Mr. Speaker, I move, as an unopposed motion—

Agreed to.

Before the House adjourned last evening I indicated that I wished to deal in some detail with the position of the Bantu in the urban areas, in the Sowetos, the Langas and the Guguletus, in the main industrial and urban areas of South Africa. Sir, their presence in these areas is a reality. The necessity for their presence is, I believe, a fact. Similarly the control of entry of Bantu into these areas—those Bantu who are unemployable or who are surplus to available employment opportunities—must, we agree, be controlled and must be kept under control continuously. We accept the necessity of that control commonly referred to as influx control, because we believe it is not only in the interests of the Whites themselves, it is in the interests also of the Bantu people of the Republic of South Africa. It is in the interests of every section of the South African people. But, Sir, urban Bantu do exist. Their presence is a factual reality and if one wants to look for any indication of that I would ask you, Sir, to have regard to the figures, for instance, of the Civil Service. The latest available figures which I have indicate that in the Public Service of the Republic of South Africa, in the S.A. Railways and Harbours Administration, the Provincial Administrations and local authorities, there are employed 238,268 Whites. But. Sir, there are also employed by those local authorities, by the Government, by the Railway Administration, in white South Africa, 293,650 Bantu, a number which is in excess of the number of Whites. Their existence is a reality. It is a reality in the townships, we only have to visit them to see them. It is a reality in industry; we only have to visit any industrial undertaking in our urban areas to see the Bantu there. We see them daily in essential services. We see them at every garage, at every dairy, at every corner of activity in any city in South Africa. But Government policy regarding these Bantu, Government policy regarding this real existent section of the economic life of the Republic is, I think it can be fairly stated, directed towards restricting and eliminating any element of permanency so far as the individual Bantu in the white areas is concerned. In other words, the employment of these Bantu in the white areas is permissive. Their presence, according to Government policy must be only temporary. They can acquire no rights of permanent residence in what is loosely termed white South Africa. Sir, these Bantu are there. Those who are there and have been for generations in urban South Africa must now apparently, according to Government policy, be converted into a temporary migratory labour force for the convenience of the application of Government policy.

Let us examine the position, Sir. Over many decades—a century and more—rights of residence and rights of employment have been acquired by these urban Bantu people. This is a fact. This fact of their presence, their permanency and their detachment from their ethnic origins, is glossed over by the Government. It is unacceptable to Government thinking; it is a fact unacceptable to Government policy. Surely, Sir, this is a basic unreality. Accepting that any limitation is imposed on the rights of permanency of any individual Bantu, does this make it any less a fact that they are in our midst and will remain in our midst? If this year I employ two Bantu and their identity happens to be A and B, and because of Government restrictions and Government regulations my two Bantu whom I employ next year are C and D. does it make any difference to the permanency of the Bantu in our areas? Of course not. But I want to suggest that it makes a vast deal of difference in so far as the effective economic growth of South Africa is concerned. The irrebuttable fact, the irrefutable reality, is that increasing numbers of Bantu are employed and are necessary to maintain and to expand the national economy of South Africa.

Total territorial separation is entirely unattainable and any policy based on that separation is entirely incapable of implementation. My hon. Leader has already indicated that if this Government were to achieve any measure of success in the application of this migratory system, it would result in South Africa, and white South Africa, having what my Leader referred to as a rightless, rootless mass of migrant labour, without any homes, with no rights, and what is more, no responsibility to white South Africa. These consequences are dangerous. To advocate this policy I suggest is recklessness. It is a policy which is unacceptable to employers and this migrant labour policy is condemned by every church of every denomination in the whole of the Republic.

This policy of migrant labour results in the denial to the Bantu people of South Africa, who must permanently be within our industrial white areas, basic family life. That is the first result. Secondly, it is to entrench unproductivity because no temporary employee ever has the same output as a permanent employee. Thirdly, it releases the individual Bantu from any responsibilities of citizenship because he is a temporary sojourner, and what responsibility has he towards the maintenance of law and order in an area and in a country where he is merely a temporary sojourner, working for a short period only? I believe, furthermore, this policy will eliminate ambition and destroy initiative in the very sector of the Bantu population in which we wish to see development of initiative and ambition.

This policy of the Government is quite incapable of fulfilment because it does not accept that the Bantu experiences the hopes and desires and fears and apprehensions, all those emotions which are common to all human beings. Where is the loyalty to be found in the Bantu population, in these millions, when they have but temporary rights in white South Africa, to a South Africa where they must work and to a South Africa which is dependent upon their labour for its own economic prosperity? Or is their loyalty to their ethnic homeland to which this Government will attach them, whether it is before or after the attainment of independence by the homeland?

The other evening I was listening to Radio South Africa and I could hardly believe my ears when I heard a talk by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. He made a certain announcement, and I believe we will have certain legislation in this regard before us. He announced that the Government had now thought up the wonderful new status for the Bantu people, namely they are to have dual citizenship. For example, a Xhosa will become a citizen of the Transkei whilst he will retain citizenship of the Republic of South Africa. This comes from a Government and from a party which over the years had such very strong things to say about the wickedness and the dangers of dual citizenship. It is a political somersault of the most remarkable kind. I need not remind you, Sir, of what was said in this House over the years about one foot in South Africa and one foot elsewhere, yet this Government now wants to suggest the Bantu must have one foot in the Transkei and the other in the Republic. When one looks at the feasibility of this policy, what will the attitude of the Government be when the Transkei receives its independence and Chief Kaizer Matanzima takes up the attitude which that party has taken up towards dual citizenship in the past? What will the position be if he says to these Xhosas: “Aikona, there is no dual citizenship. If you want to retain South African citizenship then go and stay there but leave the Transkei”?

Mr. Speaker, I mention this fact now only in passing. Obviously it will be discussed in more detail at a later stage during the Session. But I mention it to illustrate the gropings of this Government to try and rationalize a policy which is unreal and try to give it the impression of implementation. To believe that the Bantu in the Western Cape are no longer required is surely unreal. True enough, there is a restriction. The present Minister of Community Development, announcing his five per cent per annum, stated that there would be a restriction. The hon. the Minister of Planning similarly brought his legislation to restrict the position of Bantu in industry in the Western Cape, but I think the whole of industry in the Western Cape is thankful to the officials of the Department of Planning and the Department of Bantu Affairs who are realists, who appreciate the necessity of the Bantu and of more Bantu in the Western Cape to fill jobs.

The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration gave us some very interesting figures. I think they deserve a little more examination. The hon. the Deputy Minister, in great need of proof of the fulfilment of the policy which was being applied in the Western Cape, announced that during 1967-68 the number of Bantu children in the Western Cape decreased by 5,256. I presume that if these Bantu children went to their homelands, they did not go unescorted. One can assume that with the 5,000 there were, let us say, 1,000 adults who accompanied them, women or otherwise, to the Transkei or wherever they were resettled. In effect, the superficially impressive figure is then given to us that in this group there was a reduction of 6,300 Bantu from the Western Cape, children and escorts. But I say this is superficial, because he also gave us the figures of the total Bantu population in the Cape, which decreased by only 4,184. In other words, the non-fulfilment of the policy of the Government is quite clear from those two sets of figures. The children and the women were sent out, but an additional 2,100 Bantu had to be brought into the Cape to take on jobs. [Interjections.] That hon. Deputy Minister has had his time to speak. If he wants to quote another letter or a paragraph, I will sit down. I also want to say that I am not certain whether the additional hundreds that have been taken into employ by the Minister of Transport in Cape Town docks, are included or not included in this figure which I have quoted.

There are various aspects of the effect this removal has on the Bantu people, but in the limited time I cannot elaborate upon them. But I want to say that I have sufficient faith in South Africans not to believe that they will accept the statement that the objective of a total black migratory labour force in white South Africa is something which can be tolerated in this country. It is a denial, as I have said, of the basic human rights to which every person in this country, of whatever colour, is entitled. These are not inanimate machines with which we are dealing. We are dealing with human beings who have a responsibility towards the law and order and prosperity and peace of this country.

But the other aspect which concerns me is that these people are apparently not understood, although the hon. member for Klip River yesterday did concede that there are a number of Bantu who are used to baths and modern conveniences, and not only the bush and rivers. We are dealing with an urban population.

I want to say that for the Nationalist Government to say that its present-day policy is consistent with nationalist thinking over the years, is not strictly correct.

I recently came across a very interesting assessment of this problem by the architect of the Nationalist victory in 1948. I refer to the late Dr. Malan. I am sure some hon. members in this House to-day, will remember his speech to which I wish to refer. It was a speech the then hon. Prime Minister made in 1950 when, under the Prime Minister’s Vote, he was challenged with resolutions taken by a congress of churches in Bloemfontein where they called for total territorial segregation. This is what the Prime Minister, Dr. Malan, then said—

Hear, hear!

He then goes on to say—

It still is. Where is the change? The then Prime Minister went on and he said—

When dealing with influx control the Prime Minister said that it was necessary to control the harmful flow of Natives from Native areas to the European areas and that it should be checked as far as possible, but without doing harm to the demand for labour in the European areas. He then said—

I have been quoting from a speech made in 1950 (Hansard, Vol. 71, col. 4141). Then then Prime Minister of the Nationalist Government recognized that there was such a thing as a permanent, urban, detribalized Native population in South Africa. This Government does not think so and does not believe it. We believe that these people have a permanent place in our country and until this Government accepts that they have a permanent place as a part of our population their policy is impossible of fulfilment.

I will try in the few minutes at my disposal to deal with another matter on which I hope the hon. the Prime Minister will be good enough to enlighten this side of the House and to enlighten the public. The goal of the Government’s Bantu policy is unrestricted political growth for the Bantu, growth to sovereignty within their own areas—in other words, the Bantu attached to an ethnic homeland can develop politically to full self-government. With the question of timing I am not concerned at the moment, but this is the goal which is at the end of the road of Government policy. We are told that there is no middle course. We are told that if we do not give the Bantu the freedom to develop politically to independence and full sovereignty, the only alternative is political integration. In other words, there is no middle course.

The course of your party is towards political integration.

With respect, Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. the Prime Minister should make an interjection like that; he knows that that is not the position. But there is a question I should like to ask him. This question relates to the Coloured people and is exercising the minds of all thinking South Africans of all political parties. The question is, what is the Coloureds’ ultimate political goal? If the granting of political rights in the supreme government of the country is political integration, the Coloureds either must have their own Colouredstan, or they must be integrated with the Whites. After all, that is in line with the Government’s own statement. They say that there is no middle road. But there is a third alternative, i.e. that they are being denied for all time a say in the sovereign parliament of their own country. Seven years ago the present Minister of Defence in elaborating on the extension of the Coloured Council concluded his statement by saying that the Prime Minister had said that that was as far as the road could be seen at that time. Well, that was seven years ago. Seven years have since elapsed. The present Minister of Defence, then Deputy Minister of the Interior, went further and said that nothing was static and that political rights for the Coloureds would have to be considered further on the basis of parallel development.

Now I should like, in all sincerity and in the interests of the country as well as in the interests of clear thinking about this matter, to ask the hon. the Prime Minister, where has their thinking gone during the intervening seven years? If it is to be parallel development and if there is to be a complete and utter division, then there must at the end be a territorial concept and the Government must face up to the fact that its policy leads up to the creation of a Colouredstan in South Africa. But if it is not that, the whole argument which has been directed at this side of the House to the effect that there is no middle way between integration on the one hand and complete separation on the other, falls to the ground—that is, if the Government is not prepared to apply it themselves and either accept the integration of the Coloured people into white South Africa or give them the complete sovereign independence which they say is the only alternative to integration. I hope we shall have occasion to have this elaborated upon, because it concerns not only the white people but also the Coloured people. The Coloured people have been a loyal section of our community over generations and they are entitled to know what the Government’s thinking is. As I see the position, since this statement was made seven years ago there has been no clear policy statement emanating from the Nationalist Government.

The hon. member for Green Point has once again given us a very clear glimpse of the old United Party viewpoint, especially their viewpoint in regard to the large numbers of urban Bantu. As he put it, they regard these Bantu as “detribalized” and as being present here on a permanent basis. What the hon. member did not add was that it is the policy of the United Party to grant these people a considerable number of representatives in the white Parliament. As those numbers increase, i.e. under United Party rule, and are encouraged to strengthen their hold on the South African economy, they will, of course, obtain still greater representation as time goes on. In the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s New Year message we experienced something of a similar nature. He said there that we dared not be blind to the tension which was mounting in our country, especially in the field of relations between Black and White. These thoughts and considerations actually form the background to the motion which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition moved here on Monday. If one takes another look at the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s New Year message it seems as if the approach of the United Party amounts to the expectation that tension must mount up, so that they may tell South Africa and the world that they have, after all, always said that the policy of the National Party was wrong.

Let us look at the Bantu for a moment and, with our ear to the ground, try to determine whether or not the Bantu are satisfied with the policies of this Government. One then finds, for example, that as recently as at the end of last year Chief Minister Matanzima of the Transkei stated that the Bantu of the Transkei were irrevocably placed on the road to separate development. In other words, they see themselves in the future as a Bantu nation with the Transkei as their fatherland. That is why the Bantu want to develop and enhance their national identity. That is why Matanzima wants to foster in his people a national pride and a love of their own country. I think that by this time we can accept, surely, that Kaizer Matanzima is a responsible Bantu leader and that we should take note of what he says. Let us listen to what the chief of the Tswana said in December on the occasion of the establishment of the Tswana Territorial Authority—

When it comes to self-rule being granted to the Bantu in their respective homelands, there appear to be appreciation and gratitude on the part of those people for the recognition of their own nationhood and national identity. We see in that the reflection of the national aspiration of every nation in the world, an aspiration which the United Party has never been able to understand. Hon members opposite—inter alia, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and now once again the hon. member for Green Point—have so much to say about the permanently detribalized urban Bantu. Let me point out to them that these Bantu are not as detribalized as they would have us believe. Those people maintain contact with their tribes, with their homelands, and they are proud of it. They also tell one that they want to be nothing but Xhosas, or whatever other tribe they belong to. We think that the hon. members of the Opposition have a basically wrong approach here, that they do not understand that ideal of the Bantu, and that they are following a course which even the responsible Bantu say is the wrong one.

Let us just look at a few conditions, the principles laid down in our Government’s labour agreements with the governments of neighbouring Bantu states, and then we shall notice that they embody the same aspiration i.e. that these countries would like to retain their people, they want to pledge their people to their own country and their own nation, and that they do not want them to become permanent, urban Bantu in South Africa, who are detribalized. [Interjection.] The hon. member must be so kind as to listen for a moment; I listened to him attentively. There are four principles in these labour agreements. In the first place, these governments of the Bantu states lay down the requirement that Bantu labourers are to come to South Africa on a temporary basis and as single persons. In other words, they want to retain them for their country; they are to come on a temporary basis. Let me underline this point for the hon. member. It is the aspiration of the Bantu leaders and the Bantu rulers of Black African states that their people retain their national ties. In other words, they do not want to encourage them to become detribalized Bantu in or around our major cities in South Africa. I shall now mention the second principle. In these labour agreements those governments lay down a second condition, which is that these people are not to bring their families with them. They also lay down a third condition. The labourers must come on a contract basis, for 12 months, after which they must return to their own country and to their families. I shall now mention the fourth principle. Those governments lay down the condition that at election time the Bantu labourers in South Africa must cast their votes in their own countries. In other words, they must retain their citizenship there. We find the same principle, the same trend of thought, with the Bantu authorities of our own South African homelands. In other words, the responsible Bantu leaders in the whole of Southern Africa are trying to develop and uphold a Bantu nationhood and to foster respect for it. The United Party is destroying that national pride, that national feeling amongst these people, and to what end? To saddle South Africa and the Whites in South Africa permanently with millions upon millions of Bantu, people who have no other nationhood or home and whom South Africa must accommodate in one way or another. And then, if matters do not go smoothly in every respect, if there are a few broken taps at Limehill, or a few latrines which are not quite in working order, they speak about it for a whole day.

I do not want to speak about this broad statement of principle any further, but I want to come back to the hon. member for Green Point and also to comment on a remark made by the hon. member for Mooi River, i.e. that our policy of separate development has failed altogether and that we cannot point out any place or point at which we are implementing this policy or where it is succeeding. I want to start with the hon. member for Green point right here in the Western Cape, the Peninsula. The hon. the Deputy Minister gave us figures of which he ought to have made a note. For years there has been an uncontrolled and rapid increase in the number of Bantu in the Western Cape which, if it were to have gone unchecked, would to my mind not merely have given us a total of 113,000 Bantu in the Peninsula at present, but approximately 500,000. Let me then ask the hon. member for Green Point the following question: if the United Party had been in power, what would the Peninsula have looked like to-day? What did in fact happen? The National Government introduced efficient, strong control measures, and what has been achieved by these means? The Peninsula is one of the areas in South Africa which has developed rapidly in the industrial field over the past 10—20 years. Despite this extensive industrial development, to which hon. members bore witness, that influx of Bantu has been brought to a standstill; in other words, the influx has been checked, the rising trend is no longer continued, an increase in the influx of Bantu into the Western Cape. But what is more—and I shall concede this point to the hon. member for Green Point—the stated policy is that the Government does not want to disrupt industrial development, that we do not want to create chaos, that we do not want to destroy what people have built up, but despite this rapid industrial development the Department of Bantu Administration has succeeded not only in checking the increase in the number of Bantu, but also in beginning to reduce this number, and this has not been done, as the hon. member for Green Point suggested, by taking a number of children and sending them back to the Transkei without their parents or without nurses or an escort.

The Deputy Minister said so.

The Deputy Minister said an average of four families a day.

Those are his figures.

The hon. the Deputy Minister mentioned the overall total; I just want to mention it again: In 1967 there were 113,337 Bantu in the Peninsula; in 1968 the number was 109,153. Now the hon. member will say to me: Yes, that is as a result of the children and women who were sent back. That is not the case. Let us test our premises. We say that we are decreasing the number of Bantu in the Western Cape and here in the Peninsula as well, despite extensive industrial development. Let us test this against the number of male working Bantu. I now want the hon. member for Green Point to listen now. In 1967 the number was 50,641 and in 1968 it was 48,888, a decrease of almost 3.000 in the overall total of male working Bantu. This includes the Langa and Nyanga labourers. Surely, this must be an indication to hon. members on that side that something is happening here. Over the past 4—5 years the increase in industrial development in certain sectors amounted to a few hundred per cent. Where did the labourers come from? We are decreasing the number of Bantu workers, and in spite of that development is continuing.

Sir, let us take a look at the rural areas. Hon. members on that side will possibly say: all very well, but you are giving the Bantu to the farming community because the Coloureds are moving to the cities. I just want to mention the figures for a few districts in the Western Cape, for Malmesbury/Piketberg, which are handled by one Bantu control office. In 1960 there were 5,205 Bantu in this area; in 1968 there were 4,596. In spite of major development in the fishing industry, in spite of development in the field of agriculture, in spite of various factories which have been established at specific places and which make use of hundreds of Bantu, in spite of building contractors who have brought in large teams of workmen, the numbers have nevertheless decreased. Instead of 5,205 in 1960 there were 4.596 in 1968. If we look at the composition of that Bantu labour corps, what do we see? In 1960 those workers were present in that area on a reasonably permanent basis. What is the position to-day? Of those 4,596 labourers, more than 1,700 are seasonal labourers in the employ of companies engaged in the crayfish industry, which is only active for eight months of the year. This industry makes use of Transkei labourers who come here to work as seasonal labourers and return to their country afterwards. I hope the hon. member opposite understands this. Apart from those people there are almost 2,000 who are contract labourers, who come to work for about a year after which they return to their own country. I want to say to the hon. member for Green Point that it makes a very big difference whether, to use his metaphor, Bantu A and B remain here permanently, or whether A and B only remain here for 12 months after which they return while C and D come to work the following year, because then A and B are with their families, sowing mealies; they remain citizens of the Transkei.

What do you want to prove?

The point is just this. To hon. members on that side of the House it makes no difference, a person is a person, a Bantu is a Bantu, and 5,000 Bantu are 5,000 Bantu, but to us on this side it makes a substantial difference to have an arrangement with the Transkeian Government whereby 5,000 Bantu come to the Western Cape to work here for a year after which they must return to their country, people who remain citizens of the Transkei and do not become citizens of the Republic and are not integrated here in South Africa. These are things hon. members on this side advocate strongly.

Let me also emphasize another point with further reference to what I have said. We have progressed tremendously in the process of recruiting, training and utilizing Coloured labour, particularly here in the Western Cape. There was a time when it was very easy to employ the Bantu who roamed about here and to leave the Coloureds out of things as being unreliable and irresponsible. To-day employers in the Western Cape have a totally new approach. We accept that the obvious workers in the Western Cape are the Whites and the Coloureds. On the other hand, the Bantu are here as supplementary labourers only. That is why employers in the Western Cape must obtain a certificate to the effect that Coloured labour is not available, before they can obtain Bantu contract labour. Since this arrangement exists in respect of the employer in the Western Cape, and in view of the increase in the Coloured population and the availability of Coloured labour, this means that we shall not decrease the number of Bantu in the Western Cape by 2,000 only, but we shall gradually achieve a major decrease in the number of Bantu labourers in the Western Cape. The reason for this is that we are going to utilize Coloured labour to better advantage, and that more Coloured labour will be available.

Hon. members must take note of the fact that there are responsible people making analyses and projections of the increase in the Coloured population, and according to them we need not be concerned about still being able to obtain Bantu labour here in the future, but rather about whether we shall have employment for the Coloured population. That is why it is so essential for us to be engaged in and to go on decreasing the number of Bantu—in other words, restriction through decrease—and, on the positive side, utilizing and harnessing Coloured labour here in the obvious residential area of the Coloured population.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that after 21 years there was still no freedom for any Bantu tribe in South Africa. He made the statement that “the Government can only remove the political inequality of the Coloureds and the Indians by following the United Party course”. In other words, they only believe in the policy of the United Party. But there is one matter to which the United Party has always been blind, i.e. what guarantee do they give in respect of the political rights of the white man, his freedom and his future? When we take stock of this attitude of the United Party, of a major and essential increase in the numbers of the Bantu in South Africa, we must remember that, starting here in Cape Town, we are gradually burying the Whites under a Bantu majority population. The hon. member for Green Point said there was not a street or a garage where they were not essential. The United Party wants to grant them political rights. In other words, we are endangering the political future of the Whites in South Africa if we are to accept the view taken by the United Party. It is the basis of the policy of the National Party that we refuse to compromise on this point. The Whites of South Africa are not prepared to share their father-land with the Bantu of the Transkei or any other area whatever. We cannot make this compromise, because there is no guarantee we can give future generations that they will be able to uphold the restriction those hon. gentlemen are trying to impose because they see that the course ahead is a slippery one. That is the reason why the Whites in South Africa do not accept the policy of the United Party either. They see no future for themselves along that road. What is more, we realize this to-day. Even the Bantu leaders see no future for their nation, for the development of Bantu nationhood, be it Tswana or Xhosa, along the course followed by the United Party. That is why it is easy to predict that in the future, as has been the case over the past 21 years, those hon. gentlemen will still be sitting where they are sitting to-day and will decrease in number, because the Whites have rejected them. But, what is more, the Bantu in South Africa and the responsible Bantu leaders have already looked them over and written them off, because they do not have any reverence, recognition, respect and esteem for Bantu nationhood and for Bantu nationalism.

Mr. Speaker …

Where were you last night?

Order! What is the hon. the Minister insinuating? He must withdraw those words.

Mr. Speaker, I am not insinuating anything. I only meant it as a joke.

Yes, but the hon. the Minister must withdraw it. There are certain things about which one should not make jokes.

I withdraw.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Piketberg posed a question at the end, namely: What will be the political future of white South Africans? He said that we in the United Party cared not for this future; it did not matter to us what happened. He has been brought into this debate especially to raise the matter of political rights again, because he knows the general impression throughout the country is that this debate is an indication that the Nationalist Party is failing and that they are taking a new look at the United Party’s policy. What worries them is the detailed statement made by my Leader in his opening address in this debate. He stressed again what our policy was and also stressed that we stood for white leadership in the whole country. He also stressed the dangers that this Government’s policy had for the Whites in this country if the policy was carried out in full. I intend to deal with this later on in my speech. The hon. member who has just sat down spent nearly half an hour trying to convince the House and the country that the Bantu population in the Western Cape had diminished by about 1,000. What does that mean when you compare it with what is happening over the whole country? He also criticized the hon. member for Green Point for having taken the Deputy Minister for Bantu Administration to task for the figures quoted by him with regard to the Peninsula. What did the hon. the Deputy Minister say? He made a ridiculous statement. This hon. member tried to come to his assistance but he only made it worse. The hon. the Deputy Minister said that the total population in the Peninsula had decreased by 4,184 …

What is ridiculous about that?

I will show the hon. the Deputy Minister how ridiculous his statement is, the statement he made when he tried to prove that his policy was succeeding. He said that the number of children had been reduced by 5,247. Surely, he should have worked out beforehand that according to his own Deputy Minister’s figures the number of adults must have increased. It was also said that the number of workers in the Peninsula had been reduced by 3.000. Where does this figure of 3.000 now come from? The fact remains that if we must accept the hon. the Deputy Minister’s figures the number of adults in the Peninsula have increased. The hon. the Deputy Minister must look at his figures again. I am going to give him some other ridiculous figures, but I will deal with this later.

When I came here in 1948 the Nationalists had just taken over power and they got in by means of what they call their new policy of apartheid. They had appointed a commission before-hand with Mr. P. O. Sauer as chairman to work out this policy. They claimed that it was apartheid which brought them into power. Playing on the prejudices of the people when fighting an election is one thing but it was a different thing trying to explain in this House just what the policy meant. They then appointed a commission, namely the Tomlinson Commission. This commission took their work very seriously, as naturally they should do, because it is a matter of fundamental importance to the whole of South Africa. This commission decided that the choice was between complete integration or complete separation. But having only those two choices before them, they would naturally opt for complete separation, because very few people would go for complete integration. They overlooked the other solution, namely that of the middle road policy however. But having opted for this complete separation policy they set to the task and compiled a comprehensive report and recommended separate development. One of the members put in a minority report and expressed his grave doubts as to its practicability and ended the report by saying: The practicability of the “segregation” formula must be fully investigated and tested out. If, in due course, it is found unpractical, and I greatly fear that it will be found so, progressive integration with its economic and political consequences will have to be accepted. That was Professor Bisschop. The members of that commission were all well-known men. They were sincere men who knew the task that they had undertaken. The Government has had ample time to put the recommendations to the test and to test the implementation of separate development. Professor Bisschop’s fears have been justified. He has been proved right. The plan is impractical. The Government did not have only Professor Bisschop’s warning that it might be impractical. Suggestions were made by the commission as a whole that the Government might not be able to attain its ideal. We had a special debate in this House on that report and we, on this side of the House, told the Government that the policy was impractical and that they could not carry it out.

The whole country knew that this was going to be the subject of the no-confidence debate. They did not have to be told by both the Afrikaans-language Press and the English-language Press because they themselves realized that this was the Achilles heel of the Government, and that the United Party had to take this opportunity, and was bound to take this opportunity, of bringing home to the Government and to the country that their policy was failing. One would have expected a satisfactory reply from the Government’s side. We expected figures that count and that mean something, not figures that can be juggled about. We expected that the Minister of Bantu Administration and his Deputies, and all the members of the Committee on Bantu Affairs would put up a case which their followers could spread throughout the country. But what has happened, Sir? The rest of the members have sat here unimpressed, and certainly the Nationalist Press has been unimpressed. Nothing has been said which has allayed the fears of the economists who attacked the Government for not carrying out its policy. Now we are told by the Minister of Bantu Administration that these economists, and Die Burger said so too, are all followers of the Government. I do not know whether they are, but if they are all followers of the Government, it only shows that, in supporting that policy, they are worried that this Government is not the government which can carry out the policy of separate development. Now, Sir, what did we hear from the Ministers and from all the other speakers? We were given figures of dams that have been built, of miles of fencing, of furrows ploughed and of money spent. The Minister says that more money has been spent than the Tomlinson Commission recommended. But, Sir, none of the figures convinced us. The fact remains that the plan has failed. There has been no proof of the development of the reserves. No figures have been given to us of worthwhile employment being provided for the Africans in the reserves.

These Ministers and Deputy Ministers and all the members of the commission have had ample opportunity to get up here and show us how many more Bantu have been employed in the reserves since the start of this plan. Has anyone done so? Has anyone of them given us figures of employment provided for the Bantu in the reserves? Not one, Sir. It is no good saying how much money has been spent and that they are proud of the amount of money that has been spent. How has that money been spent? The Minister did not give us a break-down when he said that they spent more than the Tomlinson Commission recommended. The Tomlinson Commission gave a break-down of the money and suggested how it should be spent. The Minister gave us no break-down. We know, Sir, that money has been spent on buildings and on unproductive work. I do not say that they should not have new office buildings and that they should not have a palace of justice. What I do say is that they should not have spent on all those commissioner-generals’ houses. Money has been spent on unproductive work. But, Sir, what has been spent on productive work? One would have expected that the example they would give us would have been the Transkei. This is the showpiece. This is where they have to make the plan work. If it does not work there it will work nowhere. What did they tell us about what is happening in the Transkei? They did not mention the meat factory, but they started a meat factory, which is a “mislukking”. They have lost a lot of money. We cannot find out how much money was lost, because the Auditor-General does not audit those accounts. At last they have thrown up their hands and they have called in a private concern to take it over on an agency basis. I hope that we will hear of the conditions under which this firm took over this meat factory. The fact remains, however, that it does not provide much employment. They are now starting on tea. I want to pay tribute to the officials who have undertaken the tea planting done at Lusikisiki. I have been down to inspect it. I went around with the gentleman in charge. He explained it all to me, and it is a fine piece of work. The tea looks very nice. They spent a lot of money on it. He told me that R3 million had been spent and that they were going to spend another R400,000 on the factory. But, Sir, is it going to pay? Do we know that it is going to be a success? We know that in other parts of South Africa tea has failed. In the meantime they have embarked upon this scheme, but how much employment is it providing? I think it is expected that it will ultimately provide employment for 3,000 people. Then there is also phormium tenax. I admit that they had trouble in setting up the decorticating plant to decorticate the fibre. I believe they have one now. I do not think that it is working properly. They started an industry at Butterworth, and they have had to dismiss a hundred employees there. But, even so, how many people is that industry employing? When one considers the people working in the fields, one must remember that they have always worked in the fields. This is therefore not new employment. The question is how many people are employed in the factory.

They now have a furniture factory which they took over from a White. It was a factory before. It is now employing a good few more people than the white man who owned it employed. They have a textile industry about which a great fuss is made. It employs 207 people. That is the figure given to the Transkeian Government. I would therefore like to know what has been achieved. They spend money on buildings, etc. The provinces are also spending money. They built a school at Flagstaff for Whites and there are more lavatories than children in the school. That is how the money has been wasted. [Interjections.]

We hear a lot about farming. All they have told us about is what they have spent on improving the farming. But I ask: Has farming improved in the Transkei? What has been the position in regard to mealie production? I have here figures taken from the Transkeian Government’s Hansard of the last session of their Parliament last year. In 1958 they produced 1,360,000 bags of maize. In the years after that they produced sometimes more and sometimes less. In one year only approximately 400,000 bags were produced. The highest production ever was in 1959; that is ten years ago when they produced 2,063,000 bags of maize. In 1967 they produced 2,010,000 bags. We have no figures for 1968, but obviously the figure is going to be smaller and in respect of 1969 the position is going to be much worse. So what improvement has there been in the agricultural production of that country? We know that in 1965 and 1966 the Transkei imported more mealies than it produced. Over the wireless we are told of the number of cattle deaths in the Transkei during this drought. The figures vary from 150,000 upwards. I was told by the officials in August or September that they expected to lose 300,000 head of cattle. That is what they expected to lose as a result of this drought. Now the Government says that it cannot be blamed for the drought. That may be so, but what I do blame the Government for is that they have treated agriculture in the reserves in the same way as they have treated agriculture in the rest of the country. They have not put the farmer in a position to withstand the ravages of drought. That has been the trouble. I think it was on the 5th March, 1948, that a plan was completed for the building of a dam at Qamata. This was as a result of instructions given by the United Party. The plan was completed in March, just before the United Party lost power. What happened then, Sir? For 12 years the Government did nothing about that dam. It started building in about 1960 or 1961. The dam was completed last year. We went to the opening of the dam. It does not have a drop of water in it. Had that dam been tackled when the United Party planned it, it could have been filled in years when they had rain. We would then have had some water. In 1947 the Director of Irrigation stated that it was a matter of urgency that a survey be made of the water resources of the Transkei. That was in 1947. I asked questions year after year from the Ministers of Irrigation. I asked what had happened and whether they had made a survey. The answer was that they had not done so. I doubt whether a survey has been made yet.

Sir, this is typical of the actions of the Government. Now the officials are battling. I do not blame the officials. They are faced with an impossible task. The Minister has paid tribute to the officials and he stressed that they had a lot of work to do, and he paid tribute to them for the way in which they do the work. I also pay tribute to them, but I say they have an impossible task because what they have to do is impracticable and they cannot do it. Take the agricultural department of the Transkei. How can they rehabilitate that land with the Government’s present policy of land tenure? The Tomlinson Commission recommended that the system of land tenure be altered and that the communal ownership should be done away with. You must give the Bantu farmer sufficient land to make a living out of farming; you must give him an economic unit, but they cannot give him an economic unit under present conditions because the land is not available, and the land will not become available while the people all have to live on that land because they have nowhere else to go. The Tomlinson Commission and the United Party have pointed out that you must give work to those people in the Transkei and the reserves so that you can take them off the land and give the Bantu farmer who wants to farm, an economic unit so that he can farm properly. But this Government proceeds leisurely along the old ways and it has changed nothing; they refuse to accept the recommendations on this point by the Tomlinson Commission. The proof that the Government’s policy is failing is the fact that the Africans who are there now—I am not talking about those whom they want to send back—simply have to go out to work. At the beginning of this year, Sir, you should have seen them outside the labour office in Umtata. They were not there in hundreds, but in thousands. I saw them myself, all clamouring to get permits to go out to work, because there was no work for them there. I know hon. members opposite will say the white farmers are also going out to work. We know that the white farmers under this Government also have to go out to find work, but they can go and work in the white towns; they can do what they like. But what happens to the Bantu in the reserves? They cannot find work, but they must have work. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development denies that the white areas are getting blacker and blacker, that more Natives are coming into those areas, because he says those areas are not getting blacker as long as the ratio remains the same, as long as the ratio of black workers to white workers remains the same. That is the story of the horse and the rabbit in the pie. It makes no difference how big the horse is in the pie, as long as the rabbit increases proportionately. In other words, according to the Minister, if you have 50 Africans working in an industry and one white man working there, if the Africans increase to 5,000, by 4,950 that does not matter so long as the Whites increase by nine. Then it is all right because the ratio remains the same. But the Deputy Minister took another line. He tried to prove that in fact the Bantu were getting less. As has just been pointed out, his figures were wrong. Take the Cape Peninsula. The children may have gone out, but the adults have increased. To show how ridiculous the Deputy Minister’s figures are, he said to us that if the United Party policy were accepted all the “enkellopendes” would be allowed to bring their families with them and establish themselves in the so-called white areas; and he said that there are about 1.6 million men without their families. He said that if our policy was carried out, they would all have their families there, and if we take an average of five in a family, which is a fair figure, then we would have eight million crossing into the white areas with their families to come and live there. I want to ask him where the eight million are going to come from? How many Africans are there in the reserves? There are 44½ million. All the Bantu will have to come out of the reserves and his figure would still not be reached. [Laughter.] He did not realize this. Hon. members laugh, but this is not a laughing matter, because he gets on a public platform and tells people these things, but the people do not think. They listen to him because he is the Deputy Minister, and many of his own people do not even realize that there are only 44-million Bantu in the reserves. [Laughter.] He has only come into the Cabinet and one would have expected him to make a better effort in his maiden speech. He tried to impress us; he tried to impress his fellow-members and the Afrikaans Press, I suppose, and he said that people hostile to them, “vyandiggesindes”, say certain things about what has been done here in South Africa, and then he refers to “onder andere”, but he only quotes one person, Mr. Kuschke.

I quoted Mr. Gardiner, too.

But you quoted Mr. Kuschke as the first of these people. [Interjection.] Look at your Hansard; I have it here. The man you quote “onder andere” is Mr. Kuschke. I will read what the Deputy Minister said—

He mentioned Mr. Kuschke as an enemy of South Africa. [Interjections.]

Then he went on to deal with Government policy and he now eulogizes bringing white capital to the Reserves, and he spoke about white initiative. Words we have been using all this time they are now taking from us, but the trouble is that they do not know how to do it. There is now a complete change in their policy, but they do not know how to carry it out, because the Deputy Minister did not say it to the House, but he gave his speech to Die Burgerbefore he made it here, and Die Burger said that they were going to appoint a committee. [Laughter.] This committee would show them how to do it—“hoe om die mense daar te lok”, how to attract white capital. When the people read this they must wonder what is happening. This is all typical of the lack of planning on the part of the Government. They had no plan when they went in for the Transkei scheme, no plan at all. What did they do? All right, they gave them Transkeian citizenship, but what did that citizenship mean? It means nothing to them. The Transkeian citizen gets no more under that plan than a Tswana or some other citizen would get. And they gave them a flag. That flag means nothing to them.

They gave themselves a flag.

You go and talk to the Natives along the coast and see what they think about the flag. It was not necessary to do away with the old Bunga and to give what political rights they have given there up to date, or to do what little development they are carrying out. It was not necessary to do away with the Bunga, but they try to impress people by passing legislation, legislation containing all the small pinpricks and all the petty apartheid, and legislation about passports. They do that to try to impress their people because the people see that there are no deeds being done, and that is why they try to impress them by passing legislation. They did not have to pass this Transkei Constitution Act. The United Party, under General Smuts, in 1947 said they would give them executive power, and they could have portfolios if they wanted them. In 1947 three Natives were appointed as chairmen of the district councils in place of the magistrates, and where it was found that a Native was suitable they would make him the chairman, but we did not rush into the business as this Government has done. We are told that the Africans must go back. The Deputy Minister says they want to go back, and to prove it he reads a letter from an African who says how glad he is of this policy and that he has gone back, and he ends up by saying that he wants a filling station. I suppose a filling station to a Native is like a crayfish concession to a white man. Sir, we all get unsolicited letters but I have never had one supporting the Government. I have here the latest letter that I have received. The writer of this letter lived in a white area and he was convicted and sent to gaol. I do not know what for, but he served his prison sentence, and when he came out of prison he found that he could not get back to Orlando. He then wrote to Mr. de Wet Nel. Mr. de Wet Nel said that he could not go back and he is still trying today to get back. This man enclosed a letter from the magistrate to prove that his father left the Transkei in 1886 as a young man and that he has never been back. This man has never been back to the Transkei and he does not want to go back there. Why should he be sent back to the Transkei, especially after he has served a prison sentence? The people in the Transkei are complaining that the Government is sending back the won’t-works and the criminals to that area. There is nowhere else for them to go.

Sir, in the remaining few minutes at my disposal I want to say a bit more about the dangers of the Government’s policy. Sir, we have several times pointed out the dangers inherent in giving independence to these separate states and our inability to control the governments in these separate states. We know that there was a teacher at Fort Hare who was banned by this Government and dismissed from his post.

Under the Communism Act.

We criticized his dismissal at the time because we felt that he had been unfairly dismissed, but the fact is that he was banned.

Under the Communism Act.

Yes, he was banned. He then went to the Transkei. That man is now a member of Kaizer Matanzima’s government; he is a member of the Cabinet. Either the Minister did not know what he was doing and should never have banned this man, he should never have put this man in the terrible position of being limited to certain areas, or else he should not now be allowed to sit in the Cabinet of the country which may become independent and hostile. We have pointed out before that you will not have control over the people who take over these governments. Let me mention too an incident which took place during the Christmas holidays. A trader who has a cottage down at the coast noticed a ship at sea with one light showing flashing out signals, so he got into his car, being a dutiful United Party man; he went to the top of the hill and he saw people in two native huts signalling to the ship. He tried to get hold of the police at once at Butterworth but unfortunately there was only a Bantu constable on duty and he could not do anything that night, but eventually he got on to the Security Police. I do not know what the result has been. The police have been out to investigate. The whole thing may have been quite harmless. These people in the huts may have been asking what they were fishing for and whether they were having any luck; I do not know, but the point is that this sort of thing can be done, and these people are worried about what might happen along that coast. I say that this Government is embarking upon something which it cannot stop. It cannot slop if it goes on making these promises to these people. Sir, to come back to the hon. member for Piketberg: If the Government carries out its policy it spells danger for the white man in South Africa. Why does the hon. member and other hon. members opposite think that the United Party will not be able to control the limited political rights that we give the non-Europeans? Why do they think we will not be able to control them? We know that the Government will not be able to control them in their demand for some political rights. Under the Government’s policy they get nothing. Why should they be satisfied with that?

They get their rights in their own areas.

Experience has proved to us during the years in which the Government has tried to carry out its policy that it is failing. It cannot succeed until these Ministers can get up and give us facts and figures to show that the Bantu are being employed in the reserves and that they are not coming here for employment. They have to go out to work. They are South African citizens. They have to be looked after and they have to come out for work. Their numbers in the white areas are going to increase and they are increasing. The fact that they have not got their families with them, does not mean to say that their numbers here are not increasing. The fact that they carry a bit of paper to say that they are citizens of the Transkei or citizens of Zululand, does not mean that we can ignore them, that we can close our eyes and pretend that they are not in the white areas of South Africa. Of course they are here; we cannot close our eyes to that fact. [Time expired.]

If I were to give a resume of the speech made by the hon. member for Transkei, I would do so very briefly. It consisted of three or four minor points only. The first was a number of pieces of gossip from the Transkei which he dished up to us here as though they were terribly interesting to him. In the second place he did his utmost on behalf of himself and his Party to break away from the direction of integration in which the Party is making them plunge and which attaches to the policy of their Party, and in the third place he comes along with the old story, which ran like a thread through this entire debate, that the apartheid policy of the National Party has only one determining factor, namely numbers. Then, at least the hon. member also mentioned a dam which we allegedly had not built. Sir, let us examine the United Party’s argument in this debate. They proceed from the premises that the apartheid policy of the National Party is a question of numbers only—the numbers of Bantu in the white area. They proceed from the premise that the success or otherwise of this Party’s policy depends on this factor only. Sir, if this were the only determining factor, if this were all there was to apartheid, they would have had a point, but the fact of the matter is that the scope of the apartheid policy of the National Party is a very wide one and has created an established policy and an established way of life in South Africa. If we take the whole of the apartheid policy, in its widest scope, we can prove by chapter and verse how successful the apartheid policy of the National Party really is, especially when we compare it to what would have happened if the United Party had been in power during the past 20/21 years. I shall try to illustrate this. Sir, hon. members opposite are very fond of quoting from the Tomlinson Report, but they overlook the fact completely that 15 years ago the Tomlinson Commission also foresaw and predicted this thing they are now presenting as an evil. The Tomlinson Commission predicted that the numbers would increase, but that the turning point would come, not in 1968, but in 1978.

We are looking forward to that year.

I know hon. members on that side are very concerned, but I think very few of them will still be sitting here in 1978 when we reach that turning point. As regards the presence of Bantu in the white areas, I just want to say that if our policy had been one of integration they would have had an argument; then it could have been said that numbers were very dangerous. I agree with the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development that numbers are important; but numbers are not decisive. However, when one’s policy is heading for integration, as the policy of the United Party does, then numbers are fatal. The whole direction of the United Party, the full purport of their policy, is integration. What else but a policy of integration is a policy that wants to give non-Whites rights of ownership in the white areas? Surely a policy which grants non-Whites political rights along with the Whites in white politics, is a policy of integration. To have non-Whites sitting with Whites in the same Parliament, is integration.

The United Party wants the Bantu to be absorbed by society on a family basis. Surely all these things are symptomatic of integration. Those hon. members maintain that the apartheid policy of the National Party has not succeeded, and that it is a failure. But if that were true there would have been no need for them during the years of National Party rule to have changed their policy continually in order to serve as a counter-measure to this policy of apartheid. If one policy advocated by them does not go down with the voters, they seize upon another, and if that does not go down they seize upon something new. They seized upon a different policy every now and again simply because the apartheid policy of the National Party was succeeding and because they did not have an answer to that. But there is something else I have to mention. Approximately two years ago the United Party turned a complete somersault in regard to their Coloured policy. After having conducted a most bitter struggle, for many years for the Coloureds to be restored to the common voters’ roll, they suddenly turned away from that bitter struggle. Why did they do so? Their argument was that that was no longer practical politics. According to them a common voters’ roll would no longer have been in keeping with national policy as it was being implemented by the National Party. Why then do those hon. members maintain that our policy is not a success? Now they maintain that our policy is a failure, but they have to adapt their policy all the time in order to get into step with this so-called unsuccessful policy. If we want to test the success of our policy against the facts and against the results we have achieved in the course of years, there is no argument that our policy of separate development is not only a success, but an enormous success indeed. The most important test to prove that this policy of separate development is a success—and probably the test that hurts those hon. members most—is that our policy is feeding and building up the nationalism of each of these population groups. Each of these population groups, whichever Bantu group it may be or whether it is the Coloured group or the Indian group, has its own identity, which is being developed. The pride of each in what is their own is growing and developing. Surely this is the best proof that this policy is succeeding. It is directly opposed to their policy of one multiracial people for the whole of South Africa. It is in direct conflict with the direction their policy would take, and therefore, they now have to argue that our policy is a failure. This is probably the most important test in proving that the policy of the National Party is a resounding success. In this process in which we are strengthening and developing the nationalism of each, it now happens that the educated persons in each of these groups are being placed in a position where they can serve their own people. We have already had experience of the policy of the United Party Under their policy the educated persons of whatever population group competed with the Whites on the white labour market. They neglected their own people. But since as a result of the policy of separate development opportunities for employment and promotion have been created for the educated persons in each of these population groups, these people have now been placed in a position to serve their own people. As a result they can also uplift the masses. Otherwise they would have left the masses at the bottom and would have tried to push into the ranks of the Whites on an integration basis. They would have neglected their own underprivileged. I think that if we take these things into account there is no question of the National Party’s policy not being a success.

But there is another test. We have such racial peace and calm in this country as we have never had before. That is because all the levels of friction have been smoothed out and are being eliminated. It is because there are no levels of friction between the various peoples. The racial peace and calm in South Africa is increasing and co-operation between the Whites and the various non-white groups is growing as the very result of our policy of separate development. It is growing in spite of suspicion-mongering and misrepresentation on the part of the enemies of this policy. We also have industrial peace and growth such as we have never had before, precisely because of our legislation in this country which provides for separation in the industrial field as well. As a result of this legislation there is no direct competition between white and non-white workers either. Friction is eliminated as a result of the introduction of the colour bar. The United Party has committed itself to destroying those important principles that guarantee industrial peace. As a result of the policy of separate development we also have political stability in South Africa. Each population group knows precisely where it is going. Each one can see that there are opportunities of promotion open to it. Each one has its own national course on which it runs and knows exactly where it has to go. There are no points of friction. I think that if any irrefutable proof is required in this connection, the result of the Transkeian election of last year will surely be sufficient.

But I want to mention a last test for the success of our policy, and that is the establishment of our Republic. This is not the least important success we have achieved either. If it had not been for the National Party’s policy of separate voter’s rolls, we would not have had a Republic with all its privileges for the whole of South Africa. We would not have had this growing co-operation and unification of the English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking sections either. The establishment of a Republic has had its special fruits and benefits for South Africa. But if we want to look at the other side and argue about what would have become of South Africa if the United Party had been in power during the past 20 years, we would have another picture. Let us try to look at what, according to their own statements, would have happened in South Africa if there had not been a National Party with an apartheid policy in power in this country for the past two decades.

It would have been a great deal better here.

I will tell that hon. member what would have happened. All the heated, bitter issues that arose in the course of the years and that took up so much of the time of this House and the people outside, have been solved. Those issues no longer exist. If there had not been a National Party Government to solve those issues, they would have continued. Under a United Party Government that struggle would have continued, to the detriment of the development of this country. Communism would also have ruled supreme in this country if that party had been in power, simply because it is party that cannot take action against Communism. After all, we have proof of that. When the National Party came into power in 1948, the reports of the Police were found on the desks of the Ministers of the previous Government. Those reports bore witness of the role that was being played by Communism in South Africa and of the links between South African Communism and international Communism. They pointed out the dangers and the threat this held for South Africa, but nothing was done about it. Nor could they take action against their former allies, against people they allowed to establish an embassy here. The embassy had to be closed by this party, by this Government, and the people had to be sent back because the Government realized the danger of Communism.

What would have happened to relations politics in South Africa if that party had been in power? What would this House have looked like? We would not have had a white Parliament such as we have to-day. We would not have found the co-operation, the growing cooperation between Whites and non-Whites in South Africa which we find to-day. By this time a number of Coloureds would probably have had seats in this House. We would have found a number of Indian representatives here. We would have found an increasing number of Bantu representatives here or even Bantu as members if we are to pay attention to what leaders of the United Party said in the past. What would the consequences of the relations politics have been if they had been in power? We would have had uncertainty, strife, riots and chaos in South Africa, because the Whites would have had to fight for their own survival which would have been in jeopardy, whereas the non-Whites would have been fighting for more powers than they would already have obtained.

What else would we have found? We would not have found separate universities. The existing universities would not have become whiter and whiter so that at present they are virtually giving instruction to white students only. On the contrary, we would have found that certain universities would have become progressively more mixed in character. We would find the same phenomena at our universities as those found at universities in other countries. The liberalists and communistically-disposed people do in fact make a point of inciting non-Whites against Whites. Inciting those people is a rewarding sphere of activity to them.

We would have seen much more. We would have found the greatest measure of racial intermingling in our residential areas. That party expressed itself very strongly against these compulsory separate residential areas, the group areas. They said there had to be voluntary separate residential areas—apartheid had to take place on a voluntary basis in South Africa. Would such a thing have been possible?

The same thing would have happened in the social sphere—this so-called petty apartheid of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. Our restaurants, recreation rooms, sports facilities, trains, post offices or whatever would have fallen victim to the increasing intermingling that would have been taking place under them. This would have been found in those places to a much larger extent. More and more points of friction between White and non-White would have been created. More chaos, discord, dissension and hatred would have arisen among the races in this country.

No, Sir, if apartheid has failed in this country, I should very much like to know what policy has ever succeeded in any country of the world. The course taken by the National Party in order to have achieved these successes was not an easy one. Since 1948 this party and the Government has at times had to go through dark times in order to achieve what they have achieved. They have had their Sharpevilles, they have had to cope with misrepresentations and lying campaigns of the worst degree. They have had to cope with all these things, but in spite of all these misrepresentations of their policy the National Party has achieved these successes and are achieving more and more success.

If the party opposite carries on as it does at present, if it does not drop its integration policy, if it does not fall into line with the trend the people of South Africa want and prefer, it will simply deteriorate more and more until it finally disappears, as it is doing in any event.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winburg is a fine one to accuse the United Party of turning a somersault as far as its policy is concerned. Half an hour ago I received this publication I am holding in my hand now. On the front page there appears a photograph of the hon. member for Innesdal, and the name of the publication is Veg. I want to quote a few excerpts from this document, excerpts from a copy of a doctorial thesis written by an hon. member opposite, and I give the hon. member for Winburg a chance to guess who the hon. member is. I am referring to an hon. member opposite who advocated integration in his day, and who said that the system of migrant labour was unhealthy and wrong. At that time he condemned many of the things he is supposed to be supporting to-day. Let me quote what he wrote, inter alia—

He wrote that migrant labour was causing immorality in South Africa. Let me say right now who this person is. These words were written by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education. He said it was leading to the danger of a white nationalism in South Africa. He wrote as follows—

He said migrant labour was an evil; it led to nationalism. And yet it is this Government which wants to turn every Bantu labourer into a migrant labourer to-day. The hon. the Deputy Minister concluded his thesis with the following words—

He said integration would be facilitated in South Africa if that was realized. In the light of what the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education said here, the hon. member for Winburg should not accuse the United Party of being uncertain about its policy.

One thing has become evident in this debate, and that is that there is a crisis in the Government Party. [Interjections.] I cannot be bothered about that, but what does worry me, is that that crisis has a detrimental effect on my country. I say it is time that that crisis was dealt with by those people whose responsibility it is. Firstly, I want to refer to the overriding fact, which has been proved, of the total collapse of the Bantustan policy of the opposite side. Secondly, I refer to their utter inability to put forward one single alternative policy. Thirdly, I refer to the impotence of a party which is paralysed by quarrels in its own ranks. I do not hesitate to mention it. It is the quarrel between the verkramptes and the so-called verligtes in the present Government Party. This quarrel is no longer a farce or a joke. To my mind, it has become a public political scandal now. It is doing South Africa discredit. I do not mind hon. members fighting among themselves, but they must not fight in such a way that it adversely affects our country.

I am going to prove two things: Firstly, that the quarrel between the verkramptes and the verligtes is getting out of hand; and, secondly, that, for the sake of South Africa, a stop should be put to this quarrel and that either the verkramptes or the verligtes—let them choose whom they want to—should decide on a course and keep to that course, and that the one that remains should take his hat and leave the Government. Who is being blamed for this dissension? To quote a prominent Nationalist Party newspaper which is published here locally (translation)—

This in itself is probably not so bad, but these are people who not only call themselves Nationalists, but are registered members of the Nationalist Party, up to the present day.

Worry about your own party.

The hon. the Prime Minister himself was worried about those smear letters. He spoke of “back-biters”, “super-Afrikaners” and “baboons”. The verligtes used words such as “trouble-makers”, “scandalmongers” and “underminers”. The air is filled with it to-day: Nationalist, member of his party, against fellow-Nationalist, also a member of his party. What do we hear from the side of the verkramptes? They also fill the air with cries such as “Nat liberals” and “United Party henchmen”. The one Nationalist is opposed to the other. It has even reached such a pass that, a letter was quoted with approval in this publication of the verkramptes, Veg, which, incidentally, I do not support, which letter reads as follows (translation)—

Such language has never been used in politics, not even by a governing party towards an opposition party in the worst times in the political history of South Africa. To-day it is used by Nationalists towards fellow-Nationalists.

Of course, this struggle has its lighter moments. We call to mind the hon. member for Pretoria (District), a verkrampte, who had a conversation with the hon. member for Pretoria (West), a verligte. A tape-recording was made of the conversation. The recording was submitted to the leader in the Transvaal, the Minister of Transport, to deal with. The conversation which was tape-recorded in this way was a completely private one. I foresee that the time will come when it will no longer be safe for the hon. colleagues opposite to talk to one another, because they will never know whether one of them does not perhaps have a small tape-recorder in his pocket. In a year or so there will remain only one place where a verligte Nationalist colleague will be able to converse with a Nationalist verkrampte colleague, and that is behind the white line at Graaff’s pool. But even that would not solve the communication problem of the hon. member for Middelland.

I want to stress once again how serious this matter is. This is a struggle which penetrated into and left its mark on important cultural bodies, such as the S.A. Akademie vir Wetenskap en Kuns, which, rightly receives a subsidy from this Parliament, and the F.A.K., Which led to the chairman of the Broederbond, Dr. Piet Meyer, trying to throw petrol on the fire under the pretence of trying to extinguish it. The sparks flew Dan Goosen was sent flying. Hennie Terblanche was sent flying. Barry Botha was sent flying. As far as I know, nearly all of them are still registered members of the Nationalist Party to-day.

No wonder that this Party and this Government are completely paralysed. One need only observe the struggle being waged among the newspapers. On the one hand we have Hoofstad and Die Vaderland, with Nationalist Ministers on the board of directors, which openly criticized the so-called outward policy of the hon. the Prime Minister, and together with them we have this publication Veg,which refers to the editor of Dagbreek as “a columnist with a white flag on a donkey”. I have all this information here. It is incredible. There is the hero of the hon. member for Innesdal, Mr. S. E. D. Brown, and the things he wrote about the Prime Minister. There is his S.A. Observer. There is Ster Aktueel. There is the hon. member for Ermelo, who says that Die Beeld is the worst newspaper in South Africa. This is what is happening in their ranks to-day. Nationalist Party newspapers are fighting Nationalist Party newspapers. There are Ministers on the board of directors of the one and Ministers on the board of directors of the other. The editor of Hoofstad and the editor of Die Vaderland are attacked by name by the editors of Die Burger and Die Beeld.The position is so bad that one of the leaders of Nasionale Pers—this is what was alleged; it may be denied—Mr. Phil Weber, even wrote a letter to the Broederbond to the effect that if it did not discontinue its attacks on Die Beeld, he would see to it that Die Beeld, Die Burger and the whole of Nasionale Pers would attack the Broederbond. I would in fact have approved of it to a certain extent.

A struggle is being waged among the youth organizations. The A.S.B., the Nasionale Jeugbond and the Rapportryers are falling over one another the way they are fighting; the position is so bad that the leader of the Rapportryers, or chairman of the Land Board, the hon. member for Potchefstroom, had to ask: “Has the time not arrived for that type of Nationalist in the Rapportryers and the Junior Rapportryers to break away and form their own party?” Similar thoughts were expressed by the Prime Minister, who would probably be only too glad if those groups would break away and form their own party. But they do not want to do that. They are sticking like parasites. They are hanging on.

We have the phenomenon of north against south, of the Cape against the Transvaal, let us say, Keerom Street against Pretoria. Listen to the following words which appeared in a Nationalist Party newspaper (translation)—

I am sorry the Leader of the Nationalist Party in the Transvaal is not here. I would have liked to have asked him: “Is that so? Did he have the matter investigated?” The hon. the Minister of Health did reply to some extent—I think it was at Thabazimbi—when he said: “I can assure you that the Nationalist Party in the Transvaal or in the country has never been in as happy a position as it is to-day”. Since the time of Sharpeville and the time when he said that there was no longer any need for an Opposition in South Africa, and other incidents, he has of course been known as the new “Mrs. Malaprop” of the Nationalist Party. Apparently the attempt to clean up in the Transvaal was not very successful. The attempt to clean up in Natal resulted in a farce. I cannot imagine anything more pathetic than that good man, the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, sitting all by himself in his hotel waiting for a message from the Natal Nationalist Party. He was prepared to answer the call, but the call never came, and “O, my goodness!” was elected in his place.

It must be admitted that this rich verkrampte element is strong, so strong that I believe they are paralysing this Government to-day. They have a stronghold in Hoofstad,a daily newspaper in Pretoria. They have a stronghold in Die Vaderland, a daily newspaper in Johannesburg. They also have a third very important stronghold, namely the South African Broadcasting Corporation. I should not say this, but sometimes one really takes pleasure in seeing how the Government is getting thrashed to-day by the South African Broadcasting Corporation, in the same way the United Party has had to suffer through the years. The chairman of the South African Broadcasting Corporation, Dr. Piet Meyer, at Phalaborwa recently launched a vicious attack in public on the newspapers of the Nationalist Party, and he sees to it, too, that the editor of Hoofstad, a verkrampte, and the editor of Die Vaderland, another verkrampte, namely Dr. Treurnicht and Mr. Van Schoor, broadcast over the radio regularly. And now I want to ask whether the S.A.B.C. ever asks Mr. Schalk Pienaar or Mr. Piet Cillié to broadcast these days? The speech made by Dr. Meyer was described by Die Burger as “grossly misleading”.

As regards this bulwark, namely the S.A.B.C. there is, apart from the hon. the Prime Minister, one man who can do something, and that is the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. People are asking to-day: “Is Basie the master or is he merely the servant?” He can prove that he is master in his portfolio and that he will not allow himself to be led by the nose by the S.A.B.C., by doing two things. The first is to say that the S.A.B.C. should not have the right to make its own personal comments on national affairs and the second is to score the following victory for the cause of the verligtes.

Television.

We know what the verkramptes think of television, namely that it is the most detestable instrument imaginable. We know that the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs are slowly beginning to see the light. Here is now his chance to prove who is the master. I challenge him to announce the introduction of television in the near future. Then we shall say: “Basie is the master.”

I believe that the country is paralysed by these internal quarrels. The issue is the so-called verligte policy of the Government as against what is alleged was the traditional policy of the Nationalist Party. It is the verkramptes who raise the cry—and I want to say here that I can mention numerous examples where they have done so—“The Prime Minister does not follow the Nationalist Party policy”. There are even people who say he should go. There are groups which ask: Black diplomats, yes or no? Just ask the hon. member for Innesdal. We continually ask him to tell us what his attitude is in regard to these matters and we are still waiting for a reply. Should we have more immigrants, yes or no? “No”, says the verkramptes, “Yes,” says the verligtes, and then we read the words of Mr. Twakkies du Toit, who talks of immigrants being scum. Should more money be made available for the Bantustans or should less be made available? It is the taxpayers’ money. One person who is opposed to more money being made available for the Bantustans, but who does not mind if more of the taxpayers’ money is used for the white man, is the present hon. member for Ermelo. As far as I know, he is a man who used two helicopters to go in search of either an insect or a shrub—I cannot remember now—called encephelarcus cyclad. The cost in respect of the helicopters amounted to R210 per hour. I do not know where the secret financial power of the verkramptes lies, but I do know that I will never be able to afford to pay R3,000 for a silver teapot.

In this way one question after another is being asked in Nationalist Party circles, and I admit that many more questions are being asked outside than are being asked inside this House to-day. The question is being asked whether the Government is letting Rhodesia down or not. The verkramptes contend that Rhodesia is being let down. It is being asked whether the American Field Service is something good or whether it is an evil. And Sapa. And Press control. And independent Bantu-stans. And television. Is it good to co-operate with English-speaking people or not? We find the editor of Hoofstad, a verkrampte, writing that the Afrikaner is being called upon to sacrifice too much for the sake of co-operation with the English-speaking people. I fully accept the assurance given by the hon. the Prime Minister when he said, in language that was perhaps rather less elegant, that he gave the English-speaking people the assurance that he would not “fourletter-word” them. I accept that. But he is not going to be the leader of that Party forever. I now want to quote from an article which appeared in the publication Veg, and which was published with the approval of that publication, which is edited and assisted by registered members of the Nationalist Party, and in which the following was said (translation)—

This article was written by a certain G. F. Marais. Possibly he is a member of the Nationalist Party. I expect he is. Possibly he is a member of the Rapportryers. I expect he is. I want to give you the assurance, Sir, that if such a person were a member of the United Party and wrote an article of that nature, he would be expelled from the United Party within 24 hours.

Whose side does one take in this struggle? Does one side with the verligtes or with the verkramptes? My reply to this is that I am inclined to agree with Mercutio when he said in “Romeo and Juliet”: “A plague o’ both your houses.” To me the attitude of the verkramptes is undoubtedly a pain in the eye. I reject their ideas about national unity, Press freedom, television and numerous other matters, ideas which, as far as I am concerned, vary between objectionable on the one hand and atrocious on the other. On the other hand, one has to admit that of all the Nationalists, they were the ones whose eyes were opened first to the dangers of the independent Bantustans, while the eyes of the majority of the members opposite have not opened yet. Please do not think for one moment that we accept their solution under any circumstances.

One can also sympathize with the peculiar way in which my opponent, the former Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, was expelled from the Cabinet. If a Minister refused to resign, the traditional way in parliamentary democracy is for the Prime Minister to resign and then to form a new Cabinet. This did not happen. One may also have a certain measure of sympathy in view of the fact that the names of the writers of those smear letters were revealed after the matter had been investigated by the Security Police. But, as I have already said, I find the policy of the verkramptes objectionable.

What about the so-called verligtes? Some months ago the hon. the Minister of Transport said at Warmbad: “I do not know such a thing as a verligte Nationalist.” Let us admit that their light is but a poor one. There is only one strong light in the political life of South Africa, and that is, of course, the torch of the United Party. [Interjections.] I do not blame the Government for having tried to kindle their own light at that torch of the United Party in quite a number of instances. They kindled their light at the torch of the United Party, but their candle was so inadequate that the light was but very poor, as poor as the light of a frustrated firefly in the moonlight on a summer’s night. What happened? What is the latest move forward? The latest move forward is the alteration on the notice boards on benches. Instead of reading “Non-Whites only”, there appears only one word on the benches now, namely “Non-Whites”. We shall probably see the next important step next year, in 1970, when the hon. the Minister of Public Works, in spite of the policy of the Nationalist Party, will decide to make the major sacrifice not to send his Bantu servants in Pretoria back to the reserves.

The basic weakness of the Government today is that its mind tells it: “Be verlig.” but its heart tells it: “Be verkramp,” and that is an unsuccessful heart transplantation, because the effects of rejection are to be seen everywhere in the body of the Nationalist Party today. A striking example of this was when the hon. the Prime Minister received a standing ovation at the Nationalist Party congress when he said that he was not going to admit D’Oliveira as a member of the M.C.C. team. I shall bet him a sixpence to a Maori drum that he would not get a standing ovation if he were to announce at the Nationalist Party congress that Maoris would be welcome as members of the All Black team. Sir, I do not believe one can continue to govern a country in this way.

Either the verkramptes or the verligtes must decide on a course and the one that remains must get out. I cannot understand how they can possibly tolerate one another under the same political blanket. How can the verkrampte members put up with being called “baboons” and “back-stabbers” and “yapping terriers”? What is their reaction? Every time their reaction is: “It hurts, but never mind.” That is their new motto. How do they feel when the Nationalist Press call them—and I quote—“fifth columnists, the section that indulges in sniping at the Nationalist Party from a political no man’s land”? What is their reaction? “It hurts, but never mind.” Where is their self-respect? But the same applies to the verligtes as well. What has happened to their famous pluck and vigour, of which we have heard so much? Why do they tolerate in their own home and at their own political table people who call them “traitors”, “United Party henchmen”, “liberalists”, “underminers” (rysmiere) and “chuckers-out”? What has happened to their self-respect? Speaking about the so-called smear letters, the hon. the Prime Minister said there were other, older people behind it. I think it is time he told us and the country who those other, older people are behind the underminers of his own party. They should be exposed.

In conclusion, I now challenge the verkramptes, the “it hurts, but never mind” group to stop leading the humiliating life of parasites, and if they do not stop doing so, I challenge the Prime Minister to take that group of parasites by the scruff of its neck and throw it out of the body of the Nationalist Party, because South Africa is saying to-day: “We are no longer going to tolerate this humiliating spectacle.”

I am in fact very sorry that I have to speak now, that it has fallen to my lot to reply to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, because now one has to reply to such a petty scandalmongering speech which has absolutely no content whatsoever, no content whatsoever befitting a debate of this nature; and I challenge any member of the United Party to stand up and support what the hon. member has just said, and add that it forms part of a no-confidence debate. I am very glad about one thing, and that is that the hon. member for Orange Grove is no longer a member of the National Party. He says that he is also glad, but I want to tell him why he is no longer a member of the National Party. It is because he had aspirations within the National Party which were far beyond him. At that time already the National Party saw with what type of person they were dealing, with what type of man they were dealing, and when he was no longer able to force those aspirations upon the National Party, he left in frustration. But it does not redound to the credit of the United Party having accepted him there, because you will recall, Sir, that in the old days when this hon. member was still editor of Die Kruithoring he on many occasions wrote the same kind of poison against the English speaking.

I was a Nationalist then.

After that, he went and crept under the wing of an English-speaking constituency to seek a little warmth, and that is why he is to-day, in my humble opinion, the lackey of that constituency and of those kind of jingos.

Let us see what this debate has been concerned with. It is general knowledge now that this debate was to have dealt with the colour question, and what do we find to-day? We find that the hon. member came forward here with a publication the editor of which is not even a member of the National Party …

Was he not one before?

… and whose scandalmongering is totally unworthy of this House. That gossip he is now dishing up here, as if it were the truth and he presents the hon. the Prime Minister with this ultimatum that he must now decide between verkrampte and verligte, and the hon. members opposite do not even know what verkrampte and verligte mean. They do not have the vaguest notion of the thing they are making demands about. As a Pretoria man I now want to state that to my knowledge, as far as I know, there is not a single member of the National Party in this House who does not subscribe fully to the policy of the National Party, and who does not also support the leader of the National Party. I want to tell the hon. member for Orange Grove that I know a little more about politics in Pretoria than he does. But that is the sort of thing one gets. If the Nationalists do not have an exchange of ideas, then we are forced to hear that we have been brainwashed. If the Nationalists do have an exchange of ideas on the pressing problems of the day, they state that we are divided amongst ourselves and then issue us with ultimatums like this to the effect that we must stage a clean-up in our ranks. Sir, to-day’s problems require a dialogue, not between us and the United Party, because that is futile, but amongst ourselves, because the National Party and its members are the only ones who are in fact making a positive contribution to finding a solution to the problems in South Africa.

Now I should like to break away from the subject of the hon. member for Orange Grove, because I do not want to debate on that level. I really felt ashamed for his part. I do not know whether he felt ashamed of himself, but I felt ashamed for his part,-and I know that his party also felt ashamed for his part.

We did not.

The hon. member for Pinelands says he did not. Does he support that kind of debating?

What I say is that the verligtes and the verkramptes have paralysed you.

That same hon. member for Pinelands asked us to reply to the arguments put forward by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and now I want to state, in my humble opinion, that if people had only opened their ears they would have heard those arguments being replied to quite adequately here by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration, the Deputy Ministers and other speakers who quoted chapter and verse here to prove to them how the separate development programme was being carried out. But allow me to make a general survey of a few of the arguments put forward by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. It seems to me—and he must correct me if I am wrong—that the crux of his attack lay in the fact that he stated that by the year 2000 there would be 28 million Bantu in South Africa, and for that reason, he said, the practical implementation of separate development was quite impossible. He then went further and said: You now have economic integration which is impossible to unravel. I want to criticize him on this point. I am not going to tell him that his figure of 28 million, or 26 million, or 30 million, as the hon. member for Hillbrow stated, is wrong, but I do want to say this. What is the significance of a mere projected figure? Quite literally their picture of a tremendous wave of black people which there would be in South Africa in a few decades gave me the jitters. But tell us of what value is the mere presentation of a projected figure if one does not also supply a projection of the economic development of the Republic; if one cannot tell us how far the homelands would have developed by the year 2000; if one is unable to state precisely what progress would have been made with border industry development by the year 2000; if one cannot give us a full picture of the economic and social life in South Africa. Then I maintain that the projected figure, on its own, means absolutely nothing.

But let us come now to this matter of economic integration. But before I leave those figures, just this. The figures gave us goose pimples here, and with his next breath the hon. Leader of the Opposition told us about his race federation. Now I want to ask him this: If those figures are being put forward in order to make Nationalists afraid of separate development, did they not become absolutely petrified at the thought of 28 million non-Whites in a race federation policy? Can they not be swallowed up? Because I got goose flesh at the mere thought that they could come into power with such a policy, and with 28 million non-Whites in South Africa. If there were ever a pie in the sky as far as policy is concerned, then it is race federation, if one accepts that projected figure as being correct.

Let us look at their economic integration. I want to state the following categorically here, and I believe it is the policy of our party and all the members of our party subscribe to it. We have never said that the black man should become entirely independent of our economy. We have never said that we are not to a certain extent dependent upon the non-Whites. After all, this is already the guarantee of our friendship with our homelands and with the other states, such as Lesotho and Malawi, that economic dependence upon one another; and we readily concede that this state of affairs will continue for many years. Some time ago already Dr. Malan stated, as one of the hon. members read out here, that it may be an ideal, but it is not practical politics. It has never been the policy of our party that we should become completely independent of these people. We have always said that the black man will be present in South Africa for his labour and for our economy. Sir, in my humble opinion the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is making a mistake. As I see it, he understands separate development as follows: For him, separate development is synonymous with total physical separation, and that is a mistake. Separate development means in fact exclusive white political control in the Republic of South Africa for all time. There will, according to the policy of our party, never be a non-White sitting in this Parliament, whether he is a black man, a Coloured or an Indian. In this Parliament the fate of the white man will be controlled exclusively by white men. That is the one cornerstone of separate development. The other cornerstone is the retention of separate identities. Where a separate identity can only be achieved by means of physical separation, then physical separation is essential. But where separate identity does not inevitably need physical separation, then it is desirable but not essential. Let me give you an example: The social level of black people working in the factories is normally so much lower than that of the Whites that there is no possibility whatsoever of a loss of identity, and that is why total physical separation there is not essential. But when one attends a university and there is a black man sitting there with you as your equal and you study together with him and you mix with him socially, then the danger exists that you can lose your identity and that he can lose his identity, and when that takes place, separation is absolutely essential.

Are the non-Whites being removed from the white universities, or are there more than ever before?

The non-Whites are being removed from the white universities.

Have the non-Whites now been removed from white universities, or is it a fact that there are at present more non-Whites at white universities?

The policy of the National Party is to remove all non-Whites from white universities eventually.

What are the facts—not the policy?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition criticized us because we are unable to develop the homelands more rapidly. I think this was replied to quite effectively by speakers who supplied figures indicating how we were developing the infra-structure of the homelands, and how we were engaged in teaching the non-Whites in the homelands how to deal with matters there. Mr. Speaker, the fact nevertheless remains that one cannot proceed more rapidly than the person who has to absorb what you are giving him. After all, we cannot give more rapidly to the non-Whites in the homelands than they are able to receive whatever it is we are giving them. One can cram porridge down someone’s throat only to that extent to which he is able to swallow it. It is quite essential that we should have consideration for the time factor, but time is after all a relative concept which will depend upon the extent to which the non-Whites are able to assimilate what we are giving them into an economy.

In addition we were criticized by the hon. member for Hillbrow. He stated that once we had created independent states they could become a danger to us, but in the same breath he accused us of not having faith in the white man because we did not want to accept the race federation policy. But that is precisely my reply to the hon. member for Hillbrow. Has he no faith in the white man’s ability to maintain himself and his identity in the Republic of South Africa in respect of the black states? Are we not running precisely the same risk with the other black states surrounding us? Why should we be afraid of the few black states which we will establish if we have more than 30 black states to the north of us? I want to ask the hon. member to have faith in the white man; to believe that he will not go under when the homelands become independent one day. The hon. member must also remember that we do not merely grant independence. Independence is not simply being thrown in their laps. The people are being trained to become independent. We have proof of this in the Transkei where our deed of friendship has been rewarded. In the first election the party which supported our policy had only a majority, and in the second election they had a large majority. Surely that proves that those bonds of friendship are being strengthened.

You are bluffing yourself.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition was kind enough to furnish us with the fundamentals of race federation. If I may just summarize the way in which I understood that policy of his, it was the typical ambiguous policy of the United Party. The one leg was total political integration here in the House of Assembly, and the other was total white baasskap or domination by the white man.

Where is the Hertzog policy of segregation?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition made it clear. He spoke about the domination by the white man, and he said—

That is white domination. Sir, I now want to ask the United Party whether they really put forward this policy as an alternative. In addition now, I want to ask the hon. member for Orange Grove whether the people within his Party are satisfied with such a policy?

Yes.

Is he satisfied with it? Is his bench-fellow satisfied with it? I want to state here that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is not satisfied with it. I want to make the assertion, and I am asking the hon. member for Bezuidenhout to deny this, that he had difficulty in the caucus with this very problem of white domination. I am going to prove this to you. I have already quoted what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said: “The white veto, if you like to put it that way,” in other words, white domination. But what did the hon. member for Bezuidenhout write in the February edition of New Nationthis year? Here he deals with what he purports to be their policy—

The United Party states that they can be withheld and the Whites will have a veto. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout went on—

“Without political domination”. What did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition say? He spoke of the political domination of the white man over the black man.

Where did he say that?

It stands here; “the white man will have the veto”. Is that not domination? Let us glance at what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout went on to say. He stated—

That is National Party policy, Mr. Speaker. Then he goes on to write—

The greatest degree.

Not total decentralization.

I am quoting further—

And what does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition say? He told us that there cannot be states within the Republic of South Africa. He said: “You must not divide up the Republic,” but the hon. member for Bezuidenhout says: “Divide up the Republic; there must be states.”

Mr. Speaker, let me tell the United Party what their real difficulty is. In my humble opinion their basic difficulty is that their policy is an anachronism in the twentieth century. They are out of touch with the thinking of the second half of this century. Sir, let us be realistic now. I did not like it when a British Prime Minister came here and spoke about the winds of change, and I personally did not like it when I saw the black states to the north of us becoming independent. But we must be realistic. The fact of the matter is that they do exist to-day: we cannot wipe them off the Continent of Africa; that is the thinking of the second half of this century, and that is not all, it went much further. The British Government created six independent states near South Africa, two within the boundaries of South Africa—and now my question to the United Party is this: Do they think that their projection for the year 2000 of 28 million black people will be satisfied to have other black independent states existing in and around us here while they can never aspire to independence? I maintain that their policy is an anachronism.

But they do in fact give the Bantu eight representatives.

Yes, they do in fact give them eight representatives. They maintain that that would satisfy the Bantu. Now you will see, Mr. Speaker, why the country cannot follow a party of that kind. I want to tell you why the Leader of the Opposition placed such great emphasis on white domination, on the veto of the white man. That party hoped that by using such words they could lure the Afrikaans vote back to the United Party. With all due respect I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to-day that he is not only out of touch with thinking on white and black affairs in South Africa; he is out of touch with Afrikaans psychology. It is no wonder he is a “Sir”. He knows nothing about the Afrikaner and his mentality, and that is why he comes forward with this kind of ineffectual bait and tells the voting public that they have no reason to be afraid, since the white man has the veto. No, let him really go and talk to the Afrikaner; let the hon. member for Orange Grove get away from Orange Grove and come to Pretoria; he will then see that there is intelligent thinking in depth on these matters. This sort of shallow thinking simply does not exist among the Afrikaners any more; the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will not gain votes in that manner. Mr. Speaker, I see two tragedies in particular as far as separate development is concerned. The one tragedy is the fact that we have an Opposition such as the United Party which tries to place an obstacle in the path of every positive deed of separate development.

Show us one positive deed.

Well, here is a perfect example. When they realized that there was something negative here which they could prey upon, when they realized that they could go down there and root about, they went running and then co-operated with liberalists and progressives, and who knows what else; then they all sang the same tune. And do you know why? Simply to hurt the National Party of South Africa. They simply place obstacles in the path in a negative way without making one positive contribution to the solution of the major problem of our century. Sir, I listened very carefully to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s speech. There were two things he had in common with our Party. He must now tell me whether this is the case or not. The one is social separation. He said in his speech that he believed in social separation. These are the facts of South African way of life. In addition he stated that he believed in the maximum development of the homelands. If that is the case, my request to him is the following: Forget all other differences. This problem is a tremendous one; finding a solution to this problem is of vital importance to South Africa. Give us a positive contribution as far as social separation is concerned; give us a positive contribution which would help to develop our homelands more rapidly. If they were to do that they would amount to something as an Opposition, and then they as a Party would still have some hope. The other tragedy is this, and here I want to make an appeal to the industrialists in South Africa. The industrialist in South Africa will ask you “But what financial benefit do I derive from moving my factory such a distance to a border area? Mr. Speaker, I have just returned from Israel, and do you know what? There is a winery at Tel Aviv which was established in 1918 by the Rothschilds of France and which has been carried at a loss for many years, but those people were possessed with the idea of developing that country, and that industrialist who was separated from Israel by an ocean but who was a Zionist, was prepared to pour in the capital in order to give those people a chance to develop the country. The same happened in regard to the Weismann Institute in Tel Aviv. The Weismann Institute was maintained by rich American industrialists out of idealism. Now I want to say to the industrialists in South Africa: “South Africa is facing its gravest problems.” Let us be honest; we are not running away from it. We realize it is a problem. I want to ask the industralists in South Africa to manifest idealism and patriotism and establish factories in the border areas, regardless of whether it will be profitable for them. Let them do so out of love for his country, and then we will get unanimity in South Africa. Then we will be able to go forward hand in hand. Then we will give meaning to our national life. Do not always act as a curb and ask us what he can gain by that. Do not always place obstacles in the way, when we are engaged on a great task, that of safeguarding our country for all its inhabitants!

The hon. member who has just sat down, addressed an emotional plea to the industrialists to come to their assistance. He also told the Opposition to assist in the development of the reserves. The Opposition, the United Party, is as prepared to help with the development of the reserves as the industrialists are. The difficulty with the present Government is that it is not prepared to accept the correct proposals. It is not even prepared to accept the 1956 proposals of Tomlinson that white capital and initiative should be allowed into the reserves. The hon. member was addressing his plea to the wrong people! The hon. member should have addressed his plea to his own side. That is what this entire debate has been about. At the outset the hon. member said that he could not understand, and he asked whether there were any members on the Opposition side who agreed with him, how anyone could make the type of speech that was made by the hon. member for Orange Grove. He said it was a speech which consisted of gossip. But then he himself perpetrated the same thing when he said he wondered what had happened in a United Party caucus. He said that we on this side gossiped, but that he was not prepared to lower the level of the debate; he would not make a speech consisting of gossip. But in spite of that he quoted and alleged that the political veto which the Whites would have in a race federation would amount to political domination in South Africa, with which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout did not agree. Is a right of veto anything new? A right of veto exists in the United Nations and in the Security Council. Is the country which is exercising the veto dominating the entire world? We shall get no further with the type of speech the hon. member has just made for the simple reason that he was unable to throw any light on the cardinal points which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition put to this House during this debate. Has the hon. member forgotten the point made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that we should be informed to a limited extent to what degree we would succeed with separate development and that we could forget about having separate states in South Africa? Why has the hon. member not replied to that question, namely whether there would be only limited objectives when it came to separate development? No, the hon. member told us that he too was not opposed to economic integration. We are glad to hear that from the hon. member. The hon. member is sitting on the wrong side of this House if he is in favour of there having to be economic integration in South Africa. [Interjections.] Why are we not entitled to ask in the course of this debate what has been happening during the past six months? May we not quote from what has been published in the newspapers of the Nationalist Party? Here in front of me I have Die Beeld of 11th August, 1968, and one of the headlines reads (translation), “Vorster hits hard—young Cabinet will quell trouble-seekers”. The report reads, “The National Party is tired of people who …”; the hon. member challenged us to mention the name of any member on their side who did not agree with their policy. The hon. member for Durban (Point) issued an earlier challenge, and I trust that the hon. member for Innesdal will have the courage of his convictions to say whether or not he agrees with the outwardgoing movement of the hon. the Prime Minister and whether he agrees with the policy of increased immigration. We want those answers from him. Only when we have had those answers from him and not from the hon. member for Prinshof, shall we know whether every member on the opposite side of this House agrees with the Prime Minister. [Interjections.] I want to quote a few extracts from this edition of Die Beeld. Now the hon. member does not want us to discuss this.

He is protesting too much!

The report continues (translation)—

The report went on to say that a great deal more could be read into these changes to the Cabinet. The report continued—

One does not choose people more to one’s liking if there were people in the Cabinet who were to one’s liking. I read on—

Are we not entitled, therefore, to ask what the meaning of the new changes is—Was there not to have been an acceleration of the rate of development of the Bantu areas? We have had this re-shuffling of the Cabinet. Up to now the hon. the Prime Minister has been sitting here and he has been adopting a purely listener’s role; now the hon. the Prime Minister is not present, but surely I have the right to say that the hon. the Prime Minister need not give us an answer but that he indeed ought to give an answer to the South African people. He ought to give an answer to the agitation within his own party. The hon. the Prime Minister ought to give an answer too to the agitation in his own Nationalist newspapers if he does not want to give us an answer. I can understand why the hon. the Prime Minister is hesitant to be present here. During the past recess the hon. the Prime Minister did not have much time to reflect on that major problem, namely human relationships in South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister was too occupied with re-shuffling his Cabinet. The hon. the Prime Minister was also too occupied with the back-biters, with the “super Afrikaners” and with the “baboons” on his own side. That was what was keeping him occupied, Mr. Speaker. The hon. the Prime Minister was addressing meetings from public platforms and was telling them, “My patience is coming to an end! I have had enough now”. I have read one speech after the other by the Prime Minister, but never during the past recess did he tell us what his direction was when it came to human relationships, the relationships between white and black and between white and Coloured. Consequently I can understand why he cannot give us any answer at this stage. But as I have said, his time was occupied. His time was occupied by the new member for Oudtshoorn, the former Minister of the Interior. In Natal his time was occupied by trying to find a new leader to take the place of one who had failed, and consequently he did not have the time to give his attention to race relations. I find it strange that the hon. the Minister of Transport, who is the leader of his party in the Transvaal, said last year that the former hon. Minister of Posts and Telegraphs had lost his portfolio for one reason only. According to him the present Minister of Posts and Telegraphs had always been interested in communications and consequently was the right person to hold the portfolio of Posts and Telegraphs. The Minister of Transport said the following, and I am quoting from Die Burger of 29th April, 1968 (translation)—

Last year Dr. Hertzog was still holding the portfolio of Health but even though he had apparently been competent before, he subsequently became so incompetent that Health was also taken away from him. Consequently we on this side of the House can understand why the Prime Minister is not interested in taking any action here. I want to tell him, however, that he need not give us an answer, he has to give South Africa an answer. That is what he must do. He must answer the agitation of his own newspapers and of his supporters as far as these issues are concerned.

The Government is convinced that its policy of separate freedoms and the division of the country into separate states is the only solution South Africa has. That is the road marked out by apartheid, an election slogan. Clear boundary-lines must be drawn between the different national entities. That is how Dr. Verwoerd put it in 1959. He used Europe as an example and made the following statement—

This is how he put it. In this way substance was given to territorial separation as well as to political separation, naturally with the negative aspect first. The non-Whites have no representation in this House, and with the application of self-government for the Bantu the impression is being created that they are on the road to separate freedom. But in the meantime economic integration is continuing unabated. Let us simply examine the new undertakings coming into existence in the white areas of South Africa. Let us simply examine the increase in the field of agriculture. I have a few examples here to illustrate what changes are taking place in the field of agriculture and to illustrate what the future holds for us. I want to illustrate the magnitude of the task of removing all these people from the economic life of South Africa. These figures appear in the economic development programme for the period 1966 to 1971. The programme mentions the following numbers (translation)—

What do they predict for the future? They predict that the number of Whites in the agricultural industry will continue to decrease to 96,000, whereas the non-Whites will increase to 1.915,000. These figures one finds in Table C of the Economic Development Programme for 1966-’71. This is how the process of economic integration is being continued. These are not the predictions of the United Party or of SABRA; these are not the predictions of the Institute of Race Relations, but appear in the economic development programme of the Government itself. This is the increase in the number of non-Whites in that field. If these are the fantastic proportions economic integration is going to assume, how are those people going to be removed from the economic life of South Africa?

I now want to quote from a speech made by Mr. J. F. Otto, an official, I think, of the Department of Planning. He addressed a symposium in Port Elizabeth during November last year and he used the following figures in order to illustrate what the position would be in the Eastern Cape and the Cape Midlands area. Let us examine his projection. As far as the Midlands are concerned, he said the following on page 11 of his lecture (translation)—

This is what the increase will be. Let us see what he had to say about the increase in the Cape Midlands. He said (translation)—

Is it possible to remove these people? The Government is telling us that it is moving in the direction of removing the Bantu to their own territories, but the planners of the Government’s Department of Planning indicate that what I have quoted will be the position in another 11 or 12 years’ time when we reach 1980. I can quote more figures in order to illustrate the increase in the number of non-Whites in this connection. Here is another quotation from his lecture (translation)—

Note what he says, "… more than double the 1960 figure”.

Who said that?

Mr. J. F. Otto. The hon. member probably received an invitation to attend that symposium. Mr. Otto said these things at a symposium held in Port Elizabeth in November last year. He went on to say (translation)—

The hon. members opposite tell us that under their policy they will be able to remove the Bantu!

If one examines a policy such as that of the Government, a policy in terms of which the Bantu have to be removed from the fields of agriculture and industry, one sees that that policy is nothing but a plan. But I want to give hon. members a further quotation from what this gentleman said. It reads as follows—

This is the position of the Nationalist Party. They would have been better off without a plan, because even with this plan of removing the Bantu in the interests of the economic life in South Africa, they are not succeeding. I can quote many more examples, but let us just quote the example of what has happened in Pretoria, the city which has to set the real example as regards the removal of Bantu. What is the situation there? On 3rd November, 1968, Dagbreek said (translation)—

Now I am referring to the hon. member for Prinshof, who supported this Government’s policy. The report continues (translation)—

And then they are asking South Africa to make the sacrifices. I believe, however, that there is not a single Member of Parliament or one Minister on that side of this House who have come down here from Pretoria without bringing their young servant girls along. That is the situation. But they expect of South Africa to bring about apartheid. In no field in which South Africa has ever experienced development, has that ever come about without economic integration. Even our border industries are a concatenation of white capital, managerial ability, land and black labour. If all the reserves were only two or three miles wide, I would have said border areas could have helped us. But unfortunately they extend over a considerable area. Consequently we are entitled to ask: “Why is it that this Government is carrying through political apartheid to its logical consequences and grants no representation?” There are separate legislative bodies but no appreciable separation in the economic field. This obviously is an inconsistency. Why is that so? We should not forget that hon. members opposite are the ones who tell us that economic integration leads to political integration. Why are they allowing it there? Is it because they want to escape from the consequences of economic integration? That is why he is going to try to apply total separation. Do hon. members opposite agree—I am asking the Prime Minister—that we should try to decrease and stem the flow and then reverse it eventually? If they agree, is 1978 still the date, or do they only want to remove the surplus and the aged from the white areas? I want to repeat the question, because hon. members must give me a reply. They cannot escape from this. How can they do this without creating more employment opportunities for the black man in the Bantu areas? We cannot have the advantages of political segregation without at the same time having the disadvantages of economic segregation. Therefore we are also entitled to ask, “Why are they moving so slowly on the road to separate freedoms?”

Do you really believe that it constitutes economic integration if one has Bantu servants in one’s employ?

It is for that hon. member, who is responsible for one of our Departments and who is a member of the Cabinet, or for the member sitting next to him, to give the answers to these questions. Why are they moving so slowly on the road to separate freedoms? A territorial authority as well as self-government was established for the Transkei a long time ago. What about the Tswana and the Venda? At present these questions are being asked regularly and hon. members must give the answers to them. Why are they ignoring the agitation within their own ranks that increased development in the reserves can only be accomplished by allowing white capital into the reserves? Is it because hon. members opposite want to chain the Bantu to the economy of the white man and retain that power in this way? If that is the position, surely apartheid does not mean equality. Then it does mean political equality in their own areas, but at the same time it means economic inequality. By allowing very little industrial development within the reserves, one is not detaching the Bantu from the white economy. The only thing one is doing, is to bind them even more firmly to the economy of the Whites. Even in the border industries the Bantu are being tied more firmly to the economy of the Whites. That is the situation. Hon. members are ignoring this.

At this stage the hon. the Prime Minister cannot remain standing on the side-lines. We all know that he is a sportsman. He must take part in this game. He may not be a passenger in this regard. He is the captain of his team. It is not possible for him to leave us in the dark any longer. He has now had sufficient time for thinking.

We are the only team in the field. Against whom are we to play?

The foolish appeals which have been made that the nation should make sacrifices for separate development, are falling on deaf ears. Even the housewives of Pretoria and Randburg are not prepared to make those sacrifices. The Government cannot expect of the average voter to make sacrifices if the Government does not set the example. That is why there is a feeling of indifference on the part of the voters at the present time. They realize that the Government is not in earnest. The moment the Government really becomes serious as regards separate freedoms and separate free states, the voters of South Africa will call a halt, because the voters of South Africa are looking for a practical approach. That is why there is defection to be seen on the opposite side. They fully realize that the position of the Whites will be endangered by separate states. That is why they are not prepared to make sacrifices for separate states. They know what the consequences of separate, free states will be. The Government realizes this. All hon. members on the opposite side of this House are not so stupid that they do not realize this. That is why they are moving so slowly. The time is now ripe for and the nation expects an answer from that side of this House. There is no confidence in this Government throughout the length and breadth of this country. We suggest that separate freedoms have become a phantom, instead of a policy, and we believe that separate, free states will never become reality because the Government itself realizes the dangers attached to separate, free states. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, at the end of his speech the hon. member for Newton Park put a question to this side of the House, namely why were we so slow in developing the reserves along the road to independence. I am now going to give him a reply to that. The reply is simply this, namely that we are not prepared to hand out ill-considered independence to the reserves. We are not prepared to run the same risks as were run in other states of Africa. We are only prepared to take our own time, for we know the psychology of the black man in South Africa as no other white nation does. It is obvious that all other black states which have obtained independence in Africa and which are not receiving foreign aid, are falling behind economically. This is an accomplished fact, and we are not prepared to run that risk. Once the reserves in South Africa gain the status of independent nations, they will do so at a stage when they will at least be economically self-supporting.

The second matter the hon. member touched upon, was that the rural areas were gradually being swamped by the Blacks, and he mentioned, inter alia, the Cape Midlands. The socio-economic commission appointed to inquire into conditions in the Upper Orange Regional Development Association area found that this was especially applicable in the North-Eastern Cape. Not all Whites are guilty of this sin. It is a logical outcome, but the position is that it was found that in that region, at the last census, there were more than 500 Bantu on the farms of three farmers alone. As a result of that fact one arrives at a figure that is not in keeping with the actual position as it is at present. In due course the Government will render its contribution towards putting that matter right as well, and once that matter has been put right, these figures will most certainly be different.

In the course of his speech the hon. member for Transkei made a statement to which I should like to reply. He said that the general impression throughout the country was that our policy had failed. He was not the only speaker on that side of the House to make this statement. But we are having a provincial election next year, and it feels to me to-day as though we are once again on the eve of the 1953 elections. The hon. member for Orange Grove said that we could come to the United Party to light our torches. Do you remember. Sir, the days of the Torch Commando before 1952, and “vote for the right to vote again”? The United Party is applying mass psychology at present in that they want to create the impression that everybody in South Africa is dissatisfied, and that is not the case. The only dissatisfaction that has come to my knowledge, has come to me through the medium of the Press which is favourably disposed towards their side of the House. The biggest ringleaders on that side are the M.P.s who went to the Press and said that they were going to kick up a fuss in this House and that they would fix us. We on this side of the House have been given a mandate to carry out, and that mandate was entrusted to us in 1948 and even as recently as 1966 that mandate was re-confirmed, namely the confidence of white South Africa in the National Party Government. In the Transkei, too, there was an election in 1963, as the hon. member for Piketberg also pointed out, when the governing party there came into power with a small majority.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, I kept very quiet while you were speaking.

Do you know what promises Matanzima has made?

I am coming to that. The point I want to make, is that his government were returned to power last year with a much greater majority than it had at the previous elections. Why? Because the Black people of the Transkei had given the black government a mandate for implementing their policy, just as the Whites of South Africa had given the National Government a mandate for implementing our policy. The question that occurs to me now is whether, if elections were held to-day amongst the black people in South Africa, they would vote in favour of integration. No, Sir. The black people are as unwilling to integrate with the Whites as the Whites are to integrate with them. There is no possibility of that happening. That is why I believe that the black people will vote against integration in any form, because they will want to retain and establish their own identity.

The question that has been put by the other side of the House on so many occasions, is now being asked once again, namely whether the reserves, once they have reached that stage of development, would hold any danger for white South Africa. I am now going to put the other side of the case. Since Lesotho, Botswana and Swaziland gained independence, has the co-operation with those black states not been much better than it was before? Therefore, how can hon. members on that side level such an accusation here to-day? Those states are co-operating with white South Africa to-day. They are holding a bogey up to us by suggesting that the black reserves, once they have eventually reached the stage of self-determination, would hold a danger for us. But I also want to raise another matter here, namely the British Government which is 6,000 miles from here and which has guided Lesotho, Swaziland and Botswana towards eventual independence. No complaints about that were ever heard. We never heard a single outcry against that, for as the old cock crows, so crows the young.

What could we have done?

In the days when Gen. Smuts still had the influence to put the affairs of the Protectorates in order, he did nothing. In other words, you have simply done nothing. But in spite of that the British Government which is 6,000 miles from here, guided those states towards independence. If that is the case, how much more easily and better can we do so, we who are so much closer to them and are conversant with them and could carry this matter through to its logical conclusion? Sir, we are not afraid of black nationalism, but do you know what we are afraid of? We are afraid of the black nationalism one nourishes in one’s bosom; for the black nationalism which one has here in one’s midst and against which one is going to apply perpetual discrimination, in terms of the policy of that Party, is the black nationalism one is going to nourish in one’s bosom, and this is the black nationalism that is eventually going to bite one. That is why we believe that the eventual black nationalism should be channeled into their own areas so that they may develop there on their own.

Do you want vipers in your own bosom?

No, they are not vipers. The other matter that was referred to here, was in regard to morality, and this was raised by the hon. member for Hillbrow. I think the hon. member for Hillbrow was very thoroughly brought to book by the hon. member for Witbank, and for that reason I would not like to go into the matter of morality any further. The present state of affairs is that the reserves represent only 13 per cent of the total area of South Africa, but once those reserves have eventually been enlarged in terms of Act 27 of 1913 and Act 18 of 1936, this will no longer be 13 per cent, but easily 18 per cent of the total area of the Republic of South Africa.

And then it will be fair?

This 18 per cent will include some of the best agricultural and stock-farming areas of South Africa. But do you realize, Sir, that roughly 80 years ago, if I remember my history correctly, these three states were territories that were situated inside our boundaries and formed part of South Africa. Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland still formed part of South Africa at the time. A moment ago the hon. member for Newton Park spoke about the rural areas that were gradually being swamped by the Blacks. In my constituency we are faced with the problem that ever since the end of the previous century Lesotho has been getting rid of its surplus population in the white Republic of South Africa, and to-day we are landed with them. I say that previously those territories also formed part of South Africa, whether we wish to admit it or not. Before the British Government had declared them protectorates, they formed part of South Africa. When we include those areas, we find that the black people in South Africa have 294,000 sq. miles, and once our consolidation of nearly 65,000 sq. miles has been completed, it will give us a total of 359,000 sq. miles, in respect of white South Africa, which is 472,000 sq. miles in extent.

But this is not yet the worst of all. Already this represents nearly 50 per cent of the total area of South Africa. How much of the area inhabited by the Whites to-day, is desert? How much of the area inhabited by the Whites gets less than 5 inches of rain per annum? How much of the area inhabited by the Whites gets less than 10 inches of rain per annum? What is the extent of the area which is inhabited by the Whites and gets 20 inches of rain or more per annum? If we went into those matters, we would find that 80 per cent of the land inhabited by the black people in South Africa enjoys an annual rainfall of between 20 and 30 inches. But of the area inhabited by the white man, I believe—and, unfortunately, I cannot obtain the figures—that not even 25 per cent enjoys an annual rainfall of 20 inches. Now, what grounds are there for the argument that we are supposedly acting in an immoral manner in respect of the black people? No, there is no such thing. The South African has always been honest in his approach, and it is as a result of our conduct and our Christian background that the black people have thrived in South Africa.

There is another matter I want to raise, namely the question of boundaries. The United Party are very fond of asking where the boundaries are. Read those Acts I mentioned to you a moment ago, and then you will see exactly where the boundaries are, boundaries which were not determined by this side of the House, but in fact by that side of the House.

And the corridors?

Forget about the corridors. What do we achieve by discussing boundaries all day? Only this, namely doing irreparable harm to the economy of the Whites in those areas. Yesterday the hon. member for Durban (Point) put forward the case here that Matanzima had reportedly said that he wanted the districts of Elliot, Ugie and Maclear. But what Matanzima is supposed to have said and what the Government intends doing, are two different things.

And what about self-determination?

In a hundred years’ time the boundaries between the reserves and white South Africa will be located exactly where it pleases white South Africa to have them, for in spite of all the pressure, irrespective of the quarters from which it is brought to bear, this side of the House and the Whites will not yield, because this is our mutual agreement and it will be observed. I am very sure of that.

My last point is as follows: The United Party are sitting over there to-day. The black people who voted in South Africa gave a mandate to their people to implement separate development in their own areas. The white people in South Africa gave a mandate to their people to implement separate development in their own areas. Where does the United Party come from, and where do they get the right to plead for the black people in South Africa, and for more and more Blacks to enter here? Through this process the United Party will destroy itself. Hence the fact that the hon. member for Orange Grove rises here and says that there is a crisis in the country. This is as a result of political frustration. He is seeking a new political home, but I did not expect the hon. member for Newton Park to join him in his search for a new political home. No. The United Party is going to crush itself in its own process, and this side of the House will continue to follow the traditional course of South Africa as we know it. We shall continue to do so, and nobody will stop us and nobody will oppose us.

The speech we have just heard from the smiling hon. member for Aliwal is typical of all the speeches we heard from the other side. They are all according to pattern. The Ministers and Deputy Ministers and ordinary members who participated in the debate all displayed the same phenomenon, and that is that they never even attempted any reply to the damning accusation levelled by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. They find themselves in a very fortunate position. This debate has been extended to five days. They have had more than enough time to investigate, make inquiries and undertake research in order to try and find a reply to the accusation levelled by the Leader of the Opposition against the Government. There is not one impartial observer of this debate who would not agree with me that if the account of this unfortunate farce in the history of South Africa, the apartheid phase in our history, ever comes to be written it will be known as the unanswered debate, the unanswered question mark in regard to South Africa, and they know it.

Allow me to give a brief summary of the accusation made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and remind hon. members of what should be dealt with in this debate and what is not being dealt with in it. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition levelled the accusation that after 21 years of apartheid the white areas, according to the Government’s own definition, were steadily becoming blacker and blacker and there was no possibility of a turning point being reached, i.e. that the Bantu population of the white areas would decrease because they were finding their way back to the reserves. That was his accusation. He pointed out that during the ten years from 1951 to 1960, according to an authoritative calculation, there had been an annual increase in the number of urban Bantu in South Africa of 120,000 per year and of the number of platteland Bantu of 143,000 per year, a total increase thus of the Bantu population in the white areas of South Africa, according to their own definition of white areas, of 263,000 per year, a million every four years. That is the charge; that is the accusation, that no progress is being made, to use a term which the National Party members are fond of using, with the removal of Bantu (ontswarting) from the white areas of South Africa. No progress is being made; on the contrary, the process is continuing on its merry way; it is continuing almost unabated. [Interjection.] I am coming to the hon. the Deputy Minister. I am pleased he is present.

Where did the Leader of the Opposition get his figures from?

He mentioned his source. Sir, can you believe that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Justice could sit here for four days without even taking the trouble to check up on what the authority was for the figures which he apparently disputes? This is a projection which was made by the periodical “Stats”. It is of course a projection, but these facts are plain to see. I have been living in Johannesburg since before 1948, and never before has there been such an increase in the Bantu population of the Witwatersrand, a discernable one, as there has been since 1948. Let us not argue about facts. How can we hope to realize what the problems of South Africa are and solve them if we argue about facts? And then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition accepted the calculation of an authority to the effect that if we wanted to change this situation, always assuming that the reserves can absorb their own growing population, and if we wanted to turn the tide of the influx into the white areas, we would have to settle approximately 400.000 Bantu per year in the reserves. He indicated that no progress whatsoever was being made in this direction, but there was no reply to that from the other side. There has been no progress; the stream is running in the opposite direction, and is continuing to do so. That accusation, those facts, remained unanswered. A very poor attempt, an unconvincing attempt, was made by the Minister of Bantu Administration and his Deputy. The Minister of Bantu Administration, as is his custom, came forward with a counter attack, and what did it comprise? Yes, the United Party is presumptuous and irresponsible because we are doing two things which we may not do. In the first place we may not set the Government aims and then criticize the Government because they are not achieving the aims we set. The second charge was that we attached to much value to numbers.

That is correct.

Numbers are not important. No, I beg your pardon. He said that numbers are important, but not very important. What was much more important, was separate political institutions for the Bantu. The Deputy Minister says that I was right; the Deputy Minister of Justice says that I was not right. On this occasion I take the side of the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education.

I said numbers were not the decisive factor.

I said that too.

No.

I know what I am talking about.

Sir, the day the hon. the Deputy Minister of Justice knows what he is talking about, I shall eat my hat. Mr. Speaker, let us look at the realities. We may not set the National Party Government aims or targets, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition put it. The Leader of the Opposition stated and analysed the minimum aims of the National Party’s policy, but he did compile and devise them himself. They are based on authoritative statements by Prime Ministers and Cabinet members of the National Party. Dr. Verwoerd himself, who was after all the architect of this policy—poor Dr. Verwoerd who is being repudiated so rapidly that one wonders what is going to become of his memory in South Africa—devised this policy, he put it forward as a new departure for the National Party, and what did he say? In 1965 he said here in the House of Assembly—

The numbers, not the political rights—

That is the ideal he set for the National Party: The numbers of the Bantu in the white areas should decrease. It was he who placed the emphasis on numbers, not the Leader of the Opposition—

He was referring here to the people in the white areas—

This is what Dr. Verwoerd said on 17th April, 1965, and in February, 1969, the Minister of Bantu Administration and his Deputy come along and state: Numbers are not important; the United Party are setting the aims. Nevertheless, here are Dr. Verwoerd’s own words.

But surely he did not use those words which you are imputing to him.

Which words?

That he said that numbers were not important.

He stated that they were not the most important thing; what was important was political separation. That is what he said.

But that is not what you said a moment ago. You said that he had said that they were not important.

In comparison with this other matter. Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister must not quibble. The entire theme of the Minister’s speech was that we were wrong to attach so much importance to numbers; that there was something else which was more important. He made the point that it was much more important to give these people separate political institutions.

That is important, but not the most important.

Where did this new idea originate that numbers are not as important as political institutions, and that political institutions are more important?

May I ask a question? Can the hon. member deny that the hon. Minister of Bantu Administration and Development told this House that numbers were important, but were not the decisive factor?

I shall gladly admit that, because it strengthens my argument. If numbers are not the decisive factor then surely they are not important. We are now playing with words. Sir, I want to call an even more important witness than the late Dr. Verwoerd. I want to call in the Cabinet of the National Party. In 1956 they published a White Book, just before we discussed the report of the Tomlinson Commission in this House. In that White Book they made it very clear what recommendations, what expectations and what analyses in the report of Professor Tomlinson they accepted as the basis and the aims of the National Party policy. Seldom if ever has it been more clearly stated than in the White Book of the Cabinet on the report of the Tomlinson Commission. Here it is—

The Cabinet stated that the standpoint of the Government, as they had been maintaining it through the years, was that—

The emphasis is placed on numbers. The White Book states that towards the end of this century they will have achieved success, relatively speaking, and the future of the policy would have been insured if there were equal numbers of Whites and Bantu in the white areas. But the Minister states that numbers are not the decisive factor. Here the Cabinet is stating that numbers are the decisive factor; it would give final shape to the policy of apartheid if they could achieve equality of numbers by the end of the century. It is a new policy this, Mr. Speaker. It is a further change of standpoint. It is a repudiation of Dr. Verwoerd.

Now you are playing with words.

Mr. Speaker, let us proceed. The hon. the Minister should not set the aims. He stated that political institutions—little councils in the reserves—were more important than numbers. We can be left to be swallowed up in the white areas, according to their terminology, just as long as the people have a semblance of political rights in a far distant country to which they will never go, where they were not born, and in which they will never die. Then the Bantu problem is solved. Mr. Speaker, if numbers are not important, why is Government policy to such a large extent still being based on what is not a decisive factor, i.e. numbers? Why was it recently necessary to pass the Physical Planning Act? What was the whole purpose of the Physical Planning Act if it was not to put a stop to industrial development in the white cities so that the number of Bantu should not increase?

That was not its purpose.

Its purpose was to bring about decentralization.

That is very interesting. Those two Deputy Ministers are being of great help to me—they do not know how much—when they speak this kind of nonsense; I am sorry to have to say this. If they persist in abusing the privileges of their rank by interrupting me persistently and make these remarks then I am simply asking them to show me the courtesy of explaining them. If the purpose was not to put a stop to industrial development in the white cities, why did the present Minister of Health, when he was the Minister responsible for the Physical Planning Act say in a policy statement that he would refuse permission for a new industry or an extension of an industry in the urban area even though it would mean a ratio of 1 to 1 between Bantu and White. Why is the hon. the Deputy Minister talking such nonsense now? Surely he is aware that the Minister said this; surely he knows that it forms the basis of this policy, and that it still continues to form the basis of this policy. We are now listening to a new story—I will not say that numbers are not important, because then the hon. the Prime Minister gets upset; I want him to remain calm …

I just want to confine myself to the truth.

Sir, the numbers are not the decisive factor. No, what is necessary now, if I understand the Deputy Ministers correctly, is that these people must simply not enjoy fundamental rights in the white areas. They must accept, enjoy and practise their rights, even though they are not equal rights, in their own Bantu homelands; that is the policy. And, Mr. Speaker, other rights as well: They may not become permanently established; they may not own their own homes; they may not, as a question of right, lay claim to the privileges of family life. For those things they may not ask; all of them must be satisfied to become what amounts to migrant labourers with imaginary rights, with the illusion of rights in the Bantu areas.

Do all the Malawi Bantu who work here have only “illusionary rights”?

To the Bantu of Malawi their rights in Malawi mean virtually nothing in the Republic of South Africa, and no Government which is worth its salt will allow the Government of Malawi or any foreign Government to prescribe to it its policy in connection with its manpower, and if that is what the hon. the Deputy Minister of Justice is insinuating, i.e. that it is the standpoint of the Government that the Government of Malawi can prescribe its labour policy towards Malawi labourers in South Africa, then he must continue with his interjections; they are invaluable; they mean a tremendous amount as far as getting to the truth about the Government’s standpoint in South Africa is concerned; they are of priceless value to the Opposition! Mr. Speaker, suppose this policy were to succeed. Thank God it has already failed. Nothing will come of it, all we must wait for now is for the nation to come to the realization that it has failed, and this is taking place rapidly amongst the intellectuals of the National Party. There are not many of them but those who do exist are honest people and it has already penetrated to them, and it will also penetrate to the nation. But supposing we also indulge in day dreams and presume that this policy would succeed. Let us accept that separate development, as visualized by Dr. Verwoerd and as it has been accepted in very emotional terms by the present Minister, should succeed and that it should be carried out in full. What would the result be? The result would be approximately eight separate sovereign Bantu states, with the majority of their population permanently resident in the white areas, but as migrant people, lone wanderers, individuals without wives, without homes, without stability and in the words of National Party thinkers, not people, but labour units.

Mr. Speaker, can you imagine a South Africa like that? Is it necessary that we as sensible people should discuss the evils of migratory labour, applied in general without any appreciable exceptions? Is it necessary that we should discuss the moral degeneration, the sexual malpractices, the homosexuality, the sexual aggression which takes place in such a community? Mr. Speaker, these are not my own words; they are the words of our Church.

And of Dr. Koornhof.

Mr. Speaker, can you imagine the dangers which would exist for the Coloured women, for the Indian women and for the White woman if our entire labour market were to consist exclusively of lone migratory labourers? Mr. Speaker, you need not believe me; there is an hon. member sitting on the opposite side for whose integrity I have the greatest respect. He is an honest man. He is not only morally honest, he is also intellectually honest, and he has had an opportunity of thinking and writing in a calm academic atmosphere on this matter, and what has he written about migratory labour?

I thought you were above this.

Your name has not even been mentioned yet.

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand this. The hon. member said that he thought I was above this, but when is it wrong to quote the considered opinions of a member of this House to him?

It depends where you got it from.

I took it from a thesis the hon. member wrote at the University of Oxford.

Have you read it?

Does the hon. Deputy Minister deny this?

Does he deny it?

May I ask the hon. member whether he read that thesis, and what it is he now wants to assert?

I shall read what has been communicated to me as an extract from the thesis by the hon. member. He knows me, and he knows that I will immediately take his word for it if he tells me that this is not in his thesis. I shall do so immediately. This is what the hon. member wrote, and this is one of the most sensible statements one can expect from any person; there is nothing here to be ashamed about. He writes as follows—

I am not reading an English translation now, because this book was written in English.

I know what you are quoting from. Tell us what you are quoting from.

I am quoting from the publication Veg. But it is a quotation from the Minister’s thesis. [Interjections.] Wait a minute. I shall now afford the Minister an opportunity of stating that this is a falsification. I want to be fair towards the hon. the Deputy Minister. I do not know why the Deputy Minister is so upset. I am reading something which is very sensible. It reads as follows—

I now want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he wrote this.

I shall give you a reply. It is being wrested out of context now, but I shall give you a reply in that regard.

Simply say yes or no.

He says it is being wrested out of context, but then he must explain it.

I shall explain it.

The explanation given by the hon. member for that in this House was that he was forced to write like that because he was attending a liberal university.

That is also untrue.

I accept that. I misunderstood him. But the point I want to make is that here we have the Deputy Minister in the peaceful and quiet atmosphere of Oxford, working on his thesis in order to obtain a doctor’s degree, and this is his opinion of migratory labour. As he said: “It will resolve itself in anarchy and revolution”. To-day he is Deputy Minister in a Cabinet under a Prime Minister who wants to base the entire labour pattern of South Africa, as far as the Bantu are concerned, on a system of migratory labour.

You refuse to say how many families you would allow in.

I shall tell you how many families we will not allow to come in. It is a very fair question and I shall now inform the hon. the Minister how many families we will not allow to come in. Since the hon. the Deputy Minister has stated that there are 1,600,000 migratory labourers in South Africa, we will not allow each one to accommodate a family of five in White South Africa, for then we would have to depopulate the reserves completely. It is quite a temptation, because we would then be able to sell that land to the Whites and use the money to pay for the accommodation of the Bantu. And, secondly, we would have to provide accommodation on a permanent basis to hundreds of thousands of inhabitants of Basutoland, Lesotho, Botswana, Swaziland, Malawi and Rhodesia. I do not think the hon. the Deputy Minister can really believe—I know he scorns the Opposition—that we are so stupid. I think that when in future his wide-awake Department supplies him with figures—and I know he has a wide-awake Department—he might at least give some thought to the matter before he draws conclusions from those figures which are in any case meaningless for any arguments. There the hon. the Minister has his reply. He need not be afraid that we will do what he is trying to tell the public we will do, namely that we will swallow up the white areas of South Africa. That is unnecessary.

May I ask you a question?

No, I have replied to enough questions to-day and my time is limited. Then there is the other accusation, made in an attempt to reply to our attack on the Government, by various members and even by the hon. the Minister of Transport, who ought to know better—but what can one do; he is a Nationalist-—in which it is insinuated that in terms of our policy we will not be able to resist the demand for political rights or equal rights by these people. We will be able to do so, but I do not want to argue about that now. What right do people, who are so convinced that one will not be able to resist the political demands made by other people, have to think that the Bantu of South Africa will be satisfied with the semblance of political rights which is being offered to them in terms of the policy of separate development? With the little knowledge I have of international law, I can state that I have never heard of such a monstrous thing as the political rights which will be granted to these people. And then there is the negative aspect thereof. Would one of the hon. the Ministers, or the hon. the Prime Minister, tell me where in the world one finds laws to the effect that even if a man is born in a country he can never acquire the citizenship, the final and full citizenship of that country, but must remain a citizen of a foreign country? That is the final aim of their policy. If the states are independent and the citizenships are divided the Bantu who are born and whose progeny are born in South Africa can never acquire South African citizenship. The international position will be that if they were to do something wrong abroad, they would be sent back to South Africa. Under international law we will have to accept them as our responsibility, but they will never become citizens of South Africa. Surely what they want to create is an impossible situation. The interests of those people will be vested in the white areas. The weal and woe of their lives will be determined in the white areas. They will not be satisfied with a vote in Umtata or a vote in Sibasa.

They will want a say and will want to share in the part of the country which determines their lot and their lives in that place where they have to make a living. It is inevitable. And if the demand cannot be refused, the National Party Government cannot refuse them.

Until recently you were a British citizen.

Yes, I was a British citizen, but I was not told that because I was a British citizen—even though I was born in Dordrecht in the Cape Province—I could never become a South African or a Union subject. That is the difference. I think the hon. member for Middelland has enough sense to recognize the difference. But he is not trying. He does not want to think. He dare not think, because he would then discover the truth about his own policy.

May I ask the hon. member a question? Is it your policy to grant full citizenship to those non-Whites?

That is simply a question with which to waste my time. In his statement at the onset of this debate the hon. the Leader of the Opposition stated the rights which we would grant to these people to a nicety and very explicitly. We shall grant them specific rights as citizens of South Africa with the duties of citizens of South Africa. We will grant them the franchise on a federal basis, just as the citizens of New York and Alaska do not have equal political rights in the Senate of the United States, but are nevertheless full citizens of the United States of America.

Can a citizen of Alaska become President of the United States?

Yes, provided he was born in America.

On the same basis?

No …

You are therefore discriminating on the same basis.

The hon. member knows quite well what our policy is. As far as the policy of the United Party is concerned, I want to make the following aspect quite clear. If the National Party wants to elect a Bantu as Prime Minister of South Africa and they can get a majority of votes from the Whites, they will probably succeed. But the United Party will definitely not do so. [Interjections.] We already have a second Prime Minister in South Africa, and they still want to create six Prime Ministers. They are capable of anything. The hon. member must not judge the United Party by himself. My time is expiring. I want to go into the matter further, but I am now unable to do so because my time has been wasted with questions of this type. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, we have now sat listening here for many days to a debate which purported to be a motion of no confidence in the Government. Speculations also appeared in the newspapers for days on end that this was going to be the debate of the year. If one wants to turn a debate of this nature into the debate of the year, one does not conduct it in the way in which the Opposition has been conducting it for the past few days.

It is good and it is right that when Parliament assembles the Opposition should move a motion of no-confidence in the Government, in order that they may point out the shortcomings of the Government by that method. But I want to ask my hon. friends on the opposite side this: Has it now become clear to any objective person who has listened to this debate over the past few days that this Government is one which cannot be trusted with the affairs of South Africa? The reverse is true. I therefore want to thank the Opposition, because the way in which this debate has been conducted, the subjects that have been raised, and the way in which it was done, are the greatest compliment which the government in any country can receive from its opposition. Normally it would not even have been necessary for me to take part in this discussion.

You say that every year.

The hon. member for Yeoville is right, I do say it every year, but any objective observer knows that this year it was worse than ever before. That is so, and I shall indicate it in the course of my speech.

In spite of what happened to-day, the hon. member for Yeoville, just like some other hon. members opposite, could not resist the temptation of speaking of the disillusionment of the people, the disillusionment which is supposedly coming over the people so rapidly. But this, after all, is not something about which we need speculate—one can so easily prove it in practice. If the people have become disillusioned, the Opposition can so easily prove it to us. I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition a favour. I do not often ask him favours, but I really do want to ask him this favour: Please oppose us once again for a change when there is a by-election. It is really good for a government to be opposed at by-elections. It keeps a government on its toes.

Have you forgotten Swellendam?

We have had so many parliamentary by-elections. We have had Bloemfontein, we have had Bethlehem, and now we have had Graaff-Reinet, and the only consolation the hon. member for Yeoville can find is that they fought a provincial by-election. Next time he will cast a municipal election in my teeth!

It is easy to talk. It is terribly easy to say that the people are disillusioned. This Government has been in power for 21 years and it is understandable—it is human; after all, it happens in all the countries of the world—that after 21 years one would expect some restiveness. As a matter of fact, it is a record for a government to have been in power for so long. After 21 years the greatest compliment which the Opposition can pay the Government is that it does not want to fight by-elections. If one sets over against that the motion of no-confidence and the supposed disillusionment existing among the people, then it shows one what an empty farce this motion of no-confidence has been so far.

In passing I just want to refer to another tone that I noticed among hon. members opposite. God willing, I shall go into the matter further to-morrow. I have written down the words that were used. Why the sudden contempt with which hon. members opposite spoke of the Bantu on this occasion? Institutions belonging to the Bantu, of which they are proud and should be proud, in which we should strongly urge them to take pride, were referred to with contempt. It behoves none of us to disparage what belongs to another. In the history of my own people there are a great many examples of this. There is nothing that causes so much bitterness as when the things that belong to one, whether they be small or insignificant or ridiculous in the eyes of other people, are disparaged and held in contempt. That brings us no further, that is not the way to build up sound relations in this or in any other country.

As agreed, Sir, I move—

Agreed to.