Mr. Speaker, where we are dealing with the Bantu policy of the Government, it is a pity that the fiction of it was exposed at so early a stage. Nevertheless, I want to make use of this opportunity to discuss the practical effect of the policy in a reasonably advanced homeland. I need not give the basic particulars. We all know them, but I have to repeat and stress, that the Ciskei-Transkei contains the great majority of Bantu in homelands. As in the case of the other Bantu areas, the same conditions of overpopulation prevail there. It is an underdeveloped area. The veld has been overgrazed and the lands, too, have been exhausted. The carrying capacity and the yields do not meet the needs of the population, not even to mention the increase. This is happening in spite of the Government’s efforts, such as the miles and miles of contours and wire fences about which the hon. the Minister told us yesterday. After the work of all these years the maize crop in the Transkei to-day is only seven bags per family per annum, and in the Ciskei only three bags, as against the minimum requirement of 15 bags per family per annum. And this does not take into account something like last year’s drought, when not one single grain of maize was produced. Now, we must bear in mind that 95 per cent of the grain harvest in those areas consists of maize. In regard of stock farming the position is not much better. The veld has been overgrazed. There is no reserve grazing, nor any question of additional fodder to meet circumstances such as those of last year. Thousands and thousands of head of stock died, and I should like to know from the hon. the Minister exactly how many, and what his estimated total is of the stock that died.

As a result of this state of affairs, and in addition a population increase of nearly 3 per cent and the immigration system which is being applied there by the present Government, that population naturally is a dependent one. They are dependent on the growing sector, the modern sector, and we all know that even a renewed or an expanded agricultural economy cannot absorb the excess of people there. We know that growth is not caused by an excess of people, but that an excess can only be absorbed where there is growth. And it is for this reason that we have the migration to the White area, where development is taking place. So, for example, we have, to supplement the figures my hon. Leader mentioned yesterday, the figures of the Bureau of Statistics in respect of the five sectors, namely mining, manufacturing industry, construction, transport and communication. In these five sectors there is a total of 2,234,000 employees only 529.000 of whom are Whites, while 1,414.000 are non-Whites. And the most interesting point about this is that during that period of growth, 1966 to 1968, which the hon. the Minister mentioned yesterday, the increase in White employees was 32,000, as against 144,000 non-Whites. As has been said, the Government for ideological reasons is now trying to stop this flow to the White sector. In order to try to do this they are now establishing country towns in these homeland areas. According to the hon. the Minister of Community Development, when he was still a Deputy Minister, 125 of these towns have been planned and three of them are now going up like ant hills in the Ciskei, namely Sada. Ilenge and Mngqesha, which are already over-populated.

Mr. Speaker, can you imagine what concentration of unemployed is being caused by this? What are the economic consequences of this? It means that an enormous capital amount of millions of rands is being used un-productively for housing and for the services in connection with that. Not only this, but also for the support of the people living in those villages. Where this happens within the framework of the Department of Social Welfare one can still understand it, but where people are taken out of employment to sit there unemployed, it is nothing but a disgrace. How can one reconcile the existence of these conditions with statements by hon. members on the other side? Let us look at what Grensboer says in Die Oosterlig of 13th December, 1968, in an article entitled “Are we putting the cart before the horse?” In that article he quotes the hon. the Deputy Minister of Justice, the hon. member for Heilbron. And, Sir, do you know what he said? He said the following (translation)—

Let us now look at Grensboer’s own comments on this speech. He wrote (translation)—

Yet this is precisely what is happening. We have been putting forward these things all these years from this side. Since I entered this House I have mentioned them every year.

Let us look at the psychological effect of this state of affairs. For how long can one live on rations alone? Surely there are other needs that must be provided for. Surely it is a fact that in most people there is a desire or even an urge to work. Work and remuneration for what one does engenders self-respect, but how long will the Bantu retain their self-respect under conditions such as these? Just move around amongst them and ask them whether they are happy and how they feel about the matter. Nine out of ten will tell you that they can do nothing about it; they cannot help it. There is an old Afrikaans saying which runs: “Give a man a fish and he will have food for only one day: teach him to fish and he will have food for the rest of his life.” Does not our problem to-day lie precisely in the fact that it is the hungry man who falls victim to the evil we want to fight tooth and nail at the present time? The hon. the Minister said yesterday that a people saved itself: that it generated its own development. But I ask you, Sir, how can these people generate any development? If they could perhaps do it, how long would it take? There is a committee of the U.N. that found that the development of African states, would, I think, take 340 years. In my opinion that period will have to be extended to 3,000 years. I ask you, Sir, where would South Africa have been if it had had to generate its own development? Employment opportunities for the Bantu—that is the stumbling-block of the Bantu population. Let us look at what the Bureau for Economic Research of Stellenbosch wrote in a report, issue number 59, page A.7, para. B.13, of 1st November, 1968—please note: Not 1948! According to that report the greater production capacity in the field of manufacturing industry for the whole of the Republic is 26 per cent; lesser, 3 per cent. As regards the border area, greater—a nought, a nought just like the Minister’s; lesser, 16 per cent. As regards the number of employees for the border area the position is as follows: Greater, again absolutely nothing; lesser, 21 per cent. And that, Mr. Speaker, less than a year ago!

What area are you talking about now?

The Ciskei/Transkei border area, the largest homeland in South Africa. Now let us look at the most recent report, dated 31st January, 1969. The greater production capacity for the Republic was 31 per cent; lesser, 3 per cent. For the Border it was as follows: greater, 18 per cent; lesser, 21 per cent. If we look at the number of employees, the position is as follows: Greater, 12 per cent; lesser, 36 per cent. Does this look like progress? Mr. Speaker, the extent of our problem in that border area is such that we do not only need the third Iscor there, but also the fourth and fifth plus all its ancillary industries. When hon. members on the other side boast of border areas, mention is always made of the Good Hope Textile factory at King William’s Town. Quite rightly so, because it is undoubtedly one of the best border industries we have, if not the best. But what hon. members on the other side never mention, is that according to their policy that industry is situated on the wrong side of the border. Now, where is the exploitation of the Bantu we have to hear about every day? This is a model industry, an industry that could well be taken as an example to be followed by many others. Sir, it is high time that the Government woke up from its dream. It is no longer the time of “Botha in Bab land”; now it is “Botha in Bantu land”. One of these days it is perhaps “Botha in foreign parts”, because then this Government will no longer be in power. What does all this nibbling at political rights mean when these basic problems exist? Priority number one, the hon. the Minister said yesterday, is the development of authorities.

No.

Just have a look at his speech and you will see that he said so. He said that numbers did play a part, but that the development of authorities was priority number one. It is high time that the Government became less obsessed with Bantu domination in the political field. And while I am talking about this, I just want to say this, that the Government must please be careful about being so proud of the result of the recent election in the Transkei, because the party that won that election was the Transkeian National Independence Party, the party of Matanzima. And you know, Mr. Speaker, what the points of policy were that that party put before the people—for example: they would strive for the acceleration of independence and for more land for the Transkei. Is there any point of policy that could cause greater disputes in the future than precisely that unsettled question? But let us look for a moment at this political development in the Bantu areas, where it has now, in terms of the new dispensation, been handed over to the Bantu personnel. There was a Chief Bantu Commissioner in King William’s Town who not only looked after the Bantu in the Bantu area, but also after the Bantu in the white area, but now that they are taking over, he is becoming Chief Director only of the Bantu in the Bantu area, and his staff is being supplemented by dozens of white public servants. The Bantu are taking over now, but at least they are getting this in addition. Office blocks are being built in Zwelitsha, the Bantu town, but do you know, Sir, there are two large Bantu towns in the Ciskei, Mdantsane and Zwelitsha, but both these towns do not fall under the Bantu authority. Because they are situated in the Bantu area they do not fall under the Chief Bantu Commissioner who is now in Port Elizabeth either. In other words, they are not under any authority.

Sir, is this planning? Chaotic. If we cannot understand this, what hope do the Bantu have of understanding it? A great fuss is made about whether our policy will be accepted. The hon. the Minister told us yesterday of the difficulties with the Bantu, their beliefs and their superstitions, etc. I agree with him, but does he not know then that one of the beliefs of the Bantu is to be loyal to the Government in power? Sir, one can speak to any well-informed or influential Bantu, and there is not one who would not rate the policy of the United Party far above the policy of the Government. [Interjection.] Can one say anything but that there is no initiative or planning on the part of the present Government, a Government that cannot solve South Africa’s most urgent problems, the shortage of White trained manpower and the surplus of untrained Bantu. My hon. Leader put it very clearly yesterday when he said that the Nationalist Party was divided into three groups and that the present Government did not have the confidence of any of those three groups. There is only one salvation for South Africa, and that is contained in the key word of the policy of the United Party, namely race federation, which was again put so clearly by my hon. Leader. Therefore I fully support this motion.

Before I come to the hon. member for King William’s Town—and I am in a hurry to come to him—I first want to deal with the hon. member for Hillbrow, who wanted to lecture us on morality here yesterday afternoon. He was dealing with the hon. member for Benoni and took it amiss of him for allegedly not having read General Smuts’s speech in full. The hon. member for Hillbrow then wanted to prove certain statements by quoting the late Dr. Verwoerd. I have no objection to that, if he is unable to prove his own case, but then one would at least expect him to quote Dr. Verwoerd correctly and not out of context. What I want to refer to is the following, and I want to thank the hon. member for having allowed me to read the unrevised copy of his Hansard speech. He quoted Dr. Verwoerd and said—

One sentence, one breath. Let us go back to 1st May, 1951, when Dr. Verwoerd made a speech in the Other Place when he introduced his motion of policy. Dr. Verwoerd replied to certain statements and referring to Senator Jackson, he said—

That is what Dr. Verwoerd said, but the hon. member then omitted—

Here he once again omitted a piece.

Who did?

The hon. member who quoted Dr. Verwoerd here and who wanted to give us a lecture on morality. I am just proving how the hon. member wanted to put words into the mouth of Dr. Verwoerd, or rather how he omitted certain words. Sir, I asked the hon. member by way of interjection to go on reading. Unfortunately my time is limited. There are other hon. members who would also like me to reply to them. But what did Dr. Verwoerd say in that same debate, virtually in the same breath? He said—

At that stage Dr. Verwoerd was laying down the basis of self-government consisting of tribal authorities, regional authorities and territorial authorities, and that was why he said what he was envisaging and what he was not envisaging. He said—

Now that, Sir, is the morality we have to contend with here! I have nothing more to say to that hon. member.

What have you proved now?

If hon. members now ask me in their embarrassment what I have proved and if they still do not know what I have proved, I pity them.

You have proved absolutely nothing.

[Inaudible.]

It is a matter between that hon. member and his conscience whether he is still going to use the words of Dr. Verwoerd to prove the statements he made here yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, I now want to come to the hon. member for King William’s Town. This afternoon the hon. member adopted a different attitude here to the one I had expected him to adopt. Actually I had expected that he would have done what the Daily Despatch had told him to do, namely, to tell of all the misery which exists in Sada and in Hinge and Mngqesha, the three towns mentioned by him. It is strange that one moment he was telling us that there were only two Bantu towns in the Ciskei, namely Zwelitsha and Mdantsane, but that only a few minutes previously he was telling us of the many towns which were developing. I had expected him to carry on in that vein and I had expected him to carry on in the vein in which the United Party along with all the other liberalists carry on, as they are carrying on about Limehill. I should very much like to talk about Limehill, and I may still be allowed the time to say something about it this afternoon.

Have you been there?

Yes, I have been there and I have paid visits to Sada, Ilinge and Mngqesha as well as all the other Bantu towns which these other people also like visiting so much, but I have not been there in the company of the Black Sash. I went there on my own. I did not even visit those places with a priest. When I go to those areas I go on my own and I conduct a proper investigation. I am not going to let myself be influenced there by other liberal parties, as happens to the opposite side when hon. members of the Opposition go there. Yes, I see that the hon. member for Port Natal is giving me a look. He of course, knows with which one of his political bed-follows he went there. Now, let us come back to Sada, Ilinge and Mngqesha. The hon. member wanted to give us to understand here that people were being taken from their employment, were being endorsed out and were then put in those places and given rations. Now I want to ask the hon. member whether he has been there?

He has never been there.

Yet he wants to tell me here what the Bantu are saying. I know what the Bantu are saying, I speak the Xhosa language as well as he does, or even better. I also speak to them. Why do the Bantu not tell me the things they tell him? Can they tell by his face that he belongs to the United Party? I want to tell you, Sir, that we have a difficult problem at Sada, because at Sada we are settling the down and out Bantu nobody else in the world wants, people who are poor outcasts and for whom there are no other refuge. Forgive me for referring to what has happened on my own farm. My son’s garden boy died round-about December. He was in his employ. He was a man who had a large family. He left a wife and children and some of his older daughters already have children of their own. He was the only breadwinner of that family. That woman cannot go to any municipal area now, because no municipality wants to or may build a house for her. Where is she to go? The other day I asked my son, “Where is old Sophie” and he replied, “She is still here, Dad”. I then asked him what she was living on, and he replied: “I still pay her her wages, and I still give her her rations, but I cannot go on doing so. Something has to be done. Settle her somewhere.” I then asked him whether he had seen the Bantu Affairs Commissioner, and he replied, “Yes, and as soon as there is a vacancy for her at Ilinge, she may go there”. This is the type of person we settle at Sada, Ilinge and Mngqesha. We are settling pensioners and other unsettled people there, people who squat at other places, also people who used to live along the Fish River. Yes, now the hon. member is grinning at me—I beg your pardon Mr. Speaker, he is smiling at me. Some people along the Fish River sold their properties and they had old families who could not be placed in other employment and these are the people we are resettling.

Are they the only ones?

I am referring to old pensioners who do not have any other accommodation. Municipalities come to us for permission to build houses and they tell us that they do not have sufficient funds, not even with the grants of the Housing Committee, to accommodate all these people. We must settle those pensioners somewhere and we are doing so. There are cases of unmarried mothers where the father later appears on the scene and says, “These are my children. I am now prepared to take the woman”. Thereafter those people no longer receive rations. The hon. member referred to the enormous costs being incurred. If welfare work is being done anywhere, we are doing it there. I am not ashamed of it. Proper control is being exercised. Those who draw a pension get a pension, whether it is the man or the woman, or both. There are cases of persons who cannot even do distress relief work. Those cases are investigated, and not only once per month either. Their circumstances may change. There may be one who may become fit to do distress relief work. She then receives an allowance of 20c per day. We let them dig holes for planting trees. We are going to beautify the place to the best of our ability. It is extremely dry there, as the hon. member knows. It is not an easy task. Water is not in plentiful supply. It is being carried to the places we cannot reach by means of the pipes already laid.

But you can use tanks for getting drinking water there.

I cannot hear everything the hon. member is saying, but I shall carry on on my own. I can do without his assistance, there as well as here in this House. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister may continue.

The people we employ there on distress relief work do not only plant trees but also gather stones for the crushers, so that that stone may be used in the concrete for the houses which are being built there. If the hon. member maintains that there is no employment, I want to tell him that more than 80 Bantu are employed in brick-making alone. In addition there are the Bantu employed in building houses. All other Bantu who are still capable of working are registered as work-seekers. There are not many of them, however, because they are not allowed to live there. There are other places where they can go and live. A town is being established there and the inhabitants are more or less the same kind of people. It affords accommodation to Bantu who have no other refuge. If indeed there are such Bantu there, they go to work as registered work-seekers at other places. The suspicion which the hon. member wants to sow here. i.e. that Bantu are being taken there on a large scale, Bantu who have employment, and that they receive aid there in the form of rations and pensions, is completely unfounded.

Is it happening or is it not happening?

What point would there be in my saying that it was true while the hon. member kept on denying it? These things do not sound too good to the United Party. They do not like hearing about these things because it does not suit them. They like going to places such as Limehill …

You have never been there?

I have been to Limehill too. If the hon. member does not believe me he can go and ask Headman Inca Kunene or Headman Mcunu.

He knows them!

Go and ask them. Go and ask them what problems they put to me when I was there on 30th November during the terrible epidemic which was allegedly raging there at that time and when people were, according to Press reports, allegedly dying on a large scale. Hon. members would like it if I spoke on that basis. The hon. member for King William’s Town said there was no development in the Ciskei and in the Transkei. He said there were no border industries and he quoted a lot of noughts, how many I do not know. Surely he has been to King William’s Town and knows about the Good Hope Textiles and of the border industries …

When was Good Hope Textiles established?

All right, I am prepared to give Good Hope Textiles to the United Party as a present. It was in existence when they were in power, but if I were a supporter of the United Party, I would not have mentioned it in view of what a pathetic place it was at that time. Nothing was happening there.

That is not true.

Now the hon. member for Transkei comes along with that strong argument of his, namely “That is not true”. He can really go and make that speech somewhere else. The hon. member for King William’s Town knows of the development of border industries at East London and at King William’s Town. The hon. member knows that Queenstown is getting border industry privileges, and as soon as the Bantu township there has been completed we hope industries will be established there on a larger scale than at present.

That is some hope.

It is more of a hope than that which the United Party has of ever coming into power again.

How many border industries are there on the Transkeian border?

Does the hon. member now want me to tell him about them?

Just name me one.

It depends which one you are interested in. Are there not Bantu of the Transkei who have also been drawn into East London? Is it our task to start industries there? Is it not the task of the Government to create conditions and when that has been done is it not the task of the industrialists themselves to carry on from there?

Then the hon. member for King William’s Town had complaints about planning. During the past drought when I drove through those areas, there were parts of the Bantu areas where planning had been completed, where the grazing was much better than that in the white areas. I admit that there were areas where the grazing was poor, because it is extremely dry in that vicinity. One must have seen it for oneself before one can have any idea of how dry it really is. If the hon. member wanted to suggest that there was no planning, however, he knows that what he would be presenting to this House would not be the true facts. Planning has been undertaken and an advanced stage has been reached with fencing off the grazing. I want to admit that crops are poor. There was no crop last year and the crop of the year before was also poor. If relief does not come soon, there will be no crop this year either. But now I want to ask what conditions are like in the white areas? What is the crop like in the white area? The hon. member told us what the yield was in the Transkei in bags per morgen, but I want to ask him where in the white area in that vicinity it is any better. There were no crops the past few years. I admit that conditions are still poor in many places, and that is why we treat the farmers’ association there as co-operations and grant them loans for obtaining the necessary traction, fertilizers and decent seed. It is of no use, however, to lend a man money to plough and fertilize his fields and to sow good seed when that does not yield a crop, and that is what has been happening for the third year running. The hon. member raised a smokescreen here simply to see whether he could not gain an advantage where there was no advantage to be gained. Those Bantu are as much employed in industries and at other places where they have looked for work as is the case as regards the rest of the country. In fact, you will find, Sir, that there still are large numbers of Bantu from the Ciskei and the Transkei in Gape Town and the Western Cape than from any other place. For the hon. member to say that there are no employment opportunities and that the people there are dying of misery and that they are being supported by the State, is simply so much nonsense.

Mr. Speaker, if I still have a little time at my disposal I want to say a few words about the “Limehill Scandal”. You know, Sir, I am not the one who coined that phrase. It is not even an original one. In point of fact it came from the Rand Daily Mail which used it as long ago as 5th December. 1968. I just want to try and point out in a few words who the guilty parties, the big ring-leaders, in this scandal are. Do you know who they are, Sir? They are occupying the front benches of the United Party in Another Place. I shall not deal with them here, I shall rather do it there. In addition to those, however, there are some who are sitting in this House. Then there is the English-language Press, certain newspapers. I do not want to group them together, because I most definitely want to exclude the Natal Mercury, which published an objective account about Limehill.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, I know that since the publication of Mr. Morgan’s objective account those hon. members no longer like to read the Natal Mercury as much as they did before. Sir, I was saying that some of those hon. members are sitting here. One of them is the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District). He also has a word to add, but then he always has. Then there is the hon. member for Port Natal and his friends Mr. and Mrs. Grice. Mrs. Grice is the Chairwoman of the Black Sash of the “Natal Coastal Region”. They visited Limehill on the same day, Sir. They conducted their investigations together. Then there is Mrs. Barbara Wilkes, Chairwoman of the Cape Western Territory. Then of course there is yet another person. I shall definitely not overlook her. I see she is sitting on pins and needles in case I should fail to mention her. I am referring to the hon. member for Houghton. Then there are still a few members of the clergy, Archbishop Dennis Hurley and Father Rodney Nelson, for example, and then there are still people like Margaret Smith and Molly Reinhardt. Mr. Speaker, if there are more characters in this thriller who may qualify for the role of the villain, and if I have overlooked them, I ask them to forgive me. There are many in this House who have taken part in this.

The hon. member for Port Natal is the man who said last year on 5th June (Hansard, Vol. 24, Col. 6603) that the people who were being removed to these places—and in this case it is Limehill in particular that we have in mind—were being removed under compulsion. What he was really saying at that time was that the people had been threatened with 90 days or 180 days. [Interjections.] It has to be correct because it appears in the Hansard report of the hon. member’s speech. That is what he said. I now come to Mrs. Barbara Wilkes, to whom I have referred. I should just like to read out to hon. members what this lady said in connection with the situation at …

Is that a Security Policy file?

No, Mr. Speaker, it is …

Order! It is not necessary for the hon. the Deputy Minister to reply to that interjection.

I just want to give him the information, Mr. Speaker. This is the serial. This is the thriller. This is the gossip about one single place, namely Lime-hill. The stories about Sada and Ilinge, are nearly as exaggerated. [Interjection.] I am still going to be here for the next six months.

On 23rd February, 1968, only a few days after the first six families had been brought to Limehill, Mrs. Barbara Wilkes wrote as follows to The Cape Times—

Mr. Speaker, now I just want to deal with one aspect of this matter, namely Vergelegen, because time is running out. Now these are the people who are being forced from their homes. They may not take their cattle with them. They are being deprived of everything. Sir, Vergelegen is the farm which the Cunu tribe bought with the money which they received for the black spot farm they used to own, namely Boshoek. If there is talk of rights which used to exist, I want to ask hon. members opposite a question. There are a few more senior members, inter alia, the hon. member for South Coast, who used to be so devoted to the 1936 Act and who had helped to place it on the Statute Book. If those places were Bantu property, places where the Bantu were to have rights for all time, why did they not declare the area in which Boshoek is situated a Bantu area in the 1936 Act? Why was that area already regarded as a black spot at that time? That area was not included in the schedule as were the other territories adjoining it. So, in carrying out this policy, we bought land in the Msinga reserve in accordance with the process of consolidation. The Cunu tribe bought some of that land.

Was it not the Kunene tribe?

Yes. I make mistakes too, but not as many as the hon. member sitting over there. However, seeing that I am talking about the Cunu tribe, I may just mention that they were on leased Indian land. [Interjection.] It is a good thing the hon. member knows who the person was. Now he will not also be able to claim that this too was a man who used to live at places where he was deprived of his home and his property. That tribe bought land to such an extent that they still have a credit balance at the present time, which they can use for development. [Time expired.]

The hon. member who has just sat down was not able to complete his remarks about Limehill. He was doing his best to defend an impossible position, because he ended on the note that the Natal Mercurywas the only decent newspaper which gave the truth. It is true that it gave the truth, and the last article which he no doubt thinks was a magnificent article in favour of his work …

It was very objective.

It was very objective and very truthful. It in fact exposes in about four lines the whole lack of organization in regard to the whole episode of Limehill and the other two farms alongside of it. It is a terrible thought that after all these years that this Government has been transporting human beings from one place to another, such a state of affairs could happen as happened at Limehill and the other two farms. There was no planning. The main thing that stands out over the whole of this episode is the fact that the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development did not consult any of his colleagues and has never consulted any of his colleagues.

You are delirious with Congo ’flu.

He certainly never at any time consulted the Department of Health. I cannot possibly believe—and I am certain of what I say—that the area which is now occupied by these three tribes, or offshoots of

Col. 111:

tribes, was approved for occupation by numbers of human beings by the Department of Health. Even now, one year later, the question of the sanitation is not settled. The people in Limehill, some of them, were given small plots.

Did you visit Limehill?

I did. I went to Limehill.

Practically everybody saw Limehill. [Interjection.]

The hon. the Minister did not go there but sent some of his senior officers. [Interjection.]

Order!

I saw what I saw and I bear witness to what I saw and what I heard from the different Natives I met there. There is now a reasonable amount of water for the town of Limehill. It is potable water, carefully controlled, but the farm the Kunene tribe has been settled on has not sufficient water. It has two water-points for a very large area.

Are you referring to “Uitval” or “Vergelegen”?

No, “Uitval”, where the Kunene are.

That is “Vergelegen”.

These people have two boreholes now, for a very large area, and they are building a dam and one of the boreholes was being fitted with a diesel engine while I was there. The chief has no water supply unless it is brought to him by tanker. Is the Government going indefinitely to supply the chief with water from a tanker? Is the Government going to maintain the pumps? The nearest garage is 25 miles away. [Interjection.] I have had experience of diesel engines, and what is going to happen to these people if their diesel engines break down? There will be three of them at least, 25 miles from the nearest mechanic. And only now, a year later, is the third borehole being brought into use.

Somebody gave you the wrong information.

I saw it. It is not the wrong information. It is the information that you did not get, because you say the Natives did not speak to you as they spoke to us. They do not speak to Government motor-cars. [Interjections.] In any event the main problem is the question of sanitation, the disposal of human waste, the potential source of nearly all epidemics; and there was an epidemic while we were there. If you want the names of the people in the cemetery, I will be quite prepared to supply them to the Minister. I saw 1,000 cards, all of which had been filled in by doctors—1,000 cards of patients, and the man who gave them to me said that three-quarters of them related to children with diarrhoea. I looked at them; I did not inspect the whole lot, because that would have taken too long, but I think that was a fair estimate, that out of the 1,000 cards 750 were those of children suffering from gastro-enteritis. There was no protection from flies, which were numerous. In parts the Natives have been told to dig pit latrines, and some of the properties are in rock, which will need blasting to produce a pit latrine. I know Newcastle. I know that area because I was brought up there. The land is hard when it has not rained for months and to expect women—because it is mostly women who are there—to dig a 20-foot deep latrine and to protect the sides is quite unreasonable. There is no prospect of decent sanitation until the whole system is changed. There is not enough water for water-borne sewerage, but it has been decided, I am told, that a bucket system will be introduced. But it has not been started. No one is there to educate them if they do have it, and what is going to happen for the rest of this summer? Basically the whole tragedy of Limehill and its surroundings is entirely due to lack of co-operation with other Departments. In some cases they should have had the Military up there to teach them to put up tents. These unfortunate people were taken up there in summer and spent winter there and given tents. They were not told how to keep the tents in order, or how to look after the ropes, and at times the tents fell down over the families. These women had no knowledged whatever and there was nobody to instruct them as to what to do about the tents, to get them up again. You do not expect women to put up tents, nor do you expect women with babies on their backs to dig pits in the hard soil of Natal at this time of the year. The Minister and his two assistants are autonomous: they are dictators. They do not consult their colleagues. They certainly do not consult the Minister of Social Welfare and they do not consult the Minister of Health.

That is not quite correct.

Well, we will hear from the Minister of Health. I spoke to his own officials. It is true that they have been there since. It is true too that the District Surgeon did not visit there for quite a period and the Department in Durban knew nothing about it. It is unreasonable. Sir, to expect women to bring up babies when they have been uprooted from the small gardens which they had in the areas in which they formerly resided and which provided them with supplementary food for their children. They have nothing to give them. Recently, thanks to the hon. the Minister of Health, there has been an issue of dehydrated soup and of dehydrated milk, issued at roughly a pound a month per child. Fortunately that has been done and to that extent there is some alleviation of the protein shortage. It is unfair to uproot people who have lived for years in a certain area and who have cultivated their little patches of land and in that way supplemented their husbands’ earnings and to expect children to survive under conditions such as these. As far as the question of water is concerned, let me say that while the water at present is good, without any doubt, that water was not there when they were taken there.

Were you there on the first day?

They were months without a water supply.

How do you know that?

I asked them. The water supply scheme is not complete yet; there is insufficient water now.

They have lots of water there.

A year later there was not sufficient water for them. They have not got any fuel. When are they going to get fuel? The State Health Officer told them to boil their water.

Did you not see the water tanks standing there?

There are walls standing there without roofs because there is no thatch available anywhere in the area. There are people still living in tents.

People who turned up there a week or two ago.

No, people who have been there all the time but who, because they were tenants, got no issue of poles, etc.

That is not true either.

They have no money to buy it anyhow. There is no thatch to be bought anywhere in the area. There was a little available at first and then it developed into a black market, and in the last few months there has been no thatch at all. There is no thatch and the Government should have provided it. When it provided the poles it should have provided the thatch. [Interjections.] There is no black market in poles; it is in thatch. Mr. Speaker, I have to look at this in the light of the fact that this is not the first time it has happened. This sort of thing has happened perhaps a hundred times and we have not known about it. The fact that the scandal was exposed in the end is something that is right, but this does not detract from the fact that this has been going on for years in this process of moving people from one place to another. Sir, human beings have been moved over centuries: millions of people have been moved over this last century as a result of the two wars, but there has been more cruel, utter neglect in the working of the Bantu Department than anywhere else in the whole of the country.

That is absolutely untrue.

This is not due to ignorance it is due to lack of organization and thought at the head. They know what is wrong, but they do not see that it is attended to. I spoke to the only two officials on the spot there and I asked them a few questions—not particularly interesting questions—and their reply to me was that they had only arrived a week or two ago and that they really knew nothing about it. So the neglect goes on.

I will make you an offer. I will send you there with an official who knows everything about it and you can question him as much as you like. I am quite prepared to do that.

I am talking of the past: I am not talking of the present. The Archbishop himself told me that he thought the position was improving. But what was the position like a year ago when these people went there? That is my accusation.

I will send you there with an official.

I am not dealing now with what is there to-day; the position is improving. Those people were planted there on bare veld. The hon. the Deputy Minister does not deny that. Only a few tents were put up.

You are dreaming.

Everybody says and we all know that the position is improving to-day. That is largely due to the actions of this side of the House. People went up there and pointed out what was happening. The improvement is largely due to the fact that there was an exposure of the large number of deaths that were taking place. Sir, this Government’s record has been so bad, especially in respect of health, that they do not know what the average death-rate should be under these circumstances. We have no figures; the Minister’s Department does not know what the position is and the Minister of Health cannot tell me what the normal death-rate was amongst the Bantu in the places from which they came and what he believes the death-rate should be now. There are no vital statistics. A year or two ago this House passed a law saying that Bantu deaths must be registered, but there are no registrations of any value. The Department of Health does not know what the vital statistics are in the Bantu areas. They do not register Bantu deaths. In this area recently, within the last month, the Government has instructed the chiefs to appoint an induna to record all deaths, but there has been a delay and I am not sure that this scheme has started yet. There has been a delay because although the chiefs nominated the individuals, the names must go to Pretoria before they could be instructed what to do to be appointed. The police have said that they will accept registrations, but they take no serious interest in deaths unless they believe that it is an unnatural death. There are no statistics available from which we can tell whether there is an epidemic or not until there is a scandal. One chief there said to me: “We have always had a certain number of deaths amongst our babies, deaths from diarrhoea, and so on …”

That happens all over the world.

That is quite true, but this chief said to me, “There have been many more this year than the average number”.

All over Natal.

Sir, moving people from their homes is a terrible thing. My Leader yesterday outlined a plan which, if carried out, I believe, would mean a contented and happy South Africa as a whole. This Government is creating a Naboth’s vineyard, and if you look up the definition of “Naboth’s vineyard” you will see that it is the possession of something which somebody else envies and which he is able to take. That is what is happening here. We are creating something which the Bantu will envy and which they will be able to take.

Mr. Speaker, I never had the privilege nor the opportunity of visiting Limehill. I am, however, convinced that the hon. the Minister of Health will in due course give a very effective reply to the charges levelled here. Let me inform the hon. member who has just resumed his seat that we are also acquainted with the story of Naboth’s vineyard. I also want to tell him that the white man also has a place and_ must have a place to live in South Africa. It is unfortunate that during the 300 years of the development of South Africa such an intermingling of nations has taken place that removals have to take place to-day. I agree with him that it is unfortunate that this should be the case. But it is this Government which has the courage of its convictions and which is taking it upon itself to do these things so that we may enjoy peace and quiet and orderliness in South Africa. We listened yesterday to an 80-minute speech made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He devoted approximately 70 minutes of his speech to giving us a resumé of what has been said and written by others. We do not begrudge other people the right to air their opinions. We do not begrudge the hon. the Leader of the Opposition the right to read out to us that resumé of what was said by other people, in a no-confidence debate such as this one. We can certainly learn from the suggestions made and opinions expressed by other people. We can learn from well-intentioned statements in so far as they are well-intentioned. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition devoted the last 10 minutes of his speech to a summary of the United Party’s race federation plan. This was the alternative put forward by the hon. Leader as a substitute for the National Party’s policy of separate development.

Separate development?

Yes, the National Party’s policy of separate development for which we make no excuse. It is our policy with whatever problems it may entail, and it does entail many problems. But in spite of all the problems it entails, we adhere to that policy because we are convinced that it is the only policy for a country such as South Africa, a policy in terms of which each can retain his own identity. In the last ten minutes of his speech the hon. the Leader of the Opposition told us once again about the race federation scheme of his party. I shall, however, deal with that later. I said that we would learn from and adopt suggestions from what people say and write on the rate of development and the desirability of the development of Bantu homelands and the settlement or re-settlement of people in their own homelands. However, this Government cannot allow itself to be forced off course by the opinions, however well-intentioned, of other people. This Government is bound by a mandate which it has received from the electorate. The electorate gave the Government this directive to put its policy of separate development into operation in South Africa, and it must adhere to that policy. The Government adheres only to that mandate given it by the electorate. At the polls the electorate not only expressed its faith in the Government and entrusted to it the policy of separate development, but they also entrusted to it the application of this policy and the modus operandi. In the second part of his speech where he referred to the race federation scheme, the Leader of the Opposition did not, to my mind, succeed in convincing anyone in this House and least of all the voting public outside of any loss of confidence in the policy of separate development. By no means did he convince people that his policy of race federation was the right course for South Africa with its complicated population structure. This matter has repeatedly been discussed on an election platform. It was even discussed in the time when the United Party drew up maps to convince the electorate that the position in South Africa was going to change to such an extent that eventually there would not be a single non-White in South Africa if they came into power. This matter was settled at various elections in the past and the race federation scheme of the United Party has, to an increasing extent, been rejected at each election. This scheme has not only been rejected in South Africa, but this scheme of partnership, and that is what the race federation scheme is, has been rejected in Africa. It has not succeeded in any country in Africa. The policy of partnership in Kenya, under the “British Colonial Office” did not succeed.

What does this have to do with our policy?

Everything, because what I have just mentioned is a parallel case. Where the black man was in the majority, white leadership failed, and the price paid by the white man there was a heavy one. In Kenya it gave rise to the Mau Mau. It is a parallel policy, although it might have been phrased somewhat differently, to the policy sketched here by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition yesterday and on previous occasions. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition told us yesterday that under that policy white leadership would be preserved for all time. Will this race federation be a democracy or a dictatorship? If we glance at world history, we see that what counts in a democracy is a majority. In a democracy numbers count.

Where do you see this in South Africa to-day?

I am glad the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made that interjection. Through the mouth of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his predecessors the United Party has accused the National Party of being the suppressors of the black man in South Africa. But now the Leader of the Opposition is depriving them politically of all opoortunities to develop to the maximum of their ability. They must now be suppressed for ever. But they are accusing us of bringing down the wrath of the world on South Africa through the application of our policy. We have allegedly alienated the friends we once had. But I want to ask the I eader of the Opposition a question. Does he think that by telling the world that through his policy he is only going to give a 6 per cent say to 75 per cent of the population of South Africa, he will in any way satisfy the outside world? Will that form of white leadership satisfy the world? Will he by so doing regain the friendship of the outside world? I want to ask the Leader of the Opposition whether the world is satisfied with the present form of white leadership in Rhodesia? Is the world satisfied with it and do they accept it as leadership? No, they are insisting on one thing only, and that is a black majority government in Rhodesia. That same kind of pressure will be exerted on South Africa if that policy were to be put into operation here.

Your concept of the circumstances is quite incorrect.

No, I am not understanding it quite incorrectly. I listened to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The trouble is that that hon. member and the most of the members on that side of the House do not understand the race federation scheme of the United Party at all. All they have to do is test it on the electorate. They do not understand it. This plan was rejected. The Leader of the Opposition will not regain the friendship of the world by giving only 6 per cent representation in a federal parliament to 75 per cent of the population of South Africa. He will definitely not achieve anything by that. From time to time reference is made here to the so-called 13 per cent of the land which is being given to the Bantu, and derogatory references are sometimes made to this. It is high time we called to mind the fact that this arrangement to purchase 7¼ million morgen of land for the Bantu Trust was not made by this Government or the National Party, but this arrangement was made in 1936 when the United Party was in power. It is therefore not so immoral to give only 13 per cent to the Bantu since this accusation must then be directed at those kindred spirits of the tiny Opposition which is still sitting there.

Now I want to say a few things about agricultural development in the Bantu homelands. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development was quite justified in stating here yesterday that he wanted to thank and congratulate the officials of his Department with the progress that had been made and the dedication with which they had set about their task. Truly, it is no easy task. I am not referring in derogatory terms to any other section when I say that I really think the agricultural section of this Department deserves special mention for everything that has been done in the field of agriculture, the more so since every effort is being made to develop the agricultural potential in the Bantu homelands to its maximum.

People may speak in derogatory terms about conditions which may prevail there. I do not want to dispute this as it may be true. But stricken areas also exist in white South Africa, places that are stricken from time to time. In parts of the Western Transvaal we only harvested three bags per morgen last year as a result of circumstances beyond our control. This can happen, it can happen anywhere, and the State renders assistance where it is able to do so in such circumstances. The Opposition and everybody in South Africa should take into account that we cannot merely build dams and lay out irrigation units, we cannot merely develop the soil and prepare it for agriculture. No, the farmer must also be prepared, the human material must also be developed and trained, and a great deal is being done in this connection. Allow me to quote a few figures. As far as the informal training of agronomists is concerned, 200 students were enrolled at the four agricultural colleges in 1968. Bantu agricultural extension officers are now even capable of acting on three levels of authority and may replace Whites there. We must not speak about these matters in derogatory terms, we should rather be grateful that these efforts are being made and for the positive work that is being done. We already have 15 senior Bantu regional extension officers. We have 56 Bantu district extension officers, while there are 361 local extension officers. That amounts to 432 Bantu which may take this work off the hands of the Whites in their own areas. It is necessary that the Bantu be developed and prepared in his own homeland, in his own area, to do this work himself so that he can take a personal pride himself in doing the work himself, instead of having everything done for him. He must be guided, trained and prepared to do this work.

Let us also take note of the following: I want to supply a few figures now. I have no liking for such a lot of statistics, but I would just like to point out what has already been done when agricultural development in the homelands is belittled or referred to in derogatory terms. I shall not quote the figures mentioned by the hon. the Minister yesterday; I should rather like to point out what the position was in 1948 and compare it with the position in March, 1968. In 1948 approximately 10,000 morgen were under irrigation, while in 1968 this figure was 24,514 morgen. I am now referring to the Bantu homelands. In 1948 approximately 4,438 miles of grass strips had been planted, while at present there are 174,689 miles. As far as sisal is concerned, I will not emphasize the round nought, but in 1948 there was not one single morgen of sisal and at present there are 6,668 morgen of sisal. In 1948 there was not one morgen of fermium while there are 4,579 morgen at present. In 1948 no sugar cane was planted, at present there are 17,902 morgen of sugar cane in the Bantu homelands. Furthermore no cotton was planted in 1948, while there are 9,571 morgen at present. That is why I say that we should not speak in derogatory terms about the development in the Bantu homelands. We should not merely scrutinize those places where sufficient development has not yet taken place under a magnifying glass. This Department has a difficult task, but they are not shirking it, they are tackling it with the funds and material which is at their disposal and I think they deserve an honourable mention for the work which they have done.

Where has it been sufficient? Where are you satisfied?

I am not satisfied, and it has not been sufficient, but it is not our task to finish and solve everything within one, or five or ten years. Before we could start we first had to demolish all that had been done previously, we had to begin at the beginning, and we had to prepare and train human material. I am not satisfied, far from it. I am not satisfied with white development in the agricultural field, it must also be taken much further. Surely the Party that remains put and states that it is satisfied with everything is an unhappy one. We on this side will never be satisfied as long as there are opportunities for future development. Was the hon. member satisfied with the situation in 1948 when his Party was in power, after having been in power for all those years? Was he satisfied with the total lack of development in the Bantu homelands? If I look back at his kindred spirits I find that of the past they did not provide any services.

There was a great deal of development at that time.

Not of the kind I have just mentioned. I would gladly give the hon. member the opportunity to stand up and state what development took place in the Bantu homelands in 1948. Will the hon. member, when it is his turn to speak, stand up and tell us what development there was in the Bantu homelands in 1948? He will have that opportunity for his Leader is saying that he can speak and that he can then discuss that topic.

I want to proceed. In 1948 there were only seven auction pens in the homelands while there are at present 202 auction pens to which cattle from over-grazed areas and unsuitable cattle can be brought. I admit that there has in fact been no improvement in the cattle since those days. Now they can get rid of the undesirable cattle by sending them to the market. Since there is a limited amount of land and grazing available, we cannot allow cattle of a poor quality to be kept on that land. It would be better to develop the land to its best potential, and good quality cattle should be bred. What is the position as regards cooperative milk schemes? In 1948 there were four, while there are at present 288. In this way the Bantu are being afforded an opportunity of finding a market for their products. As far as commercial forestry is concerned, 15,600 acres were under development in 1948 and at present 142,000 acres are under development, and as far as non-commercial forestry is concerned, 1,300 morgen were under development in 1948 while 10,400 morgen are at present under development. No. I think we must be very honest with ourselves when we belittle or speak in derogatory terms about the development in the agricultural sphere in the homelands. Whether the rate is quick enough and whether the policy is succeeding, I shall leave to the judgment of the House and an electorate, especially in view of what the hon. the Minister said yesterday in reply to the accusations of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I leave it to the judgment of the House, and we shall vote on it on Friday. It is strange that the Opposition should laugh at this. After all the Leader introduced this debate with the firm conviction that he would be able to convince this House that the House had no confidence in the Government and in the implementation of its policy. He said that those other matters concerning which he had a bone to pick with the Government would be discussed on a subsequent occasion. He particularly wanted to discuss this matter of race relations and he confined himself to that.

Will you allow a free vote?

Yes, we will allow a free vote. The United Party must be careful not to allow a free vote, for if those hon. members were to vote according to their convictions then I think a few of them will vote on this side. But we shall test the implementation of this policy at the polls. We will now put it to the test at Newcastle, Limehill included, as opposed to this policy of race federation. The White man in South Africa is not going to pay that price, that price which the rest of Africa has paid.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member must go there and meet Jackie McGlew. He will help us to win a greater victory. He must not say that we are formulating their policy incorrectly. He must formulate it himself as he sees it—his race federation policy.

I do not want to even discuss stock breeding and its subdivisions. I only want to tell you that towards the end of 1967 the number of cattle totalled more than 3,500.000 apart from sheep and goats.

Now I want to say the following in regard to the improvement of farming practices. The hon. member for King William’s Town should listen to this. The following agricultural extension services were rendered during 1967.

This also goes to show that the potential or future Bantu farmers are desirous of attending these demonstrations. So they are not being given in vain.

Film shows were held; colour slides were shown; and educational tours and excursions were arranged. Ten courses were offered to farmers and were attended by 334 Bantu farmers. Fifty shows were organized and were attended by 36,675 people. I think this proves that something is in fact being done about agricultural development and agricultural extension services. All these things are being done to increase the viability of the Bantu homelands in every field. I admit that when one has a look at those areas, one finds that the pasturage has been trampled underfoot to a very considerable extent. Perhaps the lands were not as well cultivated as they should have been, but these are people who have to be led by the hand and uplifted. We cannot fool about with or waste our agricultural land in South Africa, whether it is in the White or in the Bantu areas—our agricultural land must be utilized efficiently. We should not pursue a short-term policy in regard to our agricultural land by trying to take from it as much as we can in as short a time as possible, and then leave the remnants to posterity. Our agricultural land must be used and utilized in such a way and guidance should be given in such a way that it will continue to feed the nation for generations to come. Finally, Mr. Speaker, as long as the White electorate of South Africa entrusts domestic and political matters to the National Party and this Government, entrusts to it the policy of separate development, we shall continue to apply separate development in South Africa in the light of and with the knowledge at our disposal. We will of course make mistakes. There will of course be people sitting on the outside who criticize us. It is their right and their privilege. As I said at the outset, we are eager to learn from those suggestions as long as they are well-intentioned. But it is not their task to apply and implement this policy; it is we who have to deal with the practical problems. It is our task, our privilege, our charge and our duty to execute this policy as long as the electorate in South Africa so chooses. As long as we are doing this, the National Party can assure South Africa of the following three points: We assure everybody of his own identity. It makes no difference to what population group he belongs: we give him that assurance and guarantee. He retains his own identity. There will be no intermingling. We take it upon us in the second place not to create points of friction in the implementation of the policy of separate development, but to eliminate them on every level and every sphere where it is humanly practicable. We take it upon us in the third place to create opportunities, not only for the white man but also for the black man, the brown man and the Asiatic in South Africa. The National Party can give the electorate this guarantee as long as the electorate trusts this Government and this party with its domestic internal affairs.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Wolmaransstad really put his foot into it with his statement that the previous Government had undertaken no development in the Bantu areas. The fact of the matter is that the main attack of the old purified Opposition on the United Party Government was specifically that it was doing too much for the Bantu. All that the hon. member need do now, is merely to read up the speeches of his own people to see how much the united Party really did. But I cannot devote my time to that. There are other matters which I should like to raise.

The Government’s “verligte” Press have reported in anticipation how a few of my colleagues and I were going to wade into the “verkramptes” during this debate. If hon. members read the reports about that very carefully, they will find that it was actually nothing out a nice way of saying “Catch them!”; of saying “We no longer know what to do about the verkramptes. You now wade in amongst them and challenge them to indicate where they stand.” Let me say at once that I have absolutely no intention of doing so. There is a reason why I have no intention of doing so: we are in no doubt as to where the verkramptes stand. It is not necessary to ask any questions about that. Verkramptheid is no new phenomenon on the Government side. Quite a few of us, Tomlinson men, old Sabra leaders, church leaders and academics, have long since covered this ground with the verkramptes, and, indeed, in connection with the same questions that are at present bringing the pot to the boil on the other side, namely contact with other African states, black diplomats, dynamic development of the Banu areas, and Afrikaans-English relationships. There is nothing new in the situation. All that has changed is, not the situation, but the cast. A good many neo-verligtes were arch-verkramptes at the time. Some of the same men who at that time assisted in evicting verligtes—I am speaking of the days when I was on the Government side—are to-day themselves verligtes and are now engaged in helping to evict the verkramptes. Verkramptheid is nothing new. Many of us have been over that ground with them and we are in no doubt as to where they stand. We have no questions to put to them. It is with the verligtes that our interest lies and it is to them that we have certain questions to put.

We are dealing here now for the umpteenth time with a debate about race relations. There are people outside who consider that we devote too much time in this House to the question of race relations. However, I want to say at once that I think that they are wrong, because this question of human relationships in our country is basic to every other problem that we have to contend with. Our foreign relations, our security, our prosperity, all depend upon the fact that in South Africa we must find a satisfactory political and social arrangement among the various population groups, whatever one chooses to call them, whether races, or peoples, or nations, or whatever. In passing I just want to say that there are jurists who take the view that the term “nation” means the totality of all he citizens in a country. There are scholars, again, who hold a different opinion. For example, I have here a booklet entitled “Nasionalisme as Lewensbeskouing”, written by Professor Dr. N. Diedericks, and in it he gives his definition of what a people is. He is of the opinion that a people is the totality of all the citizens in a state. According to him a nation consists of those persons who are of common descent and who have a common culture. He admits, however, that there is difference of opinion. There is no need for us to differ about the use of words; I do not think that it matters so much, as long as we make clear what we mean by the words we use. I just want to say that when I myself use the word “nasie” (nation)—and I like the word; it is a good Afrikaans word—I mean a group within our State context which is a clearly identifiable unit in respect of descent, language, traditions and living habits.

I think the Leader of the Opposition was quite right in using this debate for the purpose of sharply focusing attention once more upon matters as they stand after the present Government has been in power for almost 21 years. Twenty-one years is a long time. I listened yesterday to the speech by the hon. member for Witbank. He made a terrible song and dance about the years of struggle involved in first rectifying all the “evils” before the Government could begin with constructive matters. This is not altogether true. In my opinion the South African Party Government which South Africa had up to 1939, was the best Government it has ever had. [Interjections.] That is my considered opinion. During the five years immediately after the outbreak of the war, South Africa underwent an industrial revolution of tremendous magnitude. It was that revolution which made South Africa the strong industrial country it is today. I am very glad that the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs stated it so well in a speech at the U.N. some years ago (1964). He told of the industrial revolution and said—

That is true. It was the War Government which transformed South Africa and took us through the industrial revolution, and no one denies that there was some disruption during those years, especially in the cities. It was, however, not as difficult to solve the problems of the era of peace that followed as the hon. member for Witbank said it was. Most of the difficulties which the Government experienced during that time were a result of the blunt methods which it applied. Apart from this I think my colleagues on the other side will admit that 21 years is a long time for a Government to rule, and the Government cannot complain that it has not had sufficient time to do big things. Neither can the Government complain that it did not have sufficient political power at its disposal, or that it does not have it at the moment. The Government sits there with two-thirds of the seats in this country. This is quite unfair. [Interjections.] I do not want to go into that now, but it is true that this is so because we have a completely unfair system of distribution of seats. The votes of some people have twice the value of those of others. That is, however, how the situation stands, and we shall give proper attention to it at the proper time.

Are you against it in principle?

I am most definitely against one man’s vote counting for more than that of another among the Whites. We shall give proper attention to that at a later stage. The Government has had all the time in the world, as well as the political power, and cannot say that two-thirds of the seats are not sufficient for doing what it wants to do. If then the Government’s policy has not been carried out, there can only be one of three reasons for this. One is that the Government is unwilling to do so and that, by implication, will mean that it has other ideas about matters, and is busy changing its policy. The second is that the Government is incompetent. However, I do not think hon. members on the other side will believe that of themselves. The third reason why the Government has not carried out its policy may be that there is something wrong with its policy or with its implementation. It goes without saying that one must first determine what a Government stands for before one can pass judgment on its failures and successes. I do not know whether we have investigated comprehensively enough what the Government stands for. I do not think one can find more articulate evidence of what a government’s policy is than the submissions made to the International Court and the U.N. by that government itself. At the International Court the Government said in the first place that it did not really differ in principle with so-called world-opinion or with the basic aims underlying integrational thinking. The only difference was one of method. I have here the booklet published about the case under the title “Ethiopia and Liberia versus South Africa”. On page 129 it is clearly stated that South Africa “dealt in the pleadings with some basic aspects of the policy of separate development as it had evolved in South Africa”.

The first point is then that “in principle, the policy accorded with the basic concept underlying the thinking of integrated multiracial states, in that its moral outlook and idealistic objectives rested on modern concepts of human rights, dignities and freedoms, irrespective of race, colour or creed, and did not run counter to them. The real point at issue was not one of principle but of method—the way in which these concepts should be put into practice.” And the second point I want to mention is: “The aim of the policy was justice for all, on a basis of potential equality and freedom. This aim not only acknowledged the just claims and moral rights of each group to advance towards self-determination, but also the need to strike an ethical balance between such claims and so prevent a recurrence of domination by some groups over others.”

The third point I want to mention which illustrates the “aim”, just to get the policy straight, is from the speech which the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs made at the U.N. at more or less the same time (1964). He referred there to the “development of South Africa’s peoples, each into their full and equal nationhood”, and then he said this—

He spoke of the “elimination of all forms of political inequality”. I do not think that there is anyone on that side who will argue when we say that it was said before the International Court and the U.N. that the basic aim of the Government was to eliminate “all forms of political inequality for all people in South Africa”. I do not think that a policy can be more articulate than that. To me it means that basically the Government has the same exalted motives as those it ascribes to the integrationists, only its method is different. Secondly, the Government envisages justice and equality for all, irrespective of race or colour, but in such a way that the one will not dominate the other; thirdly, that all forms of political inequality will be eliminated. I am prepared to concede that Rome was not built in a day, and the Government has also made it clear, and in all fairness I want to mention it here, that it believes in an evolutionary process. But when a man proclaims a policy, it surely presupposes that he will do everything in his power to implement it during his own time, if he has the power and the time to do so. Therefore I again want to call attention to the fact that 21 years is a long time. Secondly, we are living in a world to-day in which the process of the emancipation of subordinate peoples has almost been completed. We are now among the last under the old dispensation. Here in our immediate vicinity are three peoples who were part of Southern Africa and who have already achieved their independence or emancipation through the actions of others. Just think of Lesotho, Botswana and Swaziland. Neither can the Government plead that our problems are so unique that it cannot do things which were done for others. Diversity, pluralism, the problems of minorities and majorities, are a feature of more than half of the countries of the world, and, as a matter of fact, in this South-West case, South Africa itself listed 50 countries “in which status, rights, duties and burdens were allotted by law and official practice on the basis of membership of a group, class or race”, just as in our case. There are numerous countries with the same problems of minorities and majorities and diversity. Thirdly, I do not think that they can say with any justification that the human material which we have is inferior to the human material in other countries, or that our people are more backward. We do in fact contend that we do more for our Coloureds, Indians and Bantu, and that they are way ahead of other non-White nations in the world. We boast of the lead we have. No one can say that the Zhosa are inferior to the Basuto or to the Swazi, or that our Coloureds or Indians take second place to any other non-White people in the world. Considering all this, and the fact that the Government has ruled with plenary Dowers for 21 years, we may examine how it has carried out this policy which it has proclaimed. In the first place take the Coloureds, a Western minority group, million below the Whites in number. In this day and age they are given a debating chamber with very limited powers, which will always remain limited, and a large proportion of the members of that chamber are selected by white determination, not their own. Even the office-bearers, the most important leaders, will be appointed by white determination. On top of everything the doors of this Parliament, which is the one place where everything of importance in the life of the Coloured must be decided and determined, are closed to him, so that in everything of importance he is delivered into the hand of white determination instead of self-determination. There is not one hon. member sitting on that side who can get up here and tell us plainly how they are going to carry out the declared policy and the promise of “elimination of all forms of political inequality” in respect of the Coloureds, [Interjections.] The Indians are another minority, one sixth the size of the white population, and as far as quality and potential are concerned, they are second to no other people in the world. I am speaking of the non-White nations now. What is their position after 21 years? Another debating chamber, advisory in nature, with not a single member chosen by themselves, and therefore even in regard to their own humble council, delivered absolutely into the hands of white determination. 21 years after the Government came into power: and not the slightest attempt on the part of the Government to stand up and explain to us how they are going to carry out this promise of the elimination of all inequalities in respect of that population group [Interjection.] To come to the Bantu: the Government has by law designated eight Bantu groups, nine if the Ciskei is included What progress has it made after 21 years?

As far a I know, none of our Bantu groups is poorer material than the people in Botswana, Lesotho or Swaziland. They went and took part in the independence celebrations of those countries. They extolled them. We maintain civilized relationships with them and we sit with their leaders in the U.N., and we are very satisfied with those leaders whom they have in the U.N. But after 21 years there is not one of our own Bantu areas which is independent or emancipated; and the Government is unable to give us even an indication of how long it will take before it can show us but one resounding result, in terms of its own declared policy, in respect of the Bantu. [Interjections.] The Government has placed itself before the world in the position of a colonial master who will eliminate all forms of inequality, subordination and domination in South Africa, and it has even clearly indicated the peoples it is going to emancipate, but meaningful results are still lacking. In fact after 21 years the groups in South Africa which have developed the most, the Coloureds and the Indians, are the furthest removed from the goal, and remain most subject to colour bars on the ground of colour and colour alone. Wherever one travels in the country to-day—and that was another point they put to the U.N., that colour was no longer the issue here; the classification concerned nationhood—the conspicuous bases of classification is still colour and colour alone. The notices indicate “Whites” and “non-Whites”. Fortunately we now hear of an excellent development: The “Slegs” in front of “Blankes” will be removed, as will the “only” after “Whites”! [Interjections.] Recently I spoke to a guest from abroad whom the Government had invited here, about his experiences in South Africa, and he told me that from the moment he alighted at Jan Smuts—these are the words he used—’he neon lights of apartheid made such an unfavourable impression upon him that he left this country in despondency. In every sector of policy the deed is miles removed from the beautiful written word, and if that is success, the Government must tell us what failure is. And he Government itself can choose its explanations. It can say that it is incompetent, unwilling or unrealistic. It cannot eliminate the political inequality of the Coloureds by the course is now adopting. It can only do so by adopting this party’s course. It cannot remove the political inequality of the Indians by the course is now following. It can only do so by following the course of this side of the House, is far as the Bantu are concerned, paradoxie1 as it may sound, our proposals for the development of the Bantu areas are the one being that will make it easy for the Government to come close to the execution of its policy, if only the Government would adopt bem Every reasonable person in South Africa accepts the fact that we are a country of diversity a diversity of peoples or nations, suffering Bering from one another in many spheres, and that our different population groups in South Africa have never really formed a unit. Like us, the Government admits to this fact, and there we are on common ground. We and the Government are also agreed on the fact that to-day we live in a world where a man, whether he likes it or not, must take note of the adverse effect which a doctrine of permanent supremacy has on the world. We must face up to this. But we now sit with this historical problem that in spite of the fact of diversity, and in spite of the fact that all of us realize that we must seek a course along which our population groups can co-operate without one dominating another, the fact remains that a certain measure of intertwining and interdependence has developed which cannot easily be overcome. Therefore you will find few people who think seriously about this problem, who are of the opinion that in South Africa one can really pursue and make practical politics of a policy of complete totalitarian disintegration, of complete compartmentalizing of the various groups. A year or two ago the Coloureds were accepted as an integral part—those are the words which the Government used—of our Defence Force. What will happen to our Police Force, which consists of Whites, Coloureds, Bantu and Indians? The Bantu, as part of our Police Force, are to-day helping to defend South Africa, if the reports are correct, against terrorists on our borders. They are in that sense integrated. Our attitude is that there is room in South Africa for wide decentralization of political power, and no one on this side objects to our striving to bring about the optimum form of decentralization. But this can only be done if the heart-lands which exist for the various peoples, are developed as quickly as possible with the help of the Whites. And my advice to the Government is that it should just read once again the evidence which it placed before the International Court in connection with South-West Africa as a unit. There the Government told the world that without white capital, initiative and industry South-West could not exist and would collapse. If this is true of the whole of South West, how much truer is it not of a Bantu area which the Government must develop? I know that the Government has had certain problems. They were afraid of Hong Kongs; they were afraid of the development of new White spots in Black areas, but here within South Africa we now have three areas which have become independent. Have they become Hong Kongs? Is there an influx of white capital? No, our problem will be, as the hon. member for Hillbrow said, to get Whites to go in and to assist with development, because without that, development will never take place. Let me say this to the hon. the Minister: Unless we make the Bantu areas so attractive that the Bantu will be prepared to exchange their South African citizenship, according to Government policy, for citizenship of a smaller unit, the Bantu will not accept the policy of the Government in the long run either.

Mr. Speaker, the main difference between this side and that side of the House can be summed up as follows, i.e. that the Government advocates a policy of disintegration or fragmentation, with, as its ultimate objective, a commonwealth which will be consultative and nothing more. But, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of very important questions which the Government has not yet decided and cleared up. We speak of homelands and we say that these are based on a historic division. But let me ask the hon. the Minister: What is the valid date line for that historic division? The whole history of South Africa is one of the trekking and moving around of all groups. At a certain time the Whites were still on this side of the Hex River. The great British Trek to South Africa only began after 1800. I want to ask the hon. the Minister this: Does he regard South Africa as already divided; does he regard partition as an accomplished fact? If the division has been completed, where does self-determination come in? Does this mean that the Whites determine and that the only choice remaining to the Bantu is to remain subservient to us in a subordinate position, or to take up his stand in his own small plot and to see to it that he manages with what we are prepared to give to him? Does the Government mean that we have already made the division, constitutionally, and that the Bantu has in effect lost his citizenship? Mr. Speaker, these are going to become real questions. When you come to the position where the Bantu is given the choice of taking that in exchange for South African citizenship and what it entails, then it will become a burning question, as it has already become in the case of the Transkei, where the premier, Matanzima, has already said that there are outstanding border questions. It is on those grounds. Sir, that we feel that if one looks at the situation as it is in South Africa, the time will come when the Government will realize that it will have to accept the federal course of the party on this side in respect of the Bantu as well.

Mr. Speaker, I really find it difficult to see the point in the speech made by the hon. member who has just sat down. I do not know whether I am “dense” in saving that, but in doing so I am being honest. As far as I could understand him, it seemed to me as though his entire speech amounted to the fact that we on the National Party side had failed in the implementation of our policy. He mentioned the Coloureds, for instance. We on this side have placed the Coloureds on the road to self-determination in South Africa, not the United Party but this side of the House, the National Government. The National Government has placed every non-White nation in South Africa on the road to full self-determination, which is going to lead, as it was put by Dr. Verwoerd many years ago, to a loose commonwealth of nations. Let me tell the hon. member at once that there is one important reservation in connection with that loose commonwealth of nations as it may develop here on the southernmost point of Africa. I see in the newspapers that the hon. member is now talking about a confederation, and in reading between the lines, I find that he is already moving away from the United Party’s point of view to one midway between that of the United Party and that of the National Party. But I do not wish to exploit that situation now. I merely want to make the point that there is one important reservation, i.e. that there will not be one central authority or central controlling body above that commonwealth of nations. This is a very important point to remember.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to use my time, in the first place, to ask the United Party a very pointed question. I said that we had placed the Bantu nations here on the road to self-determination. We have made scintillating progress in regard to the implementation of that political aspect of self-determination for the various Bantu nations in the Republic of South Africa. Suppose the Transkei were to be in a position to-morrow or the day after, or whenever the time is deemed ripe by the National Government, to become in effect an independent state, then I want to put this question to the United Party: If that happened and if the other Bantu homelands in the Republic of South Africa became truly independent states, like Basutoland, Bechuanaland and Swaziland, what would then be left of the United Party’s policy? Its policy would then have collapsed like a house of cards.

What would then be left of South Africa?

If the Transkei had a fully independent government, and if the other homelands had fully independent governments, how can they say that eight Bantu representatives must have seats in this House? In the course of the recess I put this question to one of the United Party frontbenchers and he realized that their policy would then fall through completely. Do you know what his reply to me was? I shall not mention his name. His reply to me was honest and sincere. He said: “I have always said that if the National Government implemented its policy in a consistent, fair and just manner, as it says it is going to do, then I can find no fault with it,” and that is more or less what the United Party’s policy amounts to.

But I want to draw attention to a second point the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made in this House yesterday. He said that if they came into power, which the nation will certainly not permit, they would, in terms of their policy, allow the Bantu who have to work in the white area of South Africa to settle here on a family basis. Those Bantu would then need houses to live in, and I want to assume that the Bantu would also own the land on which those houses are situated, since the United Party’s attitude has always been to grant full ownership to the Bantu in white areas. This morning I ascertained that at the moment, here under National Party regime in the Republic of South Africa, there were no fewer than 1,646,777—that was the figure as at 31st June, 1966 …

An estimate?

No, this is the actual figure. At that date there were 1,646,777 single Bantu in the white area on a contract basis. To indicate how ridiculous the policy of the United Party is, since they are always expatiating on what it is going to cost to implement the policy of development along individual lines, I now want to point out what it is going to cost merely to start implementing their policy. If housing alone had to be provided in the white area for 1,646,777 Bantu on a family basis, and assuming that five persons constitute a family—in other words, that housing is to be provided for 8 million Bantu—and assuming that such housing would cost R500 per family … [Interjections.] No, my figures are not wrong. If one multiplies 1,646,777 by five, one arrives at a total of approximately 8 million. If those Bantu had to be provided with housing at R500 per house—and then these would merely be two or three-roomed houses; they cost a great deal more, as hon. members will know—then it would immediately cost the country R823,388,500 to accommodate those Bantu on a family basis here in the white area. Hon. members can work out the figures for themselves. And then one would still not have provided the Bantu with any services, and one would still not have provided any hospitals for them. I have made a hurried calculation here according to which this figure would come to at least R10 million if one were to provide hospitals as well. In addition, transport facilities would have to be provided, and how much would that cost? Schools would also have to be provided for the Bantu here in the white area. And what would the land cost for settling those 8 million Bantu on a family basis here in the white area? Do you see, Sir, what kind of story they are dishing up to the nation, and then they expect the nation to take them seriously! The amount of thought they gave to their policy is less than a hare requires in order to run away from a hound, and that is why this terrible “charge” debate—the great United Party “charge” of 1969 about which we have read such a great deal in the papers—has developed into a running away on the part of the United Party in this House.

May I put a question?

No, my time is very limited. I want to put this question to the United Party: Apart from how they are going to account to the nation if they say that they are going to settle the Bantu here on a family basis at the astronomic cost of approximately R2,000 million, merely to settle the single Bantu here on a family basis in terms of their policy, if they are honest, then they still have to explain to the nation what the position is going to be in terms of their policy of eight Bantu representatives in this House for the Bantu who are already living in the white area in the Republic of South Africa, for if these extra Bantu were to be settled here on a family basis, one would see, if one made a simple calculation which any two-year-old or three-year-old can do, that the United Party would immediately, if it implemented its policy, permit more than 10 million Bantu to settle here in the white area—10 million Bantu as against 3¼ million Whites in the white area at present, and then I ask them this question: How are they going to satisfy the political and other growing aspirations of the Bantu of South Africa, and then what hope is there for their policy of leadership to succeed in the Republic of South Africa? Surely, that is a vain hope, Sir. Surely, there is no such thing, and that is why the nation cannot take them seriously, that is why we cannot take them seriously, and that is why the United Party contribution to this debate, the great “charge” of 1969, is in actual fact a note as flat as a concertina in a symphony orchestra conducted by Sir Thomas Beecham; that is what it amounts to.

Mr. Speaker. I should like to use the time I have left to indicate how the policy of the National Party Government, the stated policy—for that is the point of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and others on that side—is in the process of being implemented systematically, intelligently, practically and realistically—for we are not United Party supporters—and successfully in this country. Let us just for a moment look at how even people who are not favourably disposed towards South Africa, are making the statement that the greatest miracle of the past 50 years in Africa has taken place in the Republic of South Africa. Dr. Kuschke, inter alia, referred to this aspect and this is what he said (translation)—

That is where the miracle is to be found, Sir. We have here a country which has, as a result of the successful implementation of the policy of apartheid, peace and calm in the sphere of labour. For that we thank the white labourers and pay great tribute to them. But permit me also to thank and to pay great tribute on this occasion to the Bantu labourers who are also making a very significant contribution to the peace and calm we are enjoying in the Republic of South Africa. Let me say that the National Government appreciates this. As a Deputy Minister who is responsible for the urban Bantu, I wish to record my particular appreciation for this.

But. Sir, if we also consider the fact that apartheid is a process of development, that it is the greatest objective this nation has probably ever had, i.e. to guide the nations around us and under us to a level of civilization and to maturity in the spheres of politics, statecraft and others, then, surely, this is a cause which can most fruitfully occupy this nation for many, many years in building up civilizations here. I just want to say that while the Opposition is saying that this policy has failed, black man upon black man and black leader upon black leader are coming to the fore and saying that this policy is being implemented successfully. I want to read out to the House a paragraph taken from a speech made on 12th December. 1968, by Lucas Mangope, the leader of the Tswana nation in South Africa—

We must remember that he sneaks on behalf of his nation of thousands of Tswanas—

I also have here in my hand an article entitled “Apartheid, the only recipe for South Africa” taken from Die Transvaler dated 28th September, 1968. Was this said by a white man? No, Kaizer Matanzima who speaks on behalf of more than a million Xhosa people, drafted his election manifesto and in his manifesto for the second Transkeian elections on 23rd October he said that the policy of separate development was the only policy that could be implemented successfully in South Africa. Hon. members will now say that it is only leaders who speak like this. I am only going to read one letter out of the numerous letters I have received in the short while I have been working with the urban Bantu. This was written by an ordinary Bantu. I shall refrain from mentioning his name, but this Bantu wrote as follows—

[Interjection.] If that hon. member had ever been in Umlazi, he would know that this Bantu is speaking more truthfully than that hon. member is capable of doing now. I shall read further—

I am trying to explain to the House with what success the policy of separate development is being implemented. While the Bantu in South Africa are admitting this and are speaking very highly of it, the Opposition, not knowing what they are talking about, say that our policy has failed since it is allegedly not being implemented. Who is in the best position to judge—those hon. members who know very little about it, or the Bantu who, according to those hon. members, are to be the prey of this policy.

I want to go further in order to show the House how this policy is in fact being implemented under the National Party regime. In the Star of 26th September, 1968, there was an article entitled “Most Africans above breadline”. The facts for this article were obtained from an inquiry undertaken in Soweto towards the end of 1968. It was found that on an average the income in Soweto was R78 per month, i.e. more than R20 per month above the breadline which is estimated at R56. We have labour peace and stability amongst the Bantu who are performing essential work in our white areas. We are also affording our industrialists that stability in order to enable them to utilize Bantu labour for the performance of essential work. Things are going well in the Republic of South Africa in respect of the Bantu in our white areas. But at the same time we say that those Bantu in our white areas who are not economically active and are not engaged in the performance of normal or good work, should be channelled back to their own homelands.

Since hon. members do have these facts before them now, I want to ask how much progress we have made in respect of the implementation of that aspect of our policy, i.e. the elimination of the redundant, non-economically active Bantu in our white areas. In this regard I want to mention the following figures. Approximately 900,000 Bantu have been settled elsewhere under the National Party regime over the past few years since 1959. Surely, this is no mean achievement; on the contrary, it is a tremendous achievement. Over the same period at least 216,000 have been resettled under the National Party regime in terms of the Group Areas Act in the Johannesburg area alone. Approximately 75,000 have been removed from so-called black spots. Hon. members should merely think of how much it would have cost if they had not been removed. A moment ago I pointed out how, in terms of the United Party’s policy, it would have cost at least R2,000 million per annum to settle them in the white area. At least 220,000 have been resettled in a few white metropolitan complexes alone. Does that look like a policy that is falling through? In only five years’ time approximately 203,000 Bantu from the white urban areas have been resettled in their own respective Bantu homelands.

Where have they been resettled?

They have been resettled at various places. Mr. Speaker, do you know why the United Party is casting so much suspicion on Limehill, Stinkwater and Klipgat? It is because each of those places is a manifestation of the successful implementation of the policy of separate development. That is the only reason for their trying to cast suspicion on those places. However, their allegations cannot stand up to the test of the facts.

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

No, my time is extremely limited. Here in my hand I have the graph of the male Bantu employed in the Port Elizabeth area. Hon. members will be able to see how the graph in respect of male Bantu employed in the Port Elizabeth area has, as a result of the implementation of the Physical Planning Act, reflected a marked downward trend since 19th January, 1968. The number of male Bantu employed there has shown a marked decrease from 41,500 to well below 40,000, and in Port Elizabeth we are not dealing with a National Party city council. Does this bear testimony to a policy which is not being implemented successfully?

Now I come to the Western Cape. In the past year a daily average of four Bantu families voluntarily boarded a train here in the Cape Peninsula on their way back to their Bantu homelands. Many of them were Section 10 cases. Four families and more have left the Cape Peninsula daily and gone back to their homelands.

Is there employment for them there?

Yes. Now I come to the position in the Northern Transvaal. According to the figures supplied by the Chief Bantu Commissioner in the Northern Transvaal approximately 20,000 Bantu per month have over the past year applied for resettlement in the Bantu homelands in the Northern Transvaal region. This is a policy which is not being implemented successfully! This comes to between 4,000 and 5,000 Bantu per week. Do hon. members know what has become our greatest problem in the Department? Our greatest problem at the moment is to stay ahead in the provision of housing in our Bantu homelands, as well as the provision of water, in order that we may in fact settle those Bantu who wish to be settled there. This is as true as the fact that I am on my feet now. That is our greatest problem in the Department.

Looking at the position in the Western Cape where the Government has made it its stated policy to replace annually 5 per cent of the Bantu labour here by Coloured labour, we see that the Government has had major successes. It would give me great pleasure now to tell hon. members a success story in this regard. Hon. members will recall what scorn, ridicule and derision came from that side of the House when we announced that we were annually going to replace 5 per cent of the Bantu labour in the Western Cape by Coloured labour. Here are the figures in this regard: In 1967 the Bantu population in the Cape Peninsula numbered 113,337. On 31st December. 1968, the Bantu population here numbered only 109.153. That means, therefore, 4,184 fewer Bantu in the Cape Peninsula as a result of the implementation of the National Party’s policy. Is this a policy which is a failure, which is not being implemented successfully? But let me furnish a few other figures now. I see the hon. member opposite laughing. Let me show how successful it has in actual fact been. You will recall that we said 5 per cent. In 1967 there were no fewer than 44,567 Bantu children here in the Peninsula, and on 31/12/1968 there were only 39,320, a decrease in the number of Bantu children in the Peninsula of 5,256, or more than 11 per cent, and that was done in less than 12 months. Is this a policy that has failed?

May I ask the Deputy Minister a question, please?

I still have many facts to point out. I am honestly not unwilling to reply to questions, but kindly allow me to put my case as we do not get the opportunity for doing so every day.

Don’t your figures prove that the men increased during that time?

No, they did not increase; have I not told you that they have decreased? That is the very point I want to make in this regard. If it had not been for this decrease of Bantu labour, Bantu women and children in the Peninsula, then the position would have been that on the basis of the Bantu increase in population there would have been at least 11,000 more Bantu last year instead of a decrease in number of more than 4,000, and I am not even taking the children into account. If we had to accommodate each of them on a family basis, if we had to build a house here for each family, the cost last year would, conservatively calculated, have been almost R6 million in the Peninsula alone. This money has now been saved, money that would otherwise have been spent. Surely, these are simple, elementary facts.

Then I also want to make the following point for the benefit of hon. members who are interested in the world of business. While this marked decrease of Bantu in the Cape Peninsula had been taking place under National Party regime over a period of 12 months last year, the production of industries in the Peninsula showed a marked increase. Now I am asking any member on the opposite side to rise and tell us that this is a policy that has failed. If a policy that has failed looks like this, then show me a policy that is being implemented successfully! In South Africa we are making a gigantic success of the implementation of this policy, for the people who work with it are inspired and enthusiastic. Since this is the greatest objective this nation has ever had in its entire history, every man, woman and child who believes in this is implementing it for all the world to see. This is a miracle which is taking place in South Africa. But hon. members opposite have not noticed it yet.

Now I want to turn to the important aspect of the economic development of our Bantu homelands. After all, it is general knowledge that our major problem in that regard is the lack of entrepreneurs. We are not impervious to the facts. There are two matters one has to take into account, and I shall have to deal with them quickly for my time is limited. The first is that we must consider priorities in terms of their values. What is our first priority in South Africa? That is, surely, the country’s security. We must see to our safety first, and for that purpose an annual amount of R256 million and more appears on our Estimates. Our second priority is that our economic development should be smooth and intelligent, and, as I have said here, this has been described as a miracle. I did not even mention the name of Gardiner who had pointed out before the committee in Geneva some time ago that over a period of 20 years under National Party regime Bantu wages in South Africa had increased by 500 per cent, and how our per capita income had increased by 1.4 per cent per annum as against that of the rest of Africa which had hardly increased by 1 per cent over a period of ten years. All of these are fruits of the National Party policy. Now I say that it is very important for our economic development to take place in a balanced and realistic manner. Our third priority is a balanced economic development of our Bantu homelands, and this is common sense, surely. Hon. members should not make the mistake of thinking that the Government has done nothing in regard to the economic development of the Bantu homelands. We have created the infra-structure there. I have the particulars here—and I can let you have them, Sir—and they are very significant facts. Thousands of miles of roads have been made, more than 4,000 dams have been built, and a very great deal of other work has been done. The infra-structure has been created. Now all I want to tell the hon. member opposite who is so sensible, is this. The risk we are now running, is to generalize about the whole problem of the economic development of the homelands. After all, one should undertake this in a systematic, realistic and sensible way, and that is what we are doing. What do we see in Natal? The economic development of Natal is more rapid than that of any other province in South Africa. Border industries have been created there. And what are we doing in that process? We are meeting the greatest needs of this country, and that is to create opportunities for employment for the Bantu in Natal, for the Zulus, for we want to make sure that people in South Africa will not starve. That is what we are doing. Consequently the picture in Natal looks very favourable. Let us look at Tswanaland in terms of priorities and see what is going on there. In the Tswana territory we also see that conditions look very favourable. Let us also look at some of the other homelands. I do not have the time now to deal with this aspect at length, but if we analysed the situation fully, we would see that the actual problems are to be found in two Bantu homelands in particular, i.e. the provision of employment in the Transkei and in the Pietersburg area for the northern homelands. That is what the Government is doing, because we want to create growth points there.

Now I wish to make the following very important point. Under the agency basis it is possible to develop these areas rapidly. Our first priority is Bantu entrepreneurs. Our second priority is the development project corporations of the National Government. Our third is that we are saying, “Let the industrialists come, and on the agency basis we can make it so attractive for them at these selected growth points that are being undertaken in a balanced manner, that it will not be possible for them to refuse to assist with the economic development there.” The only thing is that our industrialists do not realize this yet. We can still make it more attractive for an industrialist to go there.

How many have gone? Not one.

Not one? I shall see the hon. member again in three years’ time, if he is still here, and then we shall not talk about “not one”, but I shall bring you at least 50. I want to say that under the agency basis one can make it more attractive for the industrialist than one could under the system of permitting private white capital and private white entrepreneurs, and that is what the Government is doing at present. That is why I wish to say with all the emphasis I can muster that, in cases where the desired development at growth points in our Bantu homelands is necessary, where it is forcing itself upon us, and where border development must take its rightful place, the time has arrived for white industrialists to play a steadily increasing part in order to supplement the other priorities I mentioned. This is to take place on the conditions set out by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development in this House last year, conditions on which the agency basis is to operate. These people must come in order that they may assist in undertaking the development in the homelands at those growth points. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that it would have been an easy matter to congratulate the new Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education on the first speech he made in that capacity, but I regret to say that I would be a hypocrite should I even try to do so. [Interjections.] I just want to say, in view of the fact that the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, who has just made an interjection, yesterday took it amiss of my Leader for supposedly having used so many figures, and in view of the fact that several hon. members opposite stated that figures did not matter such a great deal, that I have never in all my born days heard so many figures as the Deputy Minister has just used. Do you know, Sir, what figures he was using? He said there were 1.637876 million single Bantu in the Republic of South Africa. He also referred to the number of houses which would have to be built for the Bantu and their families and he made estimates of millions and millions of rand. But he must be honest and say how many of them are Bantu from foreign areas. Surely the hon. the Deputy Minister is at least aware of the fact that the mines are almost exclusively kept going by Shangaans, and that the sugar industry in Natal employs almost exclusively Shangaans who come to this country on a contractual basis. Surely he knows what a large part of the Free State employs workers from Lesotho. When has this side advocated housing for Bantu working here under contract as individuals and that their families should be allowed to live with them? Can there be a worse distortion of the facts than that? Reference was made here to the astronomical amounts it would cost to build houses for these people, but the entire argument was based on false premises. I noticed that the hon. the Deputy Minister as well as many other speakers opposite, including the hon. member for Wolmaransstad earlier this afternoon, spoke continuously of separate development but no longer of the creation of sovereign, independent Bantustans. I wonder whether the Government is running away from that idea. Who resents separate development as such? This side of the House?

Yes!

Repeatedly and from session to session we have been advocating the better development of the reserves, which are separate areas. I admit that that is subject to one condition, and that is that all those areas remain part of the Republic. We have never pleaded for additional assistance and funds for states which are to become independent, less so for Lesotho or Botswana, and this also applies as regards states which are to become independent within our own borders. As far as those parts of the country which are reserves are concerned, however, this side of the House has always advocated better and more rapid development. This is where the policy of the Government fails, as my Leader indicated so well yesterday. It must and will always fail. Nothing can help it. The fact that there will be 20 million Bantu by the turn of this century and that 12 million of them would have to be accommodated inside the Bantustans if there is to be some equality in numbers between White and Black, renders this, policy impossible, even for that enthusiastic machine-gun of a Deputy Minister. It is foolish even to suggest that 12 million people can be absorbed by the Bantustans. The hon. the Deputy Minister quoted Natal as an example of the progress of the economic development in the Bantustans. History, and not this Government, determined that the whole of Natal is a border area. They are as prosperous as they are because they have always been leaning on the white people.

Let us now look at the primary showcase of this Government’s application of the policy of apartheid, and that is the Transkei. In spite of the series of figures quoted by the hon. the Minister yesterday with a view to illustrating the wonderful development in the fields of industry and agriculture, one sees nothing but deterioration when driving through that area. Not only are the grazing and the soil deteriorating, but also the people living there. They used to have stock of good quality and they used to supply a large part of the Republic’s wool crop up to a certain stage. The drought is not the only thing which is to blame for the present state of affairs. There is the question of over-population. The area cannot even carry the population which is there at the present time, and then they still talk of returning people to that area. That hon. Deputy Minister boasted about a certain number of Bantu who had moved away from the Western Cape during 1967-’68. Do hon. members know where they went? They went to the Ciskei. I challenge him to maintain that three-quarters of the population of Mdantsane, the place to which those people are expected to go, has employment. [Interjections.] The fact remains that this Government is trying, in spite of hopeless over-population in the existing Bantustans, to get Bantu out of the Western Cape and out of that area from Humansdorp to Aliwal North which is reserved for the Coloureds. Why we say that the Government’s policy in respect of the establishment of independent black states cannot succeed, is the fact that they will never, as far as we can see into the future, be able to develop those states up to a stage at which such states will be able to absorb an additional 12 million people. How can any reasonable person say that the existing homelands, consisting of less than 13 per cent of the territory of the Republic, will at any stage be able to accommodate a population four times as large as the white population? Surely there is no sense in that. The Government of the Transkei still has authority as regards who may enter its territory, but what is becoming of the Ciskei? One need only drive through the Ciskei or live in that vicinity to realize what misery exists in that area.

I have already mentioned Mdantsane. I now want to refer to the lack of planning on the part of the Government in connection with the establishment of townships inside the Bantu areas. There are approximately 8.800 houses in Mdantsane. The target is 25.000. The official population figure is 58.000. Un-officially 70.000 people live there. When I went there to investigate, I did not go with the Black Sash; I went with the officials of the Department. They were the only people I questioned. I did not question a single Bantu. I have nothing to say about the houses there. They are good houses. I have nothing to say about the existing 32 schools. The fact of the matter is that less than one-half of them has any staff. That is how much the planning is out of pace with the population increase. They are standing there like empty shells. Some of them are now being converted into offices. When one visits those schools during school hours and finds only three of them fully occupied by pupils, one asks oneself, “Can there be any government that can make such a blunder in its planning programme as to provide so many schools for such a small population?” This Party has no objection to money being spent on the education of the Bantu. But we should not spend so much capital on building schools which cannot be used and which do not have sufficient staff. But I am going to give the other side of the picture. Do hon. members know how many facilities Mdantsane, with its population of 70.000, has at its disposal as regards health and social services? There is not a single public telephone. There is no hospital or a single doctor for 70.000 people. There are four clinics which are temporarily available and which employ black and white nurses. There is not a single pharmacy. There are tarred roads and lighting, If a person should be involved in an accident, however, and has to get to a telephone to call a doctor from East London City, which is the nearest place, I wonder where he would run to. There are no facilities for that mass of people to go to a cinema at night or to attend any other form of amusement. This is an example of the planning of the Government to take people here from the Western Cape and to dump them there while one-half of them does not have any work. One half of the inhabitants of Mdantsane used to be inhabitants of and were transferred from Duncan Village. The other half is made up of Bantu from the Western Cape who have been removed there. This is the place to which they are being removed.

Now I want to come back to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development who has been a Deputy Minister for quite some time and who ought to know better than simply climbing in and making statements which one can so easily refute. A short while ago he spoke about Mnxesha, one of the camps to which people are being removed. He said, and put this to us as a fact, that the camps existed purely for the unemployed or those previously unemployed. I challenge the hon. the Deputy Minister to repeat that statement. I shall give him facts which prove that many people there have been taken from employment and have been removed to that camp. The hon. the Deputy Minister had the privilege of speaking about himself and his own people, and I am going to do so too. I had a Bantu worker on my farm who used to work for my father as well and who had lived on the farm for anything between 40 and 50 years. He became blind and in an attempt to get him near a clinic—there is not one on the farm, after all—I asked the municipality for a piece of land and I built a house at my own expense in the location. I accommodated the entire family in that house and a few years later the Bantu died and the widowed mother stayed on in the house. Some of the children and grandchildren moved into the house with her. The children earned money for her and the family lived well. Five of the 11 grandchildren worked in homes in Middelburg (Cape). Shortly afterwards the Bantu widow arrived on foot from Mnxesha on my property at East London and told me, “Sir, I am hungry. I was sitting there in a house which had been given to me as a present and I could not make ends meet. I am here with 11 children, five of whom were in employment. Now, we cannot live there and where will they get employment? King William’s Town is 11 miles from where we were and East London 45 miles away.” You can check on this, Sir. There is no point in trying to gloss over or conceal the fact—the rations which those people are receiving are not sufficient. For what reason should we want to remove someone who is in employment and who is living on the boundary? He is not in the Western Cape. I want to challenge the Government to remove people from the Western Cape at the same rate as that at which they are at present depopulating Middelburg and Burgersdorp of Bantu. I do not know who is instrumental in this affair. I do not know whether there is an over-enthusiastic official at Middelburg. I was there on Saturday and I visited the homes where the servants used to work about whom I had been told by the Bantu widow who had asked me to get her back there because she could no longer bear to be where she was. There are 450 houses there which are already occupied by 3,000 people and the removal programme in respect of Middelburg alone, so I was told by the official, is 168 additional families within two months. Arising from this I ask the question what on earth is inducing us to follow such an inhuman policy, to up root the people and to place them in an area where they receive a house free of charge and have to be supported by means of rations.

When has the town council of Middelburg ever furnished you with the total number of people removed?

I am not referring to the squatters element amongst these people. I am referring to the people who used to be employed. It is no secret that that particular official goes from one house to the next asking the servants. “Why are you working here in Middelburg? This is the boundary and eventually you are in any event going to be removed from here. Why do you not go down to Mnxesha? There you will get a house and food free of charge?” Do you know, Sir, that there are people whose servants were taken away after those servants had worked for them for 14 years? These people were living happily on the boundary and if they had to be removed from there eventually, they could rather have been removed in ten years’ time. The Bantu in the Western Cape, who constitute a more urgent problem, could rather have been removed from that area.

Is the hon. member prepared to mention the name of that official who tells servants who have been working there for 15 years to go to Mnxesha?

There is only one location superintendent in Middelburg. It is not necessary for me to mention his name. This is the way individuals have been operating and telling those people that they would have to move eventually and that they might as well do so because they would get a house free of charge.

That is not all. How does this depopulation affect our country as far as agriculture is concerned? The hon. the Deputy Minister is from an area where this is happening. As yet it has not happened in Somerset East, but it is happening in Middelburg, where I have my farm, as well as in Burgersdorp. Heaven alone knows who the person is who has selected these places for the removal of 3.000 people within a few months. I shall put this question later, because up to now I have not had the time to do so. As far as Bantu are concerned, this area is now becoming depopulated. After all, we know what a people, a group as well as a nation is like. When some leave and get houses free of charge and do not return, even those who need not go, also move away. Those who have not been told as yet to go, also move away. This area is becoming depopulated, but that is not the worst.

The policy seems to be succeeding.

Yes, the policy is succeeding in so far as it is over-populating one area to such an extent that it is being ruined and will subsequently become a curse on the country. The Ciskei as well as the Transkei has not been able to feed its populations for the last few years. This year they will want to get every grain of mealies they will be able to get, and the white farmers will be expected to supply that. At the same time, however, the labour of the white farmers is being drained away so that they themselves cannot do what they would like to do. Here is the rest of the story. An article entitled “How long is Card’s Arm?” starts as follows, “How does Uitenhage view its future under the impact of the Physical Planning Acts …” Later in the article the town clerk was asked what he thought of the situation as far as labour was concerned. The reply of the town clerk was, “Hardly anybody seems really worried, although it is a fact that several companies which employ African labour are known to have applied for exemptions. Some have been refused, but two at least acknowledged success. One asked for and got permission to employ an extra 150 Africans, another was allowed 50 more and another 50 on a temporary basis, but the others were refused. The town clerk does not see the Act as having any effect on development. He points to the big reservoir of Coloured labour in areas like Graaff-Reinet, Somerset East, Cradock and even Kirkwood. A good percentage of these workers, he thinks, will eagerly swop their country jobs at R4.50 per week for twice as much or more in Uitenhage industry and will be suitable for absorption into manufacture”. What I am doing is to indicate that this policy of the Government takes people and transplants them to an area where they do not belong and where they do not want to be simply because the carrot of a house and rations free of charge has been dangled in front of their eyes as a carrot is dangled in front of a donkey. If this means that the policy of separate development is succeeding, the Good Lord must protect us when this comes down on our heads. There are many thousands of people on the boundaries of the Transkei and there is not sufficient food for them all. They are constantly seeking employment, and you can ask any farmer in our country from that area, Sir, what his experience is, and he will tell you that people looking for employment knock on his door every day. Does this constitute population adjustment which is succeeding? The Bantu are being removed from the white areas and the Coloureds thereupon run to the industries on the South Coast and elsewhere and take up employment there at increased wages. What kind of planning is this? Is this Government no longer in earnest as regards agriculture and the possibility of producing? In these times in which we are living and in which the Bantu find themselves in such dire straits on account of the drought, it still suits this Government to remove people who do not bother anybody from the boundary where the employment opportunities are and to place them in camps just outside King William’s Town. The Bantu have been living on that boundary for many generations. A short while ago the hon. the Minister spoke of the old people and the indigent who are being accommodated there because they had no other refuge. If that is something praiseworthy, it is definitely not something praiseworthy to remove people who have employment, who are happy, who have been living there for generations and who are not bothering anybody and to transfer them to another area. The hon. the Minister will probably tell me in due course who laid down the policy as regards the two places I mentioned where Bantu labour is being cut so drastically. If he fails to do so, I shall put the question to him, and I shall obtain that information. This is the position as it is at present.

As regards the provision of employment opportunities inside the Bantustans, I have said here that the Government’s policy cannot succeed to such an extent that the Bantustans can absorb all the Bantu. And when we speak of that aspect, that brings us to the political aspect. A short while ago the hon. the Deputy Minister spoke of this separate development, and he said that there would never be an umbrella government over the commonwealth of states in Southern Africa. Of course not. Who said there would be one? Who is foolish enough to believe that Lesotho or Botswana or Swaziland and all the others which may subsequently be added, will have one umbrella government over them in a federation of nations? That idea has never even arisen. What the United Party says, however, is that it is proper for this country and for this white population not to run away from its responsibilities, not to have so little confidence in the leadership of the white man that they no longer want to extend that over the Bantu. It is proper for this Government and any other government in South Africa to face up to the situation and to admit that this is a multiracial country. As far as I or other people can see, we are not in a position with the means we have at our disposal to-day, to remove the other races to such an extent that we would have a majority of Whites in what we want to call a white Republic—we are not in that position now nor shall we be in 30 years’ time or in 300 years’ time or at any stage. If we cannot do this, the entire policy of the Government fails, and then we have to look for an alternative. We say the alternative is the policy of the United Party, which mentions a race federation and not a federation of nations. And there is a real difference between separate development with representation within one state and sovereign, independent Bantustans within the territory of that state. One of these is what we support, and that is separate development with representation, which is our policy. The other is the one which we are opposing and which we shall continue to oppose as long as there are two sides in this House, and that is the development of independent Bantu states within our territory, states which do not even have boundaries. Time and again when I study the map of the Ciskei and notice all the spots indicated on that map from the bottom up to Herschel and right up against Basutoland—I am aware of the plan to remove some of them and we agree with that …

Do you agree with that?

We agree that some of the black spots should be removed, where possible. Will you remove the one situated right up against Basutoland? Will you remove Witzieshoek? [Interjection.] That is part of the Ciskei. The black spots situated there are large ones and it will not be possible now nor in the distant future to consolidate them into one territory of the Transkei.

At this stage it still has no boundaries, and that is the territory which the Government wants to try and convert into an independent Bantustan. There may be people who will tell me that it makes no difference whether one consolidates those spots into a spot which forms a unit, and whether one has 200 spots in Natal which have to be consolidated into the territory of the Zulus. In that ease I should still want to know how on earth one is going to administer one’s own country after one has given independence to such a state consisting of so many spots situated all over in the area of the white population that it looks like a crazy quilt? One would then have granted those people independence and one would be faced with transport and defence and all those aspects which are national aspects and which, as far as this side of the House is concerned, will never be transferred to the Bantu at any stage, because all of them are citizens of the same country, as far as we are concerned, and they have a responsibility and a loyalty towards South Africa to help to defend it. We do not want to separate them and turn them into foreign states. But someone must get up and tell me how, if one were to grant independence to the Zulu state with its numerous spots, one would be able to administer the rest of one’s domestic affairs? Or are they going to administer the domestic affairs in their country, which is an independent one, and to which they obviously will grant entry to those they want there?

Are you a supporter of consolidation?

How can an unconsolidated state become independent? Would any state have come into existence anywhere in Europe if it had consisted of 150 pieces of land? Surely that is an absurdity, and if it is an absurdity, if it is not possible physically or politically to establish such a state, let us for heaven’s sake stop talking of independent Bantu states; and if we stop talking of independent Bantu states, the entire policy of the Government falls away. Let me say at once that the sooner they once again accept the policy of the United Party, a policy of a federation of races and a certain degree of representation to the races within their own areas, as much as they can possibly administer, excluding those national aspects which they may not administer, the better it would be. They may not administer their own transport or defence, because that would clash with our interests. If that is not possible, the policy of the United Party is as plain as a pikestaff. This policy is possible, like my hon. Leader said yesterday, and it is possible without sacrificing white leadership. [Time expired.]

I want to bring the discussion back to what happened here yesterday afternoon. Shortly after the hon. member for Hillbrow had made a fiery speech in a derogatory way about Bantu homelands and was almost carried away by his vocabulary in his attempt to vilify Bantu homelands, the hon. member for Yeoville, by way of an interjection, told the hon. member for Witbank that they had accepted homelands. After these two hon. members have contradicted one another directly within the space of a few moments, I cannot help but think of the following ditty—

In spite of all their eloquence the hon. members find it difficult to say anything to prove that Bantu homelands have failed. I say to you now that of all the things with which the National Party has governed so successfully for 21 years, the latter will become the outstanding and major milestone in the history of South Africa, one which is calculated to create a pattern which will ultimately serve as a model to the world, because the racial problem is becoming a world problem. In this respect I think we arrive at the following position. The United Party, after possibly having recovered their second wind—if they have such a thing—and after they have been told by their political father-confessor, the editor of the Sunday Times, that the people have repeatedly passed judgment to the effect that Bantu homelands was what the public of South Africa wanted, knows to-day that they will have to find themselves a new garb which they will have to don for the next election, and, sitting there, that party is a bankrupt party, even financially. Their former financial sponsor has now told them: “You are asking for more money; you are facing another election again. But I want to see results, and you know that I, Hoggenheimer, do not want separate development and it is no use your coming to me for assistance if you have not proved that you have succeeded in thwarting separate development as far as possible.” Because, in spite of all these cries that separate development is a failure. I say that not only has it succeeded in South Africa to the extent where the public has repeatedly given it more and more support, but that even the world has begun to listen and become convinced that one is dealing here with a pattern which will ultimately serve as a model also for those countries and those statesmen with similar problems and with no knowledge how to solve them. Apparently the United Party has quite forgotten the lessons it has learned in the past. Looking at their numbers, Sir, I hope you will allow me to draw yet another comparison. When one considers the history of the United Party during the past 21 years, one can find nothing better than that piece of literary work by Leonard Fleming, “A Fool on the Veld.” to reflect their history. On page 80 you will find the diary of an old ewe. Every year this old ewe killed her lamb by laying down on him after having been tied up, because she used to refuse all her lambs. She died ultimately after having eaten poison and bloated. I recommend this to members on both sides and particularly to the Leader of the Opposition, because he is pre-eminently a farmer: let him read that chapter particularly well, because then he will see what the history of the United Party has been during the past 21 years. I notice that the Leader of the Opposition is in an amiable mood to-day; he is in that mood most of the time. For that reason I now want to talk to him about his motion, about those constitutional guarantees of which he spoke yesterday and which he wants to lay down in his constitution. And in that respect he is supported by some of the speakers on his side—I almost want to say by the crackpots (“malkoppe”). They say they will guarantee the constitution. If the Leader of the Opposition guarantees that the white man will have supremacy there, or the “leadership” of which they speak, then I ask him: “What do you want to guarantee it with?” When putting this question, I want to remind him of the speech he made in the previous no-confidence debate on 22nd January, 1963 (Hansard col. 33). I want to quote what the hon. Leader of the Opposition said in that speech and to-day I want him to make his statements sound plausible as far as his guarantee is concerned. On that occasion he also spoke, as he did here to-day, of eight Bantu representatives in the House of Assembly and of six representatives in the Senate.

But then he said: It does not end there. I am now going to quote his own words—

In other words, not only here, but also in the day-to-day administrative processes of the State, in other words, the officialdom.

Would you not appoint more than you already have?

In their areas, yes. But the hon. member did not talk about the position in their areas.

Would you only appoint police in their areas?

We do not have a bench here in South Africa on which Bantu serve.

What about the Transkei?

Wait a minute. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows what point I want to make and he is laughing quite amiably. Let him keep up that amiability. We know what the proportion between the races in South Africa is as far as numbers are concerned. What is the position going to be on the basis of a race federation, which is the policy of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition? Three-quarters of the staff in the offices, on the bench, in the police force and in the defence force will consist of Bantu, provided you are honest and provided the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not throwing dust in somebody’s eyes. According to the pattern held up by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition here, namely a race federation, three-quarters of the staff in all those spheres of national life should consist of Bantu. But here comes his guarantee. A referendum will then be held. Here you will have eight members of Parliament who will say that they want the Bantu to have greater representation here. The Leader of the Opposition says: “Oh no, we are going to have a referendum.” Judging from what he says now, he is going to let the Whites vote about this matter. But will the Blacks be satisfied? Will the Blacks, who constitute three-quarters of the police, the bench, etc., be satisfied when only Whites are going to vote in that referendum as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said here yesterday? It is obvious that they will revolt against this. They will obviously revolt against this; that they will do all sorts of things and possibly resort to unlawful activities. I now come to the question I want to put to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and I hope he will retain his amiability. He must now tell me how he is going to guarantee his constitution when three-quarters of his police is black, when three-quarters of his soldiers is black and when three-quarters of his bench is black. He must not shake his head now. Was he not honest when he spoke of their participation in the day-to-day administrative functions of the State? I regard him to be an honest man.

You ought to write fairy tales.

If I became the author of fairy tales, what would then remain of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition? Let us go into the crux of these matters. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition told us yesterday that he would guarantee the constitution and that only the Whites would decide. But I want to put the following question to him: If the Blacks are dissatisfied, in what way is he going to guarantee it? What is going to happen when three-quarters of his military force and three-quarters of his police revolt and when three-quarters of his Judges and magistrates and government officials tell him: “No, we want you to fulfil the promise you made in the House of Assembly of South Africa on 22nd January, 1963.”

A coup d’etat.

No, that lovely smile of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not going to help him now; we are not attending a children’s party now. Let us go into the crux of this matter once and for all. We simply cannot run away in a whisk from this issue all the time. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition must not think that he can keep on jumping and always jump away from it. Should we not take it then that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition thinks that the people should decide about these matters? Was he not being sincere yesterday? Was he not being sincere on the 22nd January, 1963, when he told everybody in South Africa and the whole world that they should also be able to participate in the day-to-day processes of the State? These are the matters about which we should get some clarity from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. You see, Sir, I myself am also fond of laughing. I am probably one of the most amiable people in the world, but one should not laugh about matters of this nature. We are dealing here with matters one has to investigate in depth and determine what the Leader of the Opposition means when he comes forward with this motion of his. Was the hon. the Leader of the Opposition being sincere that day when he said that the Bantu should have a share in the day-to-day administrative functions of the State? He should explain to us how he is going to guarantee his constitution. Mr. Speaker, is it surprising therefore that the United Party has to experience that terrible disappointment of seeing its numbers in this House dwindling every time the people pass judgment? After all, one would have expected the party opposite to have made some progress during all the years this party has been in power. Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition expect the public of South Africa to take him seriously and to trust him? Does he expect the public to trust him when he acts in this way? No, I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition should adopt a responsible attitude now even though he does not have a responsible policy. After all, he should at least say something he can justify in the eyes of the people. He should at least be able to tell the public: “Look, I was sincere with them that day when I said that the Bantu should also participate in the day-to-day administrative functions of the country.” One cannot be dishonest with both of them; one has to be honest with somebody. One cannot tell the Whites one story and the black man another story and then expect people to have confidence in one. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition should tell us in his reply by what means he wants to uphold those guarantees of his. By what means does he want to guarantee that constitution in terms of which, according to him, the white man will always have the say? Is what he is now advocating not the very thing with which his party besmirched us in U.N. 20 years ago? Did they not say at that time that the Nats in South Africa stood for eternal supremacy? Sir, we have never turned a somersault in that respect. The late General Hertzog, Dr. Malan, Mr. Strijdom, Dr. Verwoerd and our present Prime Minister and leader have constantly been telling you what our aim is, namely separation. The more separation, the less discrimination. The Leader of the Opposition wants to entrench racial discrimination in his constitution for ever; that is what he wants to do. In other words, he now accepts as the policy of his party those things of which he accused us at U.N. It would not be surprising therefore if South Africa’s name would then stink in the outside world. General Hertzog taught us that it was impossible to keep any nation in the world in a position of subordination for ever. We are not prepared to keep the Bantu in a position of subordination for ever. To-day the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, by way of interjection, went so far as to imply that something like a minority government existed in South Africa. Let us get away from that untruth once and for all. There is no such thing as a minority government in South Africa. In this white area of South Africa the white man is governing and in all the different Bantu states which exist in South Africa to-day, the Bantu enjoy the same political rights that I enjoy here.

That is nonsense.

Of course it is so. There is no such thing as a minority government in South Africa.

What about the “verkramptes”?

Sir, a long time ago I also spent a short period abroad, and prominent people over there were dumbfounded when I told them and when I proved to them that there was no longer any such thing as a minority government in South Africa. I found out that it was none other than members on that side of the House who had been telling the world all the time that a minority government was in power in South Africa.

Shame!

Sir, those gentlemen are doing a great deal of harm in the rest of the world by spreading that story, but to quote yet another saying: “Even though a lie may spread like wildfire, the truth will catch up with it.” The truth is fast catching up with that lie, which is continually being spread by the United Party in the outside world, namely that in this country you have a minority government which is lording it over the majority group. Sir, separate development will reveal itself and it is revealing itself as a very special pattern which will be accepted in the rest of the world. The policy of separate development is being supported by both Whites and Blacks to-day. It is not only a view that is being held by the white voters of South Africa; it is a policy which is gaining more and more support among the Bantu peoples of South Africa every year. It started in the Transkei; the Zulu, the Swazis, the Tswanas and all the Bantu in South Africa have come to realize that under the policy of separate development, they have an opportunity such as they will never have under the mixed Parliament proposed by the United Party. Here they have at least an opportunity of making such progress according to their skill and ability and of reaching the same stage of development as any white voter in the world can. But this concept of eternal subordination only serves to give South Africa a bad name again in the eyes of the world. In the early history of this party which is now in power, it was predicted that this country would find itself in a terrible revolution in a few years’ time. What is the situation to-day? After 21 years we have not only had numerous successes, a long series of solutions to problems such as the Republican issue, the population register and the question of citizenship….

The agricultural problem, too?

Yes, there was an awful lot of problems. Industrial development in South Africa was such that the financial world was able to say, as was said by the chairman of the International Bank, that South Africa was the best of the lot. “The best of the lot”, were the words used. It is here where South Africa’s credit is at its very best. It is a well-known fact that South Africa’s creditworthiness is the best in the world to-day. How could the hon. the Leader of the Opposition say what he said in the light of the state of affairs which prevails in Europe and America, a state of affairs with its problems, race disturbances, race problems and bloodshed? Here in South Africa one finds a model of peace and quiet and of progress. How can the Leader of the Opposition come to this House with a motion of no confidence?

I am now going to deal with the hon. member who preceded me. The hon. member held up a picture of the conditions prevailing in the Transkei. I on my part, now contend that the standard of living and conditions in the Transkei and, in fact, in every Bantu homeland in South Africa, are at present higher and better than ever before. It compares favourably with the best in the world. Only this afternoon we read in the newspaper that, as far as America was concerned, America which is regarded as the most progressive country in the world—and nobody will probably deny that—the retired President had said that there were 35 million people in the United States living below the breadline. I now say this to the hon. member who spoke before me and who moaned about the so-called bad conditions prevailing in the Transkei. Let him compare the Transkei with the United States, which is the most progressive country in the world. In that country 35 million people are living below the breadline, and the hon. member is moaning here about the conditions in the Transkei where he cannot mention one person living below the breadline. How can the hon. the Leader of the Opposition get himself to say that he has no confidence in the Government in spite of all these things which are happening to-day and in spite of the conditions that are prevailing in the world and in South Africa? What does he want then? Does he not want peace and quiet? Does he not want full employment? Does he not want racial peace in this country? All these things are being maintained at the fastest tempo today, faster than it has been maintained ever before in the history of South Africa. Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition not want it that way? What does he want then? What, in his opinion, is the ideal state of affairs when he compares South Africa to-day with any other part of the world? What does he want? Can he show me any other country where an equally ideal state of affairs prevails and say that that is the way a country should be governed? No, Sir. Of the country which has the best and most progressive policy and the most stable industrial set-up one can find in the whole world under a National Party Government over a period of 21 years, the Leader of the Opposition says that, in spite of all these things, he has no confidence in the Government. I really feel sorry for the Leader of the Opposition. It seems to me the hon. gentleman is sometimes forced into a position which is not a pleasant one for him. In that respect I wonder whether you will accept my moving an amendment—that this House expresses its sincere sympathy with the Leader of the Opposition and the tragic role he is playing and is trying to play in the political history of South Africa. I wonder whether you would possibly obtain permission from the Whips for me to move such an amendment. He pretends to be deaf now. It seems to me the Chief Whip on the Government side is afraid now that this motion will be accepted generally by every member of the House. I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition may add something else to his motion, namely that the Government and South Africa may be specially congratulated on the fact that they have a Government such as this one which, in spite of all the world problems and the opportunities which presented themselves to encounter difficulties, is nevertheless governing South Africa in such a way that we are a prosperous and peaceful country to-day, that we enjoy racial peace and that our Bantu people, who were suppressed at one time, are at present seeing the light under the guidance of the National Party.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just sat down, has as usual, not failed to disappoint us when he brought in his shadow, Hoggenheimer. One thing that interests me is that, since I have been in this House, I have seen that hon. member move along from one bench to the other. He now occupies a place in the corner and I am sure that if he makes speeches like this in the future, he will soon join me on the back bench. The hon. member quoted a figure of 35 million people in the United States as living below the breadline. If he thinks that South Africa can hold its head up with pride, might I remind him that a recent survey showed that 9 out of every 10 children living in the Kwa Mashu township of Durban were living below the poverty datum line. This survey, for the information of the hon. members on the other side of the House, was conducted by the C.S.I.R. Nearly four-fifths of the households of Kwa Mashu could be regarded as living in poverty. That I believe is sufficient reply to the hon. member’s half-hour speech. So often since this debate started, one is left with the impression that members on that side of the House do not live in South Africa at all. They seem to be talking about a place that just does not exist.

I want to return to a few of my friends on the other side of the House, in particular the hon. Deputy Minister who unfortunately is not here at the moment. He criticized me for visiting Limehill with certain people. I want to tell that hon. Minister and the Government side that I will visit whom I like, when I like, where I like, south of the Limpopo and that I will choose my friends when I do so. I also want to tell the hon. members on that side of the House and that hon. Deputy Minister that I retract not a single word I said about Limehill, last year or during the recess or what I am going to say now. A question mark lies over Limehill and a question mark lies over the head of every South African in regard thereto. I want to deal with one or two aspects as well as with Limehill. We have heard so much of the moral justification of the Government’s policy. I want to bring one or two points to the notice of this House that makes one wonder just where this moral justification lies. Last year I asked this House to appoint a special committee to investigate the matter of population removals, but this request was turned down by the then Minister of Community Development. The point I made was that if a proper investigation was done then much of the hardships attached to removals would be obviated. We know every race group in South Africa has been affected by removals, but the Whites least of all. I think probably the reason for that is the Whites have the greatest voice and the Government therefore does not have the courage to move them about willy-nilly as it does the other groups. I wish to emphasize that no one objects to removals done for the sake of good housing elsewhere, schooling, and the clearing up of slums. Nobody objected to the removal from Cato Manor.

And Sophiatown?

For the information of the Minister I wish to say loud and clear that nobody on this side of the House, and nobody outside has ever objected to the removal of people if the removal was to the benefit of the people concerned. When removals take place for the benefit of the people concerned, for instance for better housing, school facilities, health, and so on, then those removals are agreed to, but when removals are forced upon any group of people for political reasons only then all human decency goes by the board and to those removals we on this side object most strenuously. Removals that take place for political reason only—and I emphasize for political reasons only—beome nothing else but inhuman experiments with people. When such removals, as the one at Limehill, take place, then I submit that every South African must bow his head in shame. The Nationalist Party has delusions of grandeur, but in fact it has nothing but the trappings of heartlessness when this sort of thing occurs. If we want to claim to be a civilized. Christian, Western country, then I ask the Government why it does not appoint the commission I asked for last year? This commission need only establish whether a proposed removal is justified in the first place, under various headings: then it must establish whether the area to which the people will be moved is satisfactory: and then it must determine whether there is sufficient housing, water, and all the other things necessary. This will be nothing new on the part of a government because this was done overseas during the war years when people were moved out of London for their own safety, and nobody thought anything of that. Has the Government ever investigated the consequences of removals on family life? We so often hear the word “tradition” in this House; we hear this or that is the traditional policy of South Africa, and so on. But has the Government cared one iota for the traditional family life of the Bantu and of the Indian? No, it has not done so, and I submit this commission would serve a very valuable purpose and at least enable South Africans—if hon. members on that side of the House are not affected by this, we on this side are—to hold their heads up with some sort of pride. I believe Christianity demands that such a commission be appointed; I believe the people of South Africa are entitled to one. If such a commission had existed, would we have had the case of Rustenburg which occurred recently, when the hon. Minister sitting over there made one of his usual faux pas? Would we have had Riverside, District Six? We certainly would also not have had Limehill. Already a thousand group areas have been declared by this Government and something like 700,000 people have been moved forcibly by this Government; yet in not a single case was a full investigation held into the circumstances and the consequences of the removals. The shifting of 700,000 people is no light matter. Some may have had to be moved, but I believe no proper investigation was held on the lines suggested. [Interjections.] When one hears hon. members opposite making so much noise, when they are so critical of what has happened at Limehill, I believe they are entitled to do so because I suggest their consciences must be worrying them. Last year we had the dreadful experience of having to listen to the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development referring to certain priests “in long dresses”. It was an insulting remark concerning a religious body which was doing what the Government should have done in the first place. The whole country was ashamed because of the insulting remark he had made about these priests. We had the hon. member for Umhlatuzana talking about serious illness at Limehill as being “apricot sickness”. The hon. member for Klipriver displayed a heart of stone when he brushed aside the complaints about the illnesses as “being natural for that area”. This hon. member also said he had found 60 graves in the area but that some of the people had died at the age of 80 and 90 years. This was in a population of 1,000 people. I did not count the graves at Limehill. I looked at the official pages containing particulars of the deaths, and of the 20 names recorded ten were of children under the age of four years, most of whom had died of some stomach complaint.

Is that abnormal?

Does the hon. member think that is normal for an area the size of Limehill? If he does, then Heaven help us! The hon. member also said the area had a clinic and nurses. I should like to know what is wrong with his arithmetic because it only has one nurse and it has not had her all the time. The hon. member also said a bus service was provided at Limehill and residents could use this to get to the other centres if they did not wish to avail themselves of the medical and clinical services provided for them at Limehill. Has that hon. member ever had to travel for 20 miles in a bus while he was ill, because that is the distance one has to travel to get clinical treatment elsewhere, and has he ever had occasion to wait for a bus when seriously ill? This callousness of the Government side should cease. They must face the facts of Limehill and the other Limehills of South Africa.

When one talks about Limehill, one must get it in its proper perspective.

Then do so.

Yes, I will do so right this very minute. We have had criticism from the Minister who talked about the Catholic church being involved. But a joint committee of five religious denominations continued to protest against the hastiness of the move. This was before the move took place. The Government was warned that if it went ahead then disease could break out. So I say the people sitting opposite must be blamed for the disease which did break out at Limehill. We were told by the Deputy Minister sitting there what a wonderful place Limehill was. That is what he told us in a speech last year. He said before any Bantu were removed to compensatory land or to a Bantu township in a Bantu area, sufficient water for human as well as animal consumption was made available at the new site at the cost of the S.A. Bantu Trust. I have one question to ask the Deputy Minister. If sufficient water is made available, why then are the people still using water carts? He went on to say every family was supplied with a tent or prefabricated house free. Well, there were no prefabricated houses at Limehill, none whatsoever. He also said the Trust even supplied new material for the new homes on the new site. Yes, it did, but the people had to pay for it, and they paid with money which they would probably have spent on food.

That is nonsense.

No, it is perfectly true. Why is it then that Limehill now …

It is not true and you know it is not true.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw. The hon. member possibly does not know it.

I want to ask the hon. member who is so touchy about this matter, why people are still living in the Lime-hill complex in tents, not new arrivals but people who arrived nearly a year ago who cannot afford to build a house?

We have heard about the clinic at Limehill; we have heard there is sanitation; we have also heard that the people moved voluntarily to Limehill. If they moved voluntarily, then I ask the Deputy Minister the same question I asked him last year: Why were six affidavits put in opposing the removal? If they moved voluntarily to Limehill, how is it that the Chief Bantu Affairs Commissioner in Natal said he wished to make it clear that the move was voluntary and not compulsory, and that if the Africans did not wish to get on the lorry they did not have to, but the squatters would, however, eventually find themselves open to prosecution if they did not move? Is this voluntary? Limehill was such a wonderful place a year ago that in answer to a question in this House the hon. Minister of Community Development said no sanitary provisions were made before the first people were moved in and no clinic was available or was yet available. This was on the 12th February of last year. But we hear from the Deputy Minister that everything was right when they moved to Limehill.

I want to make it quite clear that the Government are responsible for what happened. They were warned in this House and by people outside this House, yet they proceeded to move the people to Limehill before anything was ready for them. Removals in other areas are taking place in the same way. The same thing happened at Mondhlo. At Osizweni, four years after the people were moved in, water was still being brought in by trucks, although the Government had said there would be plenty of water for them. Of course, the whole basis of Limehill is so much eyewash. The question is this: Why were they moved there in the first place? What was the object? What industries are there; where will the people work who now live in Limehill? They are now 20 miles further from where they worked before and a person living at Limehill pays 20c busfare a day out of a salary of R3 per week. The hon. the Deputy Minister read us a letter from a Bantu from Limehill, in the same way the Deputy Minister sitting alongside him read one here this afternoon, praising the Government for what it has done. What the Deputy Minister did not say was that the letter came from a person who had been given a trading concession, while the letter that Deputy Minister read was from a person who had a filling station.

I want to ask the Government this. If Limehill is such a wonderful example of separate development, why don’t they let everybody see it? What are they hiding? Why does the security police harass the people who are working there and doing some good at Limehill?

Why do the priests sell poles there?

Because the Government supplied poles for one room only. Why are there police roadblocks around Limehill? Why did police stop people during Christmas week and tell them: “You cannot go any further, disease has broken out in the area”? Why was the recording of the father who was interviewed by the S.A.B.C. never broadcasted? Why did we never hear it? I repeat that if the Government is so proud of Limehill why does it not open it up? Then we can all have a look at it. No, the Government will give permits to Nationalist Party organizers to accompany the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. Those are the sort of people who can go to Limehill because they have all been brainwashed anyway.

In the time left to me I should also like to come to the hon. the Minister of Community Development. This hon. Minister has made a statement to the effect that the Indians will have to leave their shop counters.

You are talking just as much nonsense as the Rand Daily Mail.

The hon. the Minister also said that he would resign from the Cabinet rather than allow the Government to rob Indians of their livelihood. This is the same hon. Minister who in a Canute-like manner was going to send all the Bantu back to their homelands by 1978. His reputation is now no longer at state. But if he is prepared to stake his reputation on whether the Government has robbed Indians of their livelihood, I believe that he will not be with us for very long.

I challenge you to bring me one such Indian.

I should like to know from the hon. the Minister what these people are to do when they leave their shop counters. Is the Government going to give them employment? Is the hon. the Minister of Transport going to open his doors and offer Indians employment on the Railways? No, they must stop being shopkeepers but that Government prevents them from being anything else. Who is moving the Indians out of Rustenberg? If only we had a commission that could investigate these questions, that hon. Minister would be put in his place and movements such as this would not be allowed to take place. That hon. Minister said in a speech last year that the 3¼ million Bantu in South Africa were going to be replaced. He was going to replace these people with white workers and I still want to know where he is going to get them from.

In conclusion I should like to say that a commission such as that for which I asked would be valuable in that it would restore to the ordinary man in the street the confidence that the title deeds he holds for his property is still of some value. In the Dundee area we had the instance of Natives being moved from their farms to Limehill. Before they had even shaken the dust from their heels the miners had moved in and started drilling for some precious metal. The indignities that are heaped upon the non-White people of South Africa would at least be lessened if we had such a commission. I want to ask the Government to consider this very seriously.

I come now to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana who in a speech during the recess talked about making the city of Durban white by night.

I said no such thing.

At the Nationalist Party congress in Natal that hon. member spoke in favour of making Durban white by night. I do not think that the hon. member for Klipriver did so, because he was still very busy trying to win his nomination as leader of his party and that took 5 hours. We nominated and unanimously elected our leader in about 5 seconds. I should like to ask the hon. member for Umhlatuzana and hon. members on that side of the House who are so much in favour of this idea of white by night, how many Bantu servants they brought with them to Cape Town this session. Why do they not employ local labour as they preach time and again? I know that they did not employ local labour because I know that at least half a dozen of my personal acquaintances on that side of the House brought their non-White servants with them. By doing that they deafeated the very policy that they preach here day by day. [Interjections.]

If the only good thing that has resulted from this debate is that hon. members on that side of the House have had their consciences pricked as regards the inhumanity and the callousness with which they treated people who are moved about the country, this debate will have been worth while.

While listening to the speech of the hon. member for Port Natal this afternoon, our thoughts went back to the years when this Government solved the problem of black spots and squatters’ camps on the Witwatersrand, at Durban and at Port Elizabeth. At that time when we, the present Government, proceeded to remove the Natives from those squatters’ camps, in which the most dreadful conditions prevailed, to better places, we heard exactly the same speeches in this House and exactly the same cries went up from the priests. They were the people who tried to stop this Government. This Government has a clear conscience as far as that matter is concerned. This Government is not ashamed of what it is doing to move the non-Whites to better conditions. That hon. member is the last person who can reproach the Government in this House with not treating the Natives in the Republic of South Africa fairly! This is the very Government which displayed fairness by moving the Natives to better conditions. That hon. member, however, gets hold of one matter and the hon. members opposite want to boost him to the skies. Even that will fail, because we shall prove to those hon. members that many of the things they said in this House were not true. That proof will disenchant those hon. members. At this stage of the debate I move—

Agreed to.