Mr. Speaker, with your leave I should like to indicate to the House the business to be dealt with by the House next week. In addition I should like to give the House the dates on which certain business of the House will be commenced with. Firstly, as regards the various appropriations, the position is as follows: The Part Appropriation will be presented on 17th February. The Railway Budget will be presented on 5th March, while the Post Office Budget will come before the House on 19th March. In connection with the Post Office Budget I want to say that the debate will not be adjourned after the Minister’s Budget Speech, as is the custom in the case of the Main and Railway Budgets. The debate will be proceeded with immediately.

Why?

Since it is not worth the trouble to adjourn; there is not so much to be studied. The Main Budget will be presented on 26th March. The House will adjourn on 28th March and resume on 8th April. The Budget debate will then commence on 8th April.

As regards next week’s business, the order of our business, on the basis of to-day’s Order Paper, will be as follows: My colleagues must please write it down too! We are starting on Monday with Order of the Day No. 14 and after that we shall consider Nos. 15, 6, 9, 13, 18, 19, 20, 22, 7, 12, 16, 17, 21 and 24. I think when we have disposed of these Orders of the Day, we shall have done a good week’s work!

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

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, since Monday we have been dealing with this motion of no confidence which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition felt himself called upon to move against the Government. We have had a discussion and once more I make so bold as to say that it has not become clear to any objective observer why any person, even my hon. friend opposite, should not have confidence in this Government. The reply to that question was not forthcoming. Perhaps the hon. member was motivated by the fact that he had stated in his New Year message that the voters were calling upon him, so that it is for that reason that he moved the motion of no confidence in the Government. With all due respect I want to tell my hon. friend that I think he did not hear properly. As far as this aspect of the matter is concerned, we of course heard once again, and we have been hearing this for years from the hon. member for Yeoville, that the people have become disillusioned, that the voters no longer want us, and that they are in fact queuing up, as they did in Vereeniging that year the hon. member had the misunderstanding to lose the election there, to welcome him as the new member newly elected for Vereeniging. It was not to welcome him, but to bid him farewell.

Be that as it may, as I have said, we need not speculate about these matters. It is easy for me, from my side, to declare that the people have confidence in the Government. It is as easy for anyone on the opposite side to declare that the people do not have confidence in the Government. However, as has been stated, we have certain barometers by means of which we can ascertain whether or not the voters of South Africa have confidence in the Government. The best barometer is of course an election such as the one we had in 1966. The result of this election is fresh in the memory of my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition. I want to set his mind at rest immediately. If I heard correctly, he was one of those who made references to an early election. I can understand the problem my hon. friend has when it comes to an election. He knows that something is going to hit him, but he does not know when it is going to hit him. However, I can set his mind at rest. I know of no circumstance which will bring about an early election. As I see it, the next election will take place at the normal time. Mr. Speaker, we had that election, and the reply was given on that occasion. But in any democratic country by-elections are held after an election and then one is able to judge very easily whether or not the electorate still has confidence in the Government concerned. In fact, they are the best barometer one can have in that connection. It so happens that since the general election was held in 1966 we have had eight by-elections for this House, and for the sake of the record it is perhaps a good thing to note what happened. The first was held in Heidelberg. My hon. friend did not put up a fight; his ally, C. F. van der Merwe, did nut up a fight. Then there was the by-election in Johannesburg (West); my hon. friend put up a fight, with very unfortunate results for himself. Next the election in Worcester was held, and once again my hon. friend put up a fight. After that there were elections in Potgietersrus, Bloemfontein (West) and Bethlehem …

What happened in Worcester?

I know that a Nationalist M.P. is representing the voters of Worcester. It is interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that the election in Pretoria (West) was held after we had had three unopposed by-elections, and apparently the question at issue was who was in fact the strongest—the United Party or the Van der Merwes. Then they both fought it out and the Van der Merwes came second. [Interjections.] My hon. friend and I are both right. They came an over-all third; as far as the Opposition were concerned, they came second. After my hon. friend had heard the voice calling, according to his New Year’s Day message, there was Graaff-Reinet. The by-election took place the day before yesterday, and my hon. friend did not put up a fight. Consequently, I maintain that if we apply that objective criterion, then even my hon. friend will concede, if we look at that barometer, that there is no indication of any kind whatsoever that there is any lack of confidence in this Government.

Mr. Speaker, we are now dealing with this motion of no confidence. It afforded my hon. friend the opportunity (a) to criticize our policy and (b) to state his alternative in this regard. The motion of no confidence caused quite a good deal of speculation. There has been a great deal of discussion and a great deal has been written about it. There are people who believed that this was going to be the debate of the year. I do not think it has been. Nevertheless a great deal has been written about it. Inter alia, things have been written about the alternative policy of my hon. friend. One person who wrote about it is the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. To be specific, in the magazine New Nation of February of this year he wrote an article in which the following paragraph appeared—

And then follows an extremely interesting sentence—

I wonder why the hon. member for Bezuidenhout wrote that.

He was a Nationalist; he knows your methods.

No, he is not lecturing the National Party; he is lecturing his friends; he is lecturing the hon. member for Yeoville. He is saying to the hon. member for Yeoville, after having referred to his alternative—

You are putting words in his mouth which he never used.

My hon. friend can read it himself. He must not argue with me; he must argue with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout.

Just read his actual words.

I am reading his words—

You inserted words before that.

No, I did not. I read it precisely as it stands here. I want to tell the hon. member for Yeoville again that he must not quarrel with me. He must quarrel with his hon. friend there, because he is an expert on opportunism. What the hon. member for Bezuidenhout does not know about opportunism is not worth knowing. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, we have now heard the attacks made by hon. members on the opposite side, but before coming to them I want to deal with a few incidental matters which were raised by certain hon. members on the opposite side.

I must refer to what the hon. member for South Coast said in regard to the hon. member for Klip River, the leader of the National Party in Natal. Let me say at once that I do not begrudge the hon. member for South Coast an iota of the little political advantage he thought he could derive from that matter. I wish him every joy with it. I am also aware that the hon. member for South Coast referred in rather disparaging terms to the Natal leader of the National Party, the hon. member for Klip River. I do not think the hon. member for South Coast had any reason for doing so. The hon. member is himself a leader of a party.

A very small party.

His party has not flourished since he became their leader in Natal in 1948. But, Sir, for the sake of the record I must just rectify what the hon. member said in that connection. He said—

His reference here is to the fact that the hon. member for Klip River was not included in the Cabinet immediately after he was elected as leader—

As my hon. friend knows, this is of course not correct. My hon. friend knows that the late Mr. Havenga was Leader in Natal until his retirement from politics in 1954. Upon his retirement from politics in 1954 Mr. Willie Maree became the Leader in Natal. Notwithstanding the fact that he was at that stage already a reasonably senior member of the Party and had been in Parliament for six years, he was not brought into the Cabinet by my predecessor before 1958, four years later.

You give me no hope whatever.

The hon. member must not anticipate me now. I am dealing with a factual statement made by the hon. member, a senior front-bencher, which was incorrect. I think the hon. member must have known it. I do not want to evade the hon. member’s question. I want to give a direct reply to the question, and I am replying to it here because it is of importance to my Party in Natal, and also to his Party in Natal. It is quite correct, as we all know, that there were persons in Natal who wanted the Minister of Foreign Affairs as their leader. There were other people—and it was not the first time that this argument was put forward—who felt that the leadership should be drawn locally from the Party’s ranks in Natal. I want to make this quite explicit here, because I am aware that this has given rise to malicious propaganda. As far as the leadership of the National Party in any province is concerned, the leader of that province is the man who is elected by the congress of the Party in the province concerned.

Why are you so sensitive about it?

No, it is no use the hon. member asking me that question. I am dealing with malicious propaganda which is being made in this connection, and in this short space of time the hon. member has shown that he is not above such propaganda. Sir, we are dealing here with a young leader, an able young man, who has not been in this Parliament for very long, and if the hon. member for South Coast is now trying in this way to make propaganda for his Party in Natal, then I want to tell him that he will not succeed. I made my standpoint in respect of admission to the Cabinet quite clear. I do not include a person in the Cabinet simply because he is from a certain province. I include him, according to my lights—whether people agree with me or not—because I believe that under the particular circumstances he is the right person to have in that particular position.

Look what you have chosen.

Let me now say this to the hon. member who is making that unsavoury interjection: Look what General Smuts chose in 1948. The hon. member gave up his post in Natal at the time to come to the Cape in order to join the Cabinet and today he is still sitting waiting. Sir, I say that I choose a person according to how I view the situation. As far as this case is concerned, firstly there was no vacancy and consequently the question did not arise, but I shall weigh up the abilities of that hon. member, as well as those of any other hon. member who has any claim, as and when vacancies occur in the Cabinet. I know that under the able leadership of the hon. member for Klip River the National Party will go from strength to strength in Natal. I want to say this to the hon. member: In spite of all the propaganda the hon. member for Klip River is not only accepted fully by my Party in Natal, but he is accepted by the voters of Natal as a very worthy and honourable representative of Natal.

By all the verkramptes, yes.

I am sorry the hon. member made that interjection. One sometimes wants a specific person, and one does not always agree with the choice people make. For example, I do not agree with the action taken by the United Party members of Natal in exchanging him for Senator Cadman. I think it was a mistake.

Mr. Speaker, let us return now to the motion of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. An attempt was made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—and this attempt has been made on various occasions in the past—to create the impression that the National Party had changed its policy in respect of what is generally described as total apartheid. The impression the hon. the Leader of the Opposition gave me inter alia—and I find that impression confirmed by words—was that Dr. Malan immediately introduced total apartheid as the policy of the National Party. Of course, that is not the position. The hon. member for Green Point stated it quite correctly by means of the quotation he made from the speech by Dr. Malan. The Leader of the Opposition did not state it correctly. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said—

And that is the key word—

That was “originally” our policy, but we have now deviated from that policy. I find it necessary that we should exchange a few words with one another on this matter. Throughout the debate I got this tone from hon. members opposite, who are always pointing out that we are obliged to do certain things because the Black man is working for us. They pointed out, and this is correct, that they fulfilled a very, very important function in our economy. That is correct. But that is not all. That is only one side of the coin. It is not merely that we need the black man. The black man needs us a great deal more than we need him. It is a fact that we shall find it difficult at this stage to get along without him if he should suddenly be taken away from us, but we shall be able to manage in some way or other. But the fact of the matter is that he will not be able to get along without us at all at this stage. It is just as well that this matter should be put in its correct perspective.

We do not deny that.

No, but that is fine. I am laying the foundation for my argument. If the hon. member agrees with me up to this point, I hope to be able to convince him further.

That is what we have always told you.

Let us consider what the position in this regard is, because propaganda is always being made out of this.

In the time I have at my disposal I do not find it necessary to deal with the aspect of Dr. Malan. I think, and I want to repeat this, that the position in that regard was stated absolutely correctly by the hon. member for Green Point. I am quoting only the following words from the statement by Dr. Malan—

He then points out that it is an ideal which should be pursued. I want to put it to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: Are we not all agreed that, if it is possible to have a homogeneous population, it would be much better than to have one which was not homogeneous? That is so. I think that if one were to approach the British to-day and put this question to them, they would immediately give you an affirmative reply. I think the people of the U.S.A. would say the same. I do not think there is any country in the world which would not confirm this. Our standpoint is: This is and must remain our ideal. We must continue to work purposefully to this end, and not only to-day, but in the future. It is not only I myself or the hon. the Minister who say this; it has always been the ultimate objective of the National Party. In our election manifesto of 1948 it is stated very clearly—

Mr. Strydom adopted a very strong standpoint in that regard in this House of Assembly.

He said he stood for white supremacy (baasskap).

The new Leader of the United Party should preferably speak when he is spoken to. Mr. Strydom had the following to say—

This is what Mr. Strydom said in this House on 14th May, 1956.

You have repeated it many times here already.

Yes. That same standpoint was stated very clearly by Dr. Verwoerd in this House, inter alia, on 15th September, 1958. He said—

And then he went on to motivate this statement. In other words, our attitude is not and never has been that one only has separate development or that the policy of separate development has only succeeded if and when one has achieved total separation, both territorially and as far as people are concerned.

This brings me to the argument of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, i.e. that our policy has now failed because the numbers of black people in the white area have increased. Nobody has ever denied that for the present the numbers will increase. In all projections and calculations which have been made, this point has been conceded. But I want to take the argument with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition further by saying that he and the hon. member for Yeoville would, if interjections had not been made, have done the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development an injustice by putting words in his mouth to the effect that he had stated that numbers were not important. It would in fact have stood in Hansard that the Minister had said that, while you, Sir, know that he did not say it. For the sake of the record I just want to make very clear what the hon. the Minister did in fact say in this connection. It makes the blunder of the hon. member for Yeoville even worse. This is what the hon. the Minister said—

He said “an extremely important criterion’’—

We saw how the hon. member for Yeoville saw his way clear to making of an extremely important criterion a non-important criterion. Then the hon. Minister continued, and after he had stated that it was not the most important criterion, he mentioned what was in fact, in his humble opinion, the most important criterion, i.e. the question of political say. Not only do I want to return to that, but I also want to agree wholeheartedly with the hon. the Minister that that is so. What is the position? Let us consider it objectively. Numbers are not the most important factor, nor can they ever be the most important factor, for the simple reason that one can have separate development with a million people in one’s midst, whereas one can have integration with a hundred thousand people in one’s midst. It simply depends on what one’s policy and one’s approach is. If one’s policy is one of separate development, and if one’s ideal is an ever-increasing process of separation …

Then one can continue to separate to a lesser and lesser degree.

No, then one separates to an ever-increasing degree, and then the numbers do not form a preponderance. The numbers themselves can become fewer and fewer, but if one’s policy is directed at integration with what remains, then that is where the danger lies.

Alice in Wonderland.

No, Marais Steyn in Yeoville. That is what we have to deal with. Let us consider this matter, but let us view it against the background of present-day South African politics. I am not talking about this matter alone, but about the motion of no confidence as a whole. What is it that people and nations to-day take note of, and what do the voters insist upon in this particular time in which we are living? They consider whether your currency is a stable one. In particular they consider whether there is peace and order in the country. In a country in which one has various language groups and various population groups, people take careful note of what the relationship between those language groups is, because it is very clear that whether a country will operate successfully in future or whether it will go downhill is determined to a very large extent by the relationships existing among the people in that country. I displayed the hon. member for South Coast the courtesy of listening to him. I do not mind his talking, but then he must please not talk so loudly that he disturbs me. Ultimately, a country’s future will be determined by the relationships existing among the people living in that country. If one looks at South Africa it is very clear to any objective observer that we have more potentially—and I emphasize the word “potentially”—inflammable material in South Africa than there is in many comparable countries of the world when it comes to this aspect of human relationships. Not only do we have the elements of Afrikaans and English speaking persons, with an entire history of dispute, strife and discord behind them, but in addition to that we have the White and the various non-White elements, each of which contains essentially inflammable elements. What do we find to-day in contrast to all comparable countries in the world? When it comes to peace and order and lack of tension—and I emphasize the lack of tension which is prevailing in South Africa—then there is hardly any country which can be compared to South Africa.

Is there another country in the world that has the laws we have here?

I am glad the hon. member made that remark, because I want to make it very clear once again that if anyone wants to declare outside this House that the peace and order existing in South Africa are the result of compulsion exercised by the Government, then I say it is a lie. What I am in fact prepared to say is that we took timeous action against communistic agitators and their fellow-travellers. If the hon. member wants to take exception to that, he is welcome to do so. That is why we have peace and order. If one views South Africa in that light, then one cannot move a motion of no confidence in the Government. Then one must agree wholeheartedly with the Government that South Africa is being governed well. I am declaring here to-day without fear of contradiction that South Africa is in fact being governed well.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition went out of his way to attack separate development and to say that it was not working or it would not work and that it was not a policy. We have already devoted a great deal of debate to this question here. I think that, for the sake of the record, I must again state in a few words what the policy of separate development is, what it comprises and in what direction it wants to go.

Yes, that is a good idea.

If the hon. member would only listen I would tell him. I made this very clear when I assumed office, and now two and a half years later I want to re-emphasize it. The policy of separate development is not intended, and must not be seen, as a denial of anybody’s human dignity. In the second instance, it is aimed at protecting the Whites in South Africa, who have a right of existence here. My friends who have so much to say about white leadership would do well to give some attention to this. I shall come to the question of white leadership again later on. The policy of separate development is aimed at protecting the Whites and their property, because a part of the Republic of South Africa belongs to the Whites. But it is not only to protect them as regards their property, but also to protect them in their white identity; in other words, to afford them the right of retaining and reserving their identity as Whites. That is their right. However, it is not a right which they claim for themselves alone; it is also a right which they grant to every other population group, the right to preserve their identities, whether as brown people or as black people. They have an equal right to that. That was what gave rise to the few words I said in this connection before the House adjourned yesterday. What I want to say now, applies to all of us sitting in this House. If there is one thing we should guard against, it is to disparage what belongs to another population group. No matter how inferior or how undeveloped it may be at the moment, all that one has is that which belongs to one. I say that this formed part and parcel of the history of my own people and we know where it originated; we experienced this at first hand.

Did you take action against the people who mutilated the South African flag at Nationalist meetings?

The first point is that nobody mutilated the flag, and the second point is that I stated very clearly in public that I would regard it as more than infantile if any person should do that; it would be a disgrace which would not redound to anyone’s credit. If the hon. member now wants to make a little political propaganda out of it while we are dealing with serious matters such as this, then I take it amiss of him, and I say that I change my decision that I would have preferred him to Senator Cadman. I say that we have the right to retain our identity. But there is another very good reason why we must have separate development, and that is that we will be able to eliminate friction as far as possible. As far as this particular aspect is concerned, I find that I am in full agreement with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I am referring to one sentence which occurs in his speech. He declared that it should be made possible for people who by nature want to be separated, to remain separated. There I am in full agreement with the hon. the Leader. This has always been my defence against any person who attacked the policy of separate development. Sir, you know that the weapon of offence of the liberalists has always been, “Leave it to the people concerned; do not make rules and regulations; leave it to the common sense of the people”. That cry was only heard for a short time. To-day we know that that cry is no longer a valid one, because to-day the liberalists are enforcing integration at bayonet point and by means of legislation in those countries in which they are trying to implement it. Britain is one example and in America another example is to be found in certain states. To-day the cry of the liberalists is no longer “leave it to the common sense of the people”; they, as the most intolerant people in existence, will compel you to accept it by force of law and any other forceful means. I maintain that in that respect the hon. the Leader and I find ourselves on common ground. My reply in this regard is therefore as follows: If it is immoral—and I cannot concede this for a moment—when people are inclined by nature to dissociate themselves from one another, to keep the few individuals separate who do not want to remain separate, by means of regulations, then it is much more immoral to bring people who by nature want to remain separate, together by means of force. Therefore I agree wholeheartedly with that argument of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

I maintain that it must be our task and our function to eliminate friction, and I think that in that respect as well my hon. friend and I have no quarrel. It is a well-founded argument that in a multi-national country such as South Africa pre-eminently is, one must go out of one’s way if one is the leader, if one has the responsibility, to allow as little friction as possible.

But there is a third thing one must not neglect to do. One cannot merely consider the question of identity; one cannot merely be concerned about friction and try to keep people apart. One must in fact create opportunities for people, opportunities for development, for being full-fledged human beings in every respect, regardless of colour. If we put the National Party, if we put this Government to that test, then I make so bold as to say that this Government and its predecesors have done more than could have been expected of them to meet these three requirements. But my friend wants there to be a lack of confidence in such a Government.

I now come back to the standpoint adopted by the hon. the Minister, i.e. that numbers are not the decisive factor, but that, as he stated it here, a political say was in fact the decisive factor. If one examines this closely one finds that what is decided in this Parliament is what ultimately settles the matter. People can be inclined by nature to remain apart, people can be inclined by nature to adhere to their own group or to their own people. But if we were to pass laws in this Parliament which made this impossible, then we would break that down in the long run, because in the last analysis the force of law is the decisive factor. Draw a comparison now between the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and us. Over the years we have consistently maintained that in respect of that portion of South Africa as far as we are concerned, as far as the Whites are concerned, this Parliament will exercise authority over Whites through Whites and Whites alone. That has been our policy. That is why we maintained that it was wrong in principle to allow Bantu representation here, and we therefore abolished it. We maintained that it was wrong in principle to give only the Coloureds in the Cape a handful of representatives in this House. We maintained that it was a bluff to say that the Coloureds in South Africa were enjoying political rights, while they did not have any. But this Government gave the Coloureds political rights for the first time, and before the hon. member for Yeoville asks me now what the end of the road is, I want to tell him that I shall come to that and shall deal with it. In contrast to that of the Opposition, the direction being followed by this Party is very clear. We know how they, the Opposition, went from one standpoint to another in this regard. I do not want to quarrel with them about that; it is an Opposition’s right to change its standpoint, but what is it we have to deal with at the present juncture? What is the policy which is at present still valid? What does the hon. member want to do now, viewed against the background that we must do everything in our power to eliminate friction? My hon. friend wants to go out of his way to cause friction. He not only wants to bring about friction outside, but within Parliament as well. The friction which will arise here will be the spark which will set South Africa ablaze. What does my hon. friend want to do now? He does not merely want to establish an ordinary federation, he wants to establish a race federation. A federation is difficult enough where one is dealing with the same kind of people. Friction arises between the constituent elements—a very great deal of friction, although one is dealing with the same kind of people. Friction arises between the constituent elements—a very great deal of friction, although one is dealing with the same kind of people. One need not seek far afield to find examples of this. One has to deal with an even more highly inflammable situation if one comes forward with a race federation. Then all the inflammable elements, all the elements in the world which can cause friction, are present. One can merely refer to what is happening in Nigeria—one feels a very great deal of sympathy for the Biafrans, who sought self-realization and found death instead. One feels a great deal of sympathy for that group of people in everything they are having to suffer at the moment. My friend wants to introduce that inflammable situation here in this Parliament. I cannot, with the best will in the world, understand why one should go looking for trouble if one does not have any! Surely my friend must be aware of that. After all, he knows what the development which has taken place in Africa has meant. Surely he knows what the world situation in this regard is. Surely he is aware of the attacks which have been made on South Africa over the years. Now he comes along and declares that the Bantu have a right to representation in this Parliament. It is all very well to motivate this and to state that these will be White representatives, because the Bantu have not yet reached a high enough level of development. But this is an argument which one could have put forward successfully 40 years ago. Surely my hon. friend ought to know that one can no longer put forward that argument—and now I mean it purely and simply as an argument—to any person anywhere in the world in order to justify South Africa. One simply cannot do so. My hon. friend makes light of the question I put to him: What will happen when they have developed further? In reply to this he tells me that the Whites will in turn have developed much further. If my hon. friend would analyse that further, he would realize that it is no argument. It is a debating point and not a sound argument. After all, one reaches a stage when one cannot develop any further in the political sphere than one is able to develop. Suppose one reaches the stage where most or a very large number of them have achieved a matriculation or higher scholastic level.

A large number of the Whites have not matriculated either.

Yes, but surely it must be accepted that the people will become more and more educated. This is in fact happening.

We can discuss this in 300 years’ time.

The hon. the I eader of the Opposition says that we can discuss this in 300 years’ time. If I am still living then, I no longer want to be in Parliament! That is not a reply to my question, because the hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows as well as I do that the potential friction which he would immediately create, that is what I put to him, and he would have to meet that situation. The black man will say to him: You are preventing me from going my own way.

The hon. member for Yeoville said this himself in a B.B.C. television broadcast.

I am still coming to that. The black man will tell him that he has placed an obstacle in his path. He will say that you have prevented him from developing in the direction in which he is able to develop and wants to develop. What would my reply be if the black man asked me for political rights? I would be able to tell him with a clear conscience that he could acquire political rights, but that he could acquire such rights in his own country and amongst his own people. I could say this to him because, thank God, my forefathers and your forefathers saw to it that the black man retained his land in South Africa. I am very grateful for that. Since I am talking about land now, I must express my regret at something which the hon. member for Yeoville said here in the House. I am aware, for I was sitting here, that the hon. member perhaps intended it as a joke. I readily make that concession to him. However, I looked it up in Hansard and as it stands there it does not make a good impression, and I am extremely sorry that this matter should have been referred to jokingly, because it is a matter which holds many potential dangers for us and which can cause trouble. What the hon. member said is—I am first reading what went before, just to get the context—

This is followed by these very unfortunate words—

You have no sense of humour.

I have already made that concession to the hon. member; I have already told him that I regard it in that light.

It is a reductio ad absurdum. [Interjections.]

Order!

Then, if that is the case, it was a very unfortunate joke the hon. member tried to make. Because the hon. members of the Opposition referred to it, I now want to make a final statement on this aspect as far as I am concerned, this story which one hears from time to time from the Opposition. Where is the land belonging to the Blacks, and where are the boundaries? I want to make it quite clear that the reply to this question was given as long ago as 1936. It was given in 1936 in respect of any land claims which any person may make or which any person may raise.

The final reply?

The final reply in respect of any land claims which any person may make or which any person may raise was given in 1936. This was done by way of section 10 of the Native Trust and Land Act which was passed by the United Party of that time. I am reading the relevant section in English—

1. (a) shall not in the Province of the Transvaal exceed 5,028,000 morgen;
2. (b) shall not in the Province of Natal exceed 526,000 morgen;
3. (c) shall not in the Province of the Orange Free State exceed 80,000 morgen;
4. (d) shall not in the Province of the Cape of Good Hope exceed 1,616,000 morgen.

I say that this Government’s standpoint is very clear, that black land in South Africa is that land—and this forms the basis of this Act of 1936—which belonged to the Blacks in 1936, which was earmarked, described and accepted as black land by this Parliament at that time, under the leadership of the then United Party of General Hertzog and General Smuts, after many years of deliberation, plus the 7¼million morgen which the Whites have to purchase for them from the white land in South Africa. This is the reply to that question, and it is true that there will be a clearance of black spots; black spots will be exchanged in order to consolidate as far as consolidation is practicable. This will be a process which will continue for years, but I hope and trust that, as far as this Government is concerned, this will put an end to the story of where the boundaries are and what land belongs to the Blacks.

So the story of negotiation over boundaries is only a story?

It is an exchange of black land and white land but everyone knows what land belongs to whom, and of those 7¼ million morgen more than 5 million morgen have already been purchased, and what will still be added to that will be the rest of those 7¼ million morgen. And that is the word of the white man which he gave in this Parliament and which the National Party will honour.

I shall continue. We are now dealing with the Bantu homelands, and once again there is a measure of agreement between my hon. friend and myself to the effect that these homelands should be developed. Of course, when it suits the Opposition, and particularly when they speak from platforms outside, particularly when they are in the vicinity of Zee-rust—and that is a vicinity which my hon. friend the member for Durban (Point) visits on occasion—they take great delight in talking about the great deal which is being done for the “Kaffirs”. But fundamentally we agree with each other that the Bantu homelands must be developed, and I am putting this question to my hon. friend again—I have put it to him before: What are we spending at present on the development of the homelands which the United Party would not spend?

Read the report of the Auditor-General.

Bring me that report then, if the hon. member is an authority on it. The hon. member must then bring it along to this House; this is the place where he must air his grievances, and he must not do so by way of interjection. I should very much like to hear from him what they are. But both of us agree that those homelands must be developed. Now, that is true, and apparently my hon. friend derived great pleasure from quoting certain people during the course of his speech, because my hon. friend will not take it amiss of me if I tell him that his entire speech, as far as this was concerned, consisted of quotations from what people had said; it contained no original thinking or ideas. But what he lost sight of is that of all the people he quoted, not one agrees with him that separate development is wrong.

They merely say that it has failed.

No, they do not even say that it has failed. And if the hon. member informs me that anyone of them says that it has failed, then the hon. member knows that he is unable to find it there; surely he knows that he is merely making statements for the sake of making them, and not because they are in any way well-founded. What they did in fact say was that it was in danger of failing if certain things were not done. The hon. member for Durban (Point) is quite right, and if he walks past here he must kindly whisper it in the ear of the hon. member for Yeoville. Now, it is true that this is a matter on which one can differ. There are people who maintain that the rate is too rapid. There are other people who maintain that the rate is too slow. This is a matter which one can argue about, man to man. One can argue about it in this House for goodness knows how long. It is inevitably a matter to which one must devote attention, and I have never come across a single theorist, not only in respect of this matter, but in respect of any other matter, who did not adopt the attitude that the pace was too slow. This is a customary attitude adopted by theorists, and one need not necessarily find fault with it, but the theorist does not bear the practical responsibility. He does not have the intimate knowledge. What is more, in theory one can play with money just as one pleases, and one need not account to anyone for it. One can build fine castles in the air and one can find the money to finance those castles in the air, because in theory one can do anything, like the young boy who replied when his father asked him what he was going to do one day: “Dad, I shall never be without work, because I am going to paint the castles in the air which you are building.” You see, one can do this very easily. Now, I say that one can argue about whether one is proceeding too rapidly or too slowly. I have discussed this matter very thoroughly with the Minister. As far as my position permitted and my time allowed I have tried to investigate this matter, and what did I find? I found that I was dealing here with an extremely dedicated Minister, whose attention is concentrated on this matter; and I found that, considering the human material—because this is something one dare not lose sight of—with which one has to work, and considering the means at one’s disposal, also considering the overall picture of the development of South Africa, we are developing the Bantu homelands as well and as rapidly as it is possible to do under the given circumstances.

I know that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has now levelled the reproach at us that there are a number of workers in the homelands for whom employment has to be supplied. This is not a problem which is confined to our homelands only. It is a problem which is facing the whole of Africa, in any case the Africa we know. How does one develop a homeland? One can have development by the Bantu themselves, and hon. members know how much development one can at the present moment expect from that source. One can stimulate it by means of the Bantu Development Corporation and the Xhosa Development Corporation, which have done phenomenally good work in this regard. One can expect an ever-increasing degree of development, just as one can expect that as time passes—but one must not be hasty—individual Bantu entrepreneurs will come forward. Or one can develop it on the agency basis. But once again that is easier said than done. Do hon. members remember, when we began with border areas, how difficult it was to get people to go there? It is only human; the people want to live near the big cities. The workers do not want to go and live in outlying areas. We have owing to the benefits we provided, drawn people to those places, and the answers have been given here in this House and we have achieved a good deal of success with that policy. But originally the people did not want to go to the border areas, and why should they now go into the Bantu areas, Where it is even, owing to the reasons which were put forward, more difficult to go? But to me it is not merely a practical problem; to me the problem is one of principle. In principle it is wrong to afford the white man permanence in the land of the Blacks, and I shall stand or fall by that principle. One can grant him a long-term contract on the agency basis, depending upon the industry he is going to develop there, but then he knows precisely that his rights are not permanent, but only temporary. In the case of a labour-intensive organization, this need not be too long, at least not relatively speaking; one could for example make it 25 years, whereas in the case of a mining industry which undertakes development there on the agency basis, one would have to make it for a longer term, depending upon the mineral it is going to mine there and the life of the mine. In that case, for example, 50 years would not be an unreasonable figure. But one cannot assume the right of giving the Whites proprietary rights there. This brings me back to the joke made by the hon. member for Yeoville. If our forefathers—and here I do not claim the credit for our side of the House, but for both sides of the House—had not taken the precaution and had not had the foresight to protect the land tenure of the Blacks, then the Blacks would not have had a scrap of land to-day, because the Whites with their capital, their capacity for work and their initiative would have had all the land; and the Blacks are very sensitive about this. That is why I find it such a pity that the hon. member for Yeoville should have made that joke. It is wrong in principle to allow those people to establish themselves there permanently and to acquire permanent rights there, in the same way as it is wrong in principle for the Blacks to acquire permanent land rights in white South Africa, as the United Party wants. For if you concede that principle, if you concede that the land of the Blacks can be owned by white people, how long will it be before the white people have all the black land? And then you are confronted by this danger. If the Blacks then tell you they want political rights, you cannot tell them they must acquire these in their homeland, for then you as a white Government have done away with it, and then you have stripped your argument of all its moral content. You have then kicked it from under your own feet, and you cannot accommodate them.

I maintain that, against this background, my hon. friend is coming forward with a policy of bringing that frictional element of race into this Parliament; instead of saying to the Blacks that they can exercise their political rights in their own territory, he is saying to them: “I say you have the right to be here.” And my hon. friend will be asked this question, and very soon too: “Why can I not be represented by my own people? I can be better represented by them; it is injurious to my self-respect that I am being represented by others; I want to represent myself through my own people in this House.” And I want to say that my hon. friend will not be able to furnish those people with a moral reply. He will not have a leg to stand on when he has to meet them, because it will be true if they were to say to him: “You decided in principle that I could enter this Parliament, and I am now demanding of you that I be represented by my own people.” That is where the explosion will take place. My hon. friend himself realizes the implications of this argument; he realizes that that demand will be made of him. That is why he comes forward with the story of a special election or a referendum. But, Sir, that is something one cannot entrench; we can no longer entrench things like that in a Parliament; it is merely a story. But my hon. friend went on to state:

My hon. friend states, quite rightly, that pressure will be exerted, and however painful this may be, I must remind him that there was a time when he said that initially it would be Whites, but that ultimately it would be Blacks who would occupy the seats. He then subsequently altered his point of view. I asked him across the floor of this House why he had done so. He told me that it was a result of the pressure which had at that time been brought to bear on him. Now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition states that he can withstand that pressure. I do not think so; I think my hon. friend was quite right in giving way to the pressure previously. He was giving us the correct information at the time. I think he will give way again; this is how I know the Leader of the Opposition; this is how I know the composition of the United Party.

To sum up, Sir, we on the Government side will develop the Bantu homelands. We will have to incur considerable expenditure in that regard, as my hon. friend said here. We shall do our best to achieve this through the individual Blacks or groups of Blacks who have businesses and undertakings there. We shall do it through the agency of the Bantu Investment Corporation. We shall do it on the agency basis and, if it is necessary, we shall make even greater benefits available than we are at present doing for border areas. This one can consider without compromising oneself in that respect. I say that one can give consideration to this, and we shall do so because the Blacks are entitled to that land, but that is not the only reason; we shall do so so that we can have a moral argument to present to the Blacks; If they say to me: “I want political rights,” then I shall tell them: “You can have your political rights, but you can have them in your homeland, and I have left that homeland intact for you. I have not allowed the Whites to get it. In that homeland you can have your political rights.”

You promised that you would deal with the position of the Coloureds.

I shall come to that. The Coloureds do not have a homeland.

Where are their political rights?

This Government granted political rights to all the Coloureds of the Republic of South Africa, men and women in all the provinces of South Africa, for the first time, rights which they never had before. Those political rights include, inter alia, that they will exercise control over certain matters which are peculiar to them. For those purposes money will be given to them. But that is not the end of the story. I have never asserted anything of the kind; neither did my predecessor ever do so; nor has the National Party. On the contrary, we said that one could not deal with the Coloureds on the same basis as the Bantu, because the Coloureds did not have a homeland. That, we said, we would have to leave to the future to decide. But what are you going to get in the end? I am prepared to face up to that consequence. Sir, you will recall that in the very first debate which we conducted here in respect of the Coloureds, I told you that the Coloureds were not yet a nation. They are still finding their souls in the process of becoming a nation. They will become a nation. [Laughter.] My hon. friends on that side can laugh at them, because that is what they are trying to do. They are at a lower level of development, but a Coloured nation will eventually develop here in South Africa. Nobody need have any doubt about that.

In South Africa?

Yes. On the one hand you will have the white nation, consisting of Afrikaans and English-speaking persons, and on the other hand you will have the Coloured nation.

In one country?

In one country. That is the dilemma and the problem of South Africa for the future.

[Inaudible.]

Order! I ask the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) to hold his peace.

Sir, all the hon. member need do is to keep quiet; he need not be unnecessarily rude.

In this country it will eventually come about—and none of us can escape this or argue it away—that one will be dealing with a white nation on the one hand and a Coloured nation on the other. As far as that is concerned our children after us will have to find a solution. We must now lay the foundation for that. There are people who in that process thought—and there is nothing wrong in thinking about this matter—of a homeland for the Coloureds, something which I do not regard as being practical politics. But we have now set their foot on the bottom rung of the ladder, and we have stated very clearly in this Parliament that one will have to find a link between the Coloured Persons Representative Council and this Parliament. It is not going to be so easy; I know that. None of us has any illusions about the matter, but one will be obliged to find it, and I want to tell you that it will be found. By means of that liaison one will determine the relationship between he future Coloured Parliament and the white Parliament. But I want to make this very clear: None of us can bind the future, but in so far as one wants to shape the future, I say that the future does not lie in granting representation to Whites and Coloureds in the same Parliament. The future does not lie in bringing the Coloureds into this Parliament, just as the future does not lie in bringing the Bantu or the Indians into this Parliament. I have said before and I want to repeat it here as my conviction: If one wants peace, then the development must not be towards each other, but must be away from each other. We have placed the Coloureds on that political road. It would be presumption on my part, Sir, if I wanted to say to you that I saw the end of the road. Just as my predecessor did not see it, I do not see it either. But what I can in fact do is to lay the foundations as I think that road will unfold, and I shall lay those foundations with the Coloureds as and when their representatives are chosen, as and when we find the answer to the question of the liaison which there should be between this Parliament and them. I believe that as far as South Africa is concerned we can be very grateful that, despite the potentially inflammable material we have to deal with, we can live in the year 1969 in a South Africa which is calm and peaceful, in a country which is free of tension, because every ethnic group has the opportunity to develop in terms of the policy of separate development, and it is in that policy that my hon. friend has introduced a motion of no confidence. I believe that just as the people outside have rejected it, this Parliament will reject it even more emphatically.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the hon. the Prime Minister would expect me to anticipate the very full reply that my hon. Leader will give to his speech. The Prime Minister has spoken this afternoon for almost an hour and a half, and he spoke for a few minutes yesterday evening. During the whole course of that time he has not rebutted the arguments which had been advanced, backed by statistics and figures, from this side of the House that the policy of the Government as regards separate development is not merely failing, but has already failed. The hon. the Prime Minister has made debating points this afternoon. Among others, he has referred to the results of the by-elections. I think perhaps the one in Johannesburg West is not a very good example, because I remember that after that by-election, when the Nationalist Party expected to increase their majority, there were some rather happy faces on this side of the House when there were a few friendly wagers on the result of that by-election. When it comes to by-elections that are not opposed, I do not attach all that much importance to it, because when I entered this House, I entered at a by-election which was unopposed by the Nationalist Party.

The hon. the Prime Minister admitted this afternoon that he cannot see the end of the road as regards the policy of the Government in respect of the Coloureds and the Indians. I do not want to deal with that, but there are two particular matters in the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech that I do wish to refer to. He said yesterday afternoon that it was natural that there should be “kriewelrigheid” after a party had been in power for 21 years. I think this word “kriewelrigheid” is one of the greatest understatements that I have heard regarding the dissension that is going on within the hon. the Prime Minister’s own party at the present moment over this very policy of separate development and its ultimate aims. The hon. the Prime Minister, ever since this “verligte-verkrampte” quarrel raised its head, has alternated between two extremes in dealing with it. He has either tried to play it down, as he did when he returned after a trip to South West Africa with the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, and as he tried to do yesterday when he used the word “kriewelrigheid”, or he has gone to the complete opposite extreme, as he did when he threw no less than four Cabinet Ministers at one time out of his Cabinet. He also went to the opposite and extraordinary extreme when he used the security police to investigate the authors of the smear letter, who were members of his own party.

You can raise that matter under my Vote if you wish.

I am saying to the hon. the Prime Minister now that in any democratic country it is a most extraordinary step to take, namely to quell dissension within one’s own party by employing the Security Police.

I say that you can raise that matter under my Vote.

The hon. gentleman’s Vote is still coming. But then the hon. the Prime Minister must not merely talk of “kriewelrigheid” if he is to go to the extent of using the Security Police against his own supporters. [Interjections.] This attempt by the hon. the Prime Minister to either play this down or else to use these extreme measures is evidence of the very great disquiet in his own party when it comes to the question of separate development. The hon. the Prime Minister’s speech this afternoon may induce all his followers to come into the Chamber when the division bells ring later, but this is not going to end this ferment that is going on within his own party. It is evidence of a fundamental difference of opinion as to what the ultimate aim of separate development should be in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with just one more point in the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech. It is not a matter which I had intended to raise at all, but it was raised here yesterday by the hon. member for Aliwal. It is the question of the boundaries of the Bantu areas. The hon. the Prime Minister dealt specifically with this matter this afternoon. He said, as the hon. member for Aliwal and as the hon. Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration did—and I am now talking about the one from Somerset East, not from Primrose—that the boundaries of the Bantu areas, the released areas, were all laid down in the 1936 legislation. That is true as far as it goes, but does the hon. the Prime Minister not realize that those boundaries have been changed on numerous occasions since then? Was, for example, in the Eastern Cape the Welcome Wood area ever a released area in terms of the 1936 legislation? Other areas have been excised, but was the Mdantsane area ever a released area under the 1936 legislation? There was an area which the Government declared a released area, simply so that they could move the Ciskei nearer to East London in order to fit in with their policy of border areas. There are two more examples, if the hon. the Prime Minister wants more examples. The area of the Keiskammahoek commonage which, in 1965 or 1966 was declared a released area, is such an example. Then there is the area between Mdantsane and the Buffalo River, which was declared a released area at the same time. This is an area covering some 6,0 morgen. Can the hon. the Prime Minister really maintain that you are not changing the boundaries if you keep on changing the released areas and excising ground in that manner? It may be claimed that the real reference is to the total area concerned, but let me say that this constant chopping and changing of boundaries without the knowledge of where the ultimate boundary is going to be, creates consternation and holds up progress in the areas concerned. It is not merely hon. members of the Opposition who keep on running to the Government to find out where the boundaries are going to be. Hon. members on that side of the House also try without avail to discover where the boundaries of these Bantu areas are going to be.

The hon. the Prime Minister quoted figures from the 1936 Act. I should like to draw his attention to the summary of the report of the Tomlinson Commission. He gave us the figures in regard to the scheduled areas. He mentioned a figure of approximately 10,700,000 morgen, plus the quota of million morgen. I should like to read to him what the Commission found over and above that—

Unfortunately, Sir, it seems that there is also a misconception on the part of the hon. the Prime Minister as to what the eventual position in that connection will be.

Various aspects of Government policy as regards the reserves have been highlighted during this debate, but not very much has been said about whether the agricultural development in the reserves is adequate or in accordance with the recommendations of the Tomlinson Commission. The Tomlinson Commission lays great stress on agriculture. It stated:

It is clear that you have hopelessly lost the fight.

The hon. Chief Whip must be a little patient. We have lots of time. He need not be in such a hurry to run away from this debate. The Commission feared that the white areas would not be able to feed the people. It is in fact the white areas that have fed the people of this country. They have fed them with the use of Bantu labour in those white areas. But let us see how far the government has in fact succeeded in boosting food production within the Bantu areas. There have been improvements because the officials of the Department of Bantu Administration are enlightened. The hon. the Minister the day before yesterday reeled off a whole set of figures. He spoke, for example, of 45,000 miles of fencing. But what has all this achieved in effect? He gave us figures in regard to irrigation. The Tomlinson Commission said that there could be great progress in the field of agriculture within the reserves. The Commission stated:

They proved this with figures of the settlement cost per family. Whereas in the pastoral zone it cost over R1,400 to settle a family, on irrigated land it cost only R165.

Mr. Speaker, the other day the hon. the Minister made great play of the fact that while in 1960 there were some 15,000 morgen of land under irrigation in the reserves, in 1968 there were some 25,000 morgen. That might sound impressive, but what did the commission say about this? The commission said that: “Added to the area already under irrigation, these proposed schemes that are possible in the reserves bring the future irrigable potential of the Bantu areas to 63,341 morgen on which it should be possible to settle 36,000 farming families”. The commission reported in 1954 and since then 15 of the 25 to 30 years, that they recommended for these tasks to be carried out, have elapsed. More than half the time which was recommended, has elapsed, but the Government has not even succeeded half-way in reaching that figure of 63,000 morgen. In fact, they only have 25,000 of the 63,000 morgen under irrigation. Yesterday the hon. member for Durban (Point) mentioned an example in Natal where 2,000 acres of productive soil under irrigation under white ownership and subsequently taken over by, the Bantu Trust, was now producing a fraction of what it used to produce. Let us take the areas in the Eastern Cape, for example the Keiskamma River, which is one of the best rivers in the area with a catchment area of 1,000 square miles and an annual runoff of 85,000 morgen feet. How much irrigation has the Bantu Trust achieved along that river? There are no storage dams and only one or two very minor schemes at Keiskammahoek and down at Fort Cox. What happened when they did buy an irrigation farm on that river called “Dank Den Goewerneur” in the days when Dr. Jansen was the Minister of Native Affairs? It was a flourishing citrus producing farm producing citrus under irrigation. If you go there to-day, or if you go to the settlement in Natal which the hon. member for Durban (Point) mentioned, you will find only a few miserable looking mealies being grown on what is fertile irrigable ground and what used to produce good crops before the Bantu Trust took it over. What about maize, which is the staple food of the Bantu? Before I deal with that I first want to say this. It is not merely the members of the Opposition who decry the lack of agricultural progress in the Bantu reserves. What did Mr. Jan van Rooyen, the special correspondent of Die Burger, write on the 31st October in his series of articles entitled “Die Transkei na vyf jaar”? He said:

Let us remember that this Nationalist Government which talks so much about the agricultural development in reserves, has been in power for 21 of those 30 years.

A disgrace!

The proof of that is the lack of progress there is in maize production, the staple food of the Bantu, in the reserves. Again the commission gave figures of maize production in the reserves. It said that during the period 1946-52 the average yield of grain in the Bantu areas amounted to about 3.3 million bags per annum, while with a residential population of about 3.6 million persons the annual requirement was about 9 million bags. That is, less than half of what was needed, was home grown. The position has not improved since then. If you take the latest available official figures from the latest available statistical year book, you will see that on an average the total yield during the seven years 1955-’56 to 1962-’63, was 2.91 million bags. For 1962-’63, the latest year available it was just over 3 million bags. So, in actual fact, it has gone down from 3.3 million bags to 3.07 million bags, despite the purchase of additional quota ground. What hope have the reserves, whose population is growing at a rate far faster than the Tomlinson Commission envisaged, of ever making a significant contribution towards feeding themselves whilst the rate of progress is either so slow or is minimal or is perhaps even negative? It is clear that for the feeding of the reserves these people will have to rely upon the white agriculture of this country particularly if the Government keeps on with their policy of pushing people back into the reserves and removing them from elsewhere. If this Government remains in power, these people will have to rely on a white agriculture whose labour force is being interfered with more and more by governmental authority. Hon. members on that side of the House have Bantu settled on their farms who have been there for generations. The hon. the Deputy Minister himself gave us an example the other day when he was discussing the resettlement villages, of how a pensioner family had to be removed from his farm to one of those resettlement villages. He also told us how he kept this family on his farm for such a long time. That is proof from themselves that this is the traditional labour force on many of our farms. I am sorry that the hon. the Deputy Minister is not here at the moment, because I would have liked to ask him whether he really thinks that he can rely on a system of migrant labour on a stock farm for the people who herd his sheep, for the people who look after his stud cattle, for the people who have to go to the shows on which he exhibits those cattle? Does he really think that he can rely on a system of migrant labour who come for a year and then are trained after which they have to go back to the reserves? Is this really what the hon. the Deputy Minister thinks he can rely on? This is farcical. The Government is refusing for ideological reasons to do any training whatsoever, of Bantu for use of agriculture in the white areas. We have had enough instances of neglect of white agriculture in this country by this Government. This is yet another example of their adding to the burdens of the farmer, adding to the burdens of drought, of low prices, of high costs by interfering with the normal free flow of labour. One of these days, if the time has not already arrived, this Government is going to succeed in breaking white agriculture in this country which has to feed the reserves. It is not surprising that no less a person than a member of the executive of the Cape Provincial Council, Dr. Munnik, said recently that farmers should train their sons to do other work in case there was a crisis in agriculture. Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of “in case there is a crisis in agriculture”. There is a crisis in agriculture and this Government, because of its attitude towards migrant labour, is going to worsen that crisis. Mr. Speaker, that gentleman gave the advice to the farmers of the country that they should train their people to do other work. He would have been very much better advised to tell them to train their children so that they can farm more efficiently. Just what does this Government want? They want us to have less Bantu labour on our farms in common with the rest of the white economy, but they refuse to assist us to make the Bantu labour more efficient. This is a case of their policy just going round and round in a circle and the net result of it all is going to be that agriculture in this country is going to find it more and more difficult to feed the Bantu areas which cannot sustain themselves.

Mr. Speaker, for five days we have been conducting a no-confidence debate on certain matters. I want to congratulate the Opposition on one single improvement in this regard. Whereas in all previous years they used bird-shot as ammunition in this debate, bird-shot in which they had substituted salt for the pellets and which was totally ineffective, they have at least succeeded this year to shoot with a Martini Henry. They took a single theme and hammered at that all the time. If only they had hammered at that one theme until they had reached its core, which would have given the people outside a clear understanding of the matter, one could still have given them credit for their attitude. However, it seems to me as though the bullet they used in this Martini Henry was a piece of candle-wax, as it was ineffective too and did not even penetrate the surface. On the other hand, this side of the House was the only one which used a scalpel and made a fine analysis. Our members were the only ones who eventually penetrated to the core of the matter and said what was being done, what exactly was happening and how the matter was developing. In other words, this entire debate which affords an opportunity for discussion on a very high level, even on this occasion where we have been dealing with a specific theme, has once again produced no result of the Opposition having penetrated to the basic concepts.

I do not want to react to what was said by the hon. member who has just sat down. He spoke about agriculture and that is a theme about which I do not know a great deal. I say this quite frankly and I am prepared to admit this here.

What about agricultural development in the Bantu areas?

I shall discuss that, if necessary. The hon. member who has just sat down, again raised the matter of the boundaries. I just want to tell the hon. member that the hon. the Prime Minister gave him a crystal-clear reply in regard to the boundary situation. A certain number of morgen will be purchased in each province in order to establish the final boundaries. The question of exactly where the boundaries will be, will be determined on the basis of negotiations amongst the various authorities. The hon. member spoke of having a border at some place and then again somewhere else. I want to challenge the hon. member to show me a single piece of land which used to be white land and which subsequently became Bantu land, and then once again became White land, or vice versa, as he maintained. Negotiations do in fact take place, but there is no such thing as land which used to be white land and which became Trust land, subsequently becoming white land again. This does not happen, and this is the allegation the hon. member wanted to make here.

A major part of the speech I wanted to make has become redundant because of the excellent speech made by our Prime Minister in which he gave direction in a frank and clear way and in which he told us in a statesmanlike manner exactly where we were standing and in which direction we were moving. His was the speech of a convinced man who knows where he is going and who knows the exact direction he is taking, unlike the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, who is continuously chopping and changing. The matter I should like to take up with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is the question of White leadership under his policy. I think it is time that the public and everyone outside should get clarity about this conception of White leadership and what exactly it includes. I think we had better analyse that conception in some detail. I want to start by asking the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, if he would be so kind as to reply, how a leader is designated in the United Party. Surely he does not inherit his leadership, but is elected at a congress by certain people who are entitled to vote and who elect the leader in that way. In other words, the leadership of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is linked to the idea that there are followers and that these followers elect him as their leader. Or is there some other way of designating a leader in that Party? I want to proceed. There is also a way in which the Leader of the Opposition can be removed from his position of leader. He can be removed from his position because those followers no longer have any confidence in him or have confidence in someone else. On some occasion a proposal will be made and that hon. Leader will then be removed from his position if the majority went against him and another leader would be elected. In other words, the power of terminating leadership of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not in his own hands—unless he resigns voluntarily—but is in the hands of his followers. They decide whether he is to be leader and for how long he is to remain leader.

I also want to deal with a third aspect. That is that a leader can only be a leader if he has the approval, support and loyalty of his followers. If he does not have the support and the approval of his followers, he has no leadership. In other words, and this is the image I want to use, leadership in the case of the Opposition or whatever organization is automatically linked to followers. The power to decide on a leader is in the hands of the followers. He remains leader as long as his followers want him, and when they no longer want him, the followers have it within their power to elect a new leader or to reject him. Against this background I want to analyse the hon. the Leader of the Oppositon’s concept of white leadership in South Africa. White leadership, as is also the case as regards leadership of a party, therefore rests on the fact that there have to be followers, and not only within the party itself. If he wants to make the white nation the leader in Southern Africa the followers in that case are the non-white nations who have to follow the leadership of the white nation. The non-white nations therefore are the followers and the white nation is the leader. That is leadership. The first concept about which I want to cross swords with the hon. the Leader is whether the non-Whites of South Africa, who have to accept this white leadership of the hon. the Leader, have ever indicated on a single occasion that they were prepared to accept the hon. the Leader’s party, his policy and his leadership? Are the followers prepared to accept this leader? This is the first question, because it is a basic one. If the followers are not prepared to follow the leader, such leadership is useless. If the non-Whites are not prepared to accept the leadership of the white nation then surely that leadership is completely futile and one will not achieve anything at all. I also want to raise a second argument, and that is the argument of the election of the leader. Have the non-White races of South Africa on any occasion elected and designated the white race as their leader? Have they really accepted the white race completely as their leader and will they accept it as such at all times? I also want to ask a third question and I think that this is the essence of the whole argument. This therefore obviously means that when the non-white races decided that they no longer accepted the leadership of the white nation, they would have the power to say, “Now we reject white leadership and now we elect our own leader”. The threat to the whole concept of white leadership is to be found in this. In other words, eventually the power then passes into the hands of the non-White nations of South Africa to decide for or against the leadership of the Whites. This is the proof I want. Is this really what the Opposition has in mind? Does the Opposition want to see that this power passes into the hands of the non-White nations? Then the concept of White leadership is a true one and White leader ship, and the word “leadership” itself has any meaning. This means that the non-Whites have the free choice to reject the leadership of the Whites whenever it suits them to do so. If to-day the hon. the Leader of the Opposition were to agree with me that this was the true interpretation of that concept, I would say that his concept of white leadership had some substance. If he were to tell me, however, that white leadership meant that the followers, i.e. the non-White nations, were never going to get any say about the desirability, or the efficiency, or the necessity of the white nation as leader, I would say that his whole concept of white leadership was a soap bubble which ought to be pricked because there would no longer be any sense in calling it leadership. Then it would develop into one concept only, namely the brutal domination (baasskap) of the non-Whites by the Whites for now and for all times to come. Then the whole concept of leadership would mean nothing and would be immoral and extremely dangerous. When we told the hon. the Leader that the concept he was advocating here was that of white supremacy, he said he preferred the term white leadership. Now I want to tell him that he is bluffing no one with his white leadership. If he says “white leadership” and accepts the view that the followers can reject the leader whenever it suits them to do so, then the term means something, but otherwise it has no meaning under any circumstances. But I do not think that this is what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition means, I do not think he means that he wants to give the non-Whites this authority, and I think that in his heart of hearts he is concerned with one thing only, and that is vote-catching. He believes that if he can advocate a disguised version of white supremacy—this is how he interprets the present temperature and climate in this country—he will be able to catch votes, the votes of certain people who may at present be supporters of the Government, but that he will be able to get past the international world as well as the liberalists in his own ranks with that disguised and sugar-coated version of white leadership. That is the whole object behind this. But one cannot have one’s cake and eat it, and I want to pin him down at one concept. Either his white leadership means what it means, namely the non-White nations gaining authority over white leadership, in which case I can give him the guarantee that he will not get one single vote from this side, or it means white domination in its most brutal form, in which case I assure him he will experience numerous difficulties from overseas as well as from the liberalists in his own Party. What is more, he will not attract any of our people, because our people cannot be bought over by that point of view. That would mean that the United Party wanted to appoint itself as leader for all times to come. That is the concept he wants. That is clearly evident from the whole speech of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He said there was an enduring difference between White and non-White, as had been pointed out by the hon. the Prime Minister. When the non-Whites had reached our present stage in a 100 years’ time, we would have progressed another 100 years, and consequently there would be perpetual white leadership, and consequently perpetual domination. If we could be enfrachised at this stage of development and on the basis of our numbers and the Bantu reached our present stage of development in a number of years, on what moral grounds was he still going to refuse the vote to the Bantu? Would he in that case raise the voting qualifications in order to give the vote to the new super-whites alone? Will he raise them? Or will he recognize the principle that if a man reaches the stage at which we are at present, he will be entitled to vote? Because then surely his whole argument falls away. Now I want to ask him the following question. Are the non-Whites in Nigeria or in Ghana on the same level of development, or do they have the same standard of living as the Whites? The answer is no in each case, but yet they have demanded and obtained full voting rights, full authority and government. They did not ask what the level of development was, nor will the non-Whites do so in the case of the hon. the Leader.

The hon. the Leader has one single idea in all his devising and that is to play a double game once again, to tell some people it means domination when it suits him to do so, and to tell others, “No, no, it merely means white leadership”—when it suits him to do that. That double standard does not work when we want to analyse the concepts to the core and when we want to examine them in fine detail, because then we want the facts as they are. Therefore this argument of the hon. the Leader also falls away completely. He cannot appoint the Whites as for all times to come leaders—on the contrary. The position is very clear. It is exactly as the hon. the Prime Minister has said, namely that these are the perfect conditions for a powder-keg to explode, i.e. when one tells people they will be subordinate to another group of people for all times to come, whereas they have their own ideals and their own ideas. This in no way is in keeping with or takes into account the developments of the twentieth century; it does not in any way take into consideration the development in these times, especially in Africa after 1960; it ignores every political reality of this century. It does not in any way take into account the development and awakening of Black nationalism in various black states as well as amongst our own non-Whites. Does the hon. the Leader not know that the concept of nationalism, as love for those things which are one’s own and the awakening in a nation, is an irresistible force? Let me illustrate this with an image. It is a power similar to that of the mushroom which cracks the asphalt and reaches the surface if it wants to emerge. We have seen this in practice. It is like the grass which pushes its way through the asphalt to emerge, nothing stops it. It does not take into account nationalism, the awakening of black nationalism is completely overlooked, and this is completely unacceptable to us in this connection. It is a typical, political move, a manoeuvre with words in an attempt to get away with things because he does not want to accept the consequences of our policy and of South Africa’s problem; he refuses to accept them.

Usually the Opposition takes General Hertzog to be the spiritual father of the United Party, the founder of that Party. General Hertzog is usually held up as the leader. In 1926 General Hertzog said the following, but the Opposition now completely denies the ideas he expressed at that time and now says the direct opposite. His point of view was as follows (translation)—

—I accept he meant this in the constitutional sense of the word—

I stress the word “majority”. He went on to say—

This is what General Hertzog said in 1926. At that time the Bantu were under age, at a later stage they would come of age, and then a decision would have to be taken on how majority was to be granted to them. That was his attitude. Now I want to tell the hon. the Leader immediately that this minority of the Bantu is passing rapidly and is developing into majority. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout complains that the Bantu have already come of age but that we have not yet given them their majority. Elsewhere they have already come of age, the rest of Africa has already given them their majority, has already given the authority over their own affairs, but as yet we have not done this in respect of our own Bantu. This is the complaint of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. What kind of coming of age, what kind of majority does the United Party now want to give the Bantu? When they obtain their majority, does that party want to give them a subordinate role which will bind them for all times as subordinate to a white Parliament where they will be in the minority? It would be everlasting. That would mean that the Bantu would never have any ideal to strive for, and a nation cannot live without an ideal, it revolts. The Afrikaner nation came into its own because it did have ideals to strive for; that was the force which urged it on, namely the ideals it pursued. Those ideals were pursued and they are being realized one by one. What ideal can that party offer the Whites in South Africa as well as the non-Whites in terms of its policy? The highest it can offer the non-Whites in all honesty, is: Well, you may eventually have eight Whites in this House. That is the approach at present. That is the highest ideal it offers the Bantu at present. They may have eight representatives for all the Bantu nations of South Africa, with all the development they are undergoing, with all that is still in store for them. That is the most that side can offer the Bantu, eight Whites in this House; that, then, is the highest form of Government they may have. And the hon. the Leader wants to tell me that the Bantu will accept this. No, Sir, I say that the ideal which the black man sets for himself, an ideal without which no nation on earth will be satisfied because it is a nation, is self-determination as regards its own destiny in the circumstances. It will always hold up that ideal. The actual position, which I want to put to the hon. the Leader, is the following. There is one of two alternatives as regards this ideal. Either the Bantu realizes his ideal in this Parliament with full realization according to his preponderance in numbers, or he realizes the ideal in his own homeland, which happens to be our policy. But no matter what the position may be, the Bantu will eventually realize that ideal.

Having exposed the Opposition’s concept of white leadership, I now want to proceed to my second analysis of their policy. That side has the so-called safeguard of a referendum by the white electorate of South Africa when it comes to increasing the number of representatives in this Parliament. The hon. the Leader said that the Bantu would have eight white representatives in this House and six in the Other Place. This is the basis from which they proceed; this is the basic concept. The Leader said that if any pressure, no matter what kind of pressure, were to be brought to bear for any change with regard to the Bantu representatives, no change would be effected with regard to the number or colour of the representatives unless a referendum on the matter had been held amongst the white electorate of South Africa. Now I want to ask a few questions to which I should like to have answers; the Leader will reply to the debate when I have resumed my seat, and I should like to have answers to my questions.

The first question I should like to ask, is the following. But first of all allow me to sketch the position as I see it. There would be eight Whites sitting in the House as the representatives of the Bantu. Those eight people would represent the millions of Bantu, all the various Bantu nations. The Bantu might react and say: “No, we are no longer satisfied, we no longer want eight representatives, we want black representatives in the House, we want more representatives, we want representation in accordance with our numbers.” Agitation would ensue and there might be a big fuss about this, and in the end the present hon. Leader of the Opposition might say: “Very well, in 1968, when I was still the Leader of the Opposition, I said we would decide this only by way of a referendum amongst the white electorate, and I shall now accommodate you by calling a referendum.” Surely that is what will happen in practice. Now I should like to ask the Leader this question, and I should like to have a reply. If what I have just outlined were to come to pass, what advice would he give the white electorate from the platform in regard to the way they should vote?

Surely that is not a new question.

No, but as yet I have never had a reply; therefore I am repeating the question. Let us see whether we shall get a reply to-day. A few years ago this Government held a referendum on the establishment of a Republic, and our Leader and all of us plainly said from the platforms, “Vote ‘Yes’ for the Republic”, and the hon. the Leader and his people also took a stand by saying, “No, vote ‘No’, we are monarchists”; and fortunately the nation in its wisdom made the right decision. I want to ask whether anyone on that side would say to-day that we should abandon the Republic and return to the monarchy. I wonder whether there is one of them who would say that. The fact of the matter is that when that situation arises, a situation which is so important that a referendum must be held, the two leaders cannot abstain or refrain from taking a stand. They will have to take a stand. We will be forced to take a stand and so will that hon. the Leader. Now I am asking him again: What stand will he take, what will he tell his electorate in regard to the way they should vote? Will he tell them. “Yes, those eight Whites must now be increased to 12 or 20 in number”? Will he say to them, “Yes, those eight Whites must be replaced by Blacks from now on”? If he were to tell them that, and they voted for that, then that would be one point of view and our prediction would have come true, i.e. that there will be Blacks sitting in this Parliament, and once we have the Blacks here, their numbers will grow as a result of pressure. And they will not be satisfied before they have representation in Parliament according to their numbers, and that means that they will be in the majority here. If, on the other hand, the hon. the Leader were to advise the electorate, “No, do not vote for an increase in their numbers, say no, their numbers may in no way be increased or changed as regards colour, they must remain exactly as they are at present”, then surely this concept of a referendum is a big bluff, it is all bluff; and whom is the Leader trying to take in by it?

My argument is very clear and we should like to hear from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition what his advice to the electorate will be when this stage is reached. We should like to have an honest reply and I think today is the time to give a reply because the people outside are also interested.

I want to give the hon. the Leader credit for this and I want to accept that, for the sake of the world outside and in view of the circumstances outside as well as in the interests of his own electorate, he would recommend to his electorate, “Let us vote ‘No’, they may not have more representatives and they may not be Black, they must remain eight Whites”. Let us give him the benefit of the doubt, let us give him credit on the assumption that this will be his point of view. Let us assume then that the electorate would vote for the retention of eight white representatives. Now I want to ask the Leader another friendly question. Will the Blacks resign themselves to the result of such a referendum? Will they, in the first place, accept the fact that the Whites take a final decision on the matter? Will they accept the result of a referendum, in the second place, and will they retire with the words, “They are opposed to this and now we are satisfied; we shall try again in 20 years’ time”? Does the hon. the Leader accept that this will be what will happen? What will be the attitude of those people? Or will those black people revolt, as usually happens, against the whole idea and say, “We do not submit ourselves to the white man’s decision. If he tells us to exercise our political rights in this House, we want to do so according to our numbers and our ability and not according to any regulations”.

The hon. member for Yeoville has already decided this matter for himself, and I want to quote him something which has already been mentioned here to-day. It is an old quotation, but I think it is necessary for him to be reminded of it once again. In the days when the pressure was more severe, he was prepared to say—as a matter of fact it was as clear as crystal to him—that the referendum would not have the result we have in mind now. He said it very clearly, and I quote what he said in 1965 (Hansard, Vol. 13, Col 605). He was referring to what the present Minister of Bantu Administration and Development had said and expressed himself as follows—

Now, I at once want to give credit to the hon. member for having said that it would not happen immediately.

But he will have a hard time at Newcastle.

He said that it would not happen immediately, and now I want to ask this question as I think it is time we received an honest reply and as this debate dealt specifically with this matter. I now call on him to give the final reply: What exactly is he going to do as regards the question of advice and if the non-Whites do not accept the result of the ballot? How is he going to act against the Bantu in that case? Will he force it upon them, with military power, if necessary? Will he have the courage to do so? Or will he simply yield to the pressure? I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is in an ideal position to-day to tell the people clearly whether his “white leadership” means that the followers have any say over his leadership, so that the followers may decide who is to be the leader and who is to become the new leader; and if this is true as far as his white leadership is concerned, then it means that we have transferred the power to the Bantu and those other nations of many colours, and they will decide whether the Whites are to remain the leaders or not, because that is the implication. If he does not say that this is so, then his word “leadership” means nothing and is but the concept of domination in disguise. Then he would be departing completely from all previous policies, because all parties in this country have always said: We believe in a policy of guardianship of the Whites over the non-Whites: and surely guardianship means the gradual emancipation of the ward. It means leading them step by step until at some stage they are in a position where they will become emancipated and be a ward no longer.

Surely this is so, otherwise it should not be termed guardianship, but slavery. But if one wants to uplift them, if one wants to emancipate them, then one must train and uplift them step by step until such a stage is reached where one might say to them, “No you have attained to the full status; now you have come of age and now you may be emancipated completely; now you are on your own”. And then one of two alternatives remains, either here or in his homeland. But the hon. member’s problem is the following. He refuses to accept the position of black domination. He would rather play a double game so that he may get around both sides, as usual. Our policy is one of emancipation and we say that we shall emancipate the black man and shall eventually put the ward in a position to attain autonomy and majority. This we say without any doubt, and we say this openly, and we say this to all our voters, and there is not one of them that still takes exception to this, except the Van der Merwes, who are not our supporters. We say that our final objective will be complete sovereign independence for the separate black states. All of us say this only the Van der Merwes say they want to do something else. [Interjections.] This idea we support namely, that we believe in, and I want to use the term as Dr. Verwoerd did, the supremacy of the white man in the country of the white man, and in exactly the same way we believe in the supremacy of the black man in his own country. This is the policy: the Bantu each in their own country—each Bantu nation.

Must all of them be in the homelands?

The ideal state of affairs was outlined very clearly by the Prime Minister. On the concept of complete apartheid the Prime Minister took a stand so clearly that if the hon. member does not understand it, he should simply say that he does not understand it, because I am in full agreement with what the Prime Minister said, as all of us are, and I do not want to repeat what he said. The fact remains that this is the ideal state of affairs, and we are trying to move in that direction as rapidly as one can in practice, so that one may eventually grant them sovereignty when they are mature enough for it. But this we believe to be the solution, and not what the hon. members wish to do, namely to manoeuvre its way through the various political parties.

I wish to touch on one more concept. [Interjections.] I want replies to these direct questions and I hope the Leader of the Opposition has sufficient courage to give me these replies. What I want to know is this: As regards this question of assistance to and development in the homeland, is the Leader of the Opposition telling us to accelerate development in the homeland? In that case he is admitting by implication that our policy is the right one, and that we should only proceed more rapidly. The criticism expressed by certain learned persons and academic men did not concern the question whether the policy was right or wrong. They support this policy wholeheartedly. They only said we were not implementing it rapidly enough. In other words, they are even stronger supporters of the policy than the Leader of the Opposition thinks. He should therefore not appeal to them. [Time expired.]

The speech made by the hon. the Minister of Information was really disappointing. We had hoped that he would come along again this year and speak, as he did last year, about homelands for the Coloureds and his concept of the future development of the Coloureds.

Answer my questions first.

Are we to understand now that he still holds that opinion? Are we to understand that ther policy of emancipation amounts to the fact that the Coloured will eventually be on an equal footing with the Whites? Then he came forward with a whole series of hackneyed questions which I had virtually written down beforehand and which I will reply to when I come to them in the course of my speech.

I did not speak about Limehill. I did not want to speak about that, but the replies given in that connection gave me a certain amount of trouble. The first thing is this. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development whether it is true that a request was forwarded to him by a committee of clergymen before any removals took place.

Yes, and I deemed it unnecessary to receive them and furnished them with a detailed written reply of ten pages.

The other question I wanted to ask, is this: It has been suggested here that there was no consultation between the Department of Health and the Department of Bantu Administration and Development prior to the removal.

There was daily contact. What is the next question?

This is our difficulty. The Minister of Health made a statement on 10th December, after an investigation had been carried out by his Department, and he said that the investigation had revealed that no serious outbreaks of disease had occurred in the area recently and that the death rate was no higher than could normally be expected in a similar population group elsewhere in the Republic. He said that there was only one instance of typhoid fever. Now, that was on 10th December. But on Wednesday, if I am not mistaken, he said in this House that there had been 18 cases of typhoid fever. I am sorry that the Minister of Health is not here at the moment.

He said that at Limehill alone there had been one case.

It appears to me that in the course of the year there were 18 cases in these three areas. Subsequently, in his statement to the Press, the Minister stated that there had been 19 deaths in these three months—i.e. September, October and November—because the statement was made in December. However, when he spoke here the day before yesterday, he spoke of 73 deaths in the course of five months. Does this mean that there were other deaths during the previous period, or were other areas included? This is something the nation ought to know.

Is that an argument for the Leader of the Opposition to use?

I put forward a matter in this House and I expected answers from the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and his Deputies and from the hon. the Prime Minister. I must say that I think they are the worst replies I have ever received to a debate. [Interjection.] When one thinks of the reply given by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration, it always reminds one of the opening words of the incredible fable, De Kleine Johannes: “It is mainly a fable.” I think that that should have been the Minister’s introduction. What did the hon. gentleman say? He said: “Thank goodness, this debate is longer this time, for now we shall be able to reply to everything.” But what exactly did he reply to?

A red nought.

For a whole hour he was running away from the old objectives of his Party and trying to lay emphasis on political say in order to get away from figures. Where do his argument and that of the Prime Minister end? The Prime Minister says that it is possible to maintain separate development, even if there are a million of them in one’s midst; it depends upon the political basis. But he admits that his ideal is the largest possible number of non-Whites in the reserves, and that is also his policy, but he is steadily moving away from that ideal and then he still tells us that he is making progress. He is steadily moving away from the ideal cherished by the Minister of Bantu Administration, but they say that they are making progress. Sir, what is the use of a beautiful theory if one cannot implement it?

There is a beetle that makes that kind of progress.

He speaks of the phenomenal improvement as regards the clearance of black spots, but in spite of that we find that the Bantu in the white areas are steadily increasing.

I shall go further. The hon. the Prime Minister asked me why we had no confidence in his Government—after all, they were making such splendid progress. But this is progress in reverse. They are full of confidence in their retreat. If he asks me why we have no confidence, my reply is that we have no confidence, not only because this policy is already in the process of failing, but also because it has already failed. Secondly, notwithstanding the fact that the policy is in the process of failing, the Prime Minister is still prepared to terminate white leadership over large parts of South Africa. What is the case which was made out here? I made the statement that one of the objectives of this policy was separation between black and white, and the hon. the Prime Minister admitted that this was the ideal, the goal. I quoted from the white paper on the Tomlinson Report. I said that I would accept that this was their policy, that they would be satisfied if in 50 years’ time there were equal numbers of Blacks and Whites in the white area. Notwithstanding the fact that that is their ideal, there was an influx of Bantu from their areas to white areas at a rate of 120,000 a year from 1951 to 1960 and after that, if my figures are correct, the rate increased to 142.000 a year. Mr. Sneaker, what will the population figures be by the year 2000? I emphasized the fact that even if they wanted to achieve their objective of equal numbers by the year 2000, they would have to move about 250.000 Bantu a year back to their homelands, and if the new figures which have now been released by Dr. Stoker are correct, then it is almost 400,000 a year. And what are they doing, Sir? The flow of Bantu is in precisely the opposite direction, to such an extent that in spite of everything the Government is doing and says it has done and is going to do, the Bantu population here in the white areas has increased in the urban areas alone by more than 2 million over the past 16 years.

That includes the natural increase.

Of course, this does include the natural increase, but one should not think that they have stopped multiplying in the reserves. Notwithstanding the hon. the Minister’s statements to the effect that the ratio between Whites and non-Whites has remained constant in industry since 1948

In 1958. I did not say 1948.

According to an unrevised copy of the Hansard report the hon. the Minister mentioned 1948, but I accept what he says. Notwithstanding that statement we find that in the manufacturing industry the percentage of Whites has decreased from 30 per cent to round about 25 per cent, and this is expected to be round about 20 per cent by the end of 1971. If one takes the figures for the whole of South Africa, one finds that the percentage of non-Whites in all our business undertakings here is increasing at a steadily increasing rate, and what we have here is not separation but integration at a more rapid pace than we have ever had before.

If you had your way, what would happen then?

What was the hon. the Minister’s reply to my charge? The answer was, in the first place, that numbers were not the most important criterion. No, Sir, it is possibly not the most important criterion, but it may be a criterion of success and it may be a criterion of failure, and the figures leave no room for doubt—a very important criterion of failure as far as this policy is concerned. The hon. gentleman does not even try to deny that the figures I quoted are correct. He accepts that the numbers have increased by more than 2 million in the past 17 years. Notwithstanding the fact that I have asked him and have repeatedly asked the hon. the Prime Minister to give us an estimate of the cost which would have to be incurred to make this policy a reality, to develop it to such an extent that they would be closer to their ideal, they both remain silent. Not a word was heard from them. They do not mention cost. Now the hon. the Minister says for the second time: This is out policy, we carry it our, it does not matter what the cost is Sir, why do they remain silent? Are they afraid to tell the nation? Surely, they have economists and scientists to estimate these things for them? Why are they afraid to tell the nation? The amount is probably so large that they know that the nation will not be prepared to make those sacrifices. All we could get from the hon. the Minister was an admission that in the first ten years they spent 50 per cent more than Tomlinson recommended. I accept this. But how many of Tomlinson’s objectives have they achieved with that extra money they have spent?

They are wasting their money.

Tomlinson asked for 20,000 opportunites for employment to be created annually in industry in the reserves. How many have been created? Over the past six years fewer than 1,000, and yet they have spent 50 per cent more than Tomlinson recommended.

Within the reserves.

Tomlinson recommended that 300,000 families be resettled so that agriculture might be placed on a sound basis. How many families have been resettled? Tomlinson asked that the nature of land tenure be changed. Has this ever been undertaken? No, they washed their hands of this matter as far as the Transkei is concerned, and handed the question of land ownership over to the Legislative Assembly. In Chapter 49 of the Tomlinson Report an indication is given of what the money is to be spent on. Mention is made there of an amount of R54 million to be spent on the reclamation of ground, and we hear that the position in the reserves to-day is virtually worse than it was ten years ago. Sir, what is the use of reading out this list? If they had only implemented Tomlinson’s plans, it would have been possible for them to have settled approximately 10 million Bantu in the reserves by the year 1986 or 1990, but at their rate, what is the position going to be? They are making less and less progress and steadily moving away from the ideal of which they themselves spoke. What are the excuses for this slow rate of development? I think that the excuses they are making are very unimpressive. There are attempts at blaming the Bantu. It is said that these people cannot develop more rapidly than they have developed up to now. It is said that the pace depends upon the consent of the white community. Sir, if it depends upon the consent of the white community, then, if I am to believe Die Transvaler, it is going very, very slowly, because was it not Die Transvaler which stated in a leader that the Afrikaners in particular were indifferent to the policy, that they were not interested in it?

This is an instruction which they gave.

Sir, what is the position of the intellectuals to-day as far as this policy is concerned? Surely, these are the people who originally supported them.

Still support them.

Surely, these are the people who tried to support the policy, who tried to give the policy final shape, who tried to examine the policy. Now we hear from Die Barger that a national congress is necessary to reconcile the intellectuals with the Party. The hon. the Minister admits that he does not have unlimited time for implementing his policy. I am glad about that admission, because he seems to be blissfully unaware of the dangers of a too slow rate of development and the disaster we could be heading for. He and the hon. the Prime Minister blame me for calling in witnesses to support me as regards this criticism which does not support my policy, but is their evidence not all the more weighty; should all the more attention not be given to it?

Mention me one intellectual who supports your policy.

Mr. Speaker, have you ever heard such a ridiculous question? Forty-five per cent of the voters of South Africa voted for this policy. The hon. the Prime Minister would be surprised to hear how many of his former supporters are supporting this policy. But, Sir, there was another phenomenon which was a tragic one, and that was the hon. the Minister’s statement that he did not know as yet what the numbers of the Bantu were. He said that one might just as well try to count the birds of the heavens. Is this the position in which we now find ourselves, that the hon. the Minister in charge of this Department does not know how many Bantu there are? Is that why he cannot give me an estimate of the cost of future development, and is it not possible that these figures may even be much higher than my estimate? The hon. gentleman is apparently quite unaware of the danger of migratory labour and the evils connected with it, because the entire Bantu labour force in South Africa must be converted into migratory labour in terms of their policy.

Sir, the hon. the Minister was supported by his two Deputy Ministers. One of them is not here this afternoon, but let us draw a veil over his speech. However, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education is present. Sir, his was indeed a tragic speech. The hon. gentleman tried to attack the United Party policy; he said “You want to give the people family life,” and then he came forward with a figure for the number of single Natives in South Africa. He multiplies it by five; he says the answer is 8 million and that that will be the number of Natives in the white area, over and above those who are there now, if the United Party came into power. Sir, the hon. gentleman is wrong. There are only 4½ million Bantu left in the reserves. He forgot that large numbers of single Bantu were coming from abroad, people who are not our own Natives, to whom we never promised family life. Then the hon. gentleman tells us that he has decreased the Bantu population of the Peninsula by 4.184 in one year. But at the same time he tells us that he has removed 5.256 children. In other words, the number of adults increased by considerably more than 1,000. He then asked, “Does this look like a policy which is a failure?” Mr. Speaker, to me it looks like nothing else. It is a policy which is a failure. Then the hon. gentleman boasts of the new agency basis with which he is going to lure more industrialists to the reserves. He does at least admit that the present system is unsatisfactory and that criticism against it over the years was justified. The present policy has never made any progress. Now he realizes that he must make it very much more attractive. Why does he not once and for all do the right thing and take over the policy of the United Party! [Interjections.] Is that a reply to the charge which I levelled in connection with separation? There has not been and there is no division. There is more and more integration; the hon. members only speak of separation.

Then there was the second statement I made, i.e. that their second objective was to create separate states. We agreed that anybody could create a separate state, but that it would be extremely irresponsible if there were not sufficient development so to enable that State at least to provide employment to a decent percentage of the population. What do we find? How many opportunities for employment have been created in the reserves over the past six or seven years? A mere 1,000 in industry. It is estimated that within the next four or five years work will have to be provided for at least 39,000 new work-seekers in the reserves each year. If the Government’s policy is implemented and they try to decrease the Native population in the white areas at the rate of 5 per cent per year, Professor Sadie estimates that as from 1975 opportunities for employment will have to be created in the reserves for 180,000 new employees annually. What hope is there at the moment that the majority of the Bantu will ever be able to make a living in the reserves under that policy? I challenged the hon. the Minister to deny that in the reserves there were at least 400,000 families which had to be resettled and that it would most probably cost R800 million. Nobody contradicted me. Nobody queried my figures, but what is being done and where is it being done? Every day that we delay there are additional families that must be resettled. I spoke of the situation in Zululand, where there are at least 2 million people who must be resettled. It is quite clear that 1½ million of them must be resettled in an industrial area. Where are the employment opportunities going to be created for them? After all Zululand is the easiest, because virtually the whole of Zululand is a border area. When we ask what has been done, we hear of the creation of various kinds of authorities and we hear about how many miles of fencing have been put up. We hear of all kinds of development, but there are not sufficient opportunities for employment in the reserves to afford employment to the natural increase of the Natives who are living there. What is more, the Bantu are still flowing into the White areas in tremendous numbers The worst, however, is that the standard of living of the Bantu in the reserves is getting lower.

Where do you get that from?

Dr. Adendorff, Chairman of the Bantu Development Corporation, furnished these figures in a speech.

He definitely did not say that!

I have a copy of the speech in which that is stated. Look it up and compare his figure on the, standard of living with that of Tomlinson 16 years before, and what does one find? One finds that the per capita income increased from R48 in 1950 to R53 in 1966-’67. If one takes the value of money into account, one finds that, the real income has decreased. It is stated there. Then the hon. the Prime Minister still tells me that they are developing as rapidly as possible. If they are developing as rapidly as possible, then I must frankly tell the hon. the Prime Minister that his policy has already failed. I am not the only one to say that the development is not rapid enough. Professor Coetzee, Professor Sadie, Dagbreekand Woord en Daad say the same.

Graaff says it is not rapid enough.

Yes, Graaff has said it for years, and the hon. members on this side agree with me. Then the hon. the Prime Minister says that I must tell him what I will not spend of the money he is spending in the reserves. The hon. the Minister cannot even give me an estimate of what is needed in order to make a success of his policy. The hon. the Prime Minister knows very well that if he makes use of private capital for the development of those reserves he would be able to do it much more cheaply and much more successfully. The hon. the Prime Minister is afraid of that, because he says that those people would want property.

The principle is wrong.

The hon. the Prime Minister says that the principle is wrong and he will no longer be able to tell the Natives that they will be granted their political rights in their homeland, “and therefore deprive them of everything here”. Do you think, Sir, that if that Native could choose, he would not be prepared to accept partnership? Do you not think, Sir, that he would exchange that argument any time for a more rapid rate of development and a higher standard of living?

Does the hon. member, in other words, want to grant them the right of ownership?

Yes, in limited cases. I have stated time and again that it is wise to invest private capital, subject to a certain condition.

It always remains limited.

Yes, it always remains limited.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has not yet mentioned the conditions.

I have also given those previously, but I am not going to do so again. Having levelled this criticism and mentioned these figures, which were never contradicted, what do I find? I received a request from the hon. member for Prinshof to put forward positive steps for the development of the homelands. Is that hon. member not knocking on the wrong door? Ten years ago, when I promised the then Minister full cooperation and support for the development of the homelands, what was the reply I received? A slap in the face. It was said then that they did not want my help, because it was said that I wanted to develop the homelands for a purpose other than the one for which the Government wanted to develop them. That is where the whole difficulty is to be found. It is precisely because it is for another purpose that such slow progress is being made. It is definitely because the emphasis is being laid upon sovereignty and independence that the pace is so slow and that economic progress is not being effected. [Interjections.]

Order!

Those were the two statements I made, and those two statements have been proven fully. Surely, if those two statements are accepted, we must seek another policy in South Africa. We cannot continue with this policy, for the longer we do so, the further we are from the ideal. That ideal will never be realized. Consequently we must try to adopt another course. Consequently I gave an explanation of what the policy of the United Party is. [Interjections.]

Order!

Then there was also the usual criticism. At first it came from the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and of Bantu Education. He said that if one really wanted to retain one’s position, one should not begin with a little integration in the economic and political fields, because that would inevitably lead to absolute integration. Mr. Speaker, is there a little economic integration in the border industries, or is there massive integration on a tremendously large scale? If we do that, it is integration; if they do it, it is not integration. But let us put the other question: In that case there is no integration in the political and economic fields as far as the Coloureds are concerned?

Not a word!

There is one criterion for the one Party and another criterion for the other Party. What a ridiculous question! They know as well as I do that they are not heading for equality as far as either the Coloureds or the Bantu are concerned.

Then there was the question from the Deputy Minister: What happens to our policy once the reserves have become independent? Of course, then we can no longer apply our policy to them. That is one of the weaknesses of the policy of this Government. They take steps which they can never retrace when they have made mistakes. It is a final step. Once the harm is done, one cannot restore the position. We shall not make that mistake.

The hon. member for Benoni, the hon. the Prime Minister as well as the Minister of Information referred to the influence of these representatives of the non-Whites in the House of Assembly. The hon. member for Benoni said I should take care lest it is the tail that wags the dog. Well, it all depends on what kind of dog it is. You know, a wet (nat) dog is a very pitiful thing. I can understand that it can be wagged by its own tail, but this does not apply to a U.P. dog!

The hon. the Prime Minister gave me advice and his recommendation was that it was right to yield to pressure in this instance. I know of course, that his whole Party yielded to pressure when they accepted that policy of sovereign independent states. At the time Dr. Verwoerd rose here and said: That is not what we would like to do, but in view of the forces descending upon us we have no other choice. The whole lot of them yielded to pressure.

Then there was the question by the Minister of Information: Supposing there was pressure, and there is a referendum, what advice would my party and I give the nation? If there were to be a referendum now, or as far into the future as I can see at the moment, my advice would simply be that they stand by the number we determined and that they remain White.

Will the Bantu accept it?

Did the Bantu accept it when their representatives in this House were removed? Were they consulted? It was forced upon them. Did the Coloureds accept it when they were removed from the Common Voters’ Roll and placed on a separate Roll? I always find this so interesting: These members are quite satisfied that they can maintain to the position, even if they grant those people no rights. What rights did they grant the Coloureds? No rights! But according to them we shall not be able to keep the Bantu in check, even if we do give them a few rights.

A few rights!

No, Mr Speaker, it is the old story again: one criterion for them and another for us. It is nothing but politics.

Then I was asked: Will the world be satisfied with our policy? That is not impossible. But are they satisfied with that of the Government, although it was forced upon them by foreign powers? We are not going to allow foreign countries to dictate what we must do. South Africa is our country. We are going to govern it.

Hear, hear!

You remember that there was a time when you spoke altogether differently?

Mr. Speaker, there was a time when the hon. the Prime Minister held altogether different views in respect of democracy. [Interjections.] He has changed; I accept that.

Have you also changed?

I have also changed my views. The only difference is that I used common sense in order to change. The hon. gentleman knows that. Then there are a few members on that side who complain because I speak of a federation, and the various components of the federation will not receive equal rights. But do they not know that it is only under a federal constitution that one can do something like that? One of the oldest federations was that of Germany, i.e. the old Bund of 1870 to 1918, when Prussia virtually dominated the country with the rights it had been granted under the constitution. That was a federation. This is nothing new. It is recognized throughout the world. Surely, the Government ought to understand the German model.

Then the Prime Minister raised the question of the elimination of friction. He claims that there will be less friction under his policy than under the policy I propose.

It is being proved in practice.

Do we have racial friction in this House at the moment? The hon. the Prime Minister always tells us that we have no racial tension in South Africa. It is one of the most peaceful countries in the world. Yet there are three Coloured representatives sitting here.

Now you want to bring the Coloureds in here.

And yet they do sit here. Do they cause racial friction?

Do you remember Sam Kahn?

I remember Sam Kahn very well. What about it? Sam Kahn was a communist. He would have caused friction wherever he went. The fact that the Bantu elected him, was simply coincidence.

And Margaret Ballinger? She was no communist. Could there have been more friction than was caused here by her? She was your “pal”!

She was your “pal”! [Interjections.]

Order! We may hear too much.

Mr. Speaker, compare the position. Where is there a greater chance for friction? The Coloureds do not have any rights at present. The hon. the Prime Minister says, “This is not the end of the road; our children will have to decide one day.” Are the Coloureds satisfied with that? Mr. Speaker, I shall take the Prime Minister to many Coloureds who are very dissatisfied and very bitter about this matter. I shall take him to many Natives who are most bitterly dissatisfied about the present system of education.

The majority and the masses accept it.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a question of acceptance. It is forced upon them by a Government which, as they know, is not afraid to use its powers. I do not have the slightest doubt that there will be less friction under the policy of the United Party than there is in fact under the policy of the Government. Then, of course, we had the question put by the Minister of Information: Will there not be friction if we do not want to grant them further rights or the franchise? Sir, do we have friction now, or do we not? They do not get the franchise.

[Inaudible.]

No, I am now referring to the Coloureds.

They are also getting much more than they had.

Sir, can a Minister of Information say that they are getting more than they had? Seventy-five per cent of the Coloureds in South Africa had the right to be placed on the common roll in the Cape if they had the qualifications. What do they have now? [Interjections.] The whole question of friction was raised. I think that we must compare the policy of the Nationalist Party with that of the United Party. I think that any South African who takes an objective interest, would concede that the Government’s policy of fragmentation, which relinquishes responsibility, holds dangers for South Africa which our policy avoids. There is safety under the United Party’s policy. Uncertainty and unknown dangers lie ahead under the panic-stricken policy of the Nationalist Party. Let us take seven or eight examples. The Nationalist Party wants to divide South Africa up and create eight Native states, which will develop towards sovereignty. This Parliament is going to lose its authority over those areas and over the majority of South Africa’s black population. We shall be faced with millions of people in our midst who would owe no loyalty to South Africa. Under the United Party policy this sovereign Parliament remains the authoritative, sovereign government over the whole of South Africa and over all the people of South Africa. Under the Government’s policy the Native is taught that he must cultivate a loyalty towards a new, foreign state.

A foreign state?

Yes, foreign to South Africa. In the meantime he owes loyalty to both the new state which is coming into being and the old state. Sir, you already know what difficulties there have been in South Africa in the past as a result of double loyalties, with their inconsistencies. This is now envisaged for the immediate future by the Nationalist Party. Under our policy everybody retains one loyalty towards South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I am going further. Under the policy of the Government our entire Bantu labour force consists of migratory labourers. They are not allowed to take root in South Africa. This can only accentuate, disunity amongst the population, as the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration explained so well in that thesis he wrote at Oxford. In terms of the policy of the United Party we shall gradually be able to develop amongst our own South African Native population a loyal, orderly middle class—something which is inconceivable under the policy of the Nationalist Party.

There is a fourth comparison. Under the policy of the Government this labour force of migratory people will steadily degenerate and become alienated, not only from their morals, but also from those of Western Christianity, a matter in respect of which the Dutch Reformed Church is in fact giving evidence at the moment and which it is emphasizing. Under the policy of the United Party the Natives will enjoy the character-forming stability of home ownership and sound family life. The policy of the Government wants to teach the labour force to look to foreign states and governments to look after their interests. They want to stand by and see every dispute about employment opportunities and labour forces become an international issue in South Africa. We want to retain all our labourers under one authority, under the one government of South Africa. This Government wants to surround South Africa by eight independent states, each of them a strategic weakness in the planning of defence policy in South Africa. Thousands of miles of our vital coast line will be surrendered to foreign states. We retain South Africa as one military unit. This Government wants to terminate white political control over large parts of South Africa. We retain white political control over the whole of South Africa. Under their policy, once they have made a mistake and granted independence, they cannot go back. They cannot retrace their steps. No, then they are in a position similar to the one in which the British Government found itself in Kenya, and then there is nothing they can do. Under our policy we do not lose that control. I have merely given seven examples of how we can maintain white leadership in South Africa. There are two principles which we accept. One is that our party advocates white leadership, not only in South Africa, but also for the whole of South Africa. The second is that we accept that, attendant upon that white leadership, there are certain obligations and responsibilities towards the non-White population which we are confident the white man will accept. There is a world of difference between this policy and that of the Nationalist Party. They want to terminate white leadership over large parts of South Africa. Furthermore, when one comes to the non-Whites, their whole policy is governed by fear. Fear of numbers, fear of competition, fear of rivalry and fear of the fact that they will deprive them of their opportunities for employment. Now, what do we mean by white leadership? We mean, of course, that we must show that we are competent to be leaders. This also means that we must treat the people with such decency that we may gain their support. It also means that, if necessary, we shall be able to maintain our position.

Now the hon. the Minister wants to know how we are going to find ourselves in such a position. I think that we can only find ourselves in that position and in a position to make South Africa safe for the Whites if the

Col. 401:

After line 6, insert “descendants in South Africa, but also to do his”.

After line 10, insert “Whites and the second is planned progress and”. Line 15: For “high”, read “higher”.

white man is prepared to develop himself, spiritually, materially, intellectually and in respect of numbers. It is only when he develops himself in that way and casts off the chains of fear that he will be in a position not only to safeguard his own future and that of his duty of civilizing the non-white population in South Africa. It is against this background that the United Party offers a policy based on two pillars. The first is dynamic progress of the advancement for the non-Whites. Quite obviously there are many facets to such a policy. But we shall only be able to accomplish it here and maintain our position, if there is national unity, if we enjoy a high standard of education and training; if we are economically strong and if we can maintain friendly relations both inside and outside South Africa.

May I just ask you a question? Do you not think that they have an inherent right, like any other nation, to be free and to rule themselves?

The hon. the Prime Minister asks me whether I do not think that they have an inherent right, like any other nation, to be free and to rule themselves. Does he think that way in respect of the Coloureds?

I have stated my policy in respect of the Coloureds very clearly.

I merely wanted to know. This is really interesting. Am I now given to understand by the hon. gentleman that the Coloureds will eventually be free and will rule themselves and that they will have sovereign state in South Africa? No, because the hon. the Prime Minister said that our children would decide. Now I am telling the hon. gentleman that I believe that it is in the interest of South Africa that white leadership be maintained here. I believe that it is in the interest of the whole of South Africa, of our children and the children of the non-Whites. And, one of the reasons for my having no confidence in this Government, is that they are prepared to terminate that White leadership.

Motion put and the House divided:

AYES—40: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bennett, C.; Bloomberg, A.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Connan, J. M.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Graaff, De V.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lewis, H. M.; Lindsay, J. E., Malan, E. G., Marais, D. J.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Taylor, C. D.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Waterson, S. F.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

Noes—117: Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, M. W.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Brandt, J. W.; Carr, D. M.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, J. A.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Jager, P. R.; Delport, W. H.; De Wet, J. M.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, H. R. H.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Haak, J. F. W.; Havemann, W. W. B.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Marais, W. T.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, B.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Raubenheimer, A. L.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Smith, J. D.; Stofberg, L. F.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Torlage, P. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, M. J.; Van den Heever, D. J. G.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van Niekerk, M. C.; Van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Visser, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Vosloo W. L.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: G. P. van den Berg, P. S. van der Merwe, H. J. van Wyk and W. L. D. M. Venter.

Motion accordingly negatived.