am referring to political say which is being ensured for the Whites in white South Africa and the compensatory political say which is being made possible for the Bantu in their own country. That is the most important criterion. When that criterion was mentioned in this same House several months before the death of the former Prime Minister a clamour went up from the Opposition side as if a new truth had been announced. I repeat: The most important criterion which should always be mentioned is there should be a guarantee that the say of the white nation should remain undisturbed for all time. In fact, we do guarantee it for all time if we remain in power with our policy in white South Africa. We do not immediately guarantee a measure of self-government, a consolation prize; we guarantee full possibilities for development, depending upon their own abilities, for the Bantu nations in their own countries here in South Africa.

What part of the country?

That hon. member knows what the answer is.

Another task we have in this connection is to bring home to everyone in Southern Africa, white and black, and most of all to the Opposition, that the composition of the South African masses is multi-national. In respect of that concept we have made tremendous progress, and in this Session we are going to take further gigantic strides forward as far as this is concerned.

A further task is to determine the method in regard to how the separation between Bantu and white in South Africa should take place on a social, economic, educational political and residential level. The fourth task is of course the economic development of the homelands, in regard to which I am also going to furnish hon. members with specific data. The fifth task is that of ensuring that those Bantu who are in fact necessary in the white area and who will have work—probably there will always be work for them—receive good treatment while they are here.

Those are only a few of the fundamental objectives and criteria which I have stated to hon. members. The Opposition and its Press must realize that they are not going to pull the wool over the eyes of the public of South Africa by trying to formulate the criteria of our apartheid policy themselves and then proving that we are not succeeding in achieving them. We formulate our own objectives, and we have been doing so since the time of that report from which the hon. member quoted and obviously did not read attentively up to the present. We formulate our policy, and we, as well as the voting public outside, decide whether we have achieved enough of our objectives during the course of the five years for which they have put us in office.

There was the jubilant campaign of which we heard such a faint echo from the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon, i.e. in regard to the numerical aspect. A great furore was created in regard to the numerical calculation made in 1956 of what the position would be in the year 2000, in regard to how many Bantu there would be in South Africa. Not even the very best mathematicians and jugglers of figures will ever succeed in getting close to the correct numbers if they want to try to count the Bantu. They may just as well try to count the birds in the heavens. We must see to it that we do the right thing and not burn the midnight oil working out figures. We must see to it that we do the right thing every day. As far back as 1956 no less a person than Dr. Verwoerd, who discussed those figures and dealt with those matters here, emphasized in this House, and to an even greater extent subsequently, that the figures were not the most important thing. Politics was the most important thing, as I have just outlined to you. The numerical picture has in fact been held up to us in order to emphasize that our policy is so essential, because—and this the Opposition does not understand at all, and neither do those poor newspaper columnists—if the numerical aspect has become so unfavourable according to these new figures, then surely it is all the more reason why our policy should be implemented. With such a preponderance of numbers, as they are now holding up as an example to us on the basis of those figures, a unified community on an integration basis is surely a rash undertaking for us in South Africa. Surely that is tantamount to trying to stem the encroaching waters with a rickety broom.

But you yourselves are integrating, to an ever-increasing extent.

No, Sir, I shall now reply to the hon. member. Whether that unified community rests on a race federation basis, a Basson confederation or whichever one it is, the Whites will be ploughed under far, far more quickly under their policy if the numerical aspect is supposedly so unfavourable. Under our policy this will not happen, because what remains is the guarantee for the White in his homeland which he reserves to himself alone. In point of fact the attitude of the Opposition in regard to this matter is that the numbers are in any case so overwhelming that we should not try to ensure the survival of the Whites by means of apartheid, because this will require too much time. We should rather apply integration, because in that case the end would come sooner.

Let us scrutinize these realities for a moment in the light of certain data. In the first place I want to make a general remark which is quite fundamental. It deals with the basis of the presence of Bantu persons in White areas. In the light of that we will also glance at examples of the success which we have already achieved in this connection. The tremendous and extremely fundamental difference between the basic principles of the two policies, a race federation alias confederation, and separate development is decisive here. On what basis are the Bantu admissible in White South Africa under their policy and under our policy. In this lies our salvation, i.e. the basis of the presence of the Bantu. As we have heard again here this afternoon the policy of the United Party is a little integration in the economic sphere and a little integration in the political sphere. I am not going to impute to them things they never said. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout will see to that. They were outspoken on these two topics. In the economic and the political spheres just a little integration has to be allowed. They did not want to admit that this will penetrate to the other spheres, such as the social, etc. These two important acknowledged fields of integration mean that an ever-increasing measure of equality will have to be established between White and Bantu individuals in the one geographical area and the one context, with, of course, an ever-increasing measure of friction, clashes and an ultimate swallowing up of the Whites. I know that as Opposition they do not advocate this. But their policy will inevitably lead to that. Everybody can perceive this, except those on the Opposition side, who turn a stone deaf ear. The National Party policy on the other hand states the following to be the basis of the presence of Bantu. Now the hon. member for Yeoville must listen very carefully. I am now replying to his question of a moment ago. The policy of the National Party is based on the very obvious truth to which I have just referred, i.e. that the Whites and Bantu in South Africa differ from one another so radically that they are separate nations and there is absolutely no possibility of considering any process of their becoming equal, and thus no opportunities for this should be created as is the case under their policy. For the Whites and for each Bantu nation separate development is the course. Bantu persons can be present in the White areas solely for their labour—not for a “stake” or a “share” in the Parliament, or for anything else, as the Opposition is intimating. Bantu individuals can be present in the White areas solely for their labour and in addition—and this we must understand very thoroughly, because we differ radically on this—not so that they can compete on an equal basis with the Whites, or on a basis which entails potential equality, so that when they attain that equality they can integrate with the Whites into one entity. That is the basis and for that reason we must now state for the umpteenth time in this House that the basis on which we organize our labour policy for the Bantu and allow the Bantu into our White area is not a basis for economic integration. This fact must be emphasized for the umpteenth time and it is a pity that we have to repeat it time and again each year. If one were to bring in the Bantu on the basis on which the United Party wants to do so, and assimilate them into politics in the way the United Party wants to do by first allowing the Bantu to achieve only a small measure of equality with the Whites, and subsequently perhaps a little more, even if they were first to succeed with a referendum, then this is the integrationistic basis which tends towards the ultimate achievement of equality between the White individuals and the Bantu individuals in politics or in the economy. A thing like this is not possible with us. There is a wall, a roof, and one cannot get past that. We state this openly, and cannot, nor dare not, conceal it. Nor do we wish to conceal it. The Bantu cannot strive towards the top on an equal footing with the Whites in our politics, social matters, labour, economy and education in White South Africa. This is our territory, and here there are only limited opportunities of that nature for them. In their homelands there are measureless and limitless opportunities for them, and there you, Mr. Speaker, and I, as Whites are in our turn restricted. That is the morality of our policy.

What about the Coloureds and the Indians?

We shall discuss that in due course. We are now discussing the Whites and the Bantu, and when I say that the Bantu are present in the White area solely for their labour, I also say at once that even if they are present here on an unequal basis in the field of labour and economy, and cannot therefore be integrated with the Whites, their numbers should still be limited. According to our policy one should be in the majority in one’s own homeland and in the minority in another person’s land.

Just a little integration.

Sir, that wise orator is simply demonstrating again how he refuses to understand what he understood very well a moment ago. I should like to mention a few examples. One should take a look at specific data in respect of the other theme which is now being mooted, i.e. that we have failed completely and it is pathetic that when one wants to demonstrate data, one always draws comparisons. We are now in the pathetic position, owing to our success, that we can no longer draw comparisons with the United Party because almost a quarter of a century has elapsed since they were last in power. We must now compare our own success with our own former success. We must do so in order to see whether our success has been good enough and whether or not there has been an improvement. The first examples I want to mention are the development of the Bantu authorities in South Africa. This is something in which the Opposition took no interest whatsoever. I know that, and in a moment when I come to my next point I shall wake them all up. They take no interest whatsoever in the development of Bantu authorities, but if there is one sphere of development in the homelands in which we have achieved great success, then it is with this very development of Bantu authorities. When the National Party came into power in 1948 there was a confusion and fragmentation of tribal organization. We put the tribal system in order and restored it to its rightful place, and on that basis we continued to build in terms of our Bantu authorities structure, which is a system of tribal authorities, regional authorities and territorial authorities, as hon. members ought to know. We went even further in the Transkei where a parliamentary authority was established in place of their territorial authority. These developments are quite fundamental. In this Parliament last year we also passed an Act in respect of the Bantu nations of South West Africa in order to make possible a Bantu authorities structure for them as well, because their government structure was even more dilapidated than those in many of our own Bantu areas in South Africa had been. During the past few months we have seen how three out of all the territorial authorities in South Africa which have already been established were converted into higher forms of authority by transferring to them more important and a greater amount of work. During the next few months there will be quite a number of additional authorities which will also be activated on the new basis towards an increasing measure of self-activity, with their own administrative departments, executive councils and legislative councils which will have more functions to perform, as well as an autonomous budget system and a great deal more than that. They will also be able to undertake a measure of legislation of their own. I want to ask the Opposition whether they do not think that to tackle this re-organization work in regard to eight Bantu authorities simultaneously and to make it possible in one year, as I and my Department have had to do during the past nine months, is not a gigantic achievement. They cannot form an opinion, because they know nothing about it, nor do they take any interest. I now want, on this the first opportunity I have, to pay unqualified and the greatest tribute and convey my thanks to my two Departments for the magnificent work which our officials have done. [Interjections.] I now hear the uproarious laughter of a dismissed former official on the other side, i.e. the hon. member for North Rand. That is the type of official we do not want in the Public Service. Thank God there are almost none of them left. It was a gigantic task to establish those eight authorities in their new shape. It is preceded by intensive work. Constitutions have to be discussed with the leaders of the Bantu nations in question. One consultation after another takes place under the leadership of our commissioners-general and our many Bantu officials, and each one of them acquitted themselves of their task with great distinction. Staff structures have to be worked out, and consultations have to be held on what activities will have to be transferred to them, and systems of estimates and a system of financial administration has to be worked out for the Bantu nations, auditing systems also have to be worked out, and on all these matters negotiations have to take place with numerous Government Departments. The work we accomplished in regard to these eight authorities of which one system in Ovamboland has already gone into operation, was a task which in scone was greater and more difficult than it subsequently was to bring the Transkei to a stage of parliamentary self-government. However, we are still being told that we are doing nothing, and that our policy is failing. According to the United Party’s concept the development of authorities plays no role in the Bantu affairs of the homelands. To us it is the number one, the fundamental, prerequisite. It is for this reason that I maintain that the success we achieved was a gigantic one. I should like to mention one example in this connection. There are five, six or seven departments—it differs a little from one nation to another—in the various homelands. In the three authorities alone which have already been placed on the new basis, the Department of Education alone created 366 posts for Bantu. The Bantu to fill these posts have to be found. They must be orientated and trained. Even the council members who are going to serve on these councils have to be orientated and trained, because they are now dealing with the procedure of the sittings in a council such as this. What do they know about that? They must be provided with guidance in that respect, and all this has to be done in a short space of time. I shall leave it at that. I think that is enough. Nevertheless I would just like in passing, in connection with our authorities, to call to mind something which cannot be allowed to escape the attention of this House. That is the dramatic demonstration which we witnessed a few months ago in the Transkei during the second General Election held there. You will recall, Sir, how five years previously, in 1963, at the general registration of voters for the Transkei, altogether 880,000 voters were registered, both within and outside the Transkei. They have now had five years of parliamentary government according to our apartheid policy. The apartheid policy applied to the Bantu authorities displayed at its peak in South Africa in the Transkei. And then, owing to a change in their constitution five years later, the entire electorate of the Transkei had to be re-registered.

You had White officials to do that.

What difference does that make? If we were able a few years ago to help the people of Lesotho to vote for their council, why should we not help our own Bantu to vote for their Parliament. We want to help them. Then all these voters in the Transkei had to be re-registered last year, and the 880,000 voters of the Transkei had increased to 907,000. They were not frustrated or disappointed and they did not state that they were disinterested, and then the voting took place. Well now, they did not even vote in all the constituencies and for that reason I am not going to mention the number of votes to you because it would not be fair. Five years ago voting took place in all the constituencies, and this time voting did not take place in all the constituencies; some were returned unopposed. But what was the overall result of the election? All those people who were prompted by the Opposition to support integration, to support “White leadership”, to support “multiracialism” in the Transkei—that party has almost disappeared like dew before the sun, and the policy of the governing party, of Kaiser Matanzima and others, triumphed and was once again returned to power, with a greater majority than even the most optimistic prediction made by pessimistic newspapers which hazarded predictions in that respect. And then, subsequently, they had nothing to say, and then they began afresh with their intrigues in order to try to cause matters to miscarry. I want to mention many other examples. I want to deal with this as rapidly as possible. In the sphere of agriculture, of what happens in the homelands, I just want to mention a few little items. This is a vast field and I cannot mention everything in detail. Fortunately there are numerous colleagues of mine on this side, fellow members of mine, who are itching to discuss this, and who will be able to supplement what I have to say effectively. But I dare not omit the topic of agriculture, and that is why I maintain that in the field of agriculture, which is one of the most difficult fields in which to make progress with the Bantu, we have made spectacular progress. Why is it difficult? If hon. members on the opposite side would study a little social anthropology and learn to know the Bantu, they would be able to supply the answer themselves. It is because there is no facet, excluding perhaps religion, in respect of which one has to modernize the Bantu where one comes up against so many formidable problems, ingrained prejudices and beliefs as one does in respect of agriculture, with the views they hold on cattle and land and their form of land tenure, etc. And yet we have made gigantic progress. There are many examples I could mention. My page is filled with figures, but I am going to omit these because I want to afford the other people on my side an opportunity. I simply want to mention a few. [Interjections.] You will get them all. Thank God, the debate is longer this time and we will be able to get everything in. Here we now have one of the advantages of stupid leadership. We have been granted a longer debate in which to put our case. It is owing to the stupid leadership of the Leader of the Opposition that we have an extra day for the debate.

Take one example. Take the example of the industrial crops. A great deal has been said about industries in the Transkei and this is why I am mentioning industrial crops first, such as the fibre crops there. Before 1948 there was absolutely nothing. It was only subsequent to that that we introduced it, and now you must have a look at the rate of increase. While we produced 1,700 tons of fibre in 1968, it is calculated, on the basis of what is at present growing in the lands, that we will come very close to 4,000 tons of fibre in 1970. That is a more than twofold increase, in two years, in the offing. Now the Opposition must remember, because I would like to discuss labour as well, that just that industrial crop alone, that fibre, provides work in the Transkei and in the other Bantu areas for more than 3,000 Bantu, and in the space of the next two years only we are going to increase those fibre crops.

Let us take another figure which is very important, a very difficult figure, that of irrigation. We know that water is a grave problem in South Africa. I am taking 1960. I am comparing it to our own period, because of what use is it comparing it with their figures? They had nothing. From nothing to one is not even an 100 per cent increase; it is an infinite percentage increase. In 1960 there were approximately 15,000 morgen under irrigation. In 1968, eight years afterwards, there was approximately 25,000 morgen under irrigation. There was almost a twofold increase in these eight years, much faster than in all the years before that, but then they say the tempo is decreasing, and then certain newspaper columnists, who have probably never seen a Bantu homeland, write that stagnation threatens to set in in our development of the homelands. Take fencing. Now you will say, “Ugh, now the man is talking about wire”. But if there was ever something which is terribly troublesome to the Bantu in all the homelands, it is •this planning of the soil and the fencing of the land with wire. In the first election in the Transkei they made a platform of this. They promised never to put up wire fencing. To facilitate soil conservation we jumped from 20,900 miles of wire fencing in 1960 to 45,000 miles. It increased more than eight times during the eight years. That is a more than 100 per cent increase. Take cotton. There was no planting of cotton whatsoever prior to 1948 and up to 1960 in the Bantu areas. We made a start subsequent to that, and we have now planted as much as 9,500 morgen of cotton. The same applies to tea. This is also something which we started, and I do not even have the figures for it.

Tell us about the tea.

I think the hon. member should rather go and drink some tea. The hon. member must go to the Transkei to look at the planting of tea there. [Interjections.] Take agricultural training. There were no adequately trained Bantu persons whatsoever available for instruction work to their own people in those areas, and even to-day there are not enough; I hasten to add this. But whereas previously there was nothing, and no schools either, we have in the meantime made provision for five agricultural schools in the various Bantu areas and at one of the university colleges there is an agricultural faculty training Bantu, and already we have 432 trained Bantu who are able to undertake this kind of work amongst their people in the homelands. In addition I am mentioning to you the latest, which is a very great achievement, i.e. the planning of the Bantu areas, the planning of residential areas, of grazing areas, ploughing areas, fenced-in areas, etc. More than 50 per cent of the Bantu areas of South Africa, excluding the Transkei—these particulars I do not have with me now—have already been planned, and it is mainly during the past few years that we have achieved success with that planning, because we had to break down prejudices and disbelief in order to bring home that planning to those people.

But the soil is still washing away.

The hon. member says the soil is still washing away. Where is there soil which is not washing away? Go and look at the White areas of Natal. Everywhere soil is being washed away, but fortunately that soil is not washing away as rapidly as the Opposition’s followers are dwindling. I want to mention something else which is very important, in connection with the clearance of black spots in South Africa. Phenomenal improvement has taken place there, particularly during the last few years. I want to deal with this rapidly and I call upon other members upon our side to go into details in this regard later. I just want to say this. I have the figures here of black spots and small reserves which have to be cleared. If one glances at this, one sees that before 1948 literally nothing was accomplished in the Transvaal, the Cape and Natal, although it should have been undertaken since 1936. Nothing was done—absolutely nothing. Here I marked it in red with a nought. Between 1938 and 1960, and then again between 1961 and 1968—these are the two periods I tabulated—we achieved phenomenal success. We improved upon our own achievements. In the second seven-year period, from 1961 to 1968, just to give an example, we cleared three-and-a-half times as many morgen of land of Bantu persons in the Cape than we succeeded in doing in the 12 years between 1948 and 1960, because during that period we had to break down prejudice. During those seven years 116,000 morgen were cleared of Bantu. During the 12 years from 1948 to 1960 we only succeeded in clearing Bantu from 33 morgen in Natal, but in the seven years from 1961 to 1968 we succeeded in clearing 9.940 morgen. We improved 300-fold on our own achievement. Up to 1948 the United Party had done absolutely nothing; it is therefore an infinite percentage improvement we effected there. The Opposition are laughing with us now, because I cannot even compare our achievements with theirs. But we had to struggle because of the obstacles they placed in our path. Labour is also a very important matter. Mention is being made here of the influx of labourers into Our industries. Let us take a look. The numbers are increasing. We said the numbers are increasing, but at what level does the ratio remain? Between 1958 and 1968 industrial statistics show that the ratio of one White to 2.1 Bantu in South Africa has generally been maintained. In other words, the ratio of White to Bantu in the industries has remained constant, despite the fact that the physical production of the factories has doubled during that period. Yet the number of additional Bantu has by no means doubled. Then they say we are achieving nothing! The bureaux system which we only introduced in 1952 dealt with 1,900,000 Bantu in 1967 and found work for them, which was a 90 per cent increase on the previous year 1966. Then they tell us we are not succeeding in the implementation of our policy. We were successful here in the Western Cape as well, and in both these periods, i.e. from 1948 to 1960, and from 1961 to 1968, Bantu manpower here in the Peninsula decreased. We will be given the figures in this connection later. In the economic Col. 52:

sector we can mention equally brilliant examples. It is only during the last few years that we have had the corporations. The Xhosa Corporation has only been operating for four years, and the Bantu Investment Corporation has only been operating properly for about eight years. And yet we have already allocated more than R8 million for the financing of Bantu persons for all kinds of matters in the Bantu homelands, and all kinds of undertakings are being established by Bantu persons, undertakings which vary from sweet factories to shops. More than 100 such undertakings have been given a start. With our help more than 200 properties of Whites in the Transkei have already been transferred to Bantu entrepreneurs. I can mention very striking figures in respect of mining as well, and nothing is more striking than the fact that between 1966 and 1968 alone the royalties we receive from mining development in the homelands by Whites on the agency basis have more than doubled from R272.000 to R550,000, and my prediction is that it is going to increase twofold again during the next year or two from R550,000 to R1 million, because Whites are coming forward on the agency basis to make mining development in the homelands possible and, what is more, we shall commence within a month or two with a new mining corporation which will be directed for us by some of our outstanding mining personalities in South Africa.

Sir, in the field of education we can mention as many vast achievements and successes but I am leaving it to other speakers. However, there is one thing I want to mention as an example and that is that the post-primary school children in the Bantu homelands increased by 180 per cent between 1959 and 1968, whereas in the White areas the increase in the same category was only 55 per cent. And then we are told that we are not developing the Bantu areas, not as far as education is concerned either! In addition we have just commenced with specific apprenticeship of their own for the Bantu in their homelands.

Only now after 20 years.

Mr. Speaker, on border industries, about which something has been said here, I should just like to say the following: A great deal of juggling with figures is possible, and you will probably tell me that I am also juggling with figures, but take the number of Bantu persons who have been employed in the border industries and are still being employed there, and add to them the dependants and the other resultant workers who have been employed as a result of border industry development, and what do you find? There are at present—and this is a fact which stands out very clearly—that more than a half million Bantu persons, workers and their dependants—are living in the Bantu homelands as a result of border industry development. More than a half million Bantu persons are at present living in the homelands—workers and dependants—as a result of the work of the breadwinners in the border industries. Without those border industries all those Bantu would probably have been in the white area. The clamour which we are continually hearing from the opposite side is that we are achieving no success, and that the tempo of development is too slow. The Tomlinson Report was also quoted here. I want to tell hon. members on that side that they would do well to compare the recommendations of the Tomlinson Report with our expenditure and with our work. We come off with flying colours. Literary men and bookworms such as the hon. member for Hillbrow would do well to read the Tomlinson Report again …

Give us examples.

I shall give the hon. member many examples. I shall give him 13 examples. The Tomlinson Commission categorized its recommendations into 13 sub-heads, and of those sub-heads there are only two in respect of which we have spent less during the past ten years than Tomlinson recommended should be spent over a ten-year period. Unfortunately Tomlinson’s classification and our classification are not quite identical, but in the case of all 13 sub-heads Tomlinson recommended an expenditure of R209 million over a period of ten years, whereas we have, during the past ten years, spent R332 million within the Bantu homelands, i.e. more than 50 per cent more than Tomlinson recommended. Now I am telling the hon. member for Point: Run back to Newcastle and state to the voters there that the Whites are spending too much on the Blacks! Sir, I should have stated at the outset that I am sorry that the new member for Newcastle, Dr. Paul Viljoen, has not been elected already because he should really have replied to the speech made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Our youngest member should have done it; instead, I now have to do it.

There are other criteria as well which we can apply in this connection, and one important criterion is the opinion of the Bantu themselves. I have already referred to the opinion of the Bantu when I reminded you of the Transkei election. I want to remind you of resolutions and decisions of all our territorial authorities who support our policy. I want to remind you of speeches of leaders of the Bantu such as Chief Councillor Mangope, Chief Councillor Ushona Shiimi from Ovamboland. Kaiser Matanzima and others. Later on in the debate hon. members will still hear how they have one after the other accepted the policy of separate development. I challenge the Opposition, even in connection with the old points which the Leader of the Opposition mentioned here this afternoon, to mention the name of one acknowledged, responsible Bantu body or one acknowledged Bantu leader who accepts that policy of the Opposition and who is prepared to state that they will want to keep on living under it in South Africa for all time. Sir, our country South Africa, requires the utmost of all of us. In respect of a Government it has this, but in respect of an Opposition we truly deserve something better than we have.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commence this afternoon by paying a tribute to my Leader for the speech which he made here. I believe it was a model of a speech made by a statesman and a great Parliamentarian. It will go on record as being such. I am sorry I cannot congratulate the hon. the Minister who has just spoken on the speech made by him nor on the discourtesy of which he was guilty when he was making his speech. I do not think it behoves the hon. the Minister to use the sort of terms which he used here. He is not only one of the senior Ministers but he occupies a very responsible position in regard to some 12 or 13 million Bantu in this country. I do not think he should use language such as he used here with regard to my Leader.

What did I say?

Let the hon. the Minister read his Hansard to-morrow.

You called me “subservient”, but that is in order.

The hon. the ex-Minister of Forestry need not worry; I am coming to him in a minute or two. I do not propose to follow the hon. the Minister who has just sat down at present; I shall do so a little later; my time is limited to a far greater extent than his was.

I would like to deal with this question of confidence which we are debating here. The motion expresses a lack of confidence in the Government. There is no motion before this House expressing a lack of confidence in the United Party. Hon. members on the other side would love to have a motion like that. They have a majority in this House and that is what they rely on. They do not rely upon the accuracy of their arguments nor do they rely upon any merits in those arguments; they just rely on a voting majority. Let us get down to the question of confidence. I want to start at once by saying that we have good reasons for saying that we have no confidence in the Government. Sir, let me call, if I may use court parlance, as my first witness the hon. the Prime Minister. My mind goes back to the picture of the Government benches at the end of last year’s session. In my mind I see certain Ministers sitting there and when I look around now I ask myself, “Where have they gone?” Who was the man who so lacked confidence in those Ministers as to dispose of them? It could only be one man; it could only be the Prime Minister. It was not the Leader of the Opposition; it was nobody else on this side and it was nobody else on that side; it was only the hon. the Prime Minister who could say: “I have no confidence in you; you must go and make way for a man in whom I have confidence.” Sir, he sacked four of them. Of those Ministers he had here last year he sacked four and he transferred a couple of supernumeraries and sort of Deputy Ministers as well and put them in other seats.

But he did not finish the job.

We on this side of the House produced clear evidence to show the ineptitude of the Ministers whom the hon. the Prime Minister then removed. We will show him the ineptitude of some more and we hope that he will then act in that regard.

Deal with the ineptitude of the United Party.

Sir, what has the Prime Minister to say of himself? There was the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs; there was the Minister of Community Development; the Minister of the Interior; the Minister of Indian Affairs; then there was the Minister of Forestry and of Information. He is not the Minister of Forestry any more and he is not the Minister of Information any more. But he still sits here. We will have to produce a little more evidence for the Prime Minister and wish him gently on his way. But what of the Prime Minister himself? Has he been one who has been the recipient of votes of confidence all the time during the recess? I wonder whether he recollects his big entry into Natal when he said that he was going to lead the attack on the United Party in the forthcoming Provincial elections in 1970? He was going to lead the attack on the United Party; he was not going to leave it to the Leader of the Nationalist Party in my province. Oh no, he did not believe that the Leader of the Nationalist Party in my province would be capable of leading the attack on the United Party; he, the Prime Minister, was going to do it personally. But, Sir, he came with his candidate for the leadership of the Nationalist Party in Natal; he had his candidate.

I had no candidate whatsoever.

A group of Nationalist M.P.C.s had been to the Prime Minister, to his home in Pretoria, and they had Tiger Oats with him for breakfast, so I was told by one of them when I asked him what he was doing there. He replied: “I went there to eat Tiger Oats.” He probably lacked a little tiger. They went all the way to Pretoria and back to have a breakfast of Tiger Oats with the Prime Minister. Well, Sir, that is fair enough. The Prime Minister is not a man who is just visited by everybody on every occasion. These M.P.C.s went up there to pay their respects but they also went to ask that the Administrator of Natal, who is a political Administrator, should be given the opportunity of resigning and standing as a candidate to fill the vacancy in Newcastle and to become the Leader of the Nationalist Party in Natal. That was the position, Sir. They were told, “No, this won’t work; I have other work for the Administrator of Natal,” and how right the Prime Minister was. Well, that being so, the matter had to go on to their own congress and eventually a leader was elected, by democratic process no doubt. He was not the man chosen by the Prime Minister. I repeat that: He was not the man whom the Prime Minister would have chosen. He sits in the third row on that side.

I am telling you that you are talking nonsense.

Was he the man you would have chosen?

This does not behove you. Why not leave that to your backbenchers?

How the mighty have fallen!

Mr. Speaker, may I say through you to Mr. Blaar Coetzee: “You were one of those who were moved, for a very good reason. You were completely inefficient; you could not do your job; you were talking big and shouting and throwing your arms about.” The new Minister of Community Development could not do his job and that was why he was moved. The time had come when he was forced to account for his continual promises that he would take the Bantu out of the white areas and send them back to the homelands as they are called.

Very well, I shall not do my job again this year and you will see that I will be promoted again.

Yes, there is indeed many a true word spoken in jest. We have only to look at the hon. Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and those Ministers and members who cannot do their jobs but who are nevertheless promoted. We have only to look around us to see them. May I also say that I believe that the Minister of Community Development was relieved of his post because he was a thorn in the side of the Minister. There is many a man who would say that the hon. Minister of Community Development has his hand on the ankle of the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and that he will pull the Minister of Bantu Administration off the ladder if he is not careful. That was being said very openly. The hon. the Minister of Community Development therefore got promotion.

But let me return to my argument. The democratic system was then put into operation at the National Party congress in Durban which was attended by the hon. the Prime Minister. He is coy and will not tell us who he wanted elected as leader of the Nationalist Party in Natal. A gentleman was nevertheless elected. I have looked in vain through the records in this regard since Union to find whether the provincial leader of the party in power was not put into the Cabinet when he became the leader of the party in that province. I have not yet found a case where this has not been done. I admit that I cannot say that my researches have been completely exhaustive. I have not approached any of the authorities in this regard so I may well be wrong but for the past 25 or 30 years this has certainly not happened. [Interjections.] If hon. members opposite would just be quiet for a moment the hon. the Minister of Transport might be able to tell us what the position is in this regard.

Mr. Maree was leader of the party in Natal for five years before he became a Minister.

Yes, but that has nothing to do with the matter. It is the present leader of the party in Natal who is not in the Cabinet. Is the hon. the Prime Minister going to put him into the Cabinet, and if not why not? [Interjections.] If the hon. the Prime Minister does not wish to create a completely new portfolio for an additional Cabinet Minister, we can give him some advice as to a present Minister he should sacrifice to make room for his leader in Natal. It may be a great sacrifice but it may also not be so great in the long run. May I suggest that the remaining section of that Minister might follow with advantage to where the Ministers of Forestry and Information have gone. This would then make room in the Cabinet for the leader of the National Party in Natal. I do not want to work under a Nationalist Minister in Natal. At the same time however we do feel that we are a province with a little bit of promise. After all we had the hon. the Prime Minister showing interest in us himself. He said that he would lead the attack on us and he must therefore be interested in us. Surely then we are entitled to our own Cabinet Minister, only one out of this galaxy of Cabinet Ministers in South Africa. We would be content with only one little one to represent Natal. Surely that is not asking too much. I want to appeal to the hon. the Prime Minister to give us some recognition and to give us a Cabinet Minister. Even a small one would do.

I should now like to come to the new Minister of Information. I have listened very carefully this afternoon to the endless stream of words which flowed from the hon. Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. I shall deal with a few of his statements presently. In passing, however, I should like to say to that hon. Minister that he has evidently taken as his motto that if the figures do not agree with his special brand of apartheid, it is so much the worse for the figures. Let us therefore turn to the Minister of Information. I want to give that hon. Minister credit for the fact that he impressed me when he spoke last year. I jotted down what he said in my notebook. In Hansard of the 23rd April, 1968 (column 3916) he quotes from what Dr. Verwoerd said in this House on the 15th September, 1958. He said that Dr. Verwoerd had said that as far as the Bantu were concerned the ideal must be total separation in every sphere. Then the present Minister of Information went on to say:

He then went further and said:

Those words came from the present Minister of Information. I want to point out that after he had made this speech, the hon. the Prime Minister put him in the Cabinet. Let us therefore see just what he said and how far he did in actual fact go. He said that this “is the only ethical and moral force which one can take and adhere to if one wishes to approach this matter in an ethical and moral way”. (Column 3917.) But in the same way as the hon. Minister of Bantu Administration and Development was asked certain things by way of interjection this afternoon, he was asked: “What about the Coloureds?”. The Minister of Bantu Administration and Development does not want to say anything about the Coloured people or the Indians because he said that he was only dealing with the Bantu. But of course the truth of the matter is that the apartheid policy of the Government as far as the Bantu are concerned has failed completely and that they do not have a policy for the Coloureds or the Indians yet. They were waiting to see whether the Bantustan policy could succeed before making provision for something of a similar nature for the Coloureds and the Indians. But the present Minister of Information saw the matter differently. When he was dealing with the question of separate development for the Bantu he was asked by Mr. C. J. S. Wainwright: “What about the Coloureds?” He replied:

Then a little later he went on to say:

I should just like to point out that it is the hon. Minister of Information who is speaking here but he does not call these people nations. He calls them groups. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development keeps calling them nations but the Minister of Information tells the world that they are groups. But let me return to what the hon. Minister said:

Mr. Speaker, we have a very deep thought here. It is the Opposition’s point of view that the Coloureds and the Indians are still here. He goes on:

Then the time was up and the gong went, and I am sure that from the bottom of his heart the hon. the Minister was pleased that his time was up because he had reached the stage where he could not waffle any longer—he would probably have had to say something. How did the Minister start his speech? I said I omitted parts of what he said, and let me read them now. I quote from column 3918 of Hansard, volume 23—

He then went on to refer to the other races. That is what the hon. the Minister said, namely—“I shall repeat it very clearly. I am making it very clear, and I am not afraid of doing so …”, and he referred also to the other races. This is the Minister of Information. Is this the information he is spreading outside South Africa at the present time.

Do not worry about that, we are making progress outside South Africa.

When did you leave Great Britain? Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Information was not the only gentleman who was promoted after this House rose last year; the hon. member for Heilbron was also promoted. The Minister of Bantu Administration and Development had the hon. member for Heilbron as the senior member of the Bantu Affairs Commission last year until he was promoted, and I ask the Minister to listen to what he has to say now because he is now the Deputy Minister of Justice.

Justice?

Yes, of Justice, and this is another curious metamorphosis, if I may put it that way. What was wrong with him remaining in the Department of Bantu Administration and Development? Why was he shunted to the Department of Justice? I must say I commiserate with the hon the Minister of Justice. But whatever the reason may be, let us see how he contradicts completely what the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development said here a few minutes ago. He said the following—

He said the percentage is decreasing.

I talked about the ratio, there is a difference between a ratio and a percentage.

What is the difference between the ratio of Bantu to Whites and the percentage Bantu as against Whites? What is the difference? We had here the hon. the Minister asking us in the broad light of evening to accept that the ratio of Blacks to Whites is favouring the Whites, yet last year the hon. member for Heilbron said categorically that the percentage increase of the Blacks is greater than the percentage increase of the Whites. How can those two statements be reconciled? Now the Minister says a ratio is not the same as a percentage! I find it hard to quite follow the Minister. Indeed, I found it difficult just now, but this makes it even worse.

The Minister of Bantu Administration and Development went to great lengths just now to deal with development in the homelands. Of course there is some development taking place. The Minister says it does not matter what the costs are because he has all the money he wants for whatever purpose connected with development in the homelands. He says the sky is the limit and he is not hampered by any shortage of funds. He goes out of his way to defend his officials. But I speak for every hon. member on this side of the House when I say they have not been attacked and no one in this hon. House has a greater regard for the officials in that unfortunate department than we on this side. For complete and utter frustration and lack of direction I have yet to see a government department which is the equal of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. I am not asking about what the official inspector is told when he comes round. I say there is complete and utter frustration and lack of direction from the Minister downwards. I think he is also frustrated because in his heart of hearts he knows he is failing, he is not delivering the goods, and with every year that passes it will become more evident that he is failing. He cannot win. The odds of population are against him. He is going to lose, and he knows it. He should have left Mr. Blaar Coetzee in his department to take over his job when he had failed.

Why are they failing? I say it is because of lack of direction, in spite of all the money. There is lack of planning, lack of appreciation of the size of the problem. It is no good the Minister telling us here what developments are taking place in the Transkei, how many tons of metal are being won from the Transkei by a White company acting as the agent of the Bantu. What sort of nonsense is this? I am going to ask the Minister one question. I know the basis of the Transkei is the continuation of law and order, the same as it is the basis of any other country. Take away law and order and the Transkei is gone. Will the Minister withdraw Proclamation 400?

No.

You see, Sir, all this big talk and this big edifice is built on law and order provided by the White man. The (Minister spoke here for about 30 minutes building a great edifice. On what? On the law and order provided by the White man in the Transkei, and when we ask him whether he will let them govern themselves as far as basic law and order in their own country is concerned, he says “no”. This is the touchstone, this is the test: Leave them and let us see whether they can govern themselves. Can they do it? The Minister’s answer is no, they cannot, and of course we know they cannot. We know this is but a big story, a spook story the Minister has built up.

But I want to go further and say this in regard to this question of planning. I am coming to the question of Limehill. The Minister seemed to ask for it, to invite it. Let me say this in regard to the question of Limehill. We on his side of the House believe that black spots must be cleaned up. We also believe it is inevitable that when large numbers of the population are removed there can be hard cases. That is almost inevitable, but they should be reduced to a minimum. Hard cases should never occur because large numbers of people are removed without adequate planning: They must be received under proper conditions in the places where they are moved to. That is basic, not only as far as Limehill is concerned but also in regard to Uitval and Vergelegen. Let me repeat that the officials who are handling these matters are doing their utmost; of that I have no doubt whatever. The Minister says he has all the money available. But though they needed that money, it has not been handed to them, it has not been made available to them. What happened in these three places was caused entirely by a lack of proper preparation before the Bantu were removed to those areas. And the position is still most unsatisfactory. I would say through you, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. the Prime Minister that the conditions in those three places would never be permitted by the Department of Public Health on any private farm or in any local authority or municipality in South Africa. The Department of Public Health would never permit the conditions which exist there now, conditions which the officials are attempting to improve. I accept that. But we are up against this situation. Not very long ago I was at Uitval with the hon. member for Pinetown and we did not go to any officials or any persons in authority at all. We went and spoke to Bantu people as we met them there and we discussed the matter. I found it interesting to find that everyone I spoke to first asked, “Are you from the Government?” They even went so far as to have a look at the number plates of the hon. member’s car, which has NPN number plates. Why did they want to know if we were from the Government? I spoke to them and I believe that most of them were quite honest. They were very often reticent but quite honest. They are still in difficulties at the present time. One of the greatest difficulties is that amongst them there is a large number of adult able-bodied males who cannot get employment. If they want passes and so forth they have to go I think 25 miles to Dundee where they are dealt with by the Bantu Affairs Department. But only if they belong to the proper ethnic groups in respect of which passes are being made available can they get employment. Otherwise they have to go back to those towns again. But in the case of Uitval, whatever may be said, I want to tell hon. members this: The day before we arrived there, the one borehole which was supplying it with water, had dried up. That was the drought. I do not blame the Government for that, but I say that proper conditions should have been arranged beforehand. They should never have relied on one single borehole at a time of drought. The Government had put in another boring machine, and it was boring for all it could. But they had built a dam, and that dam had about 18 inches or two feet of water as a result of a thunderstorm a couple of days previously. That was the water for the Bantu at Uitval. It had come from the surrounding built-up area. One can guess What it was like. It was a bright yellow. It was in a shocking mess, because of what had been washed down as a result of the thunderstorm. But that was the only water that the people at Uitval had. One Native said to me: ‘We are told that we must boil this water.” I asked: “What do you have to boil it for?” he said: “To get rid of the colour.” That was all that he knew about it. This lack of planning must be attributed to that Department. It is the Minister’s concern throughout the whole length and breadth of the Republic of South Africa. What is taking place at Uitval. Vergelegen and Limehill, is merely ore small facet of what is taking place throughout. The Bantu are being sent back to the homelands with nowhere to find employment, with nothing to do, with idle hands. They are going back in their tens of thousands. To what? Here is the big crux of the matter, the cardinal principle with everyone of us here in South Africa. The man who would work should be able to get work.

Were they employed where they came from?

Yes. I am glad the Prime Minister asked that question. Let me tell him. In one case a Native I spoke to had been 15 years at a garage in Pinetown—he recognized the NPN numberplate—where they are manufacturing to-day these caravans. He could not go back there. He was in the wrong ethnic group. Another man had been a waiter in a hotel on the Durban front. He told us what his salary was. It was a very fine salary. Even by White standards it had been quite good. He could not go back there. He was of the wrong ethnic group. I asked whether there were any more cases like his. They said “Yes. We believe that there are here approximately 8,000 to 9,000 souls altogether, men, women and children. We believe that there are 150 to 200 able-bodied men who are used for digging the graves, for digging latrines and making little roadways. But that is all we can do, pick and shovel work.” [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I have never been so disappointed with the trend of a debate on the part of the Opposition as I have been this afternoon. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that there were various facets of Government activity about which criticism could in fact be expressed by the Opposition, but that as Leader of the Opposition he to-day wanted to steer the debate towards the question of the race policy pursued in South Africa. The hon. the Leader devoted his entire speech, which lasted more than an hour, to this important subject. Then the Minister of Bantu Administration followed upon him and gave a very detailed and accurate exposition of the policy of this side of the House. And what happened then? One of the most senior front-benchers of the Opposition, the hon. member for South Coast, who is their leader in that (Province, concerned himself with various trifling matters. He spoke about the subject of “confidence” and said that it was not a question of no confidence in the Opposition which was being discussed here, but a question of no confidence in the Government. He attacked the Prime Minister on the question of the election of a leader in Natal. The hon. member for South Coast knows that the National Party is a party founded on a federal basis. Never in the history of this party has a Prime Minister interfered in the matter of the election of a leader in a province. Much less would the present Prime Minister do so. I think that if there is someone who bases himself squarely upon the democratic manner in which our Party maintains itself, then it is the Prime Minister. In Natal the matter took its normal course according to the democratic character of the party there, and the party leaders of Natal chose the leader in whom they placed their trust at a properly constituted congress.

The hon. member for South Coast spoke about these trifling matters, in respect of the question of no confidence, for a full 21 minutes. For the final six minutes the hon. member returned to this very important subject which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition mentioned. The question of the Transkei, which he raised here, was duly answered by the Minister. Another hon. member will reply to the question of Limehill. I do not want to argue about that. If at this early stage the United Party are already running away from a very important debating point such as this, then we foresee a great deal of difficulty for them in the five days ahead.

I want to return to the subject which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition mentioned. I want to begin by quoting from a statement made by a very distinguished statesman in South Africa, described by some as one of the greatest statesmen who ever lived. He said the following—

Mr. Speaker, these words were uttered by none other than General Smuts in the Savoy Hotel in London on 22nd May, 1917, when he went over to become a member of the then War Cabinet. In these words the basis of our traditional Bantu policy in South Africa is embodied. These words could just as well have come from the lips of men such as Hertzog, Malan, Strydom, Verwoerd, or our present Prime Minister. In those days General Smuts was still one of the people who believed that this was the traditional apartheid policy of South Africa. Since that time, therefore, it has consistently been accepted as the policy, and to-day the present National Party still stands squarely, with both feet, on that road as it was then mapped out. This course was taken by all subsequent National Party Prime Ministers. The hon. member for Umlazi said in December, 1968, that there was no traditional Bantu policy in South Africa. Must we accept that the United Party wants to make the people believe that there is no such thing as a traditional Bantu policy in South Africa? The Bantu policy being implemented by this party to-day and as it is being accepted by the large majority of the White population, has been traditional since the earliest days of the history of South Africa. What is the traditional Bantu policy in South Africa? The basis of the traditional Bantu policy in South Africa is to guarantee the survival of the White man in South Africa and to ensure that White leadership will always exist in South Africa. The policy also has as its basis to see to it that proper homelands are created for the Bantu in South Africa and legislation which has been introduced has traditionally aimed at entrenching this fundamental principle. What we are doing to-day is a continuation and a further extension of that policy.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said at the close of his speech that he wanted to outline to us what the political character of United Party policy is. I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition a simple question, and I want him to answer it. Suppose the United Party were to come into power in South Africa; suppose that were to happen. The United Party would then be morally bound by its election manifesto to admit non-White representatives to this Parliament. In other words, eight Bantu representatives, six Coloured representatives, and two Indian representatives would sit in this House. There would therefore be a block consisting of 16 representatives of the non-White groups in South Africa in this House. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition were to come into power now, he would be bound to make this representation possible. What is more, suppose the Opposition were to come into power with a majority of 16 or 14, or even fewer, seats. This could happen in South Africa and we have already had similar results, i.e. where a Government came into power with a small majority. Would the Opposition then say to the world, to this House and to the non-Whites that, as it undertook to do, it would continue to place legislation on the Statute Book which would make it possible for that group of non-White representatives to sit in this Parliament? This group would then be the tail that wags the dog in this House. This is what we want to know from the Leader of the Opposition. If those 16 members came to sit in this House, they would be persons who would have a full say and full voting rights in regard to any legislation which may be passed in this House. Mr. Speaker, you can see what a threat this kind of legislation can contain for South Africa. These 16 non-White representatives would then be able to swing political power and opinion to one side or the other. I want to say to-day that the United Party will not proceed with that legislation. What can happen? As a result of that an eternal source of agitation might be created here. A small group of Indians, about 500,000 to 600,000 in number, would then have two representatives in this Parliament. The Coloureds of South Africa would have six representatives and the 12½ million Bantu would have eight representatives. There would immediately be agitation on the part of the Indians for more representatives, as well as on the part of the Coloureds, and the Bantu would say: “Why must we, who number 12½ million, be satisfied with eight representatives as opposed to the six and two representatives of much smaller population groups?” This situation would lead to unparalleled agitation in South Africa.

I also want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition this: If a United Party policy such as this were implemented in South Africa, would it satisfy the liberal world and the U.N.? Last year the hon. the Leader of the Opposition told us that the United Party had on occasion changed its policy in the past owing to pressure exerted upon them from outside. Suppose now that this system of representation for the non-Whites, who are the numerically superior population groups in South Africa, is introduced. Would it satisfy the U.N. and the liberal world? Immediately pressure would again be exerted upon South Africa by the U.N. and the liberal groups, pressure which we have tried to reduce over the years, because they would see that there was a Government in power in South Africa which had already admitted that it had changed its policy and standpoint because of pressure from outside. In other words, as a result of a United Party policy such as this, we will have to endure anew all the foreign agitation and the unfavourable propaganda which we had against South Africa. Therefore we as a National Party say that we stand four-square by our apartheid policy, because it is a moral policy. But the policy of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not only illogical as far as South Africa is concerned, but it is also an emotional policy. I want to go further and say that it is also an immoral policy in respect of the non-White groups in South Africa. We say to these people that we want parallel development in South Africa. We want to do justice to them. What the National Party and the present Government are doing is to see to it that that course is followed consistently. The blame is laid upon us that everything we promised in the 1948 National Party manifesto has not yet been implemented. History can prove that since the National Party came into power in 1948, it has had to wage a bitter constitutional struggle in this House, from one session to the next. It also took many night sessions to obtain the necessary statutory powers for getting this policy, as we are implementing it to-day, on the Statute Book. Preparatory work which General Smuts said would possibly take centuries to implement, has already been done. This preparatory work has been done since 1948 and this National Party has worked wonders in this short space of time. It is only recently, actually since 1961, that we have been able to commence with many of these physical developments, and I think we may say with pride that a great deal of progress has been made. To-day the Minister began enumerating a number of these important things for us. I want to add to what he has said, just to get it on record, so that the United Party can look it up. I hope that we shall not again have to waste the time of this House by repeating these particulars. I want to deal with the expenditure from the S.A. Bantu Trust Fund. I am taking the period from 1964 and making a projection of the position as it will be with the provision which is now being made and the plans which we have up to the end of 1970. By then, on development alone, an amount of R274,011,945 will have been spent from the Bantu Trust Fund, provided that we obtain the funds for this, whereas in 1964 it was only R27,342,000. This development includes expenditure under various sub-heads, such as share capital investment in Bantu corporations, etc. These are investments in the Bantu Investment Corporation, the Xhosa Development Corporation, the Mining Development Corporation and expenditure on welfare funds, and expenditure from donations from the Bantu Beer Account. Land purchases will increase from R8.08 million in 1964 to R8.5 million in 1969-70—a total of R52 million up to the end of 1969-70. There has also been compensation to Whites in the Transkei. The hon. member for Transkei has already spoken a great deal about this matter. I now want to give him the figures, and I think he also has the figures. From 1964-’65 to the end of 1970 we shall have spent R10.3 million in this area on compensation to Whites whose properties, etc., have been bought up. The other important thing that we are now doing on a large scale is to activate the Bantu authorities, to give those authorities a chance, as the Minister said here, to see to it that the people themselves work and get things done. During the next year we are going to spend more than R13.5 million on this activation. So one can continue—unfortunately my time is running short—to show what is being done to develop these areas.

I just want to dwell on South-West Africa for a moment. This is a territory which also falls under us now. A total of R32.5 million will have been spent from Bantu Trust Funds, on development in that area, from 1964 to the end of 1970, if we obtain the funds. In Ovamboland’s national authority area we shall therefore spend a grand total of R2,430,000. That is to say, in this entire complex, Ovamboland including the Caprivi Zipfel, we shall have spent an amount of more than R34.9 million on various developments by the end of 1970.

Sir, here I have merely endeavoured to give you a brief glimpse at the development which is in progress by mentioning these figures. These are huge amounts and I want to call upon the United Party to tell this House and the world plainly and clearly where they stand. One cannot blow hot and cold simultaneously. We want to know precisely: Does the United Party accept the development of the Bantu homelands as advocated by the National Party or not? If the United Party were to come into power, would they continue with it or not? Does the United Party accept that these homelands must eventually become completely independent homelands under their own government?

No.

In other words, they accept that they must become an integrated part of South Africa as a whole. [Interjections.] If that is so, how does the race federation policy fit in, where one will have a whole agglomeration of White, Coloured and Bantu races living here in South Africa? How can you then establish a race federation? The people and this House must get clarity about these points. As I have said, one cannot blow hot and cold. We want to know these things. The National Party stands squarely behind the policy of parallel or separate development. We believe in it. We foresee, as the Minister said here, that we cannot accomplish these things in a matter of a decade or two. We agree with Gen. Smuts that it may possibly take a century or longer to do so. But we say that for the preservation of the white man in South Africa and for the preservation of white leadership here, let us do so. Let us develop these people separately. Let us be inspired with the idealism to do so. If we have that idealism, we will not waste any effort on these trifling debating points which we got from the Leader of the Opposition to-day. But if we come together in this House as people with honest and sincere intentions for the survival of the Whites in South Africa and for the maintenance of white leadership here, then we will put our heads together here to ensure that these things are done in the best possible way for all race groups in South Africa.

I was pleased that the hon. member ended his speech in the manner he did, and I certainly would like to follow up in that spirit, although I believe his argument is based on fundamentally the wrong premise. Although he started off by quoting Gen. Smuts, and this delighted us very much, as usual he stopped halfway, because Gen. Smuts went on in his speech and he ultimately ended up by saying this—

I did say that.

This hon. gentleman started off by saying that his party’s policy was following the traditional race approach in South Africa, and this is a misconception that I think we should deal with right away, because propagandists from that side of the House continually try to suggest to the country and continually try to foster the belief that their approach to the race problem is the traditional one. I just want to ask this: Who first mentioned the idea of independent black states as the solution to the South African problem? Did Gen. Hertzog have it as his policy?

Yes.

Did Dr. Malan or Mr. Strydom have it as their policy? [Interjection.] When I read the history of South Africa I find there is only one gentleman who seriously propagated the idea of independent black states as the solution to our race problem, and that was Dr. Philip of the London Missionary Society, and you know how much trouble he caused in South Africa.

But perhaps I should quote the architect of this whole policy, Dr. Verwoerd. In fact, only in the fifties, speaking in the Other Place, he accused this side of the House of trying to suggest to the public that he wanted to constitute independent states, and this is what he said—

That was Dr. Verwoerd. Then he went on a bit further and said—

Mr. Speaker, you have this complete volte face; you have this complete somersault, and here we have this unusual situation that the British independent black states policy which has been consistently and vociferously condemned by that side of the House has now been made the policy of that side of the House, and then they come and tell us that that is our traditional policy. It is nothing of that kind.

The hon. member also made certain sneering remarks about morality, and he wanted us to define the morality of our approach. Mr. Speaker, that is a garment that not many people can wear very well. I think it is one of the weakest cards in the pack of that side of the House. What level of morality do you attain when you assign to 75 per cent of the people of the country 13 per cent of its land area: when you take for yourself 95 per cent of its productive capacity? [Interjections.] I say the keystone to morality, as I understand it, is that there should be agreement by the parties concerned. Who agreed to this division of land and of wealth? Did the Coloureds agree to their removal from District Six? Did the Indians agree to their removal from their trading sites in Rustenburg? Once you have agreement on these things then talk about morality but the worst form of immorality is where you make promises that you do not keep. Look at the history of that side. Their political road over the last 20 years is littered with broken promises.

Did the non-Whites agree to your federation plan?

Your morality has made you speechless.

Sir, nobody on that side of the House, nobody who has spoken yet, has attacked or has repudiated the basic charge made by my Leader, and that basic charge is that probably one of the most fundamental developments in South African politics at the present time is that growing realization by a large group of South Africans who traditionally support the race policies of that side, that we are being led into a kind of racial cul de sac. That is why they are asking for “volkskongresse”; that is why they want new mandates and a new race charter, and I also sense a change in their mood. They are no longer going to be satisfied with slogans; they are no longer going to be satisfied with these slick slogans which are in fact meaningless. No, Sir, they want more than that. They want us to get to the substance of the real problem, and that is what we should do in this House. Mr. Speaker, if you take this Government’s policy of separate development and then strip it of all the ideological clap-trap, it remains there for everybody to see that two things stand out clearly: the first one is that the Government can never achieve the objectives that they themselves have set as minimum objectives for the success of this policy but, secondly, and even more important than this, when you take this policy to its logical conclusions, you see that it would be political madness to try to achieve these objectives.

That is what I want to deal with and I want to do it under half a dozen different headings, and the first one is the demographic factor, the question of numbers, to which my Leader has already referred. The new Deputy Minister of Justice is so sensitive on this question of numbers; he does not want us to mention numbers. My accusation is that the greatest single disservice that that side of the House has done South Africa with the introduction of its separate development policy, is that they have coupled to it the doctrine of numbers, because inherent in their whole policy is the idea that the white man is politically doomed unless you can show that at a given stage there will be parity in numbers. They have tied the white man’s political survival to racial ratios and, Sir, when you introduce arithmetic into this issue, then ultimately we will be the losers; of that I am certain, because basic to their policy is that at the turn of the century there must be numerical parity between White and Bantu in so-called white South Africa. The most optimistic estimate for the white population at this time is 6 million. That means that there must be fewer than 6 million Bantu. What you would achieve thereby I do not know because at that stage of our development there will also be 6 million Coloureds and 2 million Indians, so we will still be outnumbered by two and a half to one, even in the white areas. But for the effectiveness of that policy this is apparently an essential. But look at the other side of the picture. Recent estimates now suggest that the Bantu population at the turn of the century will be 28 million, and anybody who knows anything about this will realize that unless something catastrophic happens, the figure is likely to be 30 million or more. I will not develop that theme. Even at 28 million it means that the reserves at the end of this century, in terms of their own policy, should accommodate 22 million people. How you could cram them in there I do not know because even the most optimistic estimates suggest that the maximum carrying capacity of the reserves, with favourable industrialization, will be only 10 million people. But you want to put two and a half times that number into the reserves. And then look at the fantastic figures that are involved, as quoted by my Leader.

Sir, this means that at the turn of this century in order to have 22 million Bantu in those areas, you would have to move some 15 million over the next 30 years; it comes close to half a million a year. And what are they going to do when they get there? You must find jobs for them; they cannot be taken up into agriculture because Tomlinson has indicated that the economic farm unit in the reserves is 50 morgen and at that rate they have already reached saturation point. You cannot take them up in commerce and in super structures like services because they will be too impoverished. The bulk of them will have to go into industry, and if we take the Government’s border area system as a guide, we find that it cost us R10,000 to put one Black worker into a border area.

What does it cost in Cape Town?

Much less. [Interjections.] Of course it does. All the figures indicate that it costs no more than R2.000. I do not want to extend this argument … [Interjections.]

Order! If hon. members wish to make speeches, they must not remain seated while doing so.

These border area industries are supposed to be labour-intensive. What is going to happen when they become capital-intensive? The border areas in any case are sited near an industrial infra-structure.

What is going to happen when you do it in the homelands where nothing exists? Prof. Sadie has said that to make any sort of impact, we will have to find jobs for 180,000 a year in the reserves, and that was said before these latest population projections; the figure is now well above 180,000. Sir, if we have to take them up in industry at this sort of rate that I have quoted, we come to astronomical sums of money, and that is why the Government is so reluctant to answer whenever we ask what this will cost; they get flirty, they move around it and they hedge and they never want to tell us because they know that the voters of South Africa will not approve of this policy if they have the facts and the figures before them. In the face of these figures, the Government’s obstinacy and its reluctance to use private white capital and initiative in the development of the reserves is inexplicable. The one thing that can help them to carry out their own policy they deny: they do not want to do it, and they talk about controls. This Government is obsessed by controls. They have far more economic controls now than you have in any free enterprise system in the world. Sir, you do not need controls to get industries to the reserves; you need inducements. The hon. member for Maitland has for once in his career here made a wise remark. He asked: “Will money go there, will industrialists go there?” And instead of tackling this problem properly, they come with this amazing economic monstrosity, a so-called border area scheme. This is introduced with the intention of showing that there is not economic integration in South Africa. But, Sir, it proves precisely the opposite, because you are not taking your industry to any other basic resources like water or mineral deposits; you are taking it to Black labour. My hon. Leader said that this economic development in the border areas would stifle industrialization in the reserves. He is, of course, quite right. It is there that you site industries, near the borders, and you give them free access to white capital and white initiative, essential ingredients for development which you deny to the reserves themselves.

With what safeguards?

I have said that you need inducements and not controls. These areas are going to become independent shortly and then the Turks and the Chinese and everybody else will flock in—and here the Government is worrying about safeguards!

Sir, our own attitude to this issue is quite clear. We also want to develop the Bantu homelands because we see them as economic and political growth points for the Bantu, and we realize that in order to do this we must increase their carrying capacity, and the only way in which you can do that is to industrialize them, and we also know that there will be no large-scale industrialization unless you have private white capital and initiative. We will have an imaginative programme which will provide for precisely that, and in that way we will be able to stimulate development in these areas. You see, Sir, the difference is this; we do not see them as future independent areas. We see them as under-developed areas within the South African context, so it is easier for us to go to our people and say: “We must spend some money on those areas” because our total economy will benefit thereby. But hon. members opposite have to tell their people, “Spend money on these areas because they are going to become independent”.

But, Sir, there is a second major issue to which I want to refer, and that is this: If you carry this policy to its logical conclusion what is going to happen in the field of labour? Because, as has already been indicated, some 80 per cent of the workers in our manufacturing industry will become foreign citizens. Some 90 per cent in mining and agriculture will become foreign citizens. Now we deny them the use of unions and we say that they cannot organize such unions. But once they are foreign citizens, they can establish their own unions in their own countries and register there and operate from there. Then the white unions will be absolutely powerless because they will have no legal authority. In this way, you will find that even minor industrial disputes could become international incidents and might have to go to the United Nations. Here you would have a system of industrial relations which would be based on inter-state bargaining. It is something that has never happened in the free world before. We will have foreign countries who will have a stranglehold over our economy. They will be able to hold us up to ransom, something which no government should be permitted to do to a country. Mr. Speaker, in our case the situation will not arise, because we will see the Black workers as they always have been and as they are now, citizens of South Africa. They will all be subject to the jurisdiction of this Parliament. And on the positive side we would wish to develop them as workers making full use of their potential by training and advancing them, because we know that the white man can advance quicker if the Black man pushes him upwards.

Then, Mr. Sneaker, there is a third consideration we must look at, and that is the strategic one. And this is one that is continually glossed over by that side of the House. But it is necessary that we should look at it. Never before in the history of the world has one sovereign state cut from itself some eight or nine or more different pieces and made them foreign entities. And the implications from a strategic point of view are vast. To begin with; to control access to our country will be made infinitely more difficult. Secondly, if these Black areas will control some of our most important strategic resources, such as water, they will straddle some of our most important communications. It will lengthen our borders by at least six or seven times, and we will still sit with what could well become potentially one of the biggest fifth columns in the world. But. Mr. Speaker, this is precisely what happens with the policy of separate development. We never knew that Korea existed until somebody said it must have separate development and that there must be a north and a south. And we certainly know about Korea now. And the same has happened in the Vietnam. The moment you split a country you leave yourself open to interference by foreigners. In our case it will not be a question of having it 5,000 miles away. It will be right inside our borders, in the heart of South Africa. The Russians for instance have deliberately forced their satellite states to site their factories in close proximity to the Russian border, because then they are so vulnerable. Here we go and we voluntarily site all our factories on the borders of countries that are going to become independent. This would make any general who has any knowledge of these things turn in his grave. In our case, with our policy, the situation will not arise, because we see South Africa from the defence point of view as one entity. We will not create a power vacuum in South Africa. And we shall not sacrifice military control over portions of it if we can possibly avoid it. It is our task to defend South Africa and therefore we are not going to exchange this long-term need for the defence of South Africa for the dubious advantages of short-term political gain.

But there is a fourth consideration I should like to mention, and that is the economic one. Now, the Tomlinson Report made a valid comment when it said that South Africa’s economy was one and that we dare not split it without facing the consequences. And. Mr. Speaker, this has been shown elsewhere. Why did Russia recently have to step into Czechoslavakia with force of arm? It was not just because there was a process of liberalization but it was because they wanted to escape from the Russian economic security zone. The Russians had to force them by force of arms to stay within this network. And we will create the same situation here. Because, what is the natural reaction the moment you begin to create independent political entities? They also want to become independent economically. We ourselves are a classical example of that. And in this way you will set up within South Africa competing economic agencies. And what will happen if they begin to reach saturation point within their own areas, if they industrialize, which they will do soon? The present purchasing power of the reserves is estimated at only about R80 million per year. They will have to export. And if they export they might compete unfairly with us. In that case we will have to put up our tariffs and a protective wall. But what happens if they cannot compete fairly? This is the situation that has arisen in the history of nearly all countries. Initially in their industrialization they are not competitive. One of the stratagems they normally resort to is that they devalue their currency in order to become competitive. Will the Transkei be able to devalue its currency? It cannot, because its currency is our currency. So it might undermine it. It might weaken our currency to the extent where we might have to devalue or to the extent where we will have to go on subsidizing them by massive amounts.

Mr. Speaker, whoever devised the separate development policy had no understanding of the economic factors or deliberatey chose to ignore them. I think it is the latter, because has the hon. the Minister of Finance not said in this House that if need be he will break the laws of finance and economy in order to fit and conform to an ideological pattern? In our case, with our policy this will not arise, because we see South Africa as an economic entity We see it as one entity and we realize that there are certain areas that have underdeveloped regions and that those in the interest of total economy should be developed to the full. That we will do, because we realize too that it is far easier to maintain racial peace in an expanding than in a contracting economic society. We will safeguard and we will avoid political explosion in this country through planned and controlled economic expansion.

And then, Mr. Sneaker, there is a fifth factor, namely the political one. And it is when you take the political aspects of the Government’s policy to its logical consequences that you really realize how farcical the whole thing becomes. Because, in terms of their policy all ethnic entities must now be developed to full nationhood. In some cases it consists of only about 10,000 people. I could put them all into the civic hall at Parow. They must now become fully autonomous units. They will have all the political trappings. We have heard of all the Bantu authorities and everything else. But our charge is that they will practically have no economic substance. And so we are creating here within our own area a cluster of have-not nations who will be casting envious eves upon us—a situation ripe for the political adventurer. This is my main charge against them: In addition to all the so-called political development, what have they done? Rights of real substance have been withdrawn or rescinded and replaced by illusionary rights. That is our contention. And what is more, these illusionary rights are in some cases granted to people in the reserves—and let us be frank about it—who are generally speaking a backward peasantry. But this has been used as an excuse to deny all forms of political participation to the better educated, the more sophisticated groups who live in the rest of South Africa. What iota of logic is there in a policy that promises complete independence to the Damaras, but does not hold it out to the Coloureds, who with the turn of the century will number 6 million people? Unless you create a homeland for the Coloureds and unless you create a homeland for the Indians and take them to full independence, this whole policy stands revealed for what it is, a magnificent edifice but it is a hollow shell. We do not see it this way, “Mr. Cheaper”. [Laughter.] I regret that oversight, Mr. Speaker. I think it is what they call a lapsus linguae, a slip of the tongue, but it has not got any Freudian connection. In our case we would deal with different sections. We see the Bantu homelands as economic and political entities. We believe they should be developed economically and politically because we see them as constituent elements of the broader South African federation. But we also realize there are groups who will not have homelands and those groups must continue to be represented in this House. We also know there are certain crucial over-riding factors which affect the security of the whole of South Africa, matters such as its defence, its currency, its outside contacts, and those things should be decided here in this House. In this House, although all communities will have representation here, the politically more mature group, the group which in any case must foot the bill, namely the White group, should have control. We on this side say that where you have a pluralistic society such as the South African one, consisting of many diverse elements, then the only constitutional system which can begin to look like one that can embody all this and recognize the diversity which is there, yet give you stability, is the federal one. And that is the role of the White man here: he must be the guarantor of political stability. The White man must be the one who must control and see that there will in fact be peaceful and ordered political evolution. That is the task which we will not abdicate. Those gentlemen opposite have now become frightened and shy of the words “White leadership”. But White leadership has brought South Africa to where it: is why should we now run away from it? White leadership in any case is intrinsically as sound as Black leadership and is infinitely preferable to chaos—and what we want to avoid here at all costs is chaos. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, on more than one occasion I have listened to the hon. member who has just spoken, and I must admit that at times I have done so with pleasure. But up to now in this debate I have not heard anybody saying so many contradictory things in such a short while as the hon. member has just done. I want to point out a few of these things to him.

The hon. member started by referring to morality: he brought morality into this. I do not want to argue with him now about the concept of morality and turn it into a game of words. After all, morality can in the first place mean that one has to be honest with the people with whom one has to work, and in the first place with one’s own people. In this regard the hon. member asked whether it constituted morality if in South Africa such a large percentage of the population were only granted 13 per cent of the land. I am asking the hon. member and the United Party to tell the South African electorate, the Whites, that they now wish to apply morality and divide the country on a numerical basis. [Interjections.] I do not even wish to argue about the 13 per cent, which is a controversial statement in any case. The hon. member spoke of morality, and this is the argument he used for attacking the alleged lack of morality on this side of the House.

In the second place he spoke of “agreement” that had to be reached. One can only do these things which the Government is doing if one reaches agreement with the other party. Now I want to ask the hon. member: how is this “agreement” going to be achieved? Will it be on a vote for vote basis? Will everybody over 18 years have the vote? How does the United Party intend to reach “agreement” with the non-Whites of South Africa? I am including the Coloureds here, since the hon. member mentioned the Coloureds as well. Must the Indians, too, everyone of them who lives in this country and is over 18 years, decide over the future of South Africa on a vote for vote basis, everybody on an equal footing with the Whites, the people who are at present in control of this country? May I ask the hon. member what he means by “agreement”? Or must one party have 20 votes and the other party only one? Where is the morality in that, the morality the hon. member attacked on this side of the House?

In the course of his argument the hon. member tried to justify General Smuts’s attitude, and he made the statement that Dr. Verwoerd had been first to speak of these homelands as entities. It is possible that Dr. Verwoerd had been the first person to give shape to this idea. But I want to tell the hon. member that even if perhaps I do not know the history as he does and even I have not travelled as extensively as he has, I do know that as far back as in the course of the Great Trek the principle that every nation had to have its own land was accepted. As far back as that this was accepted as a principle. If he wishes to go back as far as that, he may take a look at the agreement concluded between the Voortrekkers and the various nations, for proper boundaries ensure proper neighbourly relations amongst nations. Therefore, this is no new concept, as was pointed out by another hon. member earlier this afternoon. To grant a homeland to other people, is no new concept. Over all these years, even before the Whites entered the non-White areas, the non-White nations of South Africa accepted this concept. They fought one another; they massacred one another over the boundaries of their fatherland as they saw them. He who denies this, denies an entire history.

Therefore, if the hon. member suggests that this policy was really given shape in the time of Dr. Verwoerd, or that Dr. Verwoerd was the first person to talk about it, I should like to say this to him. I want to read out to him what Dr. Malan said in 1948 when he assumed the reins of government on behalf of the National Party. He mentioned three points which were to hold good as objectives of the National Party in years to come. The first was to keep together Afrikaners who belonged together. The second was to unite English- and Afrikaans-speaking people in South Africa, each with the retention of its own identity and with undivided loyalty to South Africa. That is another promise the National Party has kept over the past 21 years, despite the opposition of the party opposite, despite their opposition to the Republic and to everything that was to effect unity between Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking people in South Africa, something which Dr. Malan set as an objective in 1948. I am mentioning the third point specifically for the hon. member’s information. Dr. Malan said the following (translation)—

Here one finds the germ of the things that are being done in our times. Here these things were predicted. As far back as that it was said what work was to be done in order to grant the non-Whites, in accordance with their own nature and capacity, those things for which they were ripe. Over the years all these things were done by this Government, each time with the strongest opposition from that side of the House. The creation of the homelands and the further development thereof, as is taking place under this Government, is merely the further development of the policy which as long ago as that was outlined by Dr. Malan to the people of South Africa and to the world. Those principles have been developed by the National Government for the past 21 years.

There is one basic difference between the National Party and the United Party, and perhaps the hon. member has not yet noticed it fully since he is as junior a member of this House as I am. This basic difference the hon. member, and I am afraid the hon the Leader of the Opposition and other hon. members opposite as well, has not noticed as yet. To the National Party there is one cardinal condition to which all other things are subordinate. When Dr. Malan spoke at the Union Buildings, he stated his third objective as follows (translation)—

Then he used the following prophetic words. These are prophetic words, but in the assumption of its duties they also constitute a directive to a new government, to the present Government as well—

There we have the one thing which is perhaps being forgotten in these times, the thing the United Party is trying to make South Africa believe, i.e. that nothing has been done. Let me tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition as a whole that when this Government came into power, it did not merely find bare tracts of land where building operations could be commenced. There were also slums that had to be demolished; there were ruins which had first to be razed to the ground before building operations could commence. While Dr. Malan, Advocate Strydom and Dr. Verwoerd were undertaking this task, and to-day while this task is still in progress, that side was and has consistently been trying to destroy the positive work that has been done. All of this is destructive work that they have done. This was done by the United Party. I tried to ascertain, until my time ran out, how many hours of the time of this House were utilized by that side of the House to oppose every measure, including those they are accepting to-day as sound measures. Every measure relating to a way of life peculiar to South Africa they have fought tooth and nail. Last year and the year before last, in the course of debates in this House, the hon. member for Yeoville said that separate residential areas would be respected by the United Party as well. But what opposition did we not find when Group Areas legislation was dealt with here? [Interjections.] If I am doing the hon. member an injustice, I should like to refer to his Hansard. I shall find an opportunity for doing so yet. He said that separate residential areas would be accepted by them.

The Group Areas Act is a very unfair Act.

Yes, there may be many things which are unfair according to the hon. member, but in any case, the hon. member for Yeoville said that the Group Areas Act, as it is being implemented, would be respected by them if they were to come into power. In any case, that will never happen. The hon. member said that that legislation would remain as it is on the Statute Book.

Not the Group Areas Act.

You did say that by implication. This is what the hon. the Prime Minister has elicited to-day by way of an interjection. By implication it was admitted here to-day by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that other legislation, too, was being accepted by the United Party as sound legislation.

There is just one more question I wish to ask the hon. member who has just sat down. In regard to border industries he said that the latter were not being established in the “homelands”. Incidentally, I do not know whether his objections would fall away if we were to move those industries one mile across the border. I do not know whether he would be satisfied then. Later in his speech the hon. member referred to separate entities and to these homelands as home areas. Are they home areas because the National Party made them that? Are they home areas because the National Party has announced a new policy which is changing the world? Or are they home areas because the Transkei and the Ciskei have always been there and because there are other areas where non-Whites are living, where they have already been living as separate nations for years? After all, this is history; surely, these are facts, each of them, and those who deny them are simply denying realities.

The hon. member admits that the work that has already been done, should be continued, that it should be continued at a faster rate, even with the introduction of White capital, as he put it. Then it amazes him that we do not want to develop those areas as an integral part of South Africa. Why then does he incorporate the verbal concept “separate homelands” in his vocabulary as part of their policy? One hears such a confusion of tongues from the Opposition benches that eventually one does not know what they want or do not want or what they admit or what they deny.

General Smuts called them homelands long before you did so.

I am glad to hear that one of the leading figures in the United Party also accepts homelands in our sense of the word.

I just want to deal briefly with two further points. I am now coming to what the hon. member said about the strategic disadvantages this development of the homelands entails for us. I want to ask the hon. member in what respect the situation would in any way be better for South Africa if the United Party’s policy, as announced this afternoon by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, were carried through. In what respect could it in any way place South Africa in a better strategic position? The Transkei and the other Black areas where the Bantu will be living together, will still be there. If the hon. member thinks that it would make for rebellion and unrest, I may just tell him that where groups of people live together in that way and cherish the same ideals, and they still want to rebel, then they will do so, even if it is in Harlem in New York. South Africa’s strategic position is not being prejudiced at all. On the contrary, it is being benefited. Somebody in this House once phrased it the following way: I would rather have him over there; I would rather have a lion over there than cherish a viper in my bosom. This was not a reflection on our non-White population, but as imagery it is at least an explanation of the attitude adopted by the National Party in that regard.

The hon. member also referred to the people who had to be absorbed in our industries. This hon. member started by discussing moralities. Since he referred to consequences of policy, I just want to say that the full consequences of his attitude, if morality is to apply and the non-Whites are to be absorbed in the industries, will be that everybody has to be afforded the same opportunities for work as are afforded to the Whites. Surely, they are to get “the rate for the job” together with all of its implications, no matter what they are. Is this the point of view held by that hon. member and his party? Must they, for the sake of morality, be afforded absolutely equal opportunities in all spheres in the White industries? If that is what the hon. member meant, and I do not doubt his morality, then I want to ask him whether he would propagate this point of view when the election is being held in Newcastle in Natal and in all the other places where by-elections are held. I want to ask that hon. member whether he would defend the premises of morality he proceeded from here this afternoon before the White electorate of South Africa.

Then I also want to try to give the hon. member some advice. This is, after all is said and done, advice I also want to give to a few more members on that side, although there are fortunately still a few exceptions amongst them. I want to tell them that they need not aspire to leadership or give thought to it, but that they should simply fall into line behind the leader of those people who propagated their point of view and paid and will still pay the price for it. They should fall into line behind the hon. member for Houghton. Then they would at least have the satisfaction of being able to join that hon. member in speaking of morality in a way which is also a wrong interpretation, but which can at least be carried through to logical consequences and does not become as confused as has now happened once again to the hon. member for Hillbrow.

Mr. Speaker, in his speech the hon. member for Witbank made a few statements which missed the point completely. He had a long discussion about the Group Areas Act. There has never been a period during which we, as the Opposition, did not say that having separate residential areas was our policy, but it is a fact that the Group Areas Act, as now being implemented by the present Government, is unjust and often places people in an invidious position. When the present Opposition comes into power the Act will be amended to a large extent. The hon. member mentioned the Transkei and its independence, and in connection with the question of control there he asked how the Opposition would implement it. This is precisely where he missed the point completely. When we extend and develop the Transkei as a part of South Africa we, as Whites, retain control over the Transkei. We have that final say, but under your policy you lose that say completely! The hon. the Minister said this afternoon that those homelands would develop to complete independence. When those homelands are completely independent you have no say over them, with this result, to take the matter a little further. Take for example the case of the border industries. Suppose there is such an industry under our policy—what would happen if there were a strike? The hon. member for South Coast asked what would happen in the case of a strike. Under our policy we still have the say. Under your policy you have no say! There is nothing you can do about it. Suppose a workers’ union decided to go on strike to-morrow—what could you do about it? That industry would inevitably come to a standstill. Should you want to do something about it, however, it would become an international incident. It has become even clearer, and I am sure the people see it in the same way that the Bantu policy of the Government we are dealing with here is, as has been stated, not busy failing, but has already failed. I do not think anybody has said a truer word about the policy of the National Party than the hon. member for Umhlatuzana did. According to the Oosterlig of November last year he put it in this way in addressing a meeting in Port Elizabeth (translation)—

What, in contrast to this, have we heard here to-day in connection with pressure from the outside world? Here he says that the policy of the Nationalist Party is changed as a result of stirrings in the outside world!

At this stage of the debate I wish to move—

That the debate be now adjourned.

Agreed to.