I must say at the outset that I am extremely proud of the province of my adoption, Natal, but I must admit to being very disappointed yesterday afternoon at the Leader who has been chosen by the Nationalist Party to look after the interests of that province. Really and truly, I must say that the hon. member for Klip River yesterday disappointed me terribly in the extremely weak effort he made as the Deputy-Chairman of the Bantu Affairs Commission in this debate.

Are you happy about your own leader?

However, I will come back to him a little later. I want to start off the debate to-day by discussing with the Minister the application of section 10 of the Bantu Urban Areas Act, the section under which Bantu qualify for residence in the so-called “blankestan”. In terms of this section, subsection (1) (a) allows such Bantu who have resided continuously in a prescribed area since birth to remain there. Subsection (1) (b) provides that any Bantu who has worked continuously for one employer for 10 years, or for various employers for a period of 15 years, can remain in the prescribed area, and subsection (1) (c) provides that such a Bantu may stay there if he or she is the wife or the minor child of any Bantu who qualifies under subsections (1) (a) or (b), and it continues to say “after lawful entry into such prescribed area, ordinarily resides with such Bantu in that area”. Now it is apparent from this that for a wife there are three main requisites with which she must comply to qualify to remain in a prescribed area. The husband must qualify, she must gain lawful entry, and she must ordinarily reside with her husband. It is the question of the application of these three provisions that I want to discuss particularly with the hon. the Minister if the hon. Whip will get out of the way so that I can at least get the attention of the hon. the Minister. Thank you.

I have here a particular case of a Bantu who was born and brought up in the prescribed area of Johannesburg, who has lived there all his life, and there is no question about his qualification to remain there. In January, 1967, he married a Bantu woman from, it so happens, Hammarsdale, who had grown up in the Pietermaritzburg area. In May, 1967, he went with his wife to Orlando; he reported to the Superintendent and applied for a house to occupy as a married couple. They were refused this permission and she was ordered to return to Natal and her reference book was endorsed accordingly, so now we have the position that the legally married wife of a husband born and legally resident in Johannesburg is refused permission to join him. This is the first point that I want to raise, namely the question of lawful entry. How does such a Bantu gain lawful entry? I wonder if the hon. the Minister would be so kind when he replies to this debate, as to elucidate this point because this is a factor which is causing tremendous hardship and trouble to these Bantu people. Is it the intention of the Department to say to a Bantu who qualifies under section 10 that he may only marry a female who qualifies under section 10? Because, Sir, trials under the Immorality Act have shown that you cannot tell people with whom they must cohabit, with whom they must live and whom they must marry. When you get down to dividing the people into those who qualify under section 10 and those who do not, then it becomes absolutely ridiculous. There is no need for me to remind the hon. the Minister of the cases which have been decided in court in this connection. Then there is also the question of “ordinarily resides with”. How does a bride show that she ordinarily resides with her husband without the sympathetic receipt or treatment of an application by the officials? I submit that what is happening to-day is that the hon. the Minister, through his Department by regulation, is circumventing the provisions of section 10 (1) (c) of the Act. The Act was placed on the Statute Book with the intention that these people should be given the humane consideration of allowing them to have their lawful wives in the prescribed areas, but by regulation, through his Department, this Minister is circumventing those provisions. The result is that we have what is developing in the townships around Cape Town in particular, as mentioned here yesterday by the hon. member for the Transkei. Sir, in every one of the areas where this section is stringently applied there is a shortage of domestic labour. The housewives of South Africa are also suffering because of the application of the regulations as applied by the hon. the Minister and his Department. I am sure that if this section of the Act was applied humanely, responsibly and in a sympathetic manner, the domestic servant problem need not be what it is to-day. I want to ask the Minister what would have been the position in Randburg. I notice that the hon. the Deputy Minister, who was directly concerned with this matter, is not in the House.

Hold over your point until he comes back into the House. He is in the Other Place at the moment.

With respect, Sir, I do not know whether I can hold it over. What would have been the position in Randburg where the housewives did not accede to certain requests made by the Deputy Minister with regard to domestic servants? I would like to know from the hon. the Minister what has happened at Oudtshoorn where I believe an instruction was issued that they were not to employ Bantu as domestic servants, even if they were qualified under subsections (1) (a) or (b), let alone if they qualified under subsection (1) (c). But, Sir, there is another aspect of this too and that is what is evolving amongst the Bantu people of South Africa to-day. At a recent conference of the National Council of African Women in Kimberley the national president decried the endorsing out of urban areas of African widows, divorcees and spinsters by the authorities. She went on to point out that amongst the Bantu people in this country there is the same trend to-day that there was amongst the white people a few years ago—I am not going to say how many years ago—where gradually the womenfolk were accepted as being the equal of the men, particularly when it came to the question of employment and taking their place and their stand alongside of their menfolk. [Time expired.]

I am not getting up to reply to anything that we have had from the United Party so far and that requires a reply, because in actual fact there is nothing to reply to yet, except the one remark that was made yesterday afternoon by the main speaker on the United Party side, i.e. the hon. member for Transkei, when he said: “Nothing is happening in the homelands, and I challenge the Minister to prove the contrary.” I shall certainly reply to this in the course of my speech. My real purpose in getting up is to express my disappointment at the trend taken by this debate so far after four United Party speakers participated in it, and speakers at that who are regarded as responsible speakers on that side, especially on Bantu affairs. I want to start with the hon. member for Transkei, who spoke for half an hour. How did he spend that half hour? He spent it by expressing his disappointment, which he could not hide and disguise, at no split having occurred in the ranks of the National Party.

Who says that?

This is what he spent his time on, and for the rest he read out the speech made by my colleague which was reported in the newspapers and which was circulated and commented on. Then he concluded with the foolish remark: “Nothing is happening in the homelands.” Sir, I want to draw your attention to the fact that in these Estimates provision is made for larger amounts than we have ever asked Parliament to vote. When you put this Vote yesterday afternoon, you said that you were putting Vote No. 30 on the Revenue Account, on which we are asking for R46,225,000. You also put Loan Vote N. on which we are asking for R59,100,000, and South-West Africa Vote 14, on which an amount of R12,674,000 is being asked. If my arithmetic is correct, this comes to a total amount of R117,999,000. Sir, when a Budget such as this is being discussed, one does expect a responsible Opposition to say: “In this case too little is being spent; here the money is being spent unwisely, and there the money is being spent unwisely.” One prepares oneself for a Budget debate in order to be able to furnish the necessary information on the various amounts asked for, and what does one get from that side? They come along with the story that there are “verkramptes” and “verligtes” in this Party! Sir, how one can get the United Party to discuss this Budget I simply do not know. The hon. member for Klip River quite rightly said here that the gulf between our policy and theirs was so wide that we simply could not bridge it. The hon. member for Marico said quite rightly that the United Party had remained behind in this process, and that it did not know what was going on here in connection with Bantu development and the implementation of the policy of separate development in respect of the Bantu. The hon. member for Mayfair tried very hard to bring this debate back to the Budget, and this morning we had to hear the hon. member over there speaking about the leader of the National Party in Natal. Sir, he has enough difficulty about a leader. I understand that a certain strong young man is coming forward there. And then the hon. member talks here about a certain Bantu bride who could not gain admission to the urban areas. I want to return to the remark made by that hon. member …

I am still waiting for a reply.

The hon. member will get his reply. The hon. member said that nothing was happening in the homelands. I could perhaps just have referred the hon. member to the speech made here by the hon. the Minister on 3rd February this year (Hansard, Col. 38). In that speech the hon. the Minister explained what was happening in the homelands. But perhaps it is necessary that I should give the Committee the figures again. If that hon. member compares the figures I am going to furnish in a moment, with the figures the Minister furnished on 3rd February, he can say again that the figures do not agree. They do not agree, because I have later figures than the hon. the Minister had. From these later figures it is clear that many things have happened in the homelands during the past year. Then the hon. member says: “Nothing is happening in the homelands, and I challenge the Minister to prove the contrary.” Sir, the data I am going to furnish do not include the Transkei, because the Transkei has its own government; the Transkei has its own Minister of Agriculture. The hon. member probably knows him.

Yes.

The hon. member will also know what is happening there. He must have seen what is happening round Umtata. We leave the Transkei out of these calculations. Fifty-two per cent of the area of approximately 17 million morgen has already been planned. Here is the Minister of Agriculture, who is dealing with the planning of the white area of South Africa. He knows that planning plays an important part in the development programme. If you plan, you must carry out your planned programme, but it is a long and slow process. Twenty-one thousand miles of roads have been built, with 693 bridges. The hon. the Minister gave a lower figure in this connection. Sixty-four thousand miles of fences have been erected in this planning process in order to provide the necessary camps. In order to supply water, 6,000 boreholes have been sunk; 4,650 dams have been built, larger and smaller dams. The hon. member is welcome to go there with me one day, and then I shall show him those dams. I am not ashamed of the dams that have been built there, we have built fine dams there. Sir, the livestock are also being improved. Stock are no longer kept only to prove the status of the owner or for lobola purposes. We have taught the people there also to market their stock. We are building stock-fair pens there, and stock-fairs are being held. More than R2 million per annum is being collected from the sale of stock at these fairs. If we want to talk about contours and retaining walls …

It is the same old story; we only hear about dams being built.

No, it is not the same story. The hon. member said here: “Nothing is happening in the homelands, and I challenge the Minister to prove the contrary,” and I am now proving the contrary, i.e. if you can get it into the heads of those hon. gentlemen. You can give them figures on 3rd February, and you can give them the latest figures on 23rd May, but it is no use, because they simply do not want to know these things. Sir, more than 17.000 miles of contours have been built. Two thousand four hundred dipping tanks have been built. Eleven thousand morgen have been planted with trees for firewood, so that these people will not need to pick up dung-cakes, which should be used to fertilize their land and use them for the purpose of making fire. As regards irrigation land, 9,202 morgen have been added to the 15,267 morgen of 1960, with the result that there is approximately 25.000 morgen of irrigation land. The hon. member for Transkei shakes his head.

Where are the industries?

Sir, if one discusses the Bantu, that hon. member asks, “What about the Coloureds?”, and if one discusses agricultural development, he asks, “Where are the industries?” This is how we know the hon. member. If you cannot get something into someone’s head, surely it is no use giving these figures. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister spent 7½ of his ten minutes threatening to tell us about the development in the Bantu Homelands. For 7½ minutes he waffled around and around the point, and eventually, when he could not keep away any longer, he told us about the agricultural development in the Bantu homelands. I will deal with this matter in a moment and will come back to it, but I want to deal with the real development that is essential there. Before doing so, I want to deal with the earlier part of the debate. Yesterday the hon. member for Transkei completely shattered the whole illusion of Nationalist Party policy. He completely destroyed the illusion that the Government knew where it was going and that it had a clear policy. He showed the vaccilation and the conflicting and differing approaches of different hon. members including where one hon. Minister contradicted another. In reply the hon. member for Klipriver completely repudiated what was said by his own Deputy Minister. That was the sole attempt to reply. When we now have a Deputy Minister speaking, what do we get? A lot of waffle and no reply to the charges by hon. members on this side of the House. The Deputy Chairman of the Bantu Affairs Commission tried to make an emotional rallying speech here, but what were the facts he dealt with? His one point that he tried to make was that Bantu wives and children were allowed on the farms. Where do the wives and children come from in the Weenen squatters camp, the emergency camp? Are they not taken off the farms? Are they not taken off the town lands? That was the hon. member’s sole contribution. What he did prove yesterday was that the Verligtes were right in Natal in wanting the hon. the Minister for Foreign Affairs as a leader. They would have done much better and he only proved the correctness of that campaign. He also proved that he does not know his own constituency. I want to come back to the hon. the Deputy Minister’s speech in a moment.

Next week we will have 21 years of Nationalist Government. That is usually an occasion for celebrations. We usually have parties and give people a key. [Interjections.] Last year they had celebrations—flop ones—but this year how “tjoepstil” it is. Where are the celebrations? Instead of celebrating we find them mourning around the deathbed of the whole apartheid policy. They are mourning around that deathbed and quarreling over the spoils of office while mourning the death of their own policy. How has the wheel not turned! Is this the party who used to call the United Party “Kafferboeties”? This is the party that called us ‘Kafferboeties”. Now we are the “baasskap” party. The hon. member for Marico yesterday said that the Nationalist party is a progressive and a verligte party. [Interjections.] But what are the facts? [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. the Deputy Minister said he was going to tell us about the homelands. I have done a little study on the subject and have here for instance the publication Bantu of April, 1969. This is the official magazine and it sets out all the progress that has been made in respect of the economic growth of the homelands. Incidentally, I notice a very nice picture in this publication and I wonder if the hon. the Deputy Minister recognizes it. It shows children at school and the caption is that there are 493 schools in the Ciskei. Is this a Ciskei school that is illustrated here?

lust bring it here so that I can see it.

I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether this picture is of a Ciskei school, because it is shown under the caption of a Ciskei school.

According to the Bantu Education Journal of March, 1969, we have had exciting progress … Can the hon. the Deputy Minister give me an answer now? Is that a picture of a Ciskei school?

I do not know.

He does not know. That picture appeared in the publication Bantu but if the hon. the Deputy Minister looks at the Bantu Education Journal of May this year, he will find exactly the same photo. This was not in the Ciskei, however, but at the Bantu College of Taung. They do not even have enough photos. They have one which they have to cart around like a mobile education policy. Their mobile school that goes around to show off education, does not hide the facts. We read in the Bantu Education Journal that “exciting progress has been made”. The journal says the following:

That was the establishment of three territorial authorities. When one reads further, however, one finds the following:

Where are these workers going to be? We find that according to the latest report of the Bantu Development Corporation, there has been tremendous progress, exciting progress. In ten years they have granted 795 loans, 553 trading licences including 21 liquor licences and new imaginative progress, namely one milk depot. There are 85 service industries and 15 industries. They have established in trust two furniture factories, three vehicle repair shops, three bakeries and one meat processing factory. On an agency basis a sawmill and a quarry have been established. This was established to deal with 12 million Bantu and with 80,000 new work seekers. These are new workers coming into the market to look for work each year. What have they established?—21 liquor outlets and a milk depot and a handful of other businesses. To employ how many of the 80,000 new workers? According to the department the ideal of this exciting progress is to be able to say to white South Africa: We have no labour for you, because we are employing it all here. What do we hear about? A few dams and furrows and a few morgen of irrigation land? How many people is that keeping on the land in the Bantu homelands? To how many people can it give food, clothing and an existence? The Government is playing with the problem. I do not have the time to deal with the other aspects of it, but I want to mention that the cost of administration of the 795 loans of R3.9 million is R664,000. If we are going to get down to analysing the Budget, we are entitled to ask what South Africa is getting for the R664,000 administration for the R3.9 million of loans. How many people is it giving work to? How much is it contributing towards a viable economy in the homelands? That is the issue. The issue is whether the homelands have any hope of becoming viable enough to exist as separate independent states. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank the hon. member for Durban (Point) most sincerely for his display here this morning. It was apparently meant to be a farce and in that respect it succeeded. The comedian was good and we really hope that he will visit us again and give a display on a later occasion. The hon. member accused the hon. the Deputy Minister of having used his time to do certain things and then he went along and did precisely the same things himself, using a great deal of time to speak about the festivities of the National Party after 21 years. This gratifies us and we feel happy about it. We have no objection to the hon. member using his ten minutes to speak about that. At the end of his speech he asked certain questions which really amount to this: What is South Africa getting for the amounts being appropriated in these Estimates? The hon. member only has to look around him to see what South Africa is getting for it. In the first place, South Africa is getting a purely white Parliament for the amounts being appropriated here. These amounts are being appropriated for the establishment of separate development, and this is a state of affairs which we would no longer have had in South Africa to-day under the United Party’s policy, which yields so easily to pressure. However, I shall speak more about that on a later occasion.

The United Party is trying to create a psychosis in South Africa. They now have a new slogan, i.e. telling the people every day that apartheid is an illusion, that apartheid has not succeeded and that apartheid is failing. The method which is followed is typical of the United Party, i.e. to speak disparagingly of what is being done to create growth points, as has already been mentioned by the hon. the Deputy Minister. They make disparaging remarks in their speeches when it suits them to do so. When they go to the constituents they will tell them what large amounts this Parliament is appropriating for the development of the Bantu homelands. Then they will tell the constituents, as they also do at every by-election and general election in the country districts, where it suits them to do so, about the large amounts which this Government is appropriating for the promotion of separate development. This cry of “look what they are doing for the Bantu” is very specifically intended to create an unfavourable climate, and the hon. members of the Opposition are thereby not doing South Africa a service. Hon. members opposite also want separate development in South Africa, even though they may be led here by the strong liberal and more progressive element and by the more leftist trends of thought in their party—they are all leftist, but some are more leftist than others. I want to state that the Opposition will achieve as little in the future as they have in the past. The most important facet of the National Party’s policy, with which this House must concern itself, will continue to be the regulating of relationships between the peoples in South Africa. It was historically decreed that we should have many peoples in this country in which we are living.

Other people say “nations”.

The hon. member is at liberty to juggle with words if he wants to, and he must decide to what “nation” or to what people he belongs. We say that there is more than one people in South Africa and I assume that the hon. member claims that there is only one people and only one nation in South Africa. Apparently he is a member of that people of 18 million here in South Africa, as some of his leaders have already said. However, this is a mere splitting of hairs and a juggling with words. We are aware of this and as long as this is so it will be the first great and primary task of this Government to appropriate funds for the regulation of these relations among the various peoples. In 1948 this Government, which has now been sitting here for 21 years, received two great mandates. One was to lead South Africa constitutionally towards an independent Republic. This mandate was carried out, to the joy and happiness of everyone, the prophets of doom included. The second great mandate which we received was to bring about apartheid in South Africa, to introduce and to promote separate development. In those days such a thing did not exist. But under the National Party we have come a long way with this, except for the Rip van Winkels in South Africa who do not want to know better and who prefer to take a political nap, who prefer a political narcosis and will remain in that condition until they wake up with a start one day. In the meantime we are giving their children and descendants in South Africa a viably white South Africa. Hon. members opposite will continue to criticize the amounts which we are appropriating here, amounts for the promotion of separate development. But we get a lot out of it. The cost aspect is of less importance to me than the aspect of principle. Now hon. members must not go and announce outside that this party says that the cost aspect is not important. All I am saying is that it is less important than the aspect of principle. Therefore we do not mind what we are going to pay in rands and cents, as long as we can thereby give a white homeland to the white man. I want to emphasize that every cent that we spend for promotion of separate development is spent in the interests of the white man in South Africa. Let hon. members opposite get up and contradict this.

We are already reaping the benefits of this policy of separate development. In the field of education our children are already enjoying those benefits; we are already enjoying the benefits in our transport services, and hon. members opposite are also making use of that; we are already reaping the benefits in the residential sphere, because we removed the black spots and created viable conditions for the white man, in the western suburbs of Johannesburg, for example. But at the same time we also created viable conditions for the Bantu in Soweto and Meadowlands. At the time we were criticized, but to-day we are all reaping the benefits, and we do not begrudge it to the United Party either. Besides, we are also enjoying the benefits of separate development through job reservations; we are enjoying the privilege of land ownership, the privilege of having South Africa occupied by Whites only.

Is that then a privilege?

An hon. member opposite has asked whether it is a privilege. Must I conclude from that that if the United Party were to come into power they would give property rights to the Bantu in the white areas?

You are being stupid now.

The hon. member may regard me as stupid. But then the constituents still prefer this stupid party, with its sound policy, to rule South Africa. We are still waiting for the other side to give us an alternative and until they do so we shall assume that their policy is one of integration, with all the chaos that that would entail, as we have seen in the rest of Africa. [Time expired.]

Instead of answering the points raised, the hon. member for Wolmaransstad went back into orbit, back to the old, old story that we would have a black parliament, and so on. But he knows as well as anybody else who it was who established the traditional pattern of South African life. They have come with a new scheme, with a new concept of living, with the concept of separate independent states in which the Bantu people of South Africa must live. Meanwhile every member on this side of the House has pointed to the impracticability, to the impossibility, to the lack of realism of the theoretical policies of the Government. We have shown that what South Africa needs is a new look at this problem. Because what has happened? That hon. member talked of 21 years of Government policy …

You did.

No, you referred to it just now when you said that in that 21 years you made South Africa safe for the white man. And yet there are to-day more Bantu in white South Africa than ever under a United Party government. And this figure is growing by the year; they cannot stop it. The only difference is that members opposite pretend that these Bantu are not here; they draw lines on the map and say those are the homelands; so the Bantu are not here anymore. They take Kwa Mashu, draw a line and say this is now a Bantu reserve and, consequently, there are no longer any blacks in white South Africa. They take Umlazi and in spite of the fact that the Bantu work in Durban, they say they are no longer within white South Africa. It is all nonsense; it is crazy. The fact is that there are more Bantu in white South Africa to-day than ever before, and they are still growing. We claim that the Government cannot stop it. The difference is that by pretending the Bantu are not there …

May I put a question to you?

No, Mr. Chairman. I do not have the time to deal with progressives at the moment.

Is that so?

I do not mean the Progressive Party but the progressive hon. member for Marico. The position is that the Bantu are pouring into white South Africa without planning, without being fitted into a workable pattern, because the Government pretends they are just not there.

Where do you get that?

The hon. the Deputy Minister got up here like Pontius Pilate and washed his hands of the Transkei. He said they had their own government and thus their own Minister of Agriculture. Therefore, this Government is no longer responsible. But let us look at this exciting progress.

I have here the latest annual report of the Xhosa Development Corporation in which the development is outlined. First of all, it talks of the C.S.I.R. techno-economic survey. Is that survey available to us?

It is not completed yet.

Oh! But the report says that it is being carried out. So, how can the Government be carrying out a report which has not even been completed yet? The report says under the heading “Development” that the final part of the report has been received and its recommendations are being put into effect. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, here we have an example of the planning of this Government—a report which has been finalized and already being put into effect, and yet the Deputy Minister responsible does not even know about it! But I want to ask him to make it available to us. Because what is being done? The report of the Xhosa Development Corporation said that the Corporation had investigated a number of projects. There was an investigation into the possibility of developing coal deposits in the Transkei. Well, I have just marked it “n.b.g.”—in other words, no future. Then tests were carried out in connection with phormium tenax. There are prospects of manufacturing bags; so the Xhosa Development Corporation is taking over the decorticating plant from the Bantu government of the Transkei. There is one successful industry, i.e. a Bantu beer brewery with a capacity of 2¼ million gallons per annum, a number of beer halls and one hotel. These appear to be successful. A bulk fuel depot was investigated but here they have struck problems. They have investigated sea products but that is also “n.b.g.”—there is no future in it. Then there is an industrial site at Butterworth where they have done well. They have used 250 local Bantu labourers to build roads manually, by hand, because there is a drought in Butterworth.

Zitulele is the name of the area and that means “you must talk less”.

Well, it is a pity the Minister does not follow that advice. Then there is another industry they have established, i.e. a roller mill. Although this does not pay, they are carrying on with it. Then there is a leather tanning industry but they have discovered that the quality of the leather is very low, and therefore not likely to be satisfactory. This, then, is the industrial development in the Transkei, according to their own development corporation. And this Minister washes his hands of it by saying it is not his responsibility.

I did not say that. I said …

You said they had their own Minister. This is how the Xhosa Development Corporation ends its report, and remember this is this Minister’s baby, not ours. Under the heading “General remarks” it says:

Elsewhere, however, they say that before you can have industrial development, you must have agricultural development, that the infrastructure must be agricultural. Yet this report says there is no progress. It says—

Here, in their own report, they condemn their own policy. I say again, this quoting of a few miles of furrows and fences and of a few morgen of irrigation is not an answer to our claim that under the Government’s policy Bantustans cannot house their own people. Under this policy they cannot house the Bantu in the Bantu homelands.

The hon. member for Klip River knows about the Msinga reserve. Last year I went there. There is not even sand left; erosion has bared the rocks. Yet more and more Bantu are being pushed into it, Bantu from across the river—more and more Bantu being pushed into desert, into settlements without work, without ground, without grazing …

That is not true. No Bantu have been pushed in there.

The hon. the Deputy Minister cannot say it is not true. Where do the settlements come from, voluntary settlements? Voluntary settlements of thousands of Bantu, all having moved over voluntarily to sit on bare stones, without lands, without grazing, without work and without homes. Did they go there voluntarily?

They did not even go there. How can you ask whether they have gone there voluntarily?

The Deputy Minister says they did not go there. But has the hon. the Deputy Minister ever seen these settlements? Has he been to the Tugela Estate? From there you look across 200 morgen of beautiful ground going to rack and ruin and just beyond it you see the shack settlements …

I was there, but I was not as prejudiced as you and Rail when you went there.

I say this from personal knowledge, from personal experience because I went there. But the Deputy Minister is trying to bluff the people.

In conclusion I want to say that the Nationalist Party policy has collapsed while the United Party still stands for residential separation; for the development of the reserves as economic entities …

On a voluntary basis?

… as part of one South Africa; for local self-government as we had under the bunga system; for central control under white leadership; for consultation at every level; and for respect of the dignity of the individual. On these foundations we can build. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban (Point) said here that the “Blacks are pouring in without planning”. I should like to ask the hon. member how he could make such a statement? Is it not specifically as a result of this Government’s proper control over the non-Whites in our cities that we have labour peace in our country to-day?

Have a look at Fredsville.

The hon. member said that our cities to-day were very much blacker and that he was concerned about this fact. This is so, but when they were ruling our country 19,000 unemployed Whites were roaming our streets. This Government created employment opportunities, not only for the Whites but also for the non-Whites as well. This country of ours is not stagnant; we are moving ahead. That is why there are more Bantu in our cities. But they are here under proper control. They are here under the control measures of this Government. It does not matter to us that there are many of them. They are being properly controlled. I want to ask the hon. member whether he remembers the tremendous amount of noise the hon. members of the Opposition kicked up about our border area development? To-day they remain altogether silent about that. To-day they no longer speak about it.

There is no development.

That hon. member has said that there is no development. He should listen to what a certain Mr. Dennis Bradley said in an article “Border industry, the quiet revolution”, which appeared in The Star of Monday, 17th February. 1969. He is assuredly not a Nationalist. Mr. Bradley said—

He continues by saying—

This man said this and it was published in one of the English newspapers. Nevertheless, hon. members of the Opposition say that there is nothing. I also want to go further and quote from Die Vaderland of 24th February, 1969. Under the heading “Undertakings of young Tswana’s flourish with State assistance” the following report appeared (translation)—

Do hon. members expect it all to happen overnight as in the fairytale “Alice in Wonderland”? No, just as the hon. members of the Opposition said that the border areas would not develop, while to-day they have to concede that there is excellent development, so they will have to concede in the future that our homelands are also developing. But I think that I have now said enough about this subject.

I want to make a very positive contribution this morning. Since we are now in the third phase, developing the homelands, I want to plead with the hon. the Minister about a certain matter in this connection. There are many industries to-day which are desirous of going to the homelands on an agency basis. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to institute another system of planning so that it will not be necessary for these industrialists to go to all the various Government Departments in order to find out from one of them what he can do there, or to ask another whether he can obtain transport concessions, or what he can do in connection with the training of his labourers in that area and what the wage determinations would be. I want to plead with the hon. the Minister to establish a super division consisting of one person. This person must be able to advise the Minister on how to get these people to the homelands as soon as possible. Every assistance must be given to these industrialists who are desirous of going to our homelands. I should like to see the day when we only have to go to one Department and can obtain all the information there. I want to plead for the abolition of the tremendous number of forms which these people have to fill in and which they then have to return to the Department. These people must be assisted, because they want to go there. I want to tell hon. members that there are several industrialists who are very anxious to go there. This morning I want to plead with the hon. the Minister that this red tape which we have in our Government Departments should be totally eliminated and that these people should be helped.

Then I want to refer to another matter. I want to make a plea to the hon. the Minister this morning. In urban areas to-day we find that tremendous friction occurs at bottlestores where Bantu beer is sold. The Bantu flock to the bottle-stores between one and two o’clock, when it is their lunch time, to buy their beer. Then they take the beer back to the industrial area and drink it there, or they merely drink it on the pavements. This is creating tremendous friction in our white areas. I now want to plead with the hon. the Deputy Minister, who is handling this matter, for registered Bantu eating houses to be allowed in the industrial complexes in order that Bantu beer may be sold to the Bantu with their meals. I am prepared to say that the strictest conditions must be imposed in such cases. I concede that those Bantu eating houses must not serve beer after 5 o’clock in the afternoon, because then the Bantu must return to his home. I know of the difficulties we had with the Mai-Mai Bantu beerhall in Johannesburg, but we do not want to create such a situation. In addition I want to plead with the hon. the Minister to consider the possibility of erecting decent beerhalls within the industrial complexes, beerhalls which would be under the control of the local authorities, so that the Bantu can buy their beer there and drink it under supervision instead of running to the bottle-store each time to buy beer and then returning quickly and drinking it at work. The Bantu will not give up his beer and therefore we must create a situation under which he can get it when he wants it, in circumstances other than those prevailing at present. If this were to be done much less friction would develop between the white man and the black man at our bottle-stores.

I did not know you could talk sense.

I think the hon. member for Durban (Point) may perhaps oppose me in this, but I want to plead with the hon. the Minister for attention to be given to this matter which I mentioned, so that the industrialists can be assisted in getting into the homelands more quickly on this agency basis and so that the friction which now exists at the white bottle-stores and on the pavements can be eliminated.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Brakpan will have to pardon me if I do not follow him up, because he devoted the greater part of his speech to representations to the Minister. We can agree with him to a large extent. Where the hon. member spoke of the wonderful progress we have made with the apartheid policy, however, I want to differ with him. If his interpretation of progress is that a permit or a licence is issued to every Bantu who belongs in another area, and they are then regarded as migratory labourers, then I suppose there has been progress, because then there can be millions and millions more Bantu in urban areas. However, this is not what this side of the House considers to be progress in connection with separate development.

However, I should like to revert to a statement that was made by the hon. member for Klip River yesterday and in regard to which I fully agree with him. The hon. member for Klip River made the statement that there was a gulf between the National Party and this side of the House which is becoming virtually unbridgeable. I readily agree. The gulf is so wide that it is unbridgeable, and I shall tell hon. members what the reason for this is. The further this National Party continues with the development of its apartheid policy, the wider the gulf becomes. It cannot be otherwise. I want to add this to what the hon. member for Klip River said. This gulf is caused not only by the race relations, but also by the political relations between the white races in this country. [Interjections.] Oh yes, the gap is widening, because the stronger the Nationalist Party becomes, the more arrogant it becomes in its actions and the more it adopts the attitude that the only way in which there can be unity between the white races in the country is under the umbrella of the Nationalist Party.

And the members of the English-speaking section are coming over to us.

What kind?

The best; the cream of your people.

I go further. The fact that this Party has remained in power for so long is unhealthy for the country. The fact that it has remained in power for so long and is now becoming so arrogant in its actions causes its actions in connection with the nonwhite races to be of such a nature that this Party could never agree with it. This apartheid policy, these developments, are the foundation stones on which the policy of the National Party rests in connection with the Bantu alone; they have no policy for the other non-white races. The policy for the Bantu is the establishment of separate sovereign Bantu states. Or is this no longer the policy? [Interjections.] It seems to me it is no longer the policy. Is this the answer? [Interjections.] According to the hon. member who is shouting over there, it seems to me this is no longer the policy.

But, Sir, it is fundamental to the policy of that Party that sovereign independent Bantu states should be created. They want to have the rest of the world believe that they are giving the Bantu a pass, or a certificate, or a passport, to the effect that he belongs to a country which is independent and sovereign, and because that is the position, this must always remain the policy of that Party, or the whole thing would collapse like a pack of cards in so far as the image they want to hold up to the outside world is concerned. Proceeding on that assumption, and I take it that it is correct, notwithstanding the mumbling of that hon. member opposite, I say that that fragmentation of the country cannot be accepted by this Party. I therefore agree with the hon. member for Klip River that the gulf is becoming wider and wider. It is unhealthy for any country in the world that the viewpoints of its people in connection with race relations, and the political relations between the white races should drift further and further apart. If this is not unhealthy, I do not know what it is, but do not put the blame for that on this Party. It is not our doing. The policy that Party is trying to follow in connection with race relations is creating the position that there is no longer a bridge between us.

I want to return to the situation of the Bantu, which was also mentioned by the hon. member for Klip River and by the Deputy Minister. It is claimed that success is being achieved with the removal of the Bantu. But there are still 3.8 million left, and the hon. member for Klip River declared emphatically yesterday that we misunderstood the position; these 3.8 million do not come from the farms. He said: “Oh no, the hon. member for East London (North) will always have his Bantu families on his farm.” The hon. member should get up again and tell me where those 3.8 million are. We are not prepared to accept this summarily. But let me return to the development of the Bantustans, and especially of the Transkei and the Ciskei, which the Deputy Minister dealt with. I also want to deal with the report of the Xhosa Development Corporation, which deals with this development. I wish I had the time to discuss the development the hon. members always ridicule us about, saying that we are against the development of the border areas. In all fairness, Sir, is there any area in South Africa for the decentralization of industries which is more deserving than the East London area, that area which is wedged in between that mass of people?

Has that port lagged behind, or has it not? From the nature of the case this is one of the areas which should be developed, and that is so in terms of the mass of people who are starving in the Transkei and the Ciskei at this stage—and do not tell me I am exaggerating. Having had a drought such as they have had, and having no maize, and having lost a third of their livestock through the drought in the Transkei and the Ciskei, are they not worse off now than they have ever been during the past 20 years? And if they are worse off, and the rehabilitation of those areas is to take such a long time, is this not the area to which more attention and more assistance should be given, both on the borders and within the area itself? And what does the report say about the area? If one looks at the series of industries which have been established there and which were mentioned by the hon. member for Point a moment ago, it is such a small one, but do not let me belittle it; it is an attempt, it is a beginning. At least it is getting somewhere. But what does the report say?

The report says they tried to help them in agriculture, and have been doing so for years by means of extension officers, but despite the sustained and untiring devotion and the zeal of the officers concerned, the yield is below the potential of the area, and below that of comparable areas in the Republic. Consequently the establishment of industries founded on agricultural production is not progressing as rapidly as is desirable. And so the report goes on to say repeatedly that agriculture is lagging behind and that for that reason the industries are lagging behind, and the major problem is transport, which is also lagging behind. In other words, both outside and inside the area there is not the kind of progress that could absorb the population there, and what do we find? Still more of them are being taken there, and here I want to give especially the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development another opportunity of telling me again what he said by way of interjection the other day, i.e. that people are not being transported there irrespective of whether they are prepared to go or not. A pretty picture is held up to them, and then they are loaded in and transported to those areas like cattle.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

[Time expired.]

I gained the impression from the hon. member for East London (City) that he was blaming the National Party for the fact that it has been in power for 21 years. I do not think that is fair, if I understood him correctly. I think that, in the first place, he must blame the South African electorate for that, and in the second place, he must seek the fault in the United Party. It is a compliment for the National Party rather than criticism.

Sir, I realize that as a person who has spent 35 years outside the borders of South Africa, I should not venture lightly upon matters of detail such as those which have been raised in this debate. I therefore want to confine myself more to a few general standpoints which have been adopted here by the United Party. The first aspect to which I want to refer is that, in my opinion, the general standpoint is being adopted that the policy of separate development has already failed or is in the process of failing. From personal experience I want to say that in South-West Africa, where this same policy is being implemented by this same Minister, it is achieving remarkable success. If I think of what our experience was only four or five years ago in respect of the Bantu tribes in that territory, and I think of what their attitude is to-day in respect of the acceptance of this policy, and the progress which has already been made in the application of this policy, then it is succeeding; and this is what is necessary. It is highly desirable, although perhaps not essential, to obtain the co-operation of those people who are so intimately involved in the implementation of this policy. I do not think it can be said that because there are more Bantu in the white areas to-day than there were 25 years ago under the United Party regime, this policy is failing; by the same token the National Party could turn round and say that if it had not been for this policy there would perhaps have been four or five times more Bantu in those areas to-day than there are. I therefore do not think that this is an argument which can simply be accepted.

Another argument to which I want to refer briefly and which was also raised here yesterday by one or more of the hon. members opposite, relates to the economic considerations. I accept that the economic considerations cannot simply be disregarded, but I venture to suggest that the implementation of this policy must not be made completely dependent upon economic trends. I accept that adjustments will be necessary, adjustments on the economic side and also, possibly, in respect of the implementation of the policy and the speed with which it is carried through. But I think that it is dangerous to make it dependent upon purely economic considerations. If we look at the regulation of relations between population groups to-day, what does it cost? Sir, if you will allow me to draw this comparison, what does the regulation of harmonious relations between the two white language groups. English and Afrikaans speaking, cost the taxpayer of South Africa? But we raise no objection to that, because that money is being applied for the purposes of ensuring the unity which there ought to be and for the sake of the prosperity of this country, and the same applies here. If we look at what racial clashes in various countries are costing the world, we find it to be millions of rands, and it is not only a question of the money, but also of the precious lives that are lost. Must we then try to make this policy subject to economic considerations alone?

There is another general argument which is raised, and that is that the National Party is bluffing and misleading the South African electorate in respect of the implementation of this policy. The hon. member on my right says “Yes”. If it were true that a political party could bluff and mislead the electorate for 21 years and in five general elections, what is one to think of that electorate? And the United Party claims to be the party which places its confidence in the Whites of South Africa. If they have no confidence in the judgment and the powers of discrimination of the white electorate, how can they have confidence in the Whites? These are two standpoints which are not reconcilable.

During the by-election in Windhoek the Opposition sent a speaker to Windhoek to help their friends in distress there, and it goes without saying that he spoke about Bantu policy. I want to refer briefly to what he said and relate it to the arguments which have been raised here. I assume that he is a responsible person, because one does not send an irresponsible person to help a friend in distress. He said (translation)—

Their mouthpiece there said (translation)—

Compare this with the allegation that was made here to the effect that nothing was being done in the homelands. How must I, as a newcomer to politics, understand this position? He said (translation)—

Here we heard of a Bantu policy which had failed completely or which is no policy at all! The report continues (translation)—

This with reference to colour policy. Sir, I am still trying to find out who are the other four or five liberalists on my right who, like the hon. member for Umlazi, can be expected to cross over. He went on so say (translation)—

Sir, these views which the hon. Senator expounded in Windhoek surely do not accord at all with the acccusation of heartlessness against the hon. the Minister which we have been hearing here since yesterday; it does not accord at all with the complaint which we heard yesterday, and again this morning, about our policy having failed. I cast doubt on the bona fides of the United Party as such, where it claimed to be the party which placed its confidence in the Whites, but when we hear these contradictory statements I can only ask: Save us from the day when that party has to administer Bantu affairs in South Africa and South-West Africa.

I hope the hon. member for Windhoek will excuse me if I do not reply to him. He has dealt with a large number of speeches from the Opposition side and I have my own private quarrel with the hon. the Minister and the Deputy Minister and there is very little time in which to have that quarrel. First of all, before I go on to those hon. gentlemen I want to say to the hon. member for Wolmaransstad that he has not cited one thing concerning this Vote that we are dealing with here to-day. We are not dealing with white perquisites; we are not dealing with white advantages; we are not dealing with the security of the white man to-day; we are dealing with Bantu Affairs and we are supposed to be dealing with the responsibility of the hon. the Minister and the Deputy Ministers to whom the Bantu have been entrusted. Those are the things that we are meant to be dealing with to-day, and I think the hon. member for Wolmaransstad is right off the beat when he tells this Committee what advantages white South Africans have derived from the policy being carried out by the hon. the Minister and the Deputy Minister. I want to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development, if I can get his attention away from the Leader of the National Party in Natal, that I for one want to give credit to the agricultural officers who are working in the homelands for their very commendable efforts to try to improve agriculture in the reserves. I wish the Government would devote all the money that it has to spend on the reserves to this sort of positive achievement. I do not deride the building of dams and the improvement of stock and contour ploughing and all the other things which the agricultural officers are trying to do. But I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that what they do is being undermined all the time by the other policy which is being carried out in respect of the reserves, and that is the putting back into the reserves of thousands of people from the urban areas, not only the so-called superfluous appendages of the Deputy Minister of Planning but also other Africans who could be employed in the urban areas and who do not have the necessary permits to seek work there. The flooding of these reserves is doing them irrevocable harm, I believe. We know that there is too great a pressure of people and of animals on the reserves. What is the point of pushing such people back and of spending a huge proportion of the amount allocated to the Bantu Trust for housing for those displaced persons? That is not the way to solve the problem. Sir; that is making the problem worse. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister if he has any idea of the average family income in the reserves to-day; does he have any idea of the gross geographic product of those reserves? Sir, I would not be one bit surprised to find that the figure which the Tomlinson Commission reported over 13 years ago and which, after all, was based on surveys done several years before that, the figure that revealed an average income per family in the reserves of £40 for a family of five, and which was based not only on what the reserves yielded in the way of crops but also on the cash brought in by migratory workers, has probably gone down since then.

Why?

Because of the additional pressure of people on the reserves and the inability of the reserves even to support their own people. We are importing food into the reserves; they are not self-sufficient. Leave aside the dreadful drought periods that they have had with a loss of crops and the loss of animals. Even in the normal times the reserves are not able to support their own population. I say that there is not the forward planning that is needed, particularly in view of this policy of sending people back to the reserves. Sir, I do not care whether the hon. the Deputy Minister’s crude words, “superfluous appendages” are used; I do not care whether the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration says very piously that people are not suitcases—I agree with him; that is a fine discovery he has made. I agree with him that they are not suitcases. [Interjections.] There are a few other things that he has changed his mind about and I will come back to those in a minute. I do not care, Sir, if this policy is decked out in the sort of religious or Biblical words of the hon. the Minister himself, which are mentioned in the same issue of Bantu that has been referred to earlier: “Do unto others”, he told the Netherlands Trade Mission, “as you would have them do unto yourself”—fine Biblical words, Sir. The point I want to make is that irrespective of what one calls this policy, it is the same. It is the same whether you call these people superfluous appendages or whether you say that they are not suitcases or whether you use this sort of Biblical language. I want to say that there is only one policy that is being carried out; there is no difference. Only Africans presently employed in the white areas are entitled to be there. Everybody else is either there on suffrance or illegally. The point is that they are “superfluous”; they are surplus and they have to be moved. Sir, a departmental circular, circular No. 25, which was issued in 1967 by the Secretary of Bantu Administration to all its officers and to all the magistrates, makes this policy abundantly clear. It said—

Sir, if you add to these numbers all the people who are supposed to be illegally in the towns, i.e. the people seeking work in the towns, then we see that the policy is one of shoving these people back without any proper planning whatsoever to see that they are properly cared for when they get back to the reserves. Sir, who are the non-productive, so-called superfluous Bantu? They are the aged, the unfit, the widows, the women with dependant children. These are the words used in the departmental circular. I want to ask the hon. the Minister who has used this Biblical language: Are these not the most vulnerable, the most defenceless people in the population? Would not a community wanting to do unto others as it would have others do unto it take care of these people, rather than just shove them back into these areas where there is nothing whatever for them to do, and little provision is made even to house them properly. “The human factor”, said the circular, “must never be lost sight of in the problem of resettlement”. Sir, I say that the human factor has never been considered at all, let alone been lost sight of. In this resettlement scheme, all these people, be it the superfluous people, be it the Africans who have entered the towns to look for employment, share one common factor; they have all been uprooted; they all live in extreme poverty; they all lack employment opportunities unless they are the few lucky individuals who got the perks that are going, the trading store licences or filling station licences or possibly bottle store licences. Everybody else lives in extreme poverty. I want to say quite categorically that in many instances which I personally have seen, the resettlement has not only preceded development, as the Deputy Minister of Planning said it could do, but it has preceded the most rudimentary planning. I say that people have been put on the veld, some of them in mid-winter, and given tents which they did not even know how to erect incidentally; they were left there with no proper medical attention, no proper facilities for schooling and no proper store facilities, etc.

That is not true.

Sir, this is true. I have visited these settlements and this is exactly true of Nuwe Stinkwater, and I challenge the hon. the Minister to tell me otherwise. I went to see that place and I know what it was like when they arrived. It is a little better now, but believe me it was pretty terrible when they arrived. Sir, the same thing happened in the Natal settlements. These people were not given the benefit of adequate preparation and planning. The hon. the Minister should have a look at preparations made for the Kariba Dam scheme and then he will see what real planning means before you move people—years of planning, with district commissioners visiting the place, schools set up, clinics set up, grain provided, thatching grass ready for the people to use. All sorts of preparations were made and even then it was not done very easily. But none of this happened here. People are simply told that they are going to be moved. Does the hon. the Minister have any figures at all as to the cost of these removals to the families concerned? [Time expired.]

Sir, the United Party is bound to reply to certain questions which have up to now been put during the discussion under this Vote. The first question I want to put is whether the United Party is incapable of displaying a greater measure of seriousness in regard to the discussions of such an important Vote. If I regard the spectacle on that side in all honesty, then I must say that I am deeply shocked. I want to ask the hon. member for East London (City) and the hon. member for Durban (Point) the following question: Do they in all honesty think that clarity can on this basis be obtained in regard to our various standpoints? If the United Party does not want to furnish a reply to that, then I want to try to do so. Underlying this phenomenon I find the following reason: That the United Party does not argue on the basis of a principle. Sir, if any political party, in whatever form it may function, does not have a basis of principle then it has no functional pattern either. The fundamental difficulty with the United Party is that owing to a lack of a basic principle a confused functional pattern is being found here as far as the United Party is concerned. A moment ago the hon. member for Durban (Point) concluded his argument by reading something to the effect that the United Party was in favour of residential separation.

And has always been.

For the sake of argument I shall accept that; I shall accept the good faith of the hon. member for Durban (Point). But there it ends as far as the question of separation is concerned. I now want to put this question to the hon. member, arising out of the standpoint which the United Party has already stated, i.e. that they are in favour of the right of land tenure being granted in existing white areas …

That is their policy.

That is their stated policy. [Interjection.] I sat and made no comment when the hon. member was speaking. As a result of this principle, which is fundamental to differences between us and them, I want to ask that if hon. members on the opposite side want to grant Bantu the right of land and property tenure, whether they will be opposed to, and what the results will be, if the Bantu mobilize capital within the white areas on the same economic level as the Whites? What “checks” and “balances” will the United Party apply to utilize the capital which the Bantu have mobilized within the white areas as a result of the economic incorporation policy of the Bantu together with the Whites on the same economic level? What outlets are the United Party going to give that capital which the Bantu have mobilized in that way? How are they going to control it? Where is that capital going to flow to? There is another inevitable consequence as well. If capital mobilization cannot be stemmed, and it cannot be channelized away from levels of friction, from levels of economic integration, away from geographic integration in the spending of that capital which is being mobilized by economic activities, will the United Party then be able to prevent labour mobilization? After capital mobilization the right to mobilize labour must eventually be granted.

If the Bantu therefore begin to mobilize capital within the white areas, as this must happen according to the already stated policy of the United Party, and they begin to mobilize labour, how is the United Party going to channelize this labour mobilization? Will the Bantu be able to employ Whites? Will Bantu be able to mobilize white labour on the same economic level? These are questions which the United Party must reply to, and cannot evade. These are serious questions which I am putting here, because these are the basic components of any economic system which, according to the United Party’s recipe, has to be developed. Those inevitable results cannot be escaped.

I want to ask the hon. member for East London (City) the following question. He occupied his time here with a number of minor matters which apply in any community. What he had to say about the Transkei, I can say of any white area as well. His speech contributed nothing to the acquisition of clarity in regard to the basic problem and its inevitable results. I want to place the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for East London (City) in juxtaposition. She is at least honest in her views. We differ radically from each other, and can never find each other. This rift has formed, and no amount of cement can ever fill it in again. This confused and colourless functional pattern which the United Party is constructing, because they have no basic principle, is in direct contrast to the National Party. If I were to compare the policy of the United Party and that of the National Party I must say that as a result of its basic principle and its colourful and clearly discernable functional pattern which is being based on it, the National Party is also able to project it into the future. The United Party can never hope to make any future projection, because any party which wants to continue to project itself into the future—and it is essential that any party should be able to make such a projection—must have a principal basis for its policy. I want to conclude by saying that we have here a clearly discernable, but distinguishable, expressed basic difference between that side and this side of the House. This rift exists and cannot be bridged and was not formed as a result of what is now being done in the Transkei, or the fact that there are not enough schools, or that the beginning of industrial development or the construction of an economic infrastructure is not what it should be. These things are all secondary and tertiary and not primary. The primary requirement for dealing with such an enormous problem is that the basic principle should be the right one, on which a functional pattern must be constructed, and we must be able to project on such a basic principle further functional patterns.

Mr. Chairman, I know the hon. member will not want me to enter into an argument with him. He says that our points of view differ completely and as a result “ne’er the twain shall meet”. I hope that my regrets are reciprocated by him.

I want to come back to the theme I was developing before my time expired, and I want to say that I do not believe that the Government has done one iota of the forward planning necessary before it goes into this Herculean task, which is the only way I can describe it, a Herculean task, at which I might say lesser mortals would boggle, lesser mortals than the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Ministers, at moving these millions of people, because millions of people are involved. The 3.8 million only applies, as far as I can gather, to the so-called superfluous families in the urban areas, and also to the superfluous families on the rural farms. I do not know where the hon. member for Klip River gets the idea from that farms are not affected by this. In Natal alone, I understand, something like two million people are going to be moved, people who are considered as being labour tenants. The system has been changed so that only male workers will be allowed to stay on.

Where did you get your information from?

This is Government policy. It is announced in this departmental circular, which states that it also applies to Bantu on European farms who become superfluous as a result of age, disability or the application of various complex regulations.

Where do you get this figure of two million from?

It is an estimate. I will cut the figure down to one million, if it suits the hon. member better. This estimate was made in newspapers and I saw no denial of this by an official source. The fact remains … [Interjections.] Do not try to sidetrack me with one exaggerated figure that might have appeared in a newspaper. The fact remains that millions of people are going to be moved, even if one only sticks to the figure of 3.8 million mentioned by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development. What forward planning goes into this matter? I know there is supposed to be a departmental directive that no removal scheme should be undertaken unless there is adequate housing, schools, clinics and so on, but in fact these removals are taking place all the time, without adequate forward planning having been done. The Government does not have the facts. That is the point. It does not know, for instance, what sort of income loss is suffered by rural families that are removed from the rural black spots and have to give up their livestock when they are moved. It does not know of the loss of income when people are, for example, prohibited from ploughing because of imminent removal. This happened to people at the farm Hlatikulu. Does the hon. the Deputy Minister know that? For three years these people were ordered not to plough because their removal was imminent. It took three years longer than the Government expected, because they did not find any water in the boreholes they say, and when finally they moved them did they give them any compensation for the loss of arable crops in the three years they were not allowed to plough? Was there any compensation paid for the additional year until the new crops grew? These are all factors which have to be taken into consideration. Has any consideration been given to the loss of income to families already living on absolute subsistence levels when the women are no longer able to earn a little extra money by doing casual work in the rural areas? This is one example. There is also the pattern of hygiene, the change between people living on widespread settlements, and people in the closer settlements. This is the sort of things we have to know about. The loss of family income where the so-called superfluous women and children are removed from the urban areas, is also a factor. These people all supply additional incomes to their families. Does anyone know about the cost of maintaining two households, one for the family in the reserves, and one in the towns? It involves additional costs, such as additional rents and additional basic expenses.

I now want to come to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education. The Government talks big about preserving Bantu culture. In his address to the Netherlands Trade Mission he talked about building up the Bantu’s own national identity, culture and so on. Of course, he also stressed this business about there being a minority Government in South Africa because of the different Bantu nations. I will leave that nonsense aside. This hon. Deputy Minister knows something about anthropology. Indeed, he wrote a learned thesis of about 680 pages on the evils of migratory labour when he was under the influence …

No, not under the influence …

… under the influence of the spires of Oxford. Do not jump to conclusions. He wrote a fine thesis on the evils of migratory labour. The hon. the Deputy Minister is an anthropologist and is it not obvious to him that these bleak settlements that are being set up in the rural areas are neither the normal outgrowth of Western culture on the one hand, nor are they in any way consonant with Bantu culture on the other hand. He knows they are not. They are a crude by-product of the Bantu Urban Areas Act and the Bantu Labour Act. That is what they are. The basic unit of Bantu culture was the family and the hon. the Deputy Minister knows that. The extended family was the basis.

In the homelands.

Everywhere. If they are put back in the homelands and if the Government wants them to maintain their culture, they have to maintain that extended family and this does not exist any more. Not for the people who have been returned from the urban areas and not for the people who are superfluous and are being sent back. People were linked by a system of reciprocities in the old Bantu culture and the hon. the Deputy Minister knows it perfectly well. There were no abandoned orphans, deserted wives and no widows with dependent children. They were all absorbed in the huge extended family unit. There was lifelong security and everybody shared the common fate. Be it famine or be it feasting, everybody shared the common fate. This is not so now. We are breaking down Bantu culture and we are putting nothing in its place. We are not allowing these people to absorb the benefits of Western culture. What sort of conditions are these likely to lead to? I am talking on ths one side only, but what about ths residual conditions in the urban areas? Do hon. Ministers for one moment stop and think of what situations they are creating in the urban areas with this broken family life? The whole emphasis of the future labour pattern is being put on migratory labour. Do they not realize what they are building up for future generations to contend with? it is not only the Coloured problem that will have to be solved by our children, but also a vast problem of crime and delinquency that is going to have to be solved by our children, because the conditions which are being set in the urban areas of South Africa, for the African people who every hon. Deputy Minister have admitted will have to work here, are going to lead to the most terrible conditions of crime and delinquency. One cannot have a labour system based on migratory labour where thousands and millions of adult males cooped up without the benefit of family life and expect life to go on as before. One cannot then expect to have some reasonable conditions of living and expect to have parental control of children. Do hon. Ministers know of the astronomical percentage of illegitimate children born in the townships as a result of this system? Have they any idea of this? Does it not worry them? This hon. Deputy Minister who is an intelligent and an educated man has had the benefit of anthropological studies, but he deliberately sets out on this policy which he knows can only lead to the most terrible conditions in South Africa within one generation.

I have another matter I wish to raise with the hon. Ministers and I hope I will have an opportunity to develop it, if not now, then later and that is that there has been a great deal of fuss and bother about the tragic death of three people in a Police van. The Police have been blamed for this. I say that the Police are not to blame for this, not the African men in charge of the van and not even the white sergeant who gave the instructions. The culprits are the hon. the Minister and the Deputy Ministers of Bantu Administration and Education and of Bantu Development and also the Government.

That is absolute nonsense.

Order! This matter should be raised under the Police or Justice Vote and not under this Vote.

What I am trying to point out is that the pass law system, which falls under this hon. Minister’s department, is responsible for this.

Order! The hon. member may not criticize laws passed by this Parliament. The pass laws were passed by this Parliament.

I am perfectly entitled to criticize the implementation of laws.

I have given my ruling. The hon. member must come back to the discussion of this Vote.

I am sorry, but I must challenge you ruling. I am here to deal with the hon. the Minister’s department and his department is administering the pass laws. These laws have new regulations constantly added to them, making it an impossible task for the Police of this country. What I am asking these hon. Ministers to consider before they glibly put regulations in the Gazette and before they amend laws is to think of the consequences. It is one thing to make regulations and it is another thing to see that such laws and regulations are implemented. I put the blame for the 1,600 pass law cases per day, for the 600 people that appear every single day of the working week in the Bantu Commissioner’s court in Fordsburg, not on the Police Force; it is the result of this system. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Houghton must excuse me if I do not react to her ten-minute speech. It was a speech containing more hatred and malice than I have ever heard before.

Every time I make a speech you make that accusation.

As hon. members have said, the hon. member for Houghton will never plead for a white man, she is always pleading for the black man because he is always, ostensibly, being done an injustice. But she never pays any attention to the white man’s interests. Hence the hatred and malice which she displays here.

But I want to confine myself more specifically to the hon. member for Transkei. He made a half-hour speech here yesterday. He said, inter alia, that our policy had fallen through. While maneouvring to and fro like that he reminded me of Don Quixote of old and his attacks on the windmills. The hon. member achieved nothing by what he said. But in 1928 they also predicted that Iscor would be a failure. In fact, General Smuts himself said so. You may consult Hansard if you like. In precisely the same way they doomed our Bantu homelands policy to failure, as well as our establishment of the Republic. But, Mr. Chairman, the difference between this side and that side of the House is that we on this side believe in what we are doing. We do not believe in failures, only in future successes. Thus far we have not failed in any respect, despite the prophets of doom on the opposite side of the House. We at least have faith in the future. We believe that the homelands will develop further. There is already a measure of development, but they are going to be developed further. That hon. member is shaking his head. But can he tell me whether there is any comparison between the Transkei to-day and that of 20 years ago? Mr. Chairman, the two cannot be compared.

Go and look at what it is like there.

But, Sir, I do, in fact, know the Transkei. Its economy is in a better position to-day than ever before, despite the greatest droughts in living memory.

Last year they harvested less maize than ever before.

Yes, but that was as a result of the drought. Your primary industry in the Transkei at present is the agricultural industry. As a result we cannot expect anything different. [Interjections.]

Order! Please, only one hon. member at a time.

Mr. Chairman, they say that the truth hurts, especially if you come from Umtata. The Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council has made it its object to contribute to the development of Bantu homelands as well. While the growth rate in the Republic is about 5 per cent, it is at present still less than 2.4 per cent in the homelands. If the Bantu homelands are to provide a refuge for their population increases, the growth rate must be more than this. And this will be the case in the foreseeable future.

How far away is that “foreseeable future”?

A few years hence. [Interjections.] This must happen in view of everything that is being done at present for the economic development of the homelands. In order to develop the homelands a few basic requirements, fundamental requirements, must be met. I now want to mention one very important one. The Whites of the Republic will make their contribution in the form of tied capital in the homelands. I am purposely calling it “tied capital” because it will not be free capital. This is something which is advocated by members on this side of the House. The development of the Bantu homelands has a positive and a negative side, like a battery.

And then there is a short circuit.

Delays in developments in the homelands are caused by human erosion, an erosion of brainpower. The best brainpower in the homelands is lost to the homelands because the people are enticed away to the flourishing white economy. We shall have to do something to return this brain power to the homelands. I know what I am talking about. Bantu labour on the farms to-day is of a lower standard than it was originally. With a few exceptions, this is also the case within the homelands. I want to plead for us to re-channel, in some way or other, the brain power which is being lost to the homelands, so that the black people can apply their capabilities for the benefit of their own people.

Whether there is work or not?

The hon. member knows that years ago many people left the homelands to go and work in the white homelands, good labour forces, people with good brainpower. They can be used in a positive way for the benefit of their own people in the homelands. Can we do this, can we develop the homelands twice as quickly as we are doing at present. I have a great appreciation for the work which is at present being done by the Minister, his Deputies and their Department. But, with the limited human material at their disposal, can the small but valiant band of Bantu administration officials in the Transkei carry through this gigantic task which they are shouldering? We must have that brainpower in order to speed up development, in conjunction with the officials there and with the financial assistance which the Government is giving to the homelands, otherwise it will be a slow process. I take my hat off to what the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development has thus far achieved as far as that is concerned. We believe that henceforth it could be a much speedier process than ever before, although the Opposition’s attitude is negative and will remain negative until they one day vanish. But we believe in ourselves and in what we advocate.

I am pleased the hon. member for Aliwal North dealt with the question of the homelands, because it is something which I too should like to deal with. We started off this Session with my hon. Leader completely exposing, in the no-confidence debate, the homeland myth and the separate development myth. Yesterday the hon. member for Transkei did the same. There is a saying that sooner or later there comes to everyone a moment of truth. I want to make bold to say that the year 1969 is going to be recorded in our history as the year during which the Nationalist Party Government was brought face to face with its moment of truth. For the Government there is the very unpalatable truth that after 21 years in power their much vaunted policy of separate development, a policy devised in the first instance to lend some semblance of morality to the pledge they used to get into power, has turned out to be a dismal failure. When the inevitable post-mortem is held and the Government looks around for reasons why this policy has failed, I suggest to them that the basic reason is a very simple one. This policy has failed because the Government has been unwilling to face up to a very simple and fundamental truth, the truth that in South Africa to-day the white man and black man are complementary to one another, to the extent that there can be no progress in the white areas without the co-operation and goodwill of the black man, just as there can be no progress in the black areas without the financial assistance, the technical know-how, the co-operation and goodwill of the white man. This is the stark truth of the matter and no measure of theorizing or lip service to this so-called ideal of separate development is going to change this fundamental truth.

One can well understand the feeling of frustration which exists within the Nationalist Party, now that they realize that after their 21st year in power there is an agitation amongst their own supporters, an agitation spearheaded by the intelligentsia of the party and their own Press for, of all things, a “volkskongres” to find ways and means of speeding up the implementation of separate development.

We have not heard very much lately about this congress. Possibly during the course of this debate, the hon. the Minister can tell us a little more about it. However, I should like to say that I do not believe any purpose would be served by a congress of this nature unless the Government in the first instance is prepared to have a good look at the whole concept of separate development and in the light of what they see, do some very serious rethinking. I do not think anything like this will happen, because we know how stubborn and dogmatic the Government can be in matters of this particular nature. We find that the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration ably supported by his deputy, still makes use of every possible opportunity to use all the old worn out clichés by telling the people of South Africa that he is making progress with separate development, that separate development will eventually be successful and that it is designed for the benefit of all the people in South Africa. We are in no way doubting the hon. the Minister’s sincerity in his beliefs of separate development. However, I should like to say to him that facts and figures have proved him to be wrong. He has to realize that any policy in the final analysis is judged by what it does and not by what it says. One wonders how the hon. the Minister can really have faith in this particular policy. Surely he knows that during the 21 years of Nationalist Party rule the white population of the platteland has decreased by 50 per cent, while the Bantu population has increased by no less than 1,300,000. I think he should know too that in the city of Johannesburg, for instance, the Bantu population has almost doubled itself in 20 years. It increased from 395,000 in 1947 to no less than 774,000 in 1967. This happened despite everything the Government could do. Does anybody really seriously believe to-day that the 8 million odd Bantu who are outside the reserves can ever be accommodated there? Of course, they do not. Even if they could be white South Africa would never allow it, because if we did the economy of this country would collapse like a house of cards. The hon. the Minister and all members on that side of the House know this. My plea is that if the Government and the Minister have made a mistake in this policy, for goodness’ sake why do they not have another look at it and try to come up with something a little bit better.

If the hon. the Minister still wants proof of the permanency of the urban Bantu in South Africa, I suggest that he takes a look at the capital expenditure of the larger cities in South Africa. He will find for instance that in the city of Johannesburg capital expenditure has risen from R46 million to the colossal amount of R60 million during about five years. This is happening all the time. The Government knows they are fighting a losing battle. We know the hon. the Minister has proved himself as a hard and tough politician. I think the time has now come for him to show to the people of South Africa that he is also a statesman. He should have another look at this policy of separate development which can never work in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, since yesterday I have been listening in this House to one Opposition speaker after the other. Not one of them succeeded in giving us an indication of their policy. All they do is to oppose the National Government’s policy of separate development. They are trying to cast suspicion on and criticize the implementation of the policy of separate development. I want to tell the Opposition that we, the responsible National Party Government, every member on this side of the House, will not dispute the fact that major problems do crop up on the road to separate development. We are not afraid of them, because it is a fact that along with every task which one shoulders in this life, problems are laid in one’s way; however small that task may be, those problems are present.

Any farmer in South Africa to-day, and he may be the most practical farmer, will come across problems in the implementation of his farming methods, Problems which have to be solved. That is why the electorate in South Africa has so much confidence in the Government, because they know that this is the party which is capable of solving the problems which are being laid in the way of separate development. The policy of separate development of this National Government is an essential law. Through all the centuries it has always been an essential law. Through all the centuries this essential law has been implemented instinctively, not only by human beings, but even by animals. I want to tell hon. members of the Opposition that if some of them decide to visit the Kruger National Park during the winter holidays, they should observe the animals. The impala keep to themselves in separate herds, and the same applies to the blue wildebeest, the giraffes, the lions …

The “botterbulle”.

This is an essential law and the process of separate development in South Africa originates from that. When Jan van Riebeeck landed here in 1652, he found the brown man here in the person of Harry Strandloper. By implication Jan van Riebeeck told him, “Harry, you stay there and I stay here”. As far back as that this was a law in South Africa. When the Whites arrived in South Africa, they came across the Bantu living in various population groups, each group in its own area, where it was separate and developed separately: the Basuto in Basutoland, the Zulu in Zululand, the Swazi in Swaziland and the Matabele in the Transvaal. What do we find to-day? The United Party does not only want to throw the Bantu together; they also want to throw White and Black together. Now the United Party comes along with its policy which, by implication, is integration, and it wants to throw White and Black together.

We have a most competent Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, Minister M. C. Botha, who, apart from his exceptionally high intelligence, his integrity and competence, is a product of the Verwoerd school, and to him we want to say that he should carry on with the policy of separate development. We on this side of the House want to say to him that he should go on spending large amounts of money on that policy. I want to remind the members of the United Party of the fact that under the United Party Government they argued, in 1939 and in the five subsequent years, that our survival here in South Africa was being jeopardized by Germany. Then they went to the people of South Africa and asked for R1,000 million to be spent on the war effort, the reason being that, according to them, our survival had to be safeguarded—R1,000 million, the equivalent of which is between R4,000 and R5,000 million to-day. That is why we want to tell the United Party that the people of South Africa are prepared to pay for the policy of separate development, since this is the only policy which is true to the essential laws which have been proven over the centuries. It is on the basis of that law of separate nations that white South Africa will continue to exist.

In a Christian manner, morally, traditionally and culturally we shall give the black man what is his due. In the implementation of the policy of separate development we find that the Government is doing its share throughout the Republic. It does that, and especially over the past 3½ years this has been the case in my constituency. In that area I have seen how, over the past 3½ years, the National Government has removed black spots from our white areas, how it has moved’1,350 families, or more than 8,000 Bantu, from the white area of Meyerton to the Bantu township of Sebokeng, how it has over the past 3½ years moved 1,633 families, or more than 9,000 Bantu, to the Bantu township of Sebokeng, how it has moved 272 families, or more than 1,000 Bantu, from Vanderbijlpark to Sebokeng, and 2,787 families from Evaton to Sebokeng. Just as the voters of South Africa have over the past 21 years judged the National Party and the United Party, so they will judge them for at least another 21 years, because the clear dividing line is there. If that party should ever come into power, then the writing would be on the wall for South Africa and one black Bantustan would develop all over the territory of Southern Africa, and that is something the voters of South Africa will never allow. That is why we, with our policy of separate development, will in the years that lie ahead continue to govern so that we may safeguard the survival of the white man here.

The hon. member for Heidelberg has come here with the understatement of the year, when he says that on the path to separate development the Nationalist Party has come across great problems. He said there were some problems and then he qualified it by saying there were great problems. Of course their problems are so great that the Nationalist Party has not yet left Square 1 on the path to solving them. Not yet have they left Square 1 to take a step forward towards the solution of those problems. The hon. member referred to the Kruger National Park, and he said there you have the animals of different sorts which stay separate and keep apart, but the question arises when do the lions and the kudu keep apart? They are apart at all times except at meal-times, and this is precisely the same sort of thing that goes on here in South Africa. You have separation in residential areas between White and Black, but in the meal tickets of every single white man and black man in South Africa we are permanently and inextricably integrated and we will never get away from it. This is the one problem to which the Government has no answer whatever. I want to put a question to the hon. members. I believe that the white man in this country has a mission to maintain here what we call Christian Western civilization, and I think we are all agreed in this House that that is what we are trying to do. But what I want to do now is to question the means by which the Nationalist Party is seeking to attain that ideal. It is an ideal for the white as well as for the black man and for every single race in South Africa. What we stand for as white people are the values, the standards, the way of life, and the thoughts we express here are of value to both Black and White in South Africa, and indeed, it is essential to the black man if progress of a permanent nature is to be made. I want to say straight out now that the civilizing force here in South Africa is the town, urban employment and urban residence. I want to say right here and now that what this Government is doing is to turn its back on the urbanization and the development of the Bantu population towards civilized standards, because they are deliberately turning their back on that process and attempting to force back into Bantu rural reserves the whole of the thought processes of the Bantu population.

What about Umtata?

I am not talking about Umtata. I am saying that what this Government is attempting to do, where you have in the white urban areas the one civilizing force that can guarentee the future of the white man, is to turn its back on that civilizing force and deliberately to attempt turning the whole development of the Bantu back into the Bantu rural areas.

That is dynamite.

Yes, it is dynamite. The Government is attempting to force back into the rural areas the whole of the development and the future of the Bantu population, and they are creating the one thing which will destroy white civilization in South Africa. They are doing this because they are denying the Bantu population a future in the white areas. They are forcing them back into the rural areas of the Reserves, and what they are doing is to create there a vast population of people who have nothing to look forward to, who have no economic hope and who will sit there and look over their borders at the white man’s land. [Interjections.] This is the one rallying cry. When the people who are turfed out of the urban areas, who are endorsed out and sent back, who are given nothing to do, who are put into Government camps, who are denied the right to participate in the economy of South Africa go back to their Reserves the one thing they will do is to sit and look over the border at the land which the white man has got, and let me tell you this, Sir. In the Russian Revolution of 1917 the rallying cry that Lenin used to divorce the peasants from their own representatives was “Land”. In the Mau-Mau Revolution in Kenya, the one thing which stirred up the Kikuyu against the British occupation was land, and in Vietnam the one thing which was the decisive factor was land.

But we are giving them their own land. Read the 1936 Act.

That is absolute nonsense. There is not enough land to-day in the Transkei even to be allocated to all the people who are being endorsed back from the urban areas, and I challenge the hon. members to deny it. What is going to happen is this. We are creating the one ideal condition to encourage the greatest danger we face, namely the influence of the Chinese communists in this country. It is an old story, Sir. Let me tell the hon. member that this is the one thing which can give the black people the urge to destroy the white man, namely the cry for more land. If the hon. member thinks that the Chinese communists are going to miss this kind of chance to stir up trouble and create strife in the Bantu Reserves, he has another think coming. The whole pattern of the Chinese communist onslaught on Western society has been to exploit the peasant. I think we have to realize that we are facing a change of tactics. There is a very wide divergence between the two great communist powers, because the Russians have been concentrating on urban workers to cause agitation, but the Chinese have adopted different tactics; they go for the peasant, the man who looks for ground, and that applies so vitally to us in South Africa. This is something which this Government is deliberately neglecting.

You are putting thoughts into the minds of the Bantu.

The hon. member says I am putting thoughts into the minds of the Bantu. What absolute nonsense! Does he think that nobody outside South Africa has seen what this Government is doing? Does he think that they are sitting there with their eyes blinded to the folly of this Government in denying the one force we have which is constructive and which is building up something which is permanent in the life of the Bantu, namely their employment in the urban areas? What this Government is doing is to destroy the hope and the basis for the survival of the white man in this country by their policy, because the survival of the white man is based on the civilizing action of our urban civilization, and this is the only thing which can guarantee our safety in any way at all for the future. I want to ask the hon. members to get up now and to deny what I have said. Let us hear what they are doing in those homelands that they talk so much about.

We will let you know.

I am very pleased to hear it. For a long time they have been going to let us know what they are doing, and I will return a little later to deal with these homelands the Government is creating. But I want to take this point about the civilizing influence of the urban areas just one step further. Unless the white man can create in the thought process of the black man in South Africa the same Christian Western values, so that they will guarantee and protect those values for their own sakes, then the white man in this country will go only one way. What this Government is doing, as I have said already, is deliberately to turn its back on the civilizing process, because it does not fit into the theory of Nationalist Party policy which says that there must be complete and utter separation at some time or other in the future and that these are the steps that we are taking now towards implementing this kind of policy.

If there was ever a speech made in this House which was loaded with dynamite, then it was this despicable speech which the hon. member for Mooi River has just made.

Order! The hon. Deputy Minister may not say that; he must withdraw that.

Despicable content.

I am referring to the content of his speech.

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, but I want to say that the speech which he has just made now, will be used to reproach the United Party. I am sorry that their Leader is not here. I am sorry that the leader of their Bantu affairs group is not here, but there are responsible members of the United Party present here, and one would like to ascertain from them whether the policy of the United Party is that the Bantu should be able to acquire land according to their needs, unlike what was provided in the 1936 Act. That is what the hon. member for Mooi River was suggesting here, and he was in fact saying to the Bantu that they had a justified claim and that they had legitimate reasons for starting a revolution in South Africa, as the Mau-Mau did in Kenya, because there was a need for land. That is what the hon. member said. [Interjections.] Yes, I know that they will begin to get their dander up now. The United Party must now tell us whether they are prepared to give land to all Bantu according to their needs.

May I put a question?

No, Sir, the hon. member can speak again. It is almost time for lunch and this speech of his was such that I will not even be able to digest it during the lunch hour. I also want him to go to lunch to-day with the appetite of those things he uttered in this debate when he in fact said to the Bantu here that they had a justified claim when they looked over the fence and saw what the white man had that they did not have, and that their insisting that that claim be met was justified.

That is untrue.

He did not say that.

I am glad that that hon. member has now intervened. It is of no avail that hon. member saying that it is untrue. He must fight it out with the hon. member for Mooi River. In the 1936 Act we gave recognition to the 12 million morgen of land which the Bantu had at the time. We did so in the Schedule to the Act and provision was made for a further seven and a quarter million morgen which would gradually be acquired, as the hon. Minister has previously stated, and as far as that is concerned, the white man’s word will not be broken.

[Inaudible.]

Sir, if my record was as poor as that hon. member’s, I would rather say nothing. I can look up his record for him, but we are on the verge of going out to eat. I need not feel ashamed of our record. How much of that land did the United Party Government acquire when land was still cheap? But I am not going to allow myself to be side-tracked by him. We shall not break the white man’s word. We shall gradually add that seven and a quarter million morgen to land they own to-day. We will evacuate the poorly situated areas and give them compensatory land.

That is not at issue.

It is definitely at issue. Sir, the United Party has previously stated that they will grant proprietory rights within the white areas to a certain class of Bantu. We then asked them, as the hon. member for Carletonville also did a moment ago, what their attitude was going to be if the Bantu who were living here in the white areas, built up capital and began to mobilize their capital. We received no reply to that. But my question is this: If that land should be allocated to them, is it going to be subtracted from the seven and a quarter million morgen of land, or is it going to be added?

What nonsense!

No, it is not nonsense. Sir, we want clarity in regard to the question of land tenure in South Africa.

Well, do a swop.

I know what the attitude of the hon. member for Houghton is. To her it makes no difference whether the Blacks own the whole of South Africa. I am dealing with the United Party, the official Opposition, the people out of whom we want to drag a statement of their policy. Over and above that seven and a quarter million morgen of land, and over and above proprietory rights for the Bantu in the peri-urban areas, such as Langa, Nyanga, Soweto and Kwa Mashu, the hon. member has stated that the Bantu have a legitimate claim to more land according to their needs. He stated that they do not even have sufficient land for themselves in the Transkei …

Is it true or not?

… and now we want to know from the United Party once and for all, whether they are going to meet the needs of the Bantu for land, and whether this is going to be subtracted from the seven and a quarter million morgen of land? Do they advocate that the Bantu may eventually own 19 million morgen of land which we, with our greater knowledge and with the necessary technicians are going to help them develop? There they must subsequently build up their economy, to the extent of 19 million morgen, but where does the United Party stand in regard to this matter?

You have the wrong end of the stick.

The hon. member for Mooi River himself said that his speech was dynamite, and we are not going to allow this speech loaded with dynamite to go unanswered. He is the man who incited the Bantu here to-day. He is the man who told the Bantu that they had a legitimate claim …

On a point of order, Sir, there is a law against racial incitement in South Africa. Is the hon. the Deputy Minister allowed to accuse a member of breaking that law and racially inciting the Bantu? The hon. the Deputy Minister said: “He incited the Bantu.”

He did.

Order! It has never been ruled that “aanhits” (incite) is unparliamentary. The hon. Deputy Minister may proceed.

If there was no incitement in this speech, then I do not know what incitement is.

You are agitators.

On a point of order, Sir, may the hon. member for Durban (Point) say that we are agitators?

Order! Did the hon. member for Durban (Point) say that?

Yes.

The hon. member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it. I say they are inciters.

The hon. member can call me an inciter, but this Hansard will be read in future, and there we will see who it was who incited the Bantu and who gave the Bantu the counsel that they had a legitimate claim to more land because they were numerically superior.

He did not say that.

Mr. Chairman, during the discussion of this Vote the United Party levelled a serious charge against the National Party. The charge is very clearly stated in this morning’s newspaper, where it is said: “Separate development is a fraud and a bluff”. Then they go on to say: “This Government has no separate development policy”. If that Charge contained one iota of truth, everyone who loved this country would have to reflect seriously on the matter. But there is not a shred of truth in it. Let me now inform the United Party that as far as this matter and this nonsensical allegation which they are making in the discussion of this Vote is concerned, there was much better contact last night between Snoopy and Charlie Brown than there has ever been between the National Party and the United Party. They were never even near being in orbit; that is the “bluff”. What is the United Party doing? They supply their own criteria, then they test our policy against their criteria and arrive at the conclusion that it is a “fraud” and a “bluff”. Where has one ever seen such a ridiculous thing before? There is a “fraud” and a “bluff”. But do hon. members know what the “fraud” and the “bluff” is? It is the allegation of the United Party that our policy is a “fraud” and a “bluff”. That is the “bluff”. Do hon. members know wherein the “fraud” and the “bluff” also lies? To drive the United Party into a corner is the easiest thing in the world. I would just like to ask them a single question. They say we do not have a policy. Our policy is very clear. One can put it in a nutshell. We have fought elections on it, and that accounts for their present appearance. The only party which cannot split, is the Progressive Party because there is only one member. Here is our policy in a nutshell: In the white areas there must be white sovereignty—hon. members can also use the word “baasskap” if they want to—'for all time, and we shall defend this with the use of force. That is our policy. In addition to that we say, as far as the Bantu in the Bantu homelands are concerned, they can develop there to the absolute maximum, to the extent to which they are able to develop.

[Inaudible.]

If they are capable of doing so it will happen. That hon. member must not think that I shall allow myself to be caught out with old hat. Our policy is therefore very clear, is it not? Now I want to ask them one question. Can they give the voters of this country the guarantee that Bantu will never sit in this House, the highest authority in this country, and that this House will always remain white? They cannot do it. I am now challenging them to give that guarantee in terms of their policy. Sir, do you see how quietly they sit there without saying a word? They cannot do so. In that lies the “fraud” and the “bluff”, and in that lies the “no policy”. That is the point. [Interjections.]

May I ask a question?

Order! Not one speaker has spoken under this Vote whom the hon. member for Pinelands had not interrupted. It is getting monotonous now.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question?

My time is very limited: the hon. member can ask me a question later on. As long ago as 1947 we envisaged very clearly our policy of protecting the Whites properly and effectively against any policy, dogma or attack which would undermine or endanger their survival. That is why there are so few U.P. members (Sappe). That is why the Progressive Party has been thinned out to such an extent that there is only one of them sitting here to-day.

Now I should very much like to furnish the hon. members with facts indicating how we are implementing our policy. Let me say at once that never in the history of the National Party has more rapid and more dynamic progress been made with the implementation of this policy of protecting and confirming the domination of the Whites in the white area than is being achieved at this very moment. As far as the development of under-developed areas is concerned. South Africa has, under National Party rule, already placed itself in a position where it can state without any danger of contradiction—scientists are realizing and appreciating this to an increasing extent —that there is no other country that has progressed so far with the development of its under-developed people than the Republic of South Africa. We are dealing here with a human problem. I am not a Roman Catholic but I would just like to quote what the Pope recently stated in his Encyclical Letter on the development of peoples. The United Party must take note of this. He stated—

Now does the United Party expect us, and this is their criterion, to do everything for the Bantu in this country. If the Bantu are themselves, owing to the human problem, incapable of developing those homelands at a faster rate, do they want to hold the National Party Government to account for this? Then they say that our policy is a “fraud” and a “bluff”. Surely that is ridiculous, Sir. We have always said that the human development of the Bantu is a different problem. I repeat, no government in the world has made further or better progress in respect of that problem than the National Party Government in the Republic of South Africa.

Then they come forward with their numerical story. What are the facts in regard to the numbers? Do hon. members know that only last year we removed 61,658 Bantu who were not economically active, from the white areas? That was in one year. Do hon. members know that since 1961 we have built 71,055 houses for the Bantu in their Bantu homelands in order to resettle them there away from the white area. What a phenomenal achievement in a mere eight years! Do hon. members know how many people from our whites areas were resettled in that way in the Bantu homelands? 450,373, almost a half million. Surely this is a tremendous achievement. The policy we are applying is that the Bantu must remain attached to their national assets, to their own homelands. As a result of that policy, we have succeeded to Such an extent that the position in July 1968 was as follows. This is the latest figure we have available. In the white area 1,646.777 single Bantu were working in the Republic. We do not shy away from our policy. Our policy is that this is white area. The Bantu nations each have their own country. Therefore, if they come to work here, they are here on a temporary basis and cannot acquire any permanent rights. That is why we maintain that we cannot establish the Bantu here in the white areas on a family basis. I have previously indicated to hon. members on the opposite side what would happen if they were to apply their policy. If one, as the hon. member for Transkei said here again yesterday, were to settle 1,646,000 single Bantu here on a happy family basis in our white areas, do hon. members know what that would mean? Immediately more than eight million Bantu, if it could be applied, would stream into our cities. The United Party wants an inundation, an increasing number of Bantu in the white area. Then they talk about a “fraud” and a “bluff”. Therein lies the “fraud” and the “bluff”. Do hon. members know what it would cost to build a house for each of 1,646,000 Bantu? At R500 apiece it would cost more than R800 million, for the houses alone. If one were also to have to purchase the land and make the services available, as I have said before, it works out, conservatively estimated, at R200,000 million, which is what the policy of integration of the United Party will cost this country, with the ploughing under of the Whites which will accompany this, if they should come into power. Then they have the temerity to accuse us of our policy being a “fraud” and a “bluff”. There the “bluffers” and the “frauds” are sitting. I can quote figures to them to indicate how the birth rate figure has increased more rapidly, particularly since 1961, as a result of our strict influx control measures in our urban areas among the Bantu. This is as a result of National Party policy. We say that, as long as the Bantu work here, they must be assured of a fair modus vivendi. That we are doing, Sir. As a result of health and other services the position is such that between 1946 and 1951 1.8 Bantu streamed in for every Bantu born. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister who has just sat down, quoted certain figures which have already been disproved by this side of the House. When the hon. the Deputy Minister quotes the figure of 1,600.000 Bantu he knows perfectly well that over half of those people are not married. He knows that that figure includes the entire, total labour force of the mines, who are foreign Bantu who are here on specific contracts.

That is a falsification.

Mr. Chairman, is the hon. member for Durban (Point) allowed to say, “That is a falsification”?

He did not say it was deliberate.

The hon. the Deputy Minister knows perfectly well that the figures he quoted are figures which are misleading. They are not accurate figures. They are not the figures on which we can base any type of estimate in this country.

I want to return to my hon. friend from Somerset East, the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development, who spoke for 10 minutes here on something which I had not said. That hon. Deputy Minister attempted to put words into my mouth which I did not use. I want to put the record straight now. Anybody else who puts those words into my mouth will then be guilty of a deliberate, ascertainable lie. What I said, was, because of the policy of this Government of pushing back into the Bantu reserves what they call, “surplus population”, they will be creating in the Bantu reserves a population that they cannot possibly employ. They will be creating a pressure on the white man’s land. They will be creating a population which is readily accessible to the Chinese communist line that land must be given to the Bantu population. It will be as a result of the policy of this Government, Mr. Chairman, it is not me that comes here with words to “aanhits”, as the hon. the Deputy Minister said. It is the policy of the Government, by pushing back these people, by forcing them back into an underdeveloped area, that will create the pressure on the land of the white man. This is the one thing that will destroy white South Africa.

I want to go further. I want to say to these hon. members, to the Minister and the Deputy Ministers, that they have not left square one, as I said before, in the development of their policy. They have made no serious attempt to develop the homelands in order to carry this kind of population. We have heard all kinds of stories about the contour banks. I am very grateful for the contour banks that have been made, make no mistake. But this is not creating the conditions under which a growing population can be housed and fed. What the Government are losing sight of, is that all their efforts in the homelands will be swamped by the rising population. Over 80,000 new people every year have to be employed in those areas. I want to know just what these people are going to do. Sir, I have a book here. I just want to …

No, no. Come to the question I asked you. Do not run away.

I am glad the hon. the Deputy Minister reminded me of the question he asked me about the land which was to be purchased outside of the scheduled areas. It is quite clearly laid down in chapter 3 of the Bantu Trust Act, section 10 (3) (b) which says:

So land which was purchased for or transferred to Bantu from any people other than Bantu, shall be deemed to be included in the quota which is laid down in the 1936 legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to restore this debate to a rather higher level. I want to discuss with the hon. the Deputy Minister and the Minister himself the development of the Bantu homelands. I have a book here which is called “The Economics of Poverty” written by a Mr. Thomas Balogh who is the Economic Adviser to the British Cabinet. He is a person who has done a considerable amount of research in work of this nature throughout the world. I hope the hon. members will listen to what I quote. He said:

I should like to know what this Government has done to mobilize the rural labour force, because the problem that we in this country are facing, and I want to repeat it, the problem that we face is the problem of the rural poor in the Bantu areas; the people who have no employment; the people who have no hope of employment; the people whose only hope is some form of migratory labour where they may be allowed out for a while and then be put back into those reserves. If the white man wants to survive, this Government will have to find an answer to the rural poor in the Bantu areas. It is a question which goes far beyond simply creating contour walls, dams and so forth. He goes on to say:

The hon. members have been battling now for 21 years in government. They have been in control of the Bantu areas for 21 years. They cannot now say that they have established anything that looks like a flexible food base in the Bantu areas. If there is to be an expansion there with any kind of industrial development at all, the lesson of economics shows that as soon as one starts developing and a rise of income takes place within those areas, the demand for food rises immediately in those areas. But to what success can this Government point to say that in those Bantu areas they have achieved anything which looks like a rising production of food so that they can carry what is there now? I am not even talking of the increase in the population which is taking place year after year. If they are serious about their policy they must now show us that they have taken practical steps and that they are making progress.

Where do you live?

I live very, very close to a number of Bantu reserves in Natal. Where does the hon. member for Brakpan live? Does he live anywhere near a Bantu reserve?

I live in Brakpan.

I know the hon. member was making an election speech this morning. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Brakpan should not make so many interjections.

In the book “The Economics of Poverty” Mr. Balogh goes on to say that only if the rural response is adequate, only if one can get the return from the Bantu areas as far as food and production are concerned, if productivity and income are increased and justify an increase of industry, only then could a self-sustaining upwards spiral be maintained. It has been the experience in other countries of Africa that when independence has been gained, despite the fact that many of the European administrators left, there was a certain measure of upsurge in industrial activity spurred on by the governments seeking to invest in prestige projects. But as soon as that initial spurt has taken place and tailed off, there is not within those areas the productive capacity and the capital generated to be able to build up anything which will be maintained. I want the hon. the Minister and the hon. members to tell us just where this capital will come from; on what basis will the Bantu develop these areas by themselves?

You do not understand a thing.

The hon. the Deputy Minister has given us no answer to the question of the population explosion. There is no answer on the basis that the Bantu territories must contain their own population explosion except on this one basis which the United Party has stated, namely that the European element in our country can go and develop those Bantu areas as an integral part of the economy of South Africa. Immediately one begins to differentiate, one creates problems for the economic managers of those Bantu areas. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, before continuing my argument in connection with the matters which that hon. member now also mentioned, I just want to tell the hon. member for Brakpan first, with reference to the matter which he raised this morning in connection with Bantu beer, etc., that we are already investigating it. We shall complete that investigation as soon as possible, because we are also of the opinion that something can be done about it. I want to give the assurance that we shall do so if it is in any way practical and feasible.

I now want to come to the United Party. The United Party keeps on repeating the story that we are doing nothing or very little in connection with the development of the Bantu homelands. If I were to display such a scanty knowledge of this matter as one United Party speaker after another did, I would feel terribly ashamed. I am very sorry that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not present at the moment. I want to point out that there are so many facts in connection with what has been and what can be done for the development of the Bantu homelands that the subject is so vast that one could not even deal with it in a half-hour speech, because this has become one of the major tasks of the National Party. Therefore I just want to mention one cardinal point, especially with reference to what the hon. member said a moment ago. In 1960 it was estimated that the then per capita income in our Bantu homelands, and I am speaking only of the Bantu homelands now, was R56.7. I have gone to a great deal of trouble and have made inquiries in order to ascertain what the present per capita income of our Bantu homelands is. I can give the assurance that this is calculated as expertly as we possibly can. I want to add immediately that it is a very difficult thing to do. Hon. members know that just as well as I do. There are certain points which one can take to be able to calculate an approximate per capita income. That we have done. We have taken a great deal of trouble. I may say, for example, that inquiries were made at the regional offices so that we could ascertain what their idea about this matter was. Now I want to mention the figure. The per capita income in our Bantu homelands is estimated to stand at R105. [Interjections.] Now the hon. members of the Opposition may argue about that. We know they will do so. And this brings me to the next point, although I wanted to mention how this figure compares with, for example, a country such as Ethiopia, where it is only R24, or Tanzania, where it is R39, and Uganda, where it is only R41. But I leave it at that.

But that is nonsense.

I have now given that figure and it is up to the Opposition to prove that it is not so. I have said that it is difficult to calculate. [Interjections.] I want to add that, for example, the office at King William’s Town informed us that the average wages of Bantu in that homeland area are as follows: Unskilled labourers get R250 and semi-skilled labourers get R384. I say that we calculated the per capita income to be approximately R105. I can also supply other figures which only the N.R.C. …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, we can hear nothing here. Hon. members are making too much noise. [Interjections.]

All the noise is coming from my left. [Laughter.]

Mr. Chairman, I hope you will allow me a little extra time, because a lot of my time is being lost now.

Give him injury time.

I wanted to say that the N.R.C. alone remitted an amount of over R1 million to the Transkei. Now hon. members can make a simple little sum as to what the total amount will be if each Bantu of the 1,646,000 employed in the white area were to send R10 per month to his homeland. Let me add immediately that we are working at a system by means of which it will be possible for a part of the Bantu’s earnings to be remitted to the Bantu homelands. Multiply 10 by 1.646,000 and see what the amount per month is. That is why I say that there are proofs for this figure which I mentioned, namely a capita income of R105 in our Bantu homelands. We have made a great deal of progress in connection with the implementation of the policy of development for the Bantu homelands. Interjections. In connection with this matter I want to mention something else. Those members are making such a fuss when you state a simple fact …

But these are not facts.

… to the best of your ability, a fact which was calculated by a department with long years of experience. I want to say, furthermore, that I discussed this figure, namely R105, with Dr. Adendorff yesterday afternoon. I asked him whether he thought the figure was correct and whether I could mention that figure here. He gave me the necessary assurance, so that I can do so, because this is his view. The Transkei is, after all, not the only homeland in South Africa. What does the United Party signify with that attitude which they adopt if one brings such a simple fact such as this to their notice? They signify that they do not want it to be R105. They signify that they do not want these homelands to be developed. Now I want to quote the father of separate development. Dr. Eiselen. He is a man who has devoted his life to these matters, and he certainly cannot be accused of having said or done things with political objectives. Hon. members must listen carefully to what he said:

I address this to the United Party—

I am standing here as an anthropologist too, and it gives me great pleasure to help in doing something about this matter. I take very strong exception to the good faith of the hon. the Minister, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development, the members of the Bantu Affairs Commission and the officials of the Department and my own good faith being questioned in any way by anyone. These are people who are carrying out the work in a most dedicated way, while hon. members on that side of the House are sleeping. Those hon. members are the people who ridicule this policy and belittle this attempt. I quote further:

I hope those hon. members will now stop with their “fraud” and their “bluff” as far as the development of the Bantu homelands is concerned.

Now I want to show the hon. members how we have reduced the number of Bantu in the white areas. In 1890 there was one Bantu in the whole of the Cape Peninsula. That was long before the establishment of the National Party. The number gradually increased as a result of industrial and other developments, as well as wars. Then a very extraordinary thing happened. Last year, for the first time in 78 years, the influx of Bantu into the Peninsula was stopped, reversed and changed into a back-flow to the Bantu homelands.

[Inaudible.]

I know this hurts, hon. members, but just keep quiet and take your hiding. In 1967 the Bantu population of the Cape Peninsula was 113,000, and in 1968 it decreased to 109,000. For the first time in 78 years there is a place in the Republic where we can show with chapter and verse that the influx has been stopped and reversed. I pay tribute to those officials for their brilliant work and for this memorable achievement which they have accomplished in the interest of the Republic of South Africa.

Hon. members ask what our policy is. Our policy is plain and clear, and I shall now state my policy in respect of the urban Bantu, and the policy of the department and the policy being applied by the Government, and that is that we shall continue to carry out the undertakings which we gave to help the Bantu in their homelands out to bring them to full economic and political maturity in so far as they are capable of being carried out in practice. We shall not do it at the expense of the Whites and the white homeland. Therefore we shall not yield to the pressure of those hon. members. If we were to yield to it, we would be inundated by millions of Bantu, who, as happened in the time of the United Party, would have to live under the most precarious circumstances in and around our towns and cities. That we want to prevent as far as we possibly can. I still wanted to point out to hon. members what the influx of Bantu into our white urban areas was between 1946 and 1951. It was nearly twice as much as the natural increase of the Bantu. In the period from 1951 to 1966 it was reversed as a result of the strict implementation of the Government’s policy. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will not …

Jack, tell us about the swimming bath in Sea Point.

It is wonderful how fond a person who never swims or takes a bath, is of talking about swimming.

The hon. the Deputy Minister must pardon me if I do not believe him in what he said here this afternoon. He must also pardon me if, after all the abuse he directed at this side of the House, I do not take much notice of the fraud stories to which he referred here this afternoon. I shall tell the hon. the Minister why not. He is either not telling the truth …

He proved it.

Now the hon. the Minister can choose for himself whether he is not telling the truth—he must pay attention now, because he is looking the other way now, and to-morrow or the day after he will pretend not to have heard this—or whether the Parliament of the Transkei was not telling the truth when they said that there was an increase in the number of Bantu who left the Transkei for white areas last year. Now, who was not telling the truth? [Interjections.] Do hon. member want the official figures?

Jack, what do you want to …

The hon. the Minister of Planning must give me a chance to speak. I did not interrupt anybody, because the hon. Chairman made very sure that we did not do so. I wanted to make interjections, but now I want to ask the hon. the Minister.

[Inaudible.]

No, but now the hon. the Minister is still making his speech. I now want to ask the Minister whether he is prepared here to accept the figures furnished in the Transkeian Parliament, or are they inaccurate? Whom should I now believe? Should I believe the Minister, or should I believe the figures furnished there? Are those people capable of furnishing true and correct figures, or are they not? I am putting this question to the hon. the Deputy Minister and he can give me a reply to it.

Mr. Chairman …

Wait a moment, I have not finished with you. There are quite a number of other things you may also tell me. Now the hon. the Minister says that our accusation, and not the steps taken by the Government, is a farce. He says that what we said is a farce, i.e. that the Transkeian territories are not developing rapidly enough. Where did we obtain that information? We obtained it from Sabra and from the Nationalist Party newspapers, and we obtained it from people who were invited by this Department to see for themselves what was happening there. This is what all these people told us. This hon. Deputy Minister now wants to lay down the gospel to us, whereas he is by no means adhering any more to his thesis for which he obtained his doctor’s degree. Who does the hon. the Minister think he is?

Who is guilty of bluff and fraud now?

The hon. the Minister is the person who is bluffing now, whereas he obtained his doctor’s degree on the theory that it was inhuman and wrong …

[Inaudible.]

No, wait a minute, let us get back to the truth for a change. Surely, the hon. the Minister is not ashamed of the truth, or is he?

You are!

No, that hon. Minister is talking nonsense!

I will show you now!

Wait, you will be given a chance soon.

Who are you addressing as you (/y)?

You!

Order! The hon. member must address the Chair.

But then that hon. Minister should also address me through the Chair.

I shall ask the hon. member to resume his seat if he does that once more!

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister cannot shout at me left, right and centre!

That is my concern …

The Deputy Minister obtained his whole doctor’s degree, his whole academic front on the strength of the theory that it is unfair and wrong to make these people work here without their families, and to-day? No, where is the bluff, where is the truth, where is the integrity, or do they no longer exist? [Interjections.]

Order!

Have you read that thesis?

One cannot read it, because the pages disappear! I hope it was a slip of the tongue on the part of the Minister when he said that the per capita income of the Bantu in South Africa was R105 per year.

In the Bantu homelands.

I hope he meant per family, because he is talking absolute nonsense if he says that is per person, and he knows that. He could not have discussed it with any person in his Department to say that that is per capita, because in many of the white areas that is not even the per capita amount. Where does the Minister get such nonsense from? To whom does he want to tell those stories? How many farm Bantu are there in South Africa to-day who are earning more than R2 per day?

You are wrong. R2 per day comes to more than R700 per year.

No, I am not wrong. That is in respect of the one who is working, but what about those 12 children he has and his wife? He does not know what per capita means; that is his trouble. If that is per family I shall accept it, but if it is per capita, I do not accept it at all, and no honest person will accept it. [Interjections.] Let us merely adhere to the truth. The Minister can tell me where we depart from the truth. [Interjections.] You must do your best—this is what I am saying through you, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Sea Point is the person who is addressing the House now, and he must address the Chair. If he is interrupted by other hon. members, it is a different matter.

I think that if a person tries hard enough from the Chair, he can control the whole House.

What does the hon. member mean?

I only mean that hon. members will listen to you, Sir, if you speak to them. But I want to come to the question of the additional houses, to which the Deputy Minister referred, which are being built for the Bantu in the Bantu areas. He says that the world here is becoming whiter and that it is becoming blacker over there, but I want to ask him this: How many houses have been built in the Bantu areas, and how many have been built for the Bantu in the so-called white areas over the past few years? Would the Minister, who is such a believer in the truth, tell us how many houses he has built in these areas which are now becoming whiter and in which, according to his theory, there should now have been empty houses? How many houses for the Bantu has he built in the white areas, and how many are standing empty?

But that is not really what I wanted to discuss. The matter I want to raise, is this: I know it is useless, because this Government regards any concession they make as a sign of weakness. To-day we have here the case that in the Western Province we have to carry on with our farming enterprises and industries under the most difficult circumstances. We are being singled out as guinea pigs by this Minister and his Deputy, because in our farming enterprises we have to make use of migratory labourers, whom we get for a year. The Minister says he is an honourable man and he believes in the truth. I want to ask him why he does not impose on the rest of the country the same restrictions he imposes on the Western Province. What does he have against the Western Province? Why does he want to save the Western Province for white South Africa and cast the rest of this vast country to the dogs, including the area where he and his children are living? Why? I believe that this Government, if it wants to be reasonable, need not budge an inch if they believe that the Bantu coming here should come on a temporary basis, but why have they steadily reduced that period, so that it is a year at present? Indeed, they have found out that this period of one year does not pay, and now they issue one with a certificate so that one may obtain the services of that Bantu for another year. This happened a short while ago. All the employer in the Western Province is expected to do, is to subsidize the Railways by sending these Bantu to and fro. One’s labour is inefficient: one cannot speak the language of these people, and they cannot speak yours.

We cannot speak your language either.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask in all courtesy that these people should kindly give me a chance to speak.

I shall maintain order as I deem fit.

Sir, I hope you will deem it fit to do so.

The hon. member did not want to listen when I told him to keep quiet a moment ago, and, besides, his time has expired.

Sir, I am in deadly earnest when I say that if that is your impartiality, I shall resume my seat.

I said the hon. member’s time had expired.

On a point of order, Sir, is the hon. member entitled to cast a reflection on the Chair by saying that if that is the impartiality you maintain, he will resume his seat?

What did the hon. member mean by that?

I repeat that, if I am interrupted to such an extent that I cannot continue and you say that you will not afford me protection, then I would rather resume my seat than go on under those circumstances.

I did not say I would not afford the hon. member protection.

That is how I understood you.

Does the hon. member withdraw that?

If you did not say that, I withdraw.

I should like to have the attention of the hon. member for Sea Point. Perhaps all of us should keep quite still for a few moments so that he may calm down before we proceed. I should like to remind the hon. member for Sea Point in a very friendly way that he himself is an acting Chairman of this House and that we have often seen him occupy the Chair. I just want to tell him to bear that in mind when he has altercations with the Chair. We ourselves have to look up at him when he occupies the Chair, and it will behove him to bear in mind his altercations with the Chair. When other hon. members and I have altercations with the Chair, we do so from ignorance, but this House has higher expectations of that hon. member. Otherwise he should not be an acting-Chairman.

Seeing that I have been dealing with the hon. member, I should like to react to a few things said by him, and after I have done so I shall start at the beginning and deal with other hon. members. I just want to tell the hon. member that he kicked up a most unbecoming fuss here this afternoon about something which he ascribed to statistics which had been quoted by the hon. the Deputy Minister in connection with the Western Cape. The Deputy Minister quoted statistics in order to illustrate that during the past few years the number of Bantu here had decreased for the first time. The hon. member for Sea Point then came along—and I listened to him very carefully—and the interpretation he placed on the figures of the hon. the Deputy Minister was that they allegedly did not correspond to the assertions made by the Transkeian Government. The hon. member for Sea Point said, and I wrote down what he said, that the Transkeian Government had said it had sent more people to the white areas during the past few years than ever before, but tie Deputy Minister spoke only of the Western Cape. [Interjections.] Now that is a distortion, if I may say so.

On a point of order, Sir, is the hon. the Minister entitled to accuse me of distortion?

The hon. the Minister did not say it had been a wilful distortion.

I asked the Chairman whether I was allowed to call it a distortion, and now I ask what is it if not an ignorant distortion?

And you are a skilful distorter.

I concede that it is not an intentional distortion, but I am convinced that it is an ignorant distortion.

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon. member for Sea Point must keep quiet now, otherwise I shall send him out.

Please, Sir, you must not send him out before I have finished with him. [Laughter.]

Sir, is it not a reflection on the Chair if a Minister gives instructions to you as to when I am to be sent out?

Order!

May I put a question to the Minister?

Yes, after I have finished with the hon. member for Sea Point.

My question relates to the question of the decrease in numbers. Does that include those who are here illegally?

If I remember correctly, those figures relate to the total number of registered workers in the Western Cape. Those were the figures quoted by the Deputy Minister. But I want to come back to the hon. member for Sea Point, and I shall drop the matter of this last brush with you, Sir. The hon. member compared the figures furnished by the Deputy Minister in respect of Bantu in the Western Cape to the figures furnished by the Transkei in respect of all the white areas of South Africa, and inhabitants of the Transkei also go to parts of South Africa other than the Western Cape. They furnished those figures, but the hon. member compared them to these figures, and that is sheer ignorance; it cannot be wilfulness.

May I ask the Minister a question? Will the Minister admit or deny that there has been an increase in farm labour in the Western Province from the Transkei in the last year?

The hon. member should not distract my attention from the subject I want to discuss with the hon. member for Sea Point. The hon. the Deputy Minister may take that matter further with the hon. member for Transkei. I want to take up with the hon. member for Sea Point a remark he made just now. He asked me, and repeated that question by way of interjection, whether the Western Cape alone had to be saved. No, we have been engaged for a very long time in saving the whole of South Africa. But the hon. member for Sea Point asked why we did not apply the principle we were applying to the Western Cape, i.e. to decrease the numbers of Bantu, to all the white areas all over the country. This is a subject I have already dealt with here, and I am not going to dwell on it again for any length of time now, but I shall once more tell the hon. member in brief. But then the hon. member must, listen to me and not sit and bite his nails nervously.

Now you are just being petty.

He is not worthy to be a Minister.

Order!

We stated very clearly the reason for implementing this policy in the Western Cape. The reason for that is that the Government and the Whites as such have a gigantic task in respect of the Coloureds whose numbers are increasing very rapidly and who are present in such large numbers here in the Western Cape and for whom a livelihood has to be ensured. This is not a phenomenon which is manifesting itself in exactly this way over the whole of South Africa. We do not have, in addition to the task we have to safeguard the position of the Whites, a similar Coloured problem over the whole of South Africa. In the case of the Western Cape therefore, there is a specific reason and that is the great task in respect of the Coloureds. But I have already said here, and I repeat this now, that to me that is an ideal—not something which I now want to implement, but something I should like to see over the whole of South Africa.

The hon. member for Sea Point also asked me vociferously whether we had not provided many, many more houses for Bantu in the white areas. We are, of course, building houses for the Bantu all over South Africa in the urban Bantu residential areas, where necessary, but we are doing so mainly to rectify matters and to carry out clearance operations. In the Bantu homelands as many houses as possible are being built with the funds we have at our disposal, but in the white areas we apply completely different criteria, and the hon. member for Sea Point knows that. I think I have now given sufficient attention to the hon. member for Sea Point. It seems to me his nerves are such that I cannot talk to him any longer. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Sea Point keeps on alluding to my manners. He is the last person from whom I shall accept reprimands as far as my manners are concerned.

I should now like to say a few words with regard to the hon. member for Transkei, who was the first to speak in this debate. Yesterday, when he opened this debate, the hon. member spoke under the most difficult circumstances under which I have ever seen him speak here. I think the hon. member for Transkei owes the hon. the Deputy Minister of Justice and of Planning a debt of gratitude, and more than that, because if the hon. the Deputy Minister had not made a speech, the hon. member for Transkei would not have been able to make a speech yesterday.

But that is one of your difficulties.

No, the hon. member for Transkei is a much greater difficulty to me than the hon. the Deputy Minister.

Was the policy which the Deputy Minister stated in his speech the official policy of the party?

Sir, I am now dealing with the hon. member for Transkei and before long. I shall come to the volcano of Natal as well. The speech of the hon. member for Transkei was in fact a grand compliment to me. to the Government, to the Department and to all of us who deal with these matters, because apart from the negative reaction to the speech of the hon. the Deputy Minister he had absolutely nothing else to say. This side of the House has already made short work of those remarks of his. But I nevertheless want to say a few words about the speech of the hon. member for Transkei. The hon. member suggested that all kinds of policy announcements were made by Dr. Verwoerd in his time in connection with Bantu areas and Bantu policy, and that the people did not believe Dr. Verwoerd and that a deceitful game was being played. Sir, this is not so. The public believed the words of Dr. Verwoerd, and the public still accepts the Verwoerd policy, as announced by Dr. Verwoerd and as continued by us after his death. This is proved at every election and at the coming election it is going to be proved once again. Sir, do you think that we would have been able to do all these things if the public did not accept these things —everything we are doing under our Bantu policy in connection with education, Bantu development in the homelands, in the white areas and everywhere? If the public did not accept these things, do you think the Government would have continued them? Do you think that we would have voted more and more funds for this work if that were the case? Surely that is a foolish allegation to make.

But where is the development?

The hon. member for Transkei also said Dr. Verwoerd regarded the decrease of the numbers of Bantu in the white areas as the most important phenomenon in connection with the implementation of our policy …

Total apartheid.

… and that we were saying at the moment, to quote his own words, “numbers don’t count; so we learn”. There is no one on our side who says that numbers do not count but on the other hand there is no one on our side either who says that numbers alone count. We do not say this nor did Dr. Verwoerd. We shall see before long what Dr. Verwoerd did say. It is very easy for hon. members of the Opposition to say all kinds of unfounded things here and to ride on the back of Dr. Verwoerd in that way, they who never wanted to do anything to support him in his lifetime and who are now calling him in as their ally after his death. In a little while I shall quote to you, Sir, the words of Dr. Verwoerd in connection with the numbers of Bantu in the white areas. It is recorded in Hansard; we need not make this up. At the same time the hon. member for Transkei called in a further ally for him and he said that the newspaper, Die Beeld, had also said that our attitude was that the policy need not be implemented and that I and other persons were perpetrating a bluff and that we would not bluff them. The hon. member for Transkei may call as witnesses as many newspapers as he wants but it seems to me that that particular newspaper has either bluffed or bewitched the United Party and him in particular. If that newspaper is of the opinion that the policy is stagnating, as I myself had also read, it does not know what it is talking about, and if any member of the Opposition echoes those words, I say the Opposition does not know what it is talking about either. Let us hear what Dr. Verwoerd said as recently as 1964 about the aspect of numbers. Sir, let me just quote something else to you in connection with the numbers, because all kinds of fictitious things are conjured up here in connection with Dr. Verwoerd and the year 1978. Dr. Verwoerd referred to the year 1978 a long time ago, and I am now going to quote to you what he said in this connection in 1958 (column 3806)—

That is what I said.

I have already heard members saying from the opposite side: Dr. Verwoerd said in 1978 there would no longer be any Bantu in white areas; we hear all kinds of variations in connection with this matter. In the same speech he said the following, more specifically in connection with the subject of integration—

And in other speeches he and I and many others pointed out that since the Bantu were present in the white areas on our basis, and since we did not have a system which made! provision for placing the Bantu workers and the white workers on an equal footing either; immediately or eventually, and which consequently allowed the Bantu here on an unequal basis in the field of labour, that did not constitute economic integration with the Whites. We have said this an infinite number of times and probably I shall have to repeat it many times more. What else did Dr. Verwoerd say in connection with this question of numbers? Let us see what he said right at the beginning of the 1964 Session, on 21st. January, 1964. He said—

Sir, I shall be pleased if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will also listen to this. He knows I have been waiting for him.

I am waiting for you.

Then we are waiting for each other. That is the only thing we have in common. Dr. Verwoerd said in 1964—

I now omit a short passage which is not as relevant—

The same old words we heard to-day. At that time Dr. Verwoerd said exactly the same thing I said here earlier this year and on other occasions. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition ought to remember what was said here in an argument between the former Prime Minister and himself in this very Chamber, when Dr. Verwoerd said the decisive factor was the political system under which the Bantu were present in the white areas. Since they are not politically integrated with us, since they do not have any political say in our white areas along with us in our Parliament, that is the most important safety valve for the white man and for the continued existence of all of us in South Africa. Therefore politics play a much more important role than the numbers in which they are present, however important those numbers may be. We should like the numbers to decrease. Of course we all want that and of course it is our aspiration. That is why I said here earlier this year—and I am repeating it—that decreasing the number of Bantu, restricting the number of Bantu in the white areas, was an extremely important matter, but I add to that statement by saying that political control over the Bantu in the white area, i.e. the fact that they do not have any political say here, irrespective of the fact whether many or few Bantu are present here, is the most important instrument in our hands. I repeat this: It is the most important instrument in our hands.

Why is any decrease in numbers of any importance if the political system is the decisive factor in this regard?

Of course. I gave the answer here earlier this year. It is a universal phenomenon all over the world that one wants to have as many of one’s own people as possible in one’s own country and as few people, ones who cannot be assimilated, as possible from other nations in one’s own country. Surely this is a universal phenomenon. The hon. member may write this down if he cannot remember it very well; I shall dictate it to him very slowly: As many people as possible of one’s own nation in one’s own country and as few people as possible from another nation in one’s country. Sir, if the hon. member cannot understand this I shall have to try to explain this simple matter to him in private.

Sir, let us proceed. The hon. member for Transkei asked whether it was no longer our intention to take the Bantu back to the Bantu areas. I think I have replied adequately to that question. Of course we want as many Bantu as possible to live in their home territories and we want to take back as many of them to those territories as we are able to do in practice, and this we are doing at the fastest possible rate at which circumstances, funds and energy allow us to do. The hon. member also referred, as other hon. members had done earlier this year, to the report of the X.D.C. and reports and writings of others. The hon. member for Transkei should listen now, because I am trying to reply to him.

I am listening.

He has an enormous stack of books in front of him.

I am hiding behind books because I do not want to look at that lot of verkramptes.

When I see what is happening here, it is extremely difficult for me to believe that the hon. member for Transkei is listening to me. The hon. member for Transkei referred to the report of the X.D.C. as well as to the reports of other people and to speeches. Those persons, the Xhosa Development Corporation, the Commissioners-General, the people of Woord en Daad, to whom he referred, are people who one and all, as I said earlier, support our policy. They are on the same road we are on; they are following the same direction we are following. They may be in more of a hurry. Many of them are in more of a hurry. That is a very typical phenomenon.

They are surrendering just as you are doing.

They are following the same course we are following. The fewer responsibilities such persons have as regards the direct execution of tasks, the greater their hurry usually is. I can understand that, because they are not concerned with actual practice. But now I want to say that the kind of abuse which opponents of our policy make of such well-intended remarks, such as those contained in annual reports, speeches and writings of friends of ours who are carrying out our task, is a warning to those people of how carefully they should choose their words so that their words may not be misused by malevolent people and opponents of our policy. Sir, the hon. member also said Dr. Verwoerd was opposed to using white initiative and white capital in the Bantu homelands on an agency basis.

That is not what I said.

The hon. member used the words “agency basis”.

That is your policy now.

The hon. member should listen to what I am saying now. Yesterday he said Dr. Verwoerd was opposed to using white initiative and white capital on an “agency basis”. He can check on this. It is recorded in his Hansard.

I did not say that.

The words “agency basis” for that technique were used by Dr. Verwoerd. It is recorded in Hansard. The hon. member may check to see whether that is so. In 1962 during the debate on the Transkei those words were used by him from this bench. To say now that he was opposed to that, surely is an absurd argument.

I said he was opposed to taking the capital into those territories.

No, the hon. member referred to “agency basis”. I made a note of that myself.

I was referring to the present policy of the Government.

Sir, our policy and the policy of Dr. Verwoerd in connection with the agency basis are identical. The hon. member may do an egg dance to his heart’s content. I know that is one of the political tricks they employ. That is their so-called “depth psychology” which they try to apply in order to present us to the public as people who have deviated from all the other roads. As though the Opposition ought not to be pleased about something like that if it were to happen in reality!

The hon. member for Transkei also said, when he discussed section 10, that Dr. Verwoerd was the person who saw to it that section 10 was placed on the Statute Book in 1952 in its present form. With reference to that I want to put a question to the hon. member. The hon. member maintains that to-day we are inclined to deviate from the road of Dr. Verwoerd. Does the hon. member want to see that we deviate from the road of Dr. Verwoerd also as far as section 10 is concerned?

Who found fault with that? The Minister had attacked us.

When the hon. member speaks again, he can reply to me as far as this matter is concerned. I now want to know what he will say. As far as section 10 is concerned, should we also deviate from the road of Dr. Verwoerd now and expunge it from the Statute Book? [Interjections.] Now we hear completely different remarks. We do not get the answer. Yesterday evening the hon. member for Transkei concluded his speech by referring in brief in the limited time at his disposal—I concede this—to what policy they would implement. But I should like to state it much more to the point for the hon. member, I can very easily refer to their policy in vague generalities just as the hon. member for Durban (Point) did earlier to-day. It seems to me the hon. member for Transkei has now become the chairman of their group.

The shadow minister.

No, I shall still come to that. I should like to ask the hon. member to reply to the following three questions when he has the chance to do so. He must reply very clearly to these questions. I put these questions to other people before, but apparently they did not feel like replying at that time. The hon. member for Transkei now has the responsibility and he must reply to this. Will the hon. member tell me this: If the United Party were to come into power would the United Party be in favour of making provision for each Bantu worker to be present in the white area with all his dependants on a family basis, and would those Bantu be accommodated in houses? [Interjections.] That is my first question. My second question to the hon. member is: If the Opposition were to come into power would it see to it that each Bantu occupier of a house in an urban Bantu residential area, as well as on farms, would acquire ownership of the land on which they were living?

That is nonsense You know what our policy is.

Oh, it is nonsense, is it? The hon. member should not say to me that it is nonsense. I shall quote to him from the speech of the Leader of the Opposition in which he referred to this right of ownership which they should acquire in the urban Bantu residential areas.

And on farms?

Is the hon. member excluding farms? Very well, if the hon. member says that that will not be the case on farms, I shall exclude farms. In that case, will the hon. member allow that in all the urban Bantu residential areas?

No.

Temporary or permanent Bantu?

I shall leave the matter at that fervently hoping that we shall later hear more about this in proper speeches from that side. The hon. member for Transkei should listen now, because I still have a third question I want to put to him. He is prepared to reply to the first two questions now. I should also like to have the third reply please. The third question I want to put to him is: If the United Party were to come into power would it accept any other reason than employment in white areas as the basis on which Bantu could come here and remain here? In other words, would they simply allow Bantu to come and live here because they preferred the scenery here or because it was nicer here or because it was closer to the sea, or would employment be the only criterion as it in fact is under our policy? I should like to have replies from him to these three questions.

With that I shall leave the hon. member for Transkei. I notice that he is in a good mood, and I hope he will give me clear replies to these three questions. They need to be answered. I now come to the hon. member for King William’s Town. The hon. member for King William’s Town said the X.D.C. stated in its report that the concessions in respect of border industry areas in certain circumstances actually were insufficient for industries within the Bantu homelands. What the hon. member for King William’s Town wanted to bring to my attention is nothing special. Evidently the hon. member was not present here earlier this year, when the hon. the Prime Minister said the same thing. We have been saying this for a long time. Recently when I addressed the Chamber of Industries I made the same statement. The Government adopts the attitude that it may be necessary to grant more concessions within the homelands so as to assist industries in the homelands, than those granted in the case of similar industries in the border areas. What the hon. member tried to chase up was not a hare. We accept that this will possibly be necessary and the Government bodies concerned are giving the necessary attention to this matter. However, these border industry benefits were made applicable to the homelands only a few months ago. The hon. member wants there to be, even at this stage, one smoking chimney after the other all over the homelands.

The hon. member for Pinelands asked, “Must all Bantu in the white areas be here on a basis of migratory labour?” I shall reply to his question now and at the same time I remind him of the question I have just put to the hon. member for Transkei. I now put the same question to the hon. member for Pinelands. Are they saying that all Bantu should be present here not on a basis of migratory labour but on a family basis with a right of land tenure, etc.? My reply to the question of the hon. member is that at present it is the practice that large numbers of Bantu are already present here on a family basis. However, we do not encourage this at all, as a matter of fact, we disapprove of any further influx of Bantu to come and work here on a family basis. As far as I am concerned, the ideal condition would be if we could succeed in due course in having all Bantu present in the white areas on a basis of migratory labour only. This is our line of thought. We are thinking along those lines, while the United Party is thinking along the lines of a family basis with a right of ownership and all the Other things which that involves.

The hon. member for Pinelands thought he was putting a difficult question to me when he asked whether the Bantu in the urban areas accepted the policy of separate development of the Government as that policy was being implemented in the white urban areas. He asked me to furnish proof of that as the Government of the Transkei was not accepting it and was even asking for more and more land and more and more rights. Sir, one cannot hold that against the hon. member for Pinelands. He is a man who had a very nice blue-eyed-boy education here in the city always close to his mama. He does not know the Bantu as well as we know them.

Where did you grow up?

Also close to my mama. All the same, I learnt a great deal more about Bantu than that hon. member did. After all, it is no more than customary. I do not know why the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is objecting to this now. I have always thought of the Leader of the Opposition as someone with some sense of humour, but it seems to me he no longer has even that. The hon. member for Pinelands and I understand each other well. We do not get the least bit upset about such matters. If the sense of humour of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is such that this upsets him, there is something wrong with him. I want to tell the hon. member for Pinelands that this is a typical phenomenon. It is a characteristic of the Bantu that where-ever he comes across one he asks one for something. Even when he does not meet one he still asks. The requests never stop.

I said that.

Oh! Very well, then the hon. member is aware of that. I am pleased that he is aware of it. But surely it does not mean that what they are asking is our policy. What we say is our policy.

But you say they are accepting the policy.

I am very pleased the hon. member challenged me on this point of acceptance. As far as the Bantu are concerned, they may be divided into two main categories, i.e. those in the homelands and those in the white areas. In all the homelands we have already placed the Bantu an on active basis of self-government in terms of our policy. They have accepted that unanimously. Under a year ago an election in the Transkei was won by the Transkeian Government on the basis of separate development, as introduced by us and as accepted by them. Also in the other Bantu areas this is the case. Recently, in December, with the establishment of the Tswana territorial authority at Mafeking we heard from the mouth of the chief executive councillor, Chief Lucas Mangope, an off-the-cuff statement that the acceptance of our policy by them was something in which they believed implicitly. This holds true of all the Bantu areas in South Africa.

Let us examine to some extent the position in the white areas. Here we have much more evidence of the acceptance, broadly speaking, of our policy by the Bantu in the white areas than we have of the acceptance by the Bantu of the policy of the Opposition.

May I put a question to the hon. the Minister? The hon. the Minister must please explain how he can say that the Bantu, even the party of Matanzima, are accepting a policy in terms of which they are taking what they can get but are demanding much more?

There is, after all, only one clear test of this under the sun, and that is whether the Transkei is peacefully proceeding with the implementation and realization of this policy, as entrusted to them by us in their Constitution, and whether the other Bantu authorities are doing likewise. They are doing this everywhere. Never before have we had such peace and co-operation from the Bantu authorities in the homelands as we have been having during recent years. Now, will the reason for that be that they are not accepting the policy, and want more and more? Or will the reason for that be that they are implementing what they can get within the limits of the policy?

Let me now proceed with my proof as regards the urban areas. [Interjections.] No, I am not under cross-examination at the moment. I have many points to which I have to reply.

What about Proclamation 400?

It is an excellent Proclamation. Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition know who is more in favour of Proclamation 400 than anybody else?

Matanzima.

The Government of the Transkei, of course. But it seems to me the Leader of the Opposition, who thinks the Opposition should govern in this Parliament also thinks the Opposition in the Transkei should turn the scale. Surely it is the Government in the Transkei that turns the scale, not the Opposition. Hon. members opposite should not try to get me away from the evidence I want to produce as far as the urban areas are concerned.

Order! Hon. members should not all try to speak at the same time. They have been trying to do so all day long.

I want to read to hon. members a statement made in the urban Bantu residential area of Mamalodi in Pretoria after the advisory boards of those townships at Pretoria and from other places in the white areas had undertaken an organized tour through the Bantu homelands and the urban Bantu residential areas in the white areas and had investigated many things. On their return the following statement was made, which I am quoting from a Bantu newspaper, The World, of 28th May, 1965—

Which board?

I said it was the Mamalodi board of Pretoria. The report continues—

This is one piece of evidence. I cannot read everything. I do not have the time to do so. I shall now read another piece of evidence of a recent date, i.e. 16th October, 1968, dealing with a matter about which hon. members opposite are trying to arouse strong feelings, and that is the plan which has been put into operation at Pietersburg to have all the Bantu workers employed in the white town of Pietersburg live and sleep in the Bantu homelands and no longer in the backyards of Whites. The report reads (translation)—

I mention another example which deals with work in exclusively white areas and not about money spent in the homelands. I once again quote from The World of 30th March, 1965—

This is the clearance and removal of an old, dirty urban Bantu residential area, Meyerton, which has been moved from there to the vicinity of Evaton. In this report they say that they accept this and cannot wait to be removed. In the meantime they have been living peacefully at the new place for quite some time. These are people who support our policy. I shall read to hon. members from another letter from the chairman of the other Bantu residential area in Pretoria, i.e. Attridgeville and Saulsville. He wrote this letter to a newspaper in which he stated, inter alia, the following (translation)—

Just listen. This man is older than one thinks. He continues—

This was said in 1967. Let us now examine further examples. During the past year we had the very pleasant experience, after our department had contacted certain of the large urban areas in which profitable Bantu beer industries were in operation, that large sums of money were donated to our department, with the consent of either the Bantu advisory board or the existing urban Bantu board, to be spent in the Bantu homelands. This was done with the consent of the Bantu and those people. I have here with me a long list of places that made contributions from their profits on beer. This was done by, for example, places such as Benoni, Boksburg, Klerksdorp, Krugersdorp, Potchefstroom, Roodepoort, Springs, Welkom, Estcourt and a whole number of other places. Tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of rand were donated to carry out development work in the Bantu homelands. Do you think, Sir, those Bantu boards would have consented to the money raised there from profits on beer to go to the Bantu homelands if they were not supporters of our policy? These are all urban areas.

I want to read to hon. members a single case of what a Bantu business man said in 1964. It reads as follows—

It should be remembered that he used to be a clerk in a sophisticated job in Port Elizabeth. Now he is sitting in Zwelitsha. I proceed—

Hon. members maintain that we do not have evidence from the urban areas.

That was in 1964.

No, I have furnished evidence up to 1968 and I have evidence up to 1969. I have a great deal of evidence which is of the most recent date. Does a date matter to the Leader of the Opposition? Should the Natives be saying this for the first time to-day? They have been saying for many years that they support our policy.

I have here a long letter to The Star. This one was published. In this letter a Native from Johannesburg writes of the way in which they are supporting our policy. I have another letter as well which was addressed to The Star but which The Star refused to publish. It then had to be published in another newspaper. Apparently it was not welcome reading matter. I have here two letters from Bantu clergymen. These come from the ranks of the churches. I am not going to mention any names. I referred to one of these cases before. Here I have one from a church which is mainly of English origin. After their synodal meeting this person wrote an unsolicited letter to me. This Synod Moderator who wrote to me said—

This is what he wrote to us and I do not want to make any further quotations from this letter. I should not like to make the origin of this letter recognizable. Here I have a quotation from Die Kerkbode of 1967, in which a Bantu Minister of religion wrote as follows (translation)—

This person writes from a white area. He says separate development can do good for specific reasons. He mentions a whole number of these reasons. I only want to quote a few of these. They are (translation)—

1. (1) Its object is the welfare of the Bantu;
2. (2) Racial purity depends on the policy of separate development;
3. (3) National awareness and unity are created by means of separate development;
4. (4) It is a matter of law and justice;
5. (5) The Bantu people prefer separate development.

Then he says, inter alia, the following (translation)—

Where does he live?

He lives in a white area of South Africa. He is a Minister of religion serving a larger area in the Eastern Cape.

And he wants to stay there.

No, he does not want to stay there.

It seems as if the hon. the Minister only had ten fans in 20 years.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban (Point), who has just made that childish remark, is known to us for his childishness. Earlier to-day the hon. member spoke in exactly the same vein—“What about a few furrows and a few fences?” By saying that he wanted to give out that that was all that was happening in the Bantu areas. By doing that the hon. member is not impressing even his own people. Of course, he does impress himself and that is the only thing that counts as far as he is concerned. As far as the urban Bantu are concerned, I should like to mention to hon. members another very important phenomenon. This is a very fine phenomenon as it illustrates to a I in what way Bantu in the urban areas are promoting ties with their own homelands. During the past five to six months we experienced the promotion of ties between the Bantu in the white areas and Bantu authorities in the homelands by means of the appointment of the representatives of authorities and the establishment of boards consisting of such representatives. In this way the Venda and the Tswana have already established boards in the white areas up in the Transvaal in order to give representation on those boards to members of their respective Bantu nations who are in our white areas so as to create ties with their own homelands. There their interests are being promoted by their authorities. This is something which has been put into operation through earlier legislation we have been unable to implement before now. This is a very striking example of the way in which the Bantu in the urban areas are accepting our policy. By those means they have ties with the Bantu areas. I know members of the Opposition hate to hear this kind of thing. They will hear more and more about this.

Now I repeat my stock question to members of the Opposition. I have now given hon. members a whole number of examples of a great deal more evidence we have to show that the Bantu in the urban areas and in the homelands are, broadly speaking, accepting our policy. Now please mention only one example to me, either from the homelands or from the white areas, of any responsible Bantu body saying that it accepts the policy of the United Party of white leadership over the Bantu for ever, i.e. that the Bantu should be subservient for ever in a large common integrated South Africa under the white man. Prove that to me. We shall not get proof of that because they do not want that.

[Inaudible.]

Actually, the hon. member for Durban (Point) does not deserve much more from me to-day than a few admonitions. To-day in view of two large groups of schoolchildren the hon. member struck a figure which most definitely will, as far as those schoolchildren and young people who were here are concerned … The hon. member for South Coast should give me an opportunity to speak to his armour-bearer.

He is expressing sympathy.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) behaved himself in front of these young people in a way which put them off becoming members of this House. Fortunately they saw how members on our side and other members opposite conducted themselves and that will encourage them perhaps to take an interest themselves in national affairs one day. The hon. member for Durban (Point) mentioned a few undertakings—“furrows here and fences there”—to use his words —and asked whether that was all that was happening to cause 12 or 13 million Bantu in South Africa to develop. The hon. member may perhaps be of the opinion that he may score a few political points with that kind of argument at certain places, as he is in the habit of doing during an election campaign. However, that is not the level on which debates are conducted in this House.

I gave every single item in that report.

That hon. member who suggested in his remarks that we simply had a few furrows, fences or small dams at odd places and that we did not have any development at all in the Bantu areas, in other words, that we were doing much too little in the Bantu areas, is the first one who runs to the voters when it is election time to tell the people in the rural areas and in other parts of the country that the Government was doing too much for the Black man in South Africa. In the Western Transvaal many people who heard that can testify to that.

No, I congratulate you on what you are doing.

No, the hon. member should not think he is talking to a pumpkin to come and tell me stories like that. He is not dealing with himself now.

May I ask a question?

Yes, the hon. member may put a question and if it has any substance I shall reply to his question.

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether I omitted one single aspect of the report of the Xhosa Development Corporation?

That is not what this is about.

Then what is this about?

What this is about is one single point, and that is that the hon. member suggested that unimportant things were being done here and there and that there was not sufficient development by far.

But I mentioned every single item.

That was the whole theme of the farcical attack of that hon. member. I repeat, he tried to create the impression that altogether too little was being done and that were going about it in a completely wrong way. At the first signs of an election, however, he is the first to go and tell people that we are doing too much for the Black people.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) as well as the hon. member for East London (City) said quite a great deal about agricultural development. In connection with agricultural matters in the Bantu areas I want to say that I in particular, but also my predecessors and our Department, attach very much value to the agricultural potential of the Bantu area as something extremely essential. Particularly those of us who deal with this matter every day, know how difficult it is to get the Bantu so far as to practise agriculture in a reasonably scientific way. There are many reasons for that, ones which I cannot discuss in detail now. I want to tell the members of this Committee that I, as well as the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development, have made it our double duty, especially during the past year, to go into the agricultural affairs or the Bantu areas with greater concentration. In this way we have conducted several discussions with our officials. I should like to mention to hon. members how I and our Department see matters related to agriculture. As I have said, it is extremely essential, of course, as a primary economic activity in the Bantu areas. Therefore it is necessary to understand very well that however important it may be to develop agriculture, it cannot simply be developed in any old helter-skelter way without having regard to the fact that agriculture is closely interwoven with the political, economic, social and cultural activities of the Bantu people. It is an important inherent cultural factor of their chieftainship and their structure of government in their areas. We are nevertheless of the opinion that agriculture in those areas should be developed as well as possible. For that reason I first have to lay down certain basic policies and principles to be implemented. In certain respects I have even submitted certain innovations to be introduced in respect of agricultural development. It will behove the hon. member for Kensington and the hon. member for Houghton to pay some attention to what I am saying. The hon. member for Kensington may go and talk to the member for Houghton just now. After all, it ought to be more interesting outside than here. [Interjections.] If the hon. member listens to me, he will hear something and then I shall finish soon.

You are talking like an Encyclopaedia Britannica.

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member for South Coast is a gentleman I should like him to repeat what he has just said so that I may hear his remark. [Interjections.]

Who is talking?

I get a pleasant sensation all over when I see hon. members opposite getting hurt because I am speaking. I wish I could keep this up until Monday! I am sorry I am getting under their skins to such an extent: I did not know their skins were so thin and I thought I would have more trouble getting under their skins.

We have to take into account the following principles as far as agricultural development in the Bantu areas are concerned. The Bantu’s tradition of communal action has to be fully utilized in creating suitable organizations in which Bantu farming activities can best be practised. In this connection special attention has to be paid to the co-operative movement so as to make possible on this basis a proper pattern of organization for agricultural development in the Bantu areas. Linked to this co-operative idea is the principle of agricultural development, generally speaking, having to take place as a communal development. Whereas it is a good thing to develop and uplift the entire agricultural community step by step rather than to uplift only individuals who may be doing well, it is nevertheless necessary to have the individuals who can do well undergo the possible development. In addition we say active attention should be given to the provision of basic farming requirements such as tractive power, credit, etc. This should preferably be done by this cooperative movement of the Bantu. In addition we say the proposals for the provision of credit approved by me and the hon. the Deputy Minister should be carried through and taken a step further and that the necessary proclamations to do so are being prepared. This has to be done so as to enable more active steps being taken on a co-operative basis also in connection with the provision of credit to Bantu bodies in order to promote Bantu development in the homelands. Whereas the traditional system of the Bantu is tribal land-tenure and whereas this should not be destroyed as it is such an interwoven factor in their culture, it must be realized that all Bantu placed on land by the tribe will not necessarily be good farmers. In so far as there are individuals amongst them who are not successful farmers, they have to be removed from the agricultural industry and this should preferably be done by bodies established by the Bantu themselves under their system of Government. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, it is hardly possible for me to make myself heard. If hon. members want to listen to this, they may do so, but if they do not want to listen, they may go and have coffee. We have sufficient members here to form a quorum. That is the pathetic spectacle of the Opposition. They come here and they say that our policy has failed whereas they cannot prove that. They are not able to listen to what I am saying nor are they polite enough to do so. The Opposition may say what they like, what I have to say here, I shall say and I shall proceed as I please.

It is advisable that the Bantu farmers who are failures should be removed from the agricultural community, from the agricultural industry, but not necessarily from the tribal background. They should continue to have in an approved way their own residential rights, even if they have to go and work somewhere else, either inside or outside that area. The important matter in connection with the development of the agricultural industry in the Bantu areas depends on three aspects which are interwoven. These are the maximum absorption of the people into the agricultural industry, i.e. maximum activity, the participation of the people in the development programme and, thirdly, maximum agricultural production under the circumstances. It is our task to strike a balance between these matters, and this is no easy task, but one, as the Deputy Minister quoted here this afternoon from the address of Dr. Eiselen, which is definitely being made more difficult for us by the negative and destructive criticism expressed and attitudes adopted by the Opposition, as we have seen them do in this House and outside. I should like to tell hon. members opposite in a friendly and polite way that after the remarks which have just come from the front benches about the length of my speech, I shall not for the sake of the patience and convenience of the Opposition itself, reply to a single question put to me by way of interjection.

You are gaining nothing by that.

I do not want to gain anything, but the Opposition will gain time from it.

The hon. member for Houghton put a few questions to me. She said we allowed too great a flow of people to the homelands. “We are flooding the homelands with Bantu without proper planning.” She once again mentioned the Limehill area as an example. Earlier this year we dealt fully with the Limehill question, so conclusively that it has never again raised its head subsequently. On this occasion I again want to say to the hon. member what I effectively said on previous occasions, and that is that people who have to be resettled from black spots and from squatters’ conditions are not sent to the Bantu areas without there having been any advance preparations. We prepare for them the places in which they are to live. We prepare health facilities for them, even trading facilities, schools, water, etc.

That is not true.

The hon. member says this is not true, but then she does not know what the truth is The hon. member paid a short visit to Limehill. Shortly after she visited Limehill I went there, in January this year, and I want to quote to hon. members what one of the chiefs there told me himself. He is the leader and who is the person who has most right to speak to me on behalf of his people at Limehill? That person is the chief, of course, who speaks there in the presence of his councillors who will remove him, according to their tradition, if he says anything wrong. What did the chief tell me at Limehill on 17th January He said he appreciated the fact that he and his large number of people had been brought to Limehill—and this is at Limehill itself—by the Department, “because, Sir, I was a squatter on an Indian’s property, and my stay there, where I came from, was painful”. He then pointed to a school building and said one of his councillors had asked him whether that school had been built for them as it looked like a white man’s school. But the hon. member says we have not prepared things.

What is the name of that chief.

That is the last thing I shall tell that hon. member. Another thing I want to tell the hon. member for Houghton is that that same chief also made the following statement to me after he had discussed the school: “We are here under better conditions than before; it is very much different here from before, and we thank the Government for all this.” This he told me in front of his home where we were having a discussion under a tree. The same chief told me that we heard many stories of diseases and death amongst his people but that people spoke many untruths; we should really not believe everything. He said: “Sir, here are even people who say they are shedding tears”. And do you know what the chief said then? This is very significant. He said years ago there were wasted tears of people who cried about the removal from Sophiatown at that time, and that in Limehill wasted tears were also shed needlessly about their removal to Limehill.

Has he got trading rights there?

The hon. member for Houghton also paid a visit to Stinkwater and Klipgat beyond Pretoria. She paid those places a visit and subsequently she came to see me and she was so confused about what she had sen there that she even pronounced the names incorrectly! The hon. member is still recalling this blushingly. [Interjections.] I want to say to the hon. member that the best advice I can give her as regards her meddling in Bantu affairs is the words of the wise apostle Paul to the Corinthians. She told me I liked to quote from the Bible and now I am going to quote from the Bible and I am not apologizing for the fact that the quotation comes from the New Testament. But the wise apostle Paul wrote the following to the Corinthians and I am making this applicable to her. “And if they (women) will learn any thing let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church”. I think the hon. member should get more information at home; she is confusing these things.

The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) only made one statement to which I need reply. In point of fact I have already dealt with this matter, i.e. his reference to the intellectuals who were allegedly agitating for acceleration. We are pleased that there are people who are agitating for acceleration. We are doing everything within our power to undertake development at as fast a rate as possible, but the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) will find no consolation in going to Woord en Daad and Sabra and those people, because these are not people who support his policy. They do not want a more rapid implementation of policy in order to arrive at his policy; they want that in order to implement our policy. But I want to say to the hon. member that he should exercise greater care in his discussions of Bantu affairs, because I have a report here in which he is mentioned as a member of the shadow Cabinet of the United Party, as the shadow Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration. And do you know what, Sir? In this shadow Cabinet the hon. member for Transkei is not even mentioned as the shadow Minister of Native Affairs; evidently they did not regard him as being good enough for that portfolio. They gave him Justice.

That is wrong. You always misread.

Let me look again, Yes, the hon. member is correct. Here for the first time in my life I have made a mistake with regard to the Opposition. Evidently they did not even trust him with Justice, because they gave him the Interior portfolio. The one to whom they gave Bantu Administration has as yet not even attended the whole of this debate. He is Dr. Jacobs. Now this is what one has if someone finds some joy in the future of the Opposition.

The hon. member for Mooi River is the last person to whose remarks I still want to react before resuming my seat to the delight of the Opposition. The hon. member for Mooi River gave me a very strong suspicion this afternoon that the hon. member for Windhoek should write his name down as one of the remaining four liberalists in the United Party to whom the hon. Senator referred in the Other Place. The hon. member for Windhoek said the hon. Senator Swanepoel had spoken of five liberalists in the United Party, and it seems to me that the hon. member for Mooi River is the ringleader of the remaining ones who were not mentioned. The hon. member for Mooi River was duly taken to task by the hon. the Deputy Minister, Mr. Vosloo, but I should like to refer to two small points raised by him. The hon. member said that Bantu were forced back to the “rural areas of the reserves”, away from civilization and away from urbanization. I said here before and proved my statements with statistics that during the past eight to ten years we had started to create an urbanization process in the homelands by means of the work done by our Department in establishing large Bantu towns in the homelands, because the Bantu also want towns and very likely also cities, but why should those cities be the Johannesburgs and the Cape Towns and the Bloemfonteins? Those cities must be the Umlazis and the Garankuwas which are the cities and towns of the Bantu. We are doing this and therefore we already have more than 100 Bantu towns which are developing in the Bantu areas, and not all the Bantu are returning to lonely huts in the rural areas of the Bantu homelands; they also go to large towns where they can live in Bantu urban conditions.

The hon. member is completely at sea. He should have some regard to that aspect as well, and in those towns, I may mention in passing, the Bantu are given even land tenure.

The last point of the hon. member to which I want to react is his reference to land tenure when he said the Bantu ought to be able to obtain land tenure in the white areas as well, according to the policy of the United Party. The Deputy Minister replied to that.

That is not what I said.

We know, and this has been put in writing, that it is the policy of the United Party that Bantu living in the urban Bantu residential areas, such as Langa and Nyanga and Soweto, should be able to obtain land tenure of the properties they are occupying. This is the policy of the United Party, and if it is no longer their policy I want to hear that this afternoon. I shall welcome it if that no longer is their policy. But it has been recorded that that is their policy. Now I want to tell the hon. member this. He brought in the 1936 Act as support for what he was advocating, but the 1936 Act does not cover that. The 1936 Act refers to the 7¼ million morgen of land to which the Deputy Minister referred, and that land is being added to the Bantu homelands from adjacent areas. But if he wants to give all the premises occupied by Bantu in the urban Bantu areas within the white areas to the Bantu as well so that they may have land tenure in those areas, then hundreds of thousands of morgen of land in South Africa not included under the 1936 Act will be added as land for the Bantu. Does the Opposition want to make that possible? That is the direct meaning of that statement of his; that is the direct meaning of their policy, i.e. to say that the Bantu should obtain land tenure in the Sowetos and in the Langas and in the Guguletus, and I say that land is land they want to give the Bantu in addition to the 7¼ million morgen of land, and for that reason, amongst numerous other reasons, there is no prospect for them of ever making something like that possible in this country.

Sir, there are some of us who next week will be celebrating the fact that it is 21 years since we became Members of Parliament. I must say that in all that time I have never heard a more extraordinary reply from a Minister than we have had from the hon. the Minister this afternoon. After all, there are only three or four questions with which we are really concerned. The first is: What is the Government’s policy? The second is: Is it succeeding? The third is: What is the effect on the Bantu? The fourth is: If it is not succeeding, what is the alternative? Sir, what is the policy of the Government? We have this eternal argument about whether it is the policy of the Government to reduce the number of Bantu in the white areas, yes or no. We had a statement from the hon. the Deputy Minister of Planning on this question of numbers. Sir, where do we stand? The Minister says that numbers only are not important. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Planning certainly seemed to give the impression in a speech which he delivered that numbers did not matter.

I never said so.

We had a leading article in one of the papers which support him, not one of our papers, and here is what they said—

I never said that.

Then it goes on to say—

Well, Sir, where are we? Numbers count or numbers do not count.

Why not quote what I said; why do you quote newspaper comment?

The hon. the Deputy Minister asks me why I quote newspaper comment. This is the comment of his newspaper, not mine.

I am not responsible for newspaper comment.

It is the official organ of the Nationalist Party.

Sir, I do not know what he is squealing about. If numbers do not matter, why are the Rapportryers and Professor Rhoodie so upset; why are his own newspapers so upset? Sir, all we want from this Government is something that is simple. The Minister says that numbers only do not matter; what matters is the number of unassimable people in your so-called white area. Well, fine. Now will the Government tell us this: If that is what matters, what is their programme; what is the time-table for reducing those numbers; what will it cost to reduce those numbers; what is the yardstick that is going to be applied in deciding whether or not the policy is working? What happens if the Bantu in the reserves cannot absorb development, or civilization, or whatever it is, fast enough to give employment to their natural increase and they keep flowing out? We have had no answer to this from the hon. the Minister. We have had a whole lot of vague generalizations, giving us no indication at all of the speed at which this policy is going to be developed. The hon. the Minister says that they are going to develop at the fastest possible rate, and if that rate is not sufficient to absorb the natural increase of the Bantu in the reserves, as he knows very well and as the Deputy Minister knows very well it will not be, what happens? Has the policy succeeded or has it failed? That is all we want to know. It is just as simple as that: Is the policy succeeding or is it failing?

It is succeeding.

The hon. gentleman says it is succeeding, but there are millions more Bantu in the white areas than there were before. Either numbers matter or they do not matter. You see, Sir, this is the ridiculous position in which we find ourselves. These hon. gentlemen sit here and first they say that numbers do not matter and then they say that they do matter.

You are talking a lot of nonsense and you know it.

Let the hon. gentleman run away as fast as he can. I am in agreement with him: numbers do matter. Well, if numbers do matter, is the policy succeeding or is it failing? We are back again to the old story that the numbers in the white areas are increasing, and increasing faster then ever. We even had the Minister coming back to-day to 1976 and 1978. He knows, of course, that that is absolute nonsense. He knows that that whole forecast was based on an incorrect projection; he knows that they counted the Bantu wrongly in the 1950 census; he knows that they were over a million out by the time they took the following census.

I am going to let you into a secret; they are increasing in the Bantu areas as well. Do you know that?

Of course I know that. Have they stopped breeding? Has the hon. the Deputy Minister given them all the Pill?

Are you going to stop them breeding?

Sir, what ridiculous nonsense. The question is quite simple: Is the policy succeeding or is it not? Sir, nothing that the Minister has said, nothing that his Deputy Ministers have said, can give anybody the slightest suspicion that this policy is succeeding. That is how simple it is. What can we do to make it succeed? The hon. the Minister tells us that there is peace and quiet in the reserves. Yes, peace and quiet with Proclamation 400, the very denial of democracy. Why cannot he repeal it? Because the Government of the Transkei knows that it cannot rule without it. That is exactly why. This Minister tells me that everybody is so satisfied and happy. Why do they want Proclamation 400 then? Is he going to tell me that the policy is succeeding?

Do you object to legislation against murder?

That is nonsense.

Apparently they need protection against murder. The Bantu are so happy that you have to have Proclamation 400 in case they go on murdering each other! Sir, what do we get from the hon. the Minister? We get a whole lot of anonymous witnesses. He tells us what they said but he will not tell us who they are. Why not?

I have good reasons.

I accept that. May I give the Minister a few of those reasons?

I have my own reasons.

I am sure the Minister has.

My experience with you is my reason.

May I tell the Minister what some of his reasons are? He is afraid those people will be victimized by their own people.

By you.

What can we do?

Sir, how ridiculous can one be! There are two main reasons why the hon. the, Minister is not giving us their names. The first is that he is afraid that they will be victimized by their own people. The second is that most of them have probably been asking for something, like the gentleman who was mentioned by the hon. the Deputy Minister last year who said that all he wanted was a petrol station. That is why we are not getting these names. Does the hon. the Minister really think that this Parliament is seriously going to take account of evidence of that kind?

May I ask a question?

Of course. Perhaps we can arrange it this way that when my ten minutes expire I will sit down; the hon. the Minister can then ask his question and perhaps I will get another ten minutes.

That does not suit me.

It would be quite easy that way. Sir, the other point is this: What effect is this having on the Bantu? What is the position in respect of his standard of living? I understand that the hon. the Deputy Minister—and I will apologize to him if I am misquoting him—has said that the standard of living of the Bantu in the reserves is of the order of R102 per head per annum.

Hundred and five rand per earner. [Time expired.]

Throughout this debate the Opposition’s theme for their attack on the Government’s policy was concentrated on the so-called failure and impracticability of the policy of separate development or parallel development. They have never made a proper study of the factors determining the policy. I think the time has now arrived for us to inform these hon. gentlemen better. I am now going to mention to the Opposition all the factors which the Government had to consider carefully and put straight in the implementation of its policy of separate development. We cannot simply proceed in a topsyturvy fashion. There has to be proper planning. I shall say more about this later on. We as the guardians of the non-Whites must see to it that it is possible for them to make a proper living in their homeland, and that they will also be happy there. Sir, in this House we have the strange phenomenon that the Opposition acts here as the champions of the Bantu, but when they are out there in the rural areas, they accuse the National Party Government of doing too much for the Bantu and of being nothing but a lot of negrophilists. Sir, take note of the swear-word or the term of abuse “negrophilist” used in this instance.

Sir, unfortunately I have to interrupt my speech so as to refer to what the hon. member for Pinelands said here in his speech, in which he levelled the accusation at the National Party Government that its whole Bantu policy was confused, if I understood him correctly. In my opinion the policy of the United Party is confused, and not that of the National Party. Permit me, Sir, to quote here a brief passage taken from the Star of 19th March, 1963. I should like to quote here what the hon. member for Yeoville said on that occasion. He said—

That is what the hon. member for Yeoville said at a certain conference they held.

What date?

19th March, 1963.

Where was that?

It was at a party conference which they held in Johannesburg.

On the parade.

Sir, that is why we say that the Opposition’s policy creates confusion, because just listen to what they say here. Here he says—

Who these civilized people are, the Opposition conveniently omits to say. It can be anybody. According to their policy this may perhaps be a reference to the non-Whites.

Sir, while I am on this point, I must also come back to the hon. member for Mooi River. He also created confusion with his speech. This is also clear proof to us of how confused the United Party is in respect of their policy. The hon. member even referred to the Mau Mau when he launched this attack. He interceded for the non-Whites by telling them that they would have the right to demand more land from us. Now I want to put this question to the hon. member: Is he prepared to make, on a numerical basis, a pro rata distribution or allocation of the land of South Africa to all races? Is he prepared to grant the non-Whites a pro rata share of the land, even in the white areas of South Africa? Is he in favour of that? Would he, in terms of his policy, be prepared to hand over willingly his farm to the non-Whites? He makes a lot of statements here, and he rises here as the intercessor for the non-Whites so that they may be granted the right to make demands for more land. The Opposition goes further, and in an attempt to justify their statements they quote figures ad nauseam. In this regard I should like to quote what the hon. the Minister said in a previous speech. I think that this is of cardinal importance. He said (Hansard, No. 1, 1969, col. 44)—

Then the hon. the Minister referred to what had happened in 1956. This is what he said—

Here I want to agree wholeheartedly with the hon. the Minister. The political separation between the Whites and the non-Whites is of cardinal importance. These stories of cows which are dying of hunger and of Bantu women who have to live in huts with floors smeared with dung, are small things. These things are of cardinal importance for the survival of the Whites and for justice to be done to the non-Whites. The entrenchment of the white Government in the white areas must be ensured, and it must have preference in all circumstances. We are now speaking of a white nation. I should like to refer to a speech made by the late Dr. Verwoerd on Thursday, 17th August, 1961, on the occasion of the opening of the National Party Congress in Pretoria. This is proof of how the existence of the Whites should, according to us, be protected. A newspaper report on this speech reads as follows—

It is our primary duty to ensure that the white civilization here in South Africa will be perpetuated. That is the big reason why the National Party is undertaking the policy of separate development with so much vigour and so much faith. If the Opposition had any formula, or an alternative policy, which they could propose or on the basis of which they could launch their attacks, they would still have a case to put forward, but they do not have it. In my opinion the Government acted very wisely in handling this whole colour question with extreme caution and singleness of purpose. If they had not done that, where would we have been to-day? We would probably have been in the same position as that in which some of our Black neighbour states find themselves. Proof to that effect is the absolute contentedness and goodwill found amongst the various population groups in our country. Whenever some or other statesman of our own country refers to that, the Opposition smiles sardonically and refuses to believe it. But allow me, Sir, to quote from a report of what a world famous person said, i.e. “Monty”, Field Marshal Montgomery. The report of his speech in Die Transvaler, read inter alia, as follows (translation)—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just sat down has asked whether we favour a pro rata division of the land of South Africa. Sir, I wonder where he has been these last 20 years. Is he a Rip van Winkel? He knows that is nonsense. It has never been the policy of this party, and it is not the policy of this party. Then he said that the important thing is “politieke skeiding”. Sir, up to a point that is true, but where is this leading to? If it is going to lead to sovereign independence for the Bantustans, where they will have the opportunity to make treaties with Communist China and Russia, is it going to save white civilization here in South Africa? Then he stated that the important thing is to maintain white civilized standards here in South Africa. I want to say that there is no policy that places white civilization here in South Africa, in greater danger than that of this Government. That is the snag.

Prior to that, I think we had made up our minds to some extent as to what we thought the policy of the Government was. I think we had reached the conclusion that it was failing. We were trying to find what its effect on the Bantu was. The hon. member who has just sat down, has told us again how happy and how satisfied they all are—with proclamation 400. Will he not make an appeal to this Minister to repeal proclamation 400? Then we shall see whether they are satisfied and happy or not.

The same provision applies in the non-white area, and you know that too.

Where? [Interjections.]

Order!

Sir, this hon. gentleman is Deputy Minister of Justice, and he is talking such nonsense in this House. He has not taken the trouble to read the proclamation or the Bill. Can he tell us such absolute nonsense? Sir, let us deal with the effect of this policy on the Bantu people themselves. Let us come back to this question of the standard of living which I raised with the Deputy Minister. As I sat down, it seemed to me that the hon. the Deputy Minister said that the average income of the Bantu in the reserves was R105 per annum. Is that per earner or per capita?

Per earner.

Now we are in very serious trouble, Sir, because the average earner supports a family of four. The income in the reserves must therefore be R26 per capita. Sir, I cannot accept his figure. I think his figures are totally wrong. Let us be more optimistic, Sir, Let us come back to the Chairman of the Bantu Development Corporation. May I quote what we dealt with once before in this House? I think this whole issue was raised last year. We then had great claims from various Ministers that there was development in the reserves. They talked of the tremendous improvement. We spoke about the forecast and the estimate made by Prof. Tomlinson in the years 1950 to 1951 that the average income of Bantu in the reserves, and not over the whole of South Africa, was R48 per head, not per earner. This included all members of a family. Then, Sir, last year we dealt with figures given by Dr. Adendorff, the chairman of the Bantu Development Corporation, fifteen or sixteen years later, and we find that the average income, as it worked out then, was approximately R53 per head. That is an increase of R5 per head over a period of 15 or 16 years. If one has regard to the value of money, one finds that that means their real income is less than it was 15 or 16 years ago. That is how separate development is succeeding.

Then we had the claim from hon. members opposite that the standard of living of our Bantu in the reserves was higher than any other state in Africa. On that account, we went and looked into various figures from other states in Africa, supplied by the Africa Institute. I said at that time, Mr. Chairman, that it gave me no pleasure whatever to give these figures. But I think they should come before this Government and this Minister. If the Minister can disprove them, I will be the happiest man in this House.

We have heard those figures.

The hon. gentleman says he knows them, but I think we have to place them on record again, because whereas the average income of a Bantu per head per annum in our reserves is R53, in Zambia it is R139, in Senegal R146, in Rhodesia R153, including the Whites, in Liberia R175, in Lesotho R70, on the Ivory Coast R99, in Gabon R227, in Egypt R97, in Angola R66, in Botswana, our neighbour, R70, in the Congo R66 and in the Congo (Kinshasa) also R66.

Why do you not quote Ethiopia and Tanzania as well?

Mr. Chairman, I will accept at once if the hon. gentleman tells me there are states where there is a lower standard of living than ours. I accept that at once. But all I am dealing with, is the claim by Ministers on the other side of this House that the standard of living in our reserves is the highest standard of any Black state in Africa. You see, Sir, it is so totally wrong. When we judge whether this policy is working or whether it is not working, we have to have regard to figures of this kind. The hon. gentleman said that he had a figure of R105, not per head, but per earner.

I shall reply to you.

I would be so happy, because Dr. Adendorff dealt with this question and said that of the R53, R22 was earned in the reserves and R31 sent back by workers from outside. So, if the hon. gentleman can give me different figures, I would be only too happy to accept them. But this shows an extremely low standard of living. What is R53 per year? About R1 per week. How does one live on that? Is that a sign of development? Does that mean these reserves are being developed to a point where there is prosperity, where they are becoming viable? Does that show that this policy is a success? Mr. Chairman, I am afraid we have reached the stage that the only judgment we can give on this policy so far, is that it has been an abysmal failure. All the words and all the excitement of the hon. the Minister have not convinced us of anything different to-day. The time has come to find an alternative, and the only alternative is that which the United Party is providing.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred here to the standard of living of the Bantu. The hon. the Deputy Minister has already quoted figures which I believe to be quite correct. If one wishes to discuss the standard of living of the Bantu, there are many other aspects which must also be taken into account. The Bantu can only raise their standard of living if the potential is created for them for developing their own homelands, and, in the second instance, if they are afforded the opportunity of developing their know-how. Only then would there be the potential for attaining a higher standard of living. Now we know, surely, that it is the policy of the Government to create, by means of the various Bantu investment corporations, sufficient financial resources and sufficient financial possibilities for the Bantu in the homelands. This is not something that can be effected overnight. The Bantu’s ability and know-how must also be developed before a rise in their standard of living may be expected. In addition, they are to a considerable extent lagging behind the Whites as far as their standard of civilization is concerned, but they are in fact very far ahead of the rest of Africa. They owe this to this Government’s policy of separate development.

An indirect reference was also made here to Proclamation 400, which is supposedly being implemented in the Transkei. This was supposedly the cause of there being political peace in the Transkei. But now I want to ask this question: Are such provisions for preserving peace and calm in our own White areas, in our own country, not found in our existing legislation and regulations as well? Then hon. members of the Opposition made this observation: “What about Rhodesia? In Rhodesia a policy of apartheid is not being applied.” But are hon. members not aware that there are much stricter regulations in Rhodesia than Proclamation 400 which is being implemented in the Transkei, notwithstanding the fact that they do not implement the policy of apartheid there? Therefore that is no argument.

However, I want to deal with another matter. It has always been a matter of top priority with this Government—and we are grateful for that—to improve the Black-White ratio in the urban and metropolitan areas all the time. Over the past few years we have had great success in doing so. I say “priority” since major social problems would have been created if we had not prevented that. But as a person from the rural areas and as a farmer I should like to call the attention of our Government and the hon. the Minister to the fact that we shall now have to pay serious attention to the inundation of the rural areas by Blacks. In saying this, I am being sincere. I am one of the people who believe very firmly in the policy of our Government, but I am also one of the people who would like to see our policy being implemented more rapidly. Over the past few years there has been further inundation of the rural areas by the Blacks as a result of certain events: industrial development, etc. It is being claimed that the present ratio is one to fifteen. Now, in its attempts at coping with this problem, the Government has also introduced certain measures, such as the abolition of the labour-tenant system. That was a very good measure, since this old tradition method of labour arrangements in the rural areas meant that Bantu labour on farms was not being utilized properly. In certain districts this has been abolished completely for quite some time. I can tell the hon. the Minister that the utilization of labour in these specific districts has shown a marked improvement. In the place of that we were given Bantu labour control boards. This contributed to considerable improvement being effected in regard to the utilization of labour on farms, because the local district labour control boards now adopt the attitude that the point at issue is no longer the actual number of Bantu registered with a farmer, but the number of Bantu he really requires for the agricultural activities on his farm. It is only on that basis that a determination is made of the number of Bantu who may live on a farm on a permanent basis. The members of the Bantu labour control board are nominated by the farmers themselves and appointed by the Minister. The farmers themselves are, therefore, serving on that board. In other words, they determine their own labour needs. This is a good, sound, democratic system. In the course of the past recess I had the privilege of observing another development in regard to the utilization of Bantu labour, i.e. the establishment of tribal labour bureaux. We visited a few of these tribal labour bureaux. We gained the impression that some of these Bantu tribal labour bureaux still had difficulty in functioning, as the Bantu had to be systematically accustomed to and acquainted with the administrative performance of this new function. In certain cases where the Bantu were better equipped, we found that it worked very well. I believe that this is a very great step forward, since by these means it is, in the first instance, possible to succeed in bringing together the labour needs and the labour supply. What is very important in this regard, is the fact that, particularly in respect of the agricultural industry, it will in due course be possible for us to make more and more use of this labour as migratory labour, on the basis of single persons. I know the hon. Opposition do not agree with that. They say that it is unreasonable and immoral for family ties to be broken down in that way. But what are the facts as regards the past? Being a migratory labourer is a tradition with the Bantu. These labour tenants we had, these Bantu who lived on farms in large numbers, sought work on a single basis, on a migratory labour basis. On most of our farms it was customary for such Bantu, once they have worked there for six months, to tell their masters that they wanted passes because they wanted to work in the towns. Then they went to Johannesburg, to Pretoria, to the urban areas where they sought employment as migratory labourers on a single basis, while their families remained on the farms for the following six months. Surely, this is nothing but a form of voluntary migratory labour. This is traditional amongst the Bantu. There is nothing the matter with our wanting to channel this process of migratory labour further, i.e. from the homelands to our farms, to enable us to improve our White-Black ratio in the rural areas. But in attempting to integrate this migratory labour with the agricultural industry, there is another very important factor to which we shall have to pay attention, i.e. that we should, if possible, train the Bantu in his homeland so that he may render proper service. It is no longer possible for us to employ labour in the rural areas on a quantitative basis. We shall also have to think of a more qualitative basis. In that way we shall effect a considerable improvement in the Black-White ratio in the rural areas.

I still want to mention another matter as well, i.e. the question of the present control we have in the rural areas. I want to make the statement that one of the greatest problems we have, particularly in areas where a great deal of mining development has taken place over the past few years, is a divided system of control. We have this system of Bantu labour control boards. In the Transvaal we have the peri-urban areas development board which also has a say in Bantu control in certain rural areas adjoining mining areas. The control exercised by these two control bodies, does not tally. It is conflicting and creates a great deal of confusion. I want to request that we look into this position in good time. I know that the Government is holding out the prospect of central control over labour in general being introduced by way of legislation at a later stage. We cannot permit this system of divided control over certain rural areas to continue. [Time expired.]

I am pleased the hon. member who has just resumed his seat created the opportunity for me to spend some time discussing agriculture and labour problems. To begin with, a few ideas on emancipation. For example, when I read that in many circles the idea has taken root that the existence of separate nations is doomed and that they will be replaced by a worldwide nationless and raceless human community, then I can only come to the conclusion that the Opposition’s argument during the course of this debate was really an onslaught on the survival of White South Africa. I am not saying that hon. members did so with malice aforethought. On the basis of principle the National Party can cope with every imaginable change. It can deal with every new situation, and it can ward off every new onslaught as it will in fact ward off the onslaught of the Opposition in regard to this matter. Nothing can change it fundamentally, for it is too well anchored for that; it is too national in its origin, and its history is too clearly defined. The upliftment of underdeveloped countries has to-day become the warp and the woof in the relations between Whites and non-Whites. There are three aspects which are continually being emphasized in this connection. In our case as well these aspects are emphasized, i.e. that there is White trusteeship and, in the second place, that it is of a temporary nature, and, in the third place, that during this process of emancipation both Whites and non-Whites are in a transitional phase. In the process of emancipation there are three principles to which this process is anchored, the one is in the first instance that the individual being emancipated ought to have achieved a certain stage of development. That is what we have always been engaged in doing. In the second instance the proposed political system for the non-Whites must develop out of the past history of those non-Whites. That is also what we are basing our separate development on. In the third instance, the emancipation must to a large extent be supported by economic strength in those emancipated individual’s own area. In other words, the individual being emancipated must, in the process of emancipation, develop and be developed intellectually, politically and economically. I am using the word “developed” deliberately. Someone else also used it to-day. I want to state right at the outset that we must rid ourselves of the idea that the non-Whites must be carried by the Whites in this process to where they want to be. We must do away with the suggestion that the Whites alone must make sacrifices in this process. After all, it is in the interests of the Whites as well as the non-Whites. If the non-Whites know that all this is being done in his interests as well, then he must in the first instance welcome the inconvenience which it causes him as well as the Whites. He must accept it. He must grin and bear it. He can appraise and examine it critically, and even try to make his burden somewhat lighter. If there are deep waters in the course which this Government has adopted for the Whites and the non-Whites, they must also learn to swim. If there is heavy going they must bear up. If there are chasms, they must leap across. If there are heights, they must pant. If there is mud they must plod through. If there are crags they must climb. They cannot be carried to where they want to be. If there are dangers they must brave those dangers. In this instance it is also a question of reconciling speed with thoroughness. In the process both Whites and non-Whites must bear in mind that thoroughness must be reconciled with speed. It is a question of minding one’s step or one might break one’s neck, or not minding one’s step or another man may break it for you. There is a tremendous gap which must be bridged in this emancipationary process. The undertaking is so vast that the non-Whites have to develop from a purely subsistence economy to an industrial economy. That is the gap which has to be bridged. A subsistence economy, in its simplest form amounts to this; There is an antelope, you string your bow, shoot it, eat it and sleep. To-day’s programme of purely subsistence economy is precisely the same as yesterday’s.

After these introductory remarks in regard to the emancipationary process, I should also like to express a few ideas in regard to labour. The labour problem brings one, to use an idiom of our forefathers, grey hairs and sleepless nights. Although nobody wants to over-emphasize or exaggerate the dependence of agriculture on non-White labour, it is nevertheless clear that nobody can close his eyes to the fact that the many problems which we have in regard to labour have to a certain extent had an economically impeding effect on agriculture. The farmer is acquainted with the recruiting process. Sometimes it is perhaps more as a result of unsuccessful attempts to get that labour one would very much like, and less as a result of the success one achieves with it. We can mention quite a few reasons in this connection, without laying the blame before this or before that door. I want to mention only a few. A person who is perhaps not conversant with the procedure of recruiting the necessary labour is, through his own fault, going to have a frustrating time and achieve less success. Failure to comply with regulations, for example in regard to registration, dismissal and abscondence also creates problems. We know that there is an aversion to agricultural labour among the non-Whites. As far as that matter is concerned it is more a question of labour unwillingness than a labour shortage. A frantic search can be instituted for labour on an operational basis, but it is impossible to guarantee that labour. Unfortunately that cannot be done. In addition the rural areas find themselves engaged in an unequal struggle in their competition with the urban areas. The farmers cannot hope to engage in a wage war with industries and mines, just as the State cannot engage in a wage war with the private sector. The five day working week in the cities is also very attractive, in contrast with the farms where dairies for example require non-White labourers to accept a seven day working week. In most urban industries there is a five day working week. The result of this is that certain sources of labour might have to be reserved for agriculture. As soon as that is done it implies an element of compulsion and if there is an element of compulsion that labour becomes unpopular.

One can do a great deal to provide information. I just want to mention that between 2 and 5 October, 1967, I held seven meetings, together with Mr. Kellerman, in my constituency, in order to discuss these problems with our farmers. Inter alia, we listened to problems, explained policy and made procedure known. In 1968 I was in the company of a group of M.P.’s and officials, which the former speaker has already mentioned, on a visit to Groblersdal in order to visit the labour bureaux there. The way in which things are being done there was a very clear indication to us that once this matter is in full steam things ought to go much better with the supply of labour for agriculture. On 3rd November, 1967, I, and a number of my rural voters, attended a labour conference in Pretoria where, inter alia, the following persons took part, the hon. the Minister, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Justice, who was at that time still a full-time member of the Bantu Affairs Commission, Dr. Van Rensburg and Mr. Steyn. In addition continual discussions are being held. The other day I held consultations with the new permanent member of the Bantu Affairs Commission, namely the hon. member for Klip River, in regard to this matter, and numerous policy documents are continually being distributed in my constituency so that people will remain on familiar terms with these matters. After all this, the questions keep coming in and the replies keep going out. Actually, this problem is so deep-rooted that one cannot uproot it even with a crowbar.

I want to express my sincerest appreciation for the work the Department is doing in this connection, however, the future task of providing regular labour for our farms remains. I think it will help to a certain extent if employers do everything in their power to inculcate obedience of the law in their employees. We must not employ labourers if everything is not as it should be. This nevertheless happens and I do not want to put the blame on our farmers now. Sometimes for example a crop is ready to be harvested and the farmer is very vulnerable. Perhaps it begins to rain when the groundnuts are ripe, potatoes are beginning to sprout and sorghum is susceptible to weather damage. One gets hold of a group of workers and examines their documents. Perhaps these documents are not quite in order, but when one takes into account the crop, the threatening rain and the accounts which have to be paid, in regard to which they have already received warnings, then you decide to employ these people. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to come to another matter for a moment or two before returning to the questions put by my hon. Leader to the hon. the Minister a short while ago.

The matter I want to deal with is the question of the hospitalization of Bantu people and I want to deal purely with my own province. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister what the position is in regard to the hospitalization of the Bantu people. Some six or seven years ago the previous practice of the province providing for the Bantu folk as regards hospital beds in Government hospitals and the subsidies paid to missionary hospitals, and so forth, was departed from to the extent that when under pressure it was suggested by the province that they should increase their hospital beds, the Department of Bantu Administration stepped in and forbade it. After some considerable period of negotiation it was finally agreed that the department itself would erect hospitals for the Bantu. Here is where I would like to get confirmation from the hon. the Minister as to whether this is correct or not, because I am willing to stand corrected if I am wrong. If I am wrong I would like to know what the true position is. As I am informed the position is the following. The Minister undertook to erect Bantu hospitals in suitable areas which he had selected for the purpose. He would also put up the capital for these hospitals to be built and they would be provided with all the necessary facilities. The province, however, would be asked to start them. The nursing and medical staff would be provided by the province. The Provincial Hospital Service would see to the staffing and the care. But the years have gone by and the pressure has built up and indeed it cannot be otherwise with the build up of the number of Bantu who are living in these areas. The greater the population, naturally the greater the total number of people who require hospitalization will be. When from time to time the province has been to the hon. the Minister’s department and has asked for permission to add beds to existing hospitals where there already is a department for Bantu, the hon. the Minister has refused. There are exceptions and I want to make it clear at once that I accept that there are exceptions. These exceptions have been wrong out of the hon. the Minister. This, as I have said, has been a case of the province having to allow conditions where Bantu patients are being put on the beds in hospitals, on the floor between beds and also in corridors because of the pressure of the number of sick, injured and dying in those hospitals. The hon. the Minister still would not give approval for the extension of accommodation in wards for these Bantu patients, with certain exceptions. I am not sure how many there are, but I believe that under pressure and after the precise nature of the difficulties in some of the hospitals has been considered in at any rate two and possibly three cases, as far as I know, approval has been given so that additions could be made. Bearing in mind the speech which the hon. the Deputy Minister Froneman made a year ago in this House, wherein he actually narrated the hospitals which had been approved for construction by the Department of Bantu Administration, I should like to know whether I am right when I say that there is not one hospital approaching completion in Natal? How many have been planned and which have not yet been started? What is the staffing problem that is going to be associated with the hospitals for the Bantu people? Is it true that the Minister is proposing to put up all the capital so that these hospitals can be built and thoroughly equipped leaving the staffing thereof to the provinces? Has an agreement been reached with the provinces on the matter of principle of staffing these hospitals? I think this is becoming a very urgent and burning question. It has been building up for some eight years. Except for approval in two or three cases for beds to be provided where Bantu hospital services were already in existence, nothing has been done to implement the undertaking by the Minister’s predecessor and the department. He gave the assurance that these Bantu hospitals would be constructed. It is rapidly reaching the stage of becoming something in the nature of a scandal because of the need for the department to care for its own sick people and not to leave them to the mercy of somebody else. I know the hon. the Minister’s difficulty of finding medical and nursing personnel. He does not have them and he cannot get them, for very good practical reasons. I am not complaining about that. If he says he has come to an agreement with the provincial authorities and that they will provide the medical and the nursing personnel, under the conditions under which they are training the nursing personnel—and they are participating in the training of the medical personnel-—then I can understand from a practical point of view that it is no good asking the hon. the Minister what he is going to do about staffing. I want the hon. the Minister to indicate whether he has come to an agreement with the provincial authorities. I want to know whether agreement has been reached that nursing and medical personnel will be provided by the provinces.

I want to move on to the question which was put by my hon. Leader. He asked the question whether the Government’s policy, that is the policy of separate development and of segregation of the Bantu in their own areas and taking them from the White areas and putting them back in their own areas, is succeeding? On the 27th of August, 1963, the late Dr. Verwoerd made the famous speech of his in Durban where he dealt with the “policy plans for the survival of all the races in South Africa.” According to him the principle was to separate them. He made the famous statement which I quote from time to time—and which I want to quote again—“I choose partition above death.” If the policy is succeeding, it is a case of “partition above death” which is the principle to which he is working as the late Dr. Verwoerd worked? I have here the speech of the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development at the opening of the Sabra Conference on the 5th of October, 1967. It reads—

The late Dr. Verwoerd has said that he chooses partition above death whereas the hon. the Deputy Minister has said that the Government does not regard consolidation of African areas as a prerequisite to the performance of its policy. The hon. Deputy Minister also took part in a by-election at Newcastle where the National majority was fortunately visibly reduced.

That is because he went up there. We should be thankful.

Yes, I hope he will attend many more by-election meetings.

Who won the election?

He will not win it again.

Perhaps we shall get the hon. the Minister of Health to go to the next one too. He can give us a hand there.

Then there will be a landslide.

I continue to quote from the Press report of this speech—

From what paper were you quoting now?

From a well-known and a very factual paper, the Natal Mercury, dated February, 14th, 1969. Will the hon. the Deputy Minister deny it? I shall accept his denial. Do you deny that you said that?

Did I say that the policy had failed?

I have quoted what he has said. Does he deny it? I shall accept his denial.

No.

He does not deny it. Well then, that is all right, and I shall have no quarrel with him.

He did say it.

He did say it and he admits that. If this is the position in the Bantu areas at the present time, I want to say to the hon. the Minister that it is no good his telling us about schools which look like White schools and which are built here and there in some of the native towns. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister on the course the debate on his Vote has taken so far. It is a personal triumph for him and a triumph for the National Party’s policy of separate development. In contrast, the Opposition has been proved, for the umpteenth time, to be mere plodders in the quagmire of the population mess which they advocate as a policy in respect of South Africa’s multiplicity of nations.

I should like to bring the problem of the unlicensed Bantu in the eastern suburbs or Pretoria which fall in my constituency to the attention of the hon. the Minister. I would just like to emphasize that I am referring to unlicensed Bantu in these areas. The best example I can give of this phenomenon appears from the fact that the Bantu buses coming from the city in the afternoon and at night are crammed to overflowing with Bantu males. However, these buses are quite empty on their return journey. In the mornings the reverse is true. Then the buses come empty from the city and return crammed full. The position ought to be the reverse. I think that this situation can be attributed to the housing shortage which exists in the Bantu areas of Pretoria. I think the time has now come for this matter to receive joint attention from the City Council and the State. I think that, with a joint effort, this matter can be solved. In the City Council of Pretoria we have a board which exercises control over a very great field of local government and which is in fact sincere in its disposition towards the Government, and which is prepared to co-operate with the Government in respect of separate development. I believe that the example which they have already set in respect of non-white management can be taken even further and can eventually serve as an example to the whole of South Africa.

It already sets an example.

Yes, the example has already been set. What I am most pleased about to-day is the statement by the hon. the Minister that Bantu townships are being and are going to be developed in the Bantu homelands. I believe that this is a matter which should enjoy the greatest possible degree of priority. I view the development of such Bantu townships in the Bantu homelands as the establishment of magnets to attract the Bantu back to their own areas. To-day the young Bantu in particular are being enticed by the shining lights of the white cities. I think that they will be enticed by the shining lights of their own cities. But apart from that, the other services offered in the townships in the Bantu homelands must be such that they will make their way thence. I also believe that such Bantu townships in the homelands can in particular be developed on the borders of the homelands. Then one can imagine that such Bantu cities will become sleeping and residential cities for such Bantu as are needed in the white areas themselves. But I do think that thought will have to be given to the planning and development of a system of rapid transport for such Bantu townships in the homelands to the white areas where they must work. I think that, with a rapid transport service, such Bantu can in fact be transported within the space of an hour, and I do not think that is an unreasonable time for someone to travel from his place of residence to his place of employment. This happens everyday in the Rand areas, and between Pretoria and Johannesburg, and I think that what we expect our Whites to do, we can also expect from the Bantu. I want to advocate that this matter be given very serious consideration in the near future.

I had mentioned that the Minister dealt with the question of the lovely school built in a place like Limehill, and how he was told that it looked just like a school for white children. That is all very well, but the point I want to raise here this afternoon is the one I have raised year after year, and that is what is being done in the scheduled Native areas in my province, not in isolated spots here and there where a town is being created and urban conditions are being established for the Bantu who live there, but in the rural areas where we have the Bantu not in thousands or in tens of thousands but in scores of thousands. I have painted this picture here before when the Deputy Minister was Mr. Blaar Coetzee, and for various reasons an anticipated trip which he was to take with me fell away, the reason being that he ceased to be the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and became Minister of another portfolio. We are in the position to-day in those areas that there are scores of thousands of Bantu who are reaching the stage that they do not even have the wherewithal to build their huts. The days of the old so-called beehive hut which they built with withes and grass are gone, and they are cutting building sods from the soil around their huts and kraals and they are destroying by hundreds of acres the surface soil with the grass roots in it, because they are now using it for building purposes. They are destroying the fertile top layer of soil in their areas in hundreds of cases to-day, and it is there evident for anyone who goes to look at it. Grass will not grow again in that subsoil which has once been exposed to the air. There is not even sufficient grass to-day to roof their houses with. All sorts of makeshift arrangements are being made. What is the good of the Deputy Minister telling us about the average earnings per capita when these people do not even have sufficient grass to cover their huts with? they cannot plough any longer; they are not allowed to. Their cattle die in hundreds every year we have a bit of a drought and when we have a bad drought, as we had last year, they die in more hundreds. The cattle are just skeletons, skin and bone, walking around because there is no grass for them to eat. The fields produce no more crops, not only when there is drought, but monoculture has resulted in their using the same land over and over and planting it only to mealies, until all the strength is taken out of the soil. What are the Minister and his Department doing about healing that wound? This is the big issue which is facing us, and not whether there are a few Native townships being established here and there where they will build good schools, etc., and have clinics. What are they doing for the tens of thousands of Bantu who are living under these conditions? And those are the conditions under which the Bantu have to live who are endorsed out and have to go back to their homelands. What kind of a homeland is it? Is the Government proud of these homelands? The picture I paint is reality. The Minister can paint a fanciful picture here of something that is in the air, but it is time that he should go there and have a look for himself. I want to ask the Minister whether he will come down with me in the recess to look at these areas for himself?

I have been there on my own and I am going there again, and I have seen what you are describing.

Then it is no good my pursuing the matter. The Minister having said that he has seen those conditions. I need say nothing further. All I can say is that having seen it. I hone the Minister will go there again to look at these conditions again, not in my company, so that he can be contaminated: he can just go there and look. I take it that this will be the prelude to something being done and done in a big way in this regard.

Then I want to deal with the Question of water supplies. The Minister went with me to the Mkuze River, and I showed him a hole some six or eight feet deep in the bed of the river, with Bantu women dishing out water in little kettles to fill a 4-gallon drum. That was the only domestic water supply for hundreds of Bantu in that scheduled Native area. I would like to ask the Minister what the Government is doing in those areas to provide an adequate water supply for domestic purposes for the Bantu? The Minister was there and he interviewed the Bantu and he knows that his own departmental officials in that area do not know which way to turn to get assistance because of the difficulties in which they find themselves in providing water for the cattle and for the Bantu themselves. What recourse have they got?

Conditions in the Bantu homelands are better than they were in 1948.

What an extraordinary thing to say! What kind of a policy would it be if matters were not better in 1969 than they were in 1948! Twenty-one years have passed. I am shocked at the hon. member for suggesting a thing like that. I should jolly well think that things should be better than they were 21 years ago. What a scandal it would have been if they were worse than they were 21 years ago! And I am not sure that they are not worse in some areas, because 21 years ago there was all the water in the world in the Mkuze River and the Bantu had no trouble in getting clear water for themselves and for their cattle. But to-day the Mkuze River is a dry sand-bed. Those are the people who are suffering at present. The Minister knows. He made inquiries of his own officials and the commissioners in that area, and they have told him what the position is, but what has been done to rectify it? That is the point. We want to know whether their policy is succeeding. That is the question my hon. Leader asked, and when these things are happening I want to know whether it is success to have less and less water and less and less grazing, topsoil and building material. Is that the sign of success? I hope that the Government in the foreseeable future, with its unlimited powers and its unlimited funds, will do something practical for the big mass of the Bantu people, to help them in the scheduled Native areas which this Government calls a homeland. What kind of a homeland is the Government creating for these unfortunate people?

From the two speeches which the hon. member for South Coast made here, it is very clear that he does not actually have any criticism to level against this policy as such. In fact it would appear that he supports the policy. He is merely asking that we should implement it more rapidly.

We have always stood for the development of the reserves.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) need not come along with interjections. It all adds up to the fact that the Leader of the United Party in Natal accepts the policy of the National Party and merely asks for its implementation to be accelerated.

That is a distortion of what he said.

He asked what was being done in respect of hospital facilities, the provision of water, etc.

Sir, I should like to come to a few aspects which, in my opinion, could receive attention. One is that in the area around Durban there is a considerable shortage of housing for the Bantu in the Bantu areas. We are aware of the fact that it is undesirable to provide housing for the Bantu outside the Bantu areas. As you know, Sir, we have an industrial complex in the Pinetown area, in the Mobeni area and in my own constituency in Queensburgh. The position is that there is no Bantu area in the immediate vicinity of my constituency in which the Bantu who work there can be housed. I know that provision is being made for housing so that, in due course, they may live in their own area. I should like to ask here that when housing is being provided in the Dassenhoek area, provision should also be made for single Bantu, and not only for married quarters, because there are single Bantu who are working in industries or in other spheres of employment in my constituency. They will therefore not require married quarters. In my opinion it would be inappropriate to expect them to travel from Queensburgh via Pinetown, via New Germany to Claremont; in other words, that they should be housed in Claremont. I would prefer to see provision being made for housing for them in the Dassenhoek area, for those who are married as well as those who are single.

But then I want to go further. I want to appeal to housewives and families to abandon the practice of housing Bantu in their own backyards to an ever greater extent. In my opinion it is essential for the restrictions on the housing of Bantu servants to be applied more strictly in order to implement the policy which has already been laid down. In this connection I merely want to mention that many complaints come from numerous areas of Durban to the effect that the policy which must be implemented by the city council is not being applied strictly enough and that considerably more Bantu are still being housed in backyards than ought to be allowed. If it is still deemed necessary to employ Bantu servants, I want to make an appeal that they should be employed more on a part-time basis so as to afford them the opportunity of returning, after working hours, which should be reasonable, to their own homes, so that they may spend the rest of the day and night with their families, especially in the areas where it is possible to do this in practice. In the majority of the urban areas of Natal this is, in fact, possible. I received a letter this week from an English-speaking person in Scottburgh who said that in the mornings his servant came in by bus from a Bantu homeland area five miles away. It takes the servant half an hour to come in and at night the servant returns home. He said that it was possible in practice for all servants in that area to come in by bus in the morning and then to return in the evenings. According to this English-speaking person there is no need therefore for permission to be given any longer for the housing of Bantu in backyards.

Does he pay the bus fare?

He is paid a reasonable salary so as to make that possible. I also want to advocate that we should abandon the practice of wanting cheap labour only. I am aware of the fact that as long as the facilities are available, there will always be people who will want to make use of the available facilities and who will want to employ these servants for the sake of their own personal convenience. Sir, it is detrimental to the entire South African society to grow too accustomed to luxuries. There are many people who could manage with fewer servants and with fewer services rendered by non-Whites. I want to advocate that we should do more in that direction and that, if necessary, restrictions be imposed by Government authorities so that the Whites may grow accustomed to the idea of getting along with fewer nonwhite servants or services. In my opinion it is a matter to which we must give positive attention. I am aware of the fact that it is not possible to give effect to this unless proper housing is provided for the Bantu in their own areas so that they may be housed there. We must realize that when money is provided for housing, this is done on a loan basis and that all that money must, in due course, be repaid with interest. Subsequent to that further extension can take place. In other words, this is not money which is being donated to the non-Whites; it is money which is being provided in order to establish an orderly society and to give effect to the policy of the Whites having full authority in their own areas. I want to plead for a greater measure of attention to be given to this matter.

Another aspect which I should like to mention is the argument which is raised by the United Party from time to time, and that is that, as a result of the employment of non-Whites in the mining industry and in our industries, it necessarily means that economic integration is taking place. Sir, it is true that the economic pattern of South Africa is based on the employment of non-Whites, but it is also a fact that Bantu from Lesotho and Botswana and even from Zambia and Malawi come to South Africa regularly on a contract basis in order to work on the mines and in the industries. If United Party supporters want to argue that economic integration has taken place because the labour pattern has developed in such a way that non-Whites are being employed in our industries, I should like to know from them whether they are prepared to interpret this on the same basis as that on which contract labourers from Botswana and Lesotho and Malawi and Zambia are employed? If they are prepared to do this, then surely we may also accept that the same principle can apply in respect of the Transkei, the Zulu area and the Tswana area, which are inside South Africa. Then this is surely not integration; it is an inter-dependence upon South Africa’s economic structure, but it is not integration. [Interjections.] We are not juggling with words; this is an aspect of principle about which the United Party could give us greater clarity in connection with their standpoint. But they would like the term “economic integration” to be accepted so that they may subsequently advocate, after economic integration has taken place, that we should gradually introduce a greater degree of integration in other spheres. I should like to have a reply from them on that aspect.

In the few minutes at my disposal I cannot devote too much time to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. He began by saying that there were obviously members on this side of the House who were now accepting the policy concerning the development of the reserves. Is he only finding this out now? I thought he knew that we have alaways accepted the fact that not only should the areas be developed, but also that this should take place more quickly. The hon. member then went further and pointed out that people from Botswana and from the Portuguese Territory are employed here on a contract basis, and he then asked why the same principle did not apply to Bantu in the Bantu areas within the Republic of South Africa. This is a strange kind of statement, Sir. The people within the country must be treated in the same way as those coming from outside! But I have no more time to devote to that.

I should like to come back to the statement which was made this morning by the hon. member for Carletonville and which struck me very forcibly. He put certain questions to me in that connection. I asked him to return to the House and he was kind enough to do so. The hon. member for Carletonville made an alarming statement here this morning. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister and the Party opposite if this is Government policy. The hon. member said this morning that what was important was the fact that one should be able to state and project one’s policy. Then he continued and asked what United Party policy could be projected. He then said that the matters which the U.P. emphasized, i.e. how we project it, how the people must be removed and how one should treat those who remain in the white areas, were secondary and tertiary considerations. This is not the most important aspect. The most important aspect is that one has a policy of apartheid, that one implements it and can project it. Then one must prove that it can be applied. If a policy does not meet these requirements it is not a good policy. But I should like to ask the hon. member, because he will have another turn to speak, is the fact that there are 3.8 million people here, who can be removed because they are unemployed, really of secondary and tertiary importance? It it really of secondary and tertiary importance for one to speak of the removal of people and how this must be done? Is it really of secondary and tertiary importance that these people who remain in the white areas must all be migratory labourers? That they should have a foreign pass as if they came from a foreign so-called homeland?

So-called?

Yes, so-called, because the homelands have not yet all been delimited. If these are secondary and tertiary considerations then I ask the hon. the Minister, what is the policy of the National Party? Is the predominant factor that the Government’s policy should be implemented, regardless of the cost? Do human relations no longer mean anything? Or do they mean so little that the policy must be implemented, regardless of human relations? Then someone asked me what role human relations played. When I was addressing the House earlier, I mentioned this to the Minister. He did not reply to it; perhaps he did not want to. I said that in areas such as the Ciskei and the Transkei there is not the slightest chance of absorbing additional people. People are still being removed from the Western Cape and from other areas and being sent there. On a previous occasion I mentioned the examples of Middelburg and Burgersdorp. What must we do in respect of the development within the Xhosa area? Here is the development corporation’s report. A short while ago a question was put to the hon. member for Klip River about whether the Bantu were so much better off in the Transkei and other Bantu areas than they were 20 years ago. I made the statement that they were worse off. Twenty years ago the Bantu in the Transkei and the Ciskei were living under better circumstances than to-day. It does not help to say that this is untrue. The cost of living was lower, they earned enough from their cattle, small stock and crops. No, it is no use for the hon. the Minister to shake his head. It is so. I know those areas. We have been travelling through them for years. We know what went on there. Their housing is hardly better than it was 20 years ago. I mentioned that their livestock had been thinned out to such an extent by the droughts that there was very little left. I should like to ask the Minister a question. He may reply to it at a later stage. Will he give us the assurance that it will not be necessary to supply the Ciskei and Transkei with food at the Republic’s expense this year? I predict that 10,000 bags of mealies will be sent there to feed them because they do not have the necessary funds at their disposal with which to buy it.

I want to come back to the question of the human relations. Apartheid must now surely be applied, because this is the Government’s policy. We are, after all, not the Government. Must human relations be disregarded altogether in applying the policy? On a previous occasion I said that I would give the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development a chance to come back to that. I said that this removal of the Bantu to the border areas, the declared Bantu homelands, was an almost inhuman process, because they are encouraged to go to the towns which are being created to house the Bantu who have been removed. I do not want to call them “camps”.

Your friend calls them “camps”.

I do not object to the term camps, because at this stage they are little else. I merely call them areas which have been made available for the Bantu who have been removed, or towns, if one wants to use this term. I mentioned the various bodies. I now want to challenge the Minister to tell me whether there are not officials who travel around in order to encourage the people and to hold out the bait of free dwellings and rations. I can mention instances to him of servants who were in my employment in Middelburg, Cape, who were subsequently removed and who do not receive sufficient supplies to keep them alive. It was an old Native woman and 11 children who are living in two rooms. Five of them have already returned to Middelburg, where they were previously employed. I asked whether this was a humane way of doing it. Is it necessary to remove people there on the border areas? I do not want to argue about what is going on here in the Western Cape. Is it necessary to remove them from places where they are employed and are getting enough food and to place them where they are unemployed and are not getting enough food? That is what I want to say about the policy of that Party, on account of what the hon. member for Carletonville said this morning, because it frightens me. It is alarming to think that a member is allowed to say this on behalf of the Government. The hon. member must remember that this is for overseas consumption. He said that one must have a policy which one could project. If one could do this, regardless of how it is implemented, all else is of secondary and tertiary importance.

May I ask a question, merely for clarification? I merely want to know if these were people who were employed on a farm and who as the hon. member said, were enticed away from him?

Some of them were on farms and others in the town. The mother lived in the town, in a house which I built for her, at my own expense, in the location. Some of the grandchildren lived on the farm, but they were all encouraged to leave. That is the situation. There are many such instances. The hon. the Deputy Minister knows of them.

I want to come back to the hon. member for Carletonville. If that is the image he wants to project of the Government’s policy in connection with the separate development of the Bantu areas, then it is an alarming image that we are disseminating. It is alarming to say that the policy must be implemented, regardless of how it is done. It is alarming that the other considerations are secondary and that the most important, the primary consideration is to project the policy of apartheid and to implement it, regardless of the costs.

Mr. Chairman, when this hon. member wants to start farming in the Bulawayo district, what does he buy first, his cattle or his farm? Where will this hon. member land up if he wants to start farming and he first buys his cattle but he does not have a farm? What is he going to do with those cattle? What is primary, what is secondary and what is tertiary? It seems to me I must talk to him in the language of a farmer because he cannot understand the other language. One has to have a definite plan for any project one wants to initiate and any policy one wants to carry out. My standpoint this morning was that the Party opposite did not have a basic plan. In the first place, they did not make any provision for the most important matter in our country—that is what I said—namely to deal with our Coloured problem and our Bantu people, that is, a basic plan. Where is that basic plan? It is merely a confused muddle. One finds that one group of members emphasizes the small number of houses that have been built while another group emphasizes soil conservation works which are inadequate. The one group says development is not taking place fast enough, while the other group says something else. Those people are dealing with a confused functional pattern. I said that this Party established for itself a basis of principle. On this basis of principle the Party has built and is still building a functional pattern. This functional pattern is secondary in respect of the basis of principle, which is primary. Since our primary basis of principle is correct, we are able to develop our functional pattern in an atmosphere of relative peace and quiet— I almost said complete peace and quiet and without any interruptions—in spite of the attempts which are made from time to time by that side and by our enemies to thwart this development. If the hon. member for East London (City) does not understand what this means, he cannot blame me for it. When the basis of principle is correct, it follows that the functional pattern which is based on it, must be correct too. What I accuse that Party of, is that it does not have any basis of principle or any basic plan for implementing their policy. It is merely a confused middle from beginning to end. When listening to them I feel myself justified to suggest that what was said by the hon. member for East London (City) and the whole argument he advanced this morning, is of secondary nature in that he emphasized matters in respect of which he has not laid down any basis. For that reason he cannot justify it. The three pillars which this party has based its policy, as I said this morning during the ten minutes I had at my disposal, justifies my saying that, as a result of our fundamental structure, we are able to make a future projection and to stand by it. But I know for what reason that hon. member has done it. There are two questions he did not reply to. That hon. member should furnish me with a reply. What are they going to do if they grant the Bantu right of possession here, as they want to do, and that Bantu becomes one that mobilizes capital in this country? Where is he going to send his capital to?

Surely that is under your policy.

I remained quiet while that hon. member was making his speech. That hon. member must now furnish me with a reply to that question. That question has hurt the hon. member. Whence are they going to canalize the money which the Bantu as an owner of property in the white area is going to mobilize? To which sources and levels are they going to canalize it? If that Bantu as one who mobilizes capital, must of necessity become one who mobilizes labour, from which source is he going to mobilize that labour? The United Party must reply to those two questions, because those two questions are going to exasparate them. If they do not canalize those two mobilizing powers, those two sources from which they can mobilize their capital and labour, utmost chaos and important levels of friction will develop here in South Africa. That is the point I made, and the United Party must answer me on that point. The hon. member for East London (City) will not be able to throw up a smokescreen to dodge my question. The United Party owes us a reply to those two questions.

May I put a question?

No, my time is limited. The United Party has to reply to those two questions. As a result of that two basic levels of friction will be created in the country. As I have said, the policy of this Party, with its policy of proper planning, with a proper basic plan and a structure to build on and with a future projection, has to be weighed up against the policy of that Party.

That hon. member should not tell me that the things I have said in this House merely serve as export articles for overseas consumption. They should not force me to point a finger at them and to show them how they have been supplying ammunition to our enemies, of whom there are many overseas, over a period of years. They have supplied our enemies with information and we on this side of the House have been surprisingly patient through the years and under provoking circumstances. We have exercised patience. We have been provoked, but we have kept quiet. They have now seized upon this minor matter which I have mentioned this morning and which the hon. member does not even understand. I want to say that I hold it against that hon. member for having done this to-day. I did not mean it that way. I did not even insinuate it in my speech. The United Party refuses wholeheartedly, continually and endlessly to relinquish their policy in terms of which they want to create common levels for both Whites and Bantu. I simply cannot understand that they have not learned that wherever in the world a common level is being established for both White and Coloureds, a level of friction is established at the same time. In terms of our whole policy those levels are being separated to prevent a level of friction from being established together with other levels. If the hon. member cannot understand this, I give up in despair and say: When will we ever have such a black day for the United Party again?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for East London (City) spoke about human relations, but that hon. member belongs to a political party which does not know anything about human relations. That is why they have only a few representatives in this House. They know nothing about human relations between Whites and Whites, not to speak of the relationship between Whites and Bantu, where we are dealing with anthropology, where we are dealing with Bantu people who are on an evolutionary level which is much lower than that of the Whites in the Republic of South Africa. The hon. member for East London (City) should be very careful when speaking about human relations. He has already cost the United Party thousands of votes and he is going to cost the party more votes still. The hon. member for East London (City) and the hon. member for Durban (Point), who wields the stick, are two brothers. In all seriousness, I do not know on what basis a debate such as this could be conducted. I do not know on what basis the hon. Minister could be exposed to conduct a debate on Bantu Affairs. When considering the whole set-up of Bantu Administration, we find that there are certain norms which must be laid down. Evidently the approach of the official Opposition simply is to make our cities blacker. Apparently they have no idea of coming forward with a positive line of thought. Something I cannot understand, is the fact that the hon. the Opposition cannot even admit one thing, namely that we are able to achieve such a great deal in a multi-racial country such as the Republic of South Africa as far as labour peace is concerned. Labour peace among the Bantu is a very important aspect. Notwithstanding the employment of Bantu in the metropolitan areas, is it not a major achievement to know that we have labour peace in our Republic, which is a multi-racial country? It has already been proved to me that we have accomplished the breakthrough to make the Bantu understand that they have an identity of their own. There is something else I cannot understand. At the beginning of the year the hon. the Minister made an excellent speech here; a speech in which the whole policy was clearly and frankly stated to the Opposition. It was made clear that we in the Republic of South Africa were making the Bantu aware of their own political rights. I believe that the hon. member for Houghton and others who talk so freely about Bantu Affairs but do not live near Bantu persons, are quite ignorant. Like the hon. member for Transkei, I live in an area adjoining a Bantu homeland. I simply cannot understand that he did not mention the question of human rights, the right to have one’s own political identity. No, nothing is said about that. All we hear, is the fact that the cities are becoming blacker. I find it ironic that hon. members say in the same breath that there should be family life. The fact that our cities are becoming blacker does not matter then; family life is all that matters then. I know why that is so. The reason for this is simply that the Opposition believes in economic integration. [Interjections.] Let us accept that economic integration means social and political integration. A great deal of imperialistic blood still flows in the veins of the hon. members for Transkei and Durban (Point). They do not regard South Africa as something sacred to us and as something which should be preserved for us. Oh no, they still regard South Africa as a temporary home, and the hon. member for Durban (Point) still stands with one of his clumsy feet on the other side, because they are still holding on to Macmillan’s speech. They probably still believe that the white man is expendable, because this is their problem basically. Let us be objective. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Transkei can make as much noise as he wants to as long as he at least admits that an enormous task is being carried out in the homelands. The area I live in, is situated next to a homeland. I can say that as far as agriculture, township development and the agency basis are concerned, all these things are being carried out on a sound basis. We have the Impala mine, where R1 million per month is spent on the mining of minerals. 13 per cent of the profits go to the Bantu homelands. However, there is not one white person living in the homeland. Every night the Whites go back to their own residential area. Not one single house has been built for Whites in the Bantu homeland. That is the foundation of our agency basis. There is no such thing that white persons are allowed to be accommodated in the Bantu homelands. It is the ideal situation. An agency basis such as the one established by the late Dr. Verwoerd and followed up by Minister Botha is fundamentally sound because there is nothing wrong with it.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question?

The hon. member may ask me as many questions as he wants to. I am not afraid of him.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member talked about the agency basis. He said that no white people, in terms of Dr. Verwoerd’s policy, live in the Reserves.

Order! The hon. member must put a question.

Under the agency basis, where will the white people who are managing the agencies live, in a place like the Transkei?

Let me make this quite clear now. I say that in terms of the agency basis there is no need for integration to take place at all. I am using an example which is a reality. Hon. members can go to Rustenburg and they will see that the Department has not allowed it. That is why I say that this agency basis is one according to which the Department of Bantu Administration acts most scrupulously. It was made quite clear to the Union Corporation that it would be allowed to exploit minerals, but that it should be clearly understood that it would not be allowed to provide accommodation for white people. It seems to me as if the hon. member for Transkei has no idea of the enormous task of stimulating evolution. It seems to me as if he …

Is stupid.

He tried very hard to undermine the Government with people such as Matanzima and others. However, he must not think that the Bantu knows nothing about integration. I know the Bantu very well. When one speaks to the Bantu, it is clear that integration is one of the things they are most opposed to. The hon. member for Houghton is not welcome among them. The paramount chief of that area one day said in the presence of the hon. the Minister that we must please send his people back from the cities to come and settle in their homelands. This is the elementary concept of anthropology. It is a tradition and a pride in itself. It is not their custom to live in a city. The Bantu likes to live among his own people; he wants to realize the tradition to which he has become accustomed through the years. This story which is being spread of our cities becoming blacker, is not quite correct. The ratio between Whites and Bantu is still 1:2.1. In spite of the enormous economic boom and industrial explosion which is being experienced in this country, we are still in a position to be able to maintain the ratio of 1:2.1 in the cities. However, I want to tell the hon. members of the United Party that a shock is awaiting them. Problems were experienced as far as the development of border industries were concerned because the local authorities which had to develop the border industrial areas did not have the land at their disposal. To-day they are planning with vision in collaboration with all the Government departments and in close cooperation with the Department of Bantu Administration. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I find it ironic to have to sit and listen to the hon. member for Rustenburg saying that members on this side of the House regard our stay in this country as temporary. I find it ironic because I was born in this country, my father was born in this country, my grandfather was born in this country …

And mine, too.

We know that we have not been here as long as many of the families on the other side. My family has been in this country for 145 years. It is very temporary. I do not bring up my children to regard themselves as merely temporary South Africans. [Interjections.] I bring them up to regard this country as their country for which they will fight and work. We have heard the name “Macmillan”. I wonder who the Macmillans are sitting in this Committee this afternoon. Who are the Macmillans? What did Macmillan do when he was Prime Minister of England? He carried on with the policy of handing over to under-developed people the political control of the entire country. On what basis did he do this? He did it on the basis of extreme liberalism, namely one man, one vote. What is this Government busy doing? What has it promised all the black people of this country? Exactly what Macmillan gave the people up and down Africa. [Interjections.] Yes, he gave them ultimate independence on the basis of one man, one vote.

And one woman, one vote.

Yes, one man and one woman, one vote. What is the franchise qualification in the Transkei? Anybody over 21, whether or not they can read or write or anything else, can vote. We on this side of the House believe that when one is dealing with under-developed people, the granting of political rights must go hand in hand with the economic development of those people. I want to come back to the question of economic development, because what this Government is doing is that the political development of the Bantu areas is outstripping the economic development. I want to come back to one specific aspect. Earlier to-day, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development reeled off a whole list of figures about bridges, roads, fences and dams to show what the Government is doing in the Bantu areas, as far as agricultural development is concerned. He certainly did not impress the Xhosa Development Corporation, because in connection with agricultural production the annual report says: “Under existing conditions, no appreciable advance is noticeable”, as has been mentioned here already. I also base this on other extracts out of the Annual Report of the Xhosa Development Corporation. They ended off by saying—

Now, when the hon. the Minister dealt with agriculture in the reserves here this afternoon, he gave us a wonderful sort of pie in the sky story of about what they are going to do in the future as regards agriculture. He has told us that he has given orders about credit facilities and how things are to be organized on a co-operative basis.

We give credit you do not even know about.

This could be. If the agriculture in the reserves is going to be put on a proper basis and if they are going to make proper progress and not have for example a mealie yield which is the same …

No, it is less!

I am sorry, it is less. I thought it was the same that it was some 30 years ago.

It is less than it was three years ago.

Then they had to have … [Interjections.]

Whose fault is it?

Order!

Mr. Chairman, I wish the hon. the Deputy Minister will let me make my speech.

What is your duty …

Order! I want to point out to hon. members that there are only 10 minutes left. I do not want to send members home before the time.

Then the Minister has to have trained people at his disposal. That Deputy Minister says that they are training them, because when I raised this matter in the Budget debate he said: “Ons is gedurig besig om hulle op te lei.” But what I want to know from the hon. the Minister is what is happening to these trained Bantu agriculturists who are doing, for example, an agricultural diploma at Fort Hare where the requirement is a Senior Certificate, or are doing an agricultural course at the Agricultural College at Fort Cox, where they have a Junior Certificate requirement and where—I quote from the Department’s report—“the more intelligent of them are selected for a course of further training as extension workers or agricultural advisers, while the rest are absorbed in various departmental projects”. It sounds very nice when they say that the rest are absorbed in various departmental projects, but I think, in the light of the fact, that they are taken up for further training as extension workers or absorbed in departmental projects, then it is most disturbing to read the report which has appeared in the Farmer's Weekly of the 23rd April which contained a statement by one Mr. D. L. Brown who is head of the Department of Animal Science at the University of Fort Hare when he spoke at the conference of the South African Society of Animal Production at the University of Stellenbosch. He said—

He went on and stressed that—

In the light of the above he added—

He said further—

I especially want the hon. the Deputy Minister to listen to this—

Only 37 students!

Over a period of how many years?

Over the past 11 years. I shall give the hon. the Deputy Minister the cuttings from which I am quoting, if the figures are incorrect.

He is being silly.

The hon. the Deputy Minister says that a man who is lecturing at one of the Bantu universities is being silly. Mr. Brown went on to say—

I think this is a most disturbing statement indeed. Here we have a trained scientist at a Bantu university suggesting that suitable work opportunities with adequate salaries and status are not available for qualified men, and saying that some of them have to work as garden boys and garage hands. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon member who has just sat down, drew a comparison between what this Government was doing and what was said by Mr. Macmillan when he visited this country. The hon. member said that this Government was doing the same as what Mr. Macmillan had done, and this statement of his is so far from the truth that it makes one feel ashamed. We know quite well what was propagated by Mr. Macmillan and his Government, namely that the British territories in Africa were to be handed over to the natives whether they were in a position to govern those territories or not. Whether they were trained to govern or whether they were in a position financially to do so, did not matter to them. This is not the policy of this Government. We have stated it clearly over and over again that the policy of this Government is that the nations in South Africa will be guided along gradually until they have reached the stage where they will be granted self-government ultimately. Only time will show when this is going to happen and these people themselves will have to prove when they are capable of doing so. They will not be thrown to the wolves before the time to be preyed upon as has happened in many parts in the rest of Africa. Surely the hon. member cannot get away with that kind of nonsense. In the course of this debate attempts were made to use the Deputy Minister of Planing and the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development as targets. I know both these hon. members are capable of looking after themselves, but I just want to tell hon. members of the United Party opposite that every hon. member on this side of the House would prefer to have any of these two gentlemen to any member of the Opposition. As far as we are concerned, these two gentlemen are more valuable for the continued existence of the Whites and of the Bantu in South Africa than the whole of the Opposition.

Sir, I Want to refer you to another matter raised in this House. Hon. members of the Opposition have tried one after the other to present the Government in an unfavourable light and even in a frivolous light as far as the development of the Bantu areas are concerned. A short while ago one of the hon. members on the opposite side of the House said by way of interjection that this was also their policy. It is the policy of the United Party and since it is their policy, I cannot understand why those hon. members take such delight in presenting the development of the Bantu areas in a ridiculous light and in the light in which they, in fact, presented it in this House.

Just tell us what you have done there.

There are so many aspects of the matter to which one would like to reply, particularly the agricultural aspect which the hon. member mentioned a moment ago.

I should like to refer to another matter, namely the matter the hon. member for Pinelands has dealt with. He asked, inter alia, whether the Bantu accepted the policy of the National Party. He alleged that this policy was not accepted by the Bantu and he mentioned particularly the urban Bantu. Furthermore, he asked whether this side of the House could give any proof that the policy of the National Party was accepted by the Bantu. I shall furnish the hon. member on that side of the House with the proofs most willingly. I informed the hon. member that I would comment on his questions immediately, but unfortunately it may not have been possible for the hon. member to be present. The first proof of this is what was said by the Chief Minister of the Tswana territory in a speech he made. He expressed the following fine sentiments (translation)—

This was said by the Chief Minister of the Tswana and any person who knows him can say with the greatest measure of certainty that this Bantu is not a person who is indoctrinated to present these things. I wish hon. members opposite could read some of the speeches he made when he visited the Netherlands recently. He made these speeches independently and without any assistance from anybody. The trouble with those hon. members and particularly those hon. members who are sitting against the wall over there, is that they never come into contact with these people. They never come into contact with the urban Bantu and they do not even come into contact with the rural Bantu, not to speak of the Bantu in the homelands. We speak to these people and we visit these people in their own areas and in municipal Bantu townships, and these people come and visit us in our offices. The trouble with the hon. members opposite is that they say a few clever things in this House in order to get publicity in the Press. They will do well to visit these areas during the recess and to speak to these responsible leaders. They will then find out what the position is. Let me quote an example. The hon. members say the urban Bantu do not accept our policy, and for that reason I now want to refer to an advisory council election which was actually in the nature of a minor municipal election. This election took place in Ikageng Bantu township near Potchefstroom. They drew up a manifesto. Five of the candidates presented themselves as candidates who supported Government policy out and out. There were two independent candidates and both of them were favourably disposed towards the Government and won the election with large majorities. Of the other five candidates, three won with large majorities while two were elected unopposed. These are the urban Bantu whom the Opposition say do not want to accept Government policy and they said, inter alia, the following—

This election manifesto was drawn up by the candidates and they fought the election in this Bantu township under the name of the Kopano Party.

What kind of election was it?

It was an advisory council election which took place three years ago. Two of the members were subsequently deprived of their seats on a technical point. They fought another election and drew 89 per cent of the total number of votes and won. That 89 per cent of the total number of votes were votes in favour of the Government. These people are supposed to be the urban Bantu whom the hon. members say do not accept the policy of this Government.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.