Mr. Speaker, in terms of the provisions of Standing Order No. 26 I wish to ask leave to move the adjournment of this House in order to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the serious revelations that information allegedly concerning military, police and other matters which might affect the security of the State has again come into the possession of unauthorized persons.

The hon. member gave me notice that he proposed to raise this matter to-day. For the guidance of hon. members I should like to point out that a motion proposed to be discussed in terms of Standing Order No. 26 must comply with the following conditions:

1. (a) It must be definite and specific;
2. (b) it must be urgent and deal with a matter of recent occurrence;
3. (c) it must be a matter of public importance for which the Government can be held responsible;
4. (d) it must comply with the established rules of debate and should not revive a discussion which has taken place during the current session;
5. (e) it should be raised at the earliest possible opportunity; and
6. (f) it should not deal with a matter which is sub judice.

In my opinion the matter raised in the motion is not sufficiently definite or specific and, moreover, it was not raised at the earliest possible opportunity. As it has also been discussed during the present session I regret that I cannot allow the hon. member to move the motion.

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

Agreed to.

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

Agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move:

Mr. Speaker, the principle in the legislation before the House is to provide our workers with better training. This is a principle which we accept and, in fact, in contrast to the Government it is one which we have consistently supported. The Government has been extremely tardy in this regard and it is as a result of prodding from this side of the House that we now have this piece of legislation before us. We see this as a small reward for our past efforts and endeavours in this particular regard.

As far as the usefulness of this legislation is concerned, we must of course view it against the background of the manpower needs in our country. Whenever we talk about the manpower shortage the Government accuses us of trying to create a crisis situation which we want to exploit for political purposes. It is not just this side of the House that talks about a manpower crisis. The chiefs of the Civil Service say exactly the same. The industrialists say there is a crisis situation. The Afrikaner entrepreneurs say exactly the same. In fact the hon. the Minister’s colleagues in the Cabinet, the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs and the hon. the Minister of finance, say precisely the same. So if everybody can see a crisis situation, why cannot he. He cannot because the situation is unpalatable to him. That is why he is not prepared to see it.

As far as the results of this legislation are concerned, we are quite clear in our own minds that it will stimulate greater training activity at the lower levels in industry. This obviously we approve of. But when we say that, we are as charitable as we possibly can be about this piece of legislation. As indicated before, it makes no provision for training at the management levels. It is precisely at these levels that greater productivity accrues. Every study that has been done show that there is a direct corelation between the level of your …

Order! The hon. member cannot discuss matters not raised in the Bill. The hon. member can only raise matters that are dealt with in the Bill.

Is it appropriate for me to say that this legislation provides for training at the lower levels and that that is as far as it goes?

That has been said.

Is it appropriate for me to say that two-thirds of the people who are economically active in South Africa stand completely beyond the provisions of this legislation?

This legislation does not deal with it; it should be dealt with in another way.

Mr. Speaker, as far as we see, South Africa is at the stage where our rate of fixed investment has reached almost 20 per cent of our gross national product. This means that we are rapidly entering a new era of industrialization. We are now reaching a stage where we will soon become a mature economic society. We would have thought that under these conditions the Government would have produced dynamically new ideas to cater for this particular situation. We regard this legislation now before us as narrow in conception. We see it as being limited in its application. It is our view that it will make only a minimal contribution to increased industrial activity in South Africa. We see here a piece of legislation which is essentially a piece of patchwork. We see something that has been hastily planned, that has been shoddily presented. We have grave doubts about the efficacy of this piece of legislation towards increased productivity. Let me say right away that Volkshandel is quite correct when they say that productivity in South Africa is not as high as it should be. There are after all external norms against which we can measure this. Australia, with a smaller population than South Africa, produces almost twice as much as we do. Canada has a total population which is the same as ours, but the value of their industrial production is almost six times as great as our own. So, in this regard, there is a tremendous shortfall that must be made good, and we had hoped that this legilation would do so.

We are continually being told that South Africa is doing so well in the industrial field. Of course we are, but I think our progress industrially is due primarily to two factors. Firstly, we have virtually unlimited natural resources and, secondly, we have a massive reservoir of non-White labour who are prepared to work at rates of pay which are only a fraction of those earned by their compatriots. Sir, the wealth of a nation is not found in its gold and its diamonds, but in the talents of its people. The most rewarding and the best long-term investment that South Africa can make, is to invest in the training and education of her people. We see here an example of a government which is investing in such training, but we see it also as an example of complete under investment. We see here a situation which we think our children will blame us for one day.

The responses that the hon. the Minister has given us in regard to the training of non-Whites we find completely inadequate. From time to time we are told by the other side of the House that this Government’s approach is one of separation but equality. We see here indications of separation, but we see absolutely no signs of the equality we are told about. The hon. the Minister tells us that non-Whites should be trained, but only for work in their own areas. How does this apply to the Coloured people? Where are the areas in which Coloured people should carry out these high-level tasks? Where are the Asians or the Indians to carry out these tasks for which they must be trained? When we come to the Africans, the Minister says that they must be trained in these high-level tasks, but that they must carry them out in their own areas. Sir, we are dealing with a practical situation in South Africa. Where are these areas? Is the hon. the Minister trying to tell us that he is training Africans to do high-level, skilled tasks in Zululand?

Order! I want to point out to the hon. member that we are now dealing with amending legislation, and not with a general motion on labour policy.

Bur, Sir, I am trying to deal with the provisions of this Bill, which specify …

The hon. member is going beyond the provisions of the Bill.

Sir, may I then react to the points raised by the hon. the Minister in introducing and defending this legislation?

The hon. member must remember that this is a third-reading debate, not a second-reading debate.

I appreciate that, Sir. In motivating this legislation now before us, the Minister said that Africans must be trained in terms of the specifications of this legislation, but they must only operate in their own areas. Is it proper for me to ask him where these areas for the Africans are? Is it proper for me to ask him how many skilled jobs there are at the moment in Zululand for Africans to carry out this training he is talking about? Sir, the trouble is that whenever we raise these particular matters, the only reaction we get from the Government side is that we want to open the sluice gates for non-Whites. In this debate on this particular issue that has been the only reaction we have had from the Government, That is not what we are doing. We are drawing attention to the facts of the South African situation. When that side of the House measures legislation of this kind, they measure it in terms of the number of votes it will bring them. There are some members there who crave votes almost in the same way as the devil craves souls. Here we see another opportunity that has been lost. Another excellent opportunity for South Africa to advance into the new technological era has been sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. That is why more and more people in South Africa are beginning to say that it is time for a change, that South Africa deserves better.

Mr. Speaker, I have just listened to a repetition of stale arguments and I do not consider it necessary to reply to them in detail, except for saying quite candidly to the House that this measure is not going to bring about anything spectacular. Nor does it pretend that it will, because we have to deal with our available manpower, which we must train better. But this measure is going to provide us with the encouragement to train the available manpower better. To make the reproach that we have not come forward with something dynamic, prompts the question of whether the hon. member is labouring under the delusion that copying the British Act, which has not proved to be a success in Britain, will give us something dynamic. I want to say very briefly that this measure will, in fact, provide us with a stimulus to undertake training. That will be an asset. It will give us more trained people. Not only Whites, but also non-Whites will get their opportunities, but we must understand very clearly that it will take place within the framework of our traditional labour pattern. I contend myself with that, and I trust that this measure, which enjoys the co-operation of the industrialists in the country, will be a decided asset to South Africa.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

I do so with the greatest regret, and only because I feel that, unless this is done, the Bill will to some extent cause difficulties with regard to certain transplantations.

This is partly due to the fact that the Select Committee of which I myself was a member and which gave consideration to the matter before including this clause, felt that it was a safeguard which was necessary. One of the things that has happened is, however, that my attention has been drawn by certain medical men concerned with this matter, to the fact that this clause will actually prevent certain transplants being done. Secondly, strangely enough the important fact has arisen that more research since the introduction of this Bill originally has made this clause out of date. The knowledge of the advances which have now been published shows that it will handicap this work. The main handicap will be in the case of kidney transplants. This clause states that in the case of unidentified bodies where the relatives cannot be found and the body cannot be identified, it may be used for transplants. The clause unfortunately also states that the district surgeon who will give authority for the use of this donor must have a certificate saying that two doctors have certified that the use of this graft is necessary in this patient in order immediately to save his life.

It has been found, and this practice is common as there are about 200 such machines in use in this country, that people who have lost all kidney function can be kept alive for a considerable period, if not indefinitely. There are not sufficient machines in the country to start with and, secondly, it is a trial for people to have to go twice a week or perhaps more frequently to a hospital or some institution in order to be connected up to a machine and their blood to be purified of the waste products which the loss of their kidney function keeps in their blood and in their bodies. These waste products are extracted and they go away comparatively happy. It is common knowledge in medicine that a man can live without kidneys or without kidney function and without any treatment for approximately 10 days. In the case of a man who is not near such a machine or on whom such a machine has not been used or in the case of a man for whom it has taken 10 days to find an unidentified donor, it would be quite true at this stage for the district surgeon to get a certificate saying that two doctors are satisfied that for the immediate saving of this man’s life it is necessary to use this graft as there is nothing else available. All this adds to the complications.

Naturally, it would be better if the district surgeon would accept a certificate saying that the man’s kidneys no longer function and that as a result of the use of such machine he is all right for the moment. At that stage, however, the district surgeon is not going to accept such a certificate and the doctors are not going to issue it because this clause contains the word “immediate”. It is going to complicate matters. It is going to handicap the transplantation of kidneys to a great extent. We must of course also remember that time is now marching on and that doctors are finding ways of preserving the organs of donors, such as hearts. Patients with failing hearts can be kept alive for a period by machines and all this will be taken into account in applying the pro visions of this particular paragraph of the clause. As time goes on we will have the invention of a mechanical heart which is unlikely to be a permanent structure but which will be able to tide people over for perhaps 36 hours. Then there is the introduction of the auxilliary heart, as is being done now. They are connecting poor hearts with other poor hearts and using them in tandem to keep the recipient alive while they search for a donor. All these developments are changing the picture and this clause is going to add to the difficulties. It serves no purpose if you think of it. The recipient is perhaps not in immediate need as he can he tided over for a short period but he is undoubtedly in need of a graft and he should be able to receive it. To handicap him because the organ is coming from an unknown donor is, I think, purely red tape. It was unfortunate that we on the Select Committee did not have sufficient knowledge at that particular time. I blame myself largely for this clause being included in the Bill. It does no good; it may in fact do harm.

Mr. Chairman, I have great admiration for the reasons the hon. member has advanced here for proposing this amendment. I know that he would like to assist doctors in every possible way to do transplants for the benefit of their patients. That is why he has mentioned the specific case of kidney transplants. Those were not and could not possibly be the only considerations which are relevant to this particular matter. I think that to accept this amendment, and I say this with great respect, would be going against the spirit and the whole tenor of the deliberations of the Select Committee when this Bill was before it. I say this because the subparagraph which the hon. member proposes be deleted was inserted after the Committee very carefully went into the other side of the picture. We have on the one hand the question of doing a transplant for the benefit of a patient but we also have to consider the position of the donor. If the donor himself has not donated part of his body or his whole body, I think this Parliament should be careful not to take away certain rights. I think the Select Committee was. quite rightly, very careful in this regard. I think that this Parliament should be very careful not to take away rights from the near relatives of such a deceased person. In all instances, wherever possible, we should like the right to be vested either in the person himself or his near relatives to donate tissue for transplant. We have done so in this Bill but we have also foreseen that there might be certain very special exceptions. The word “immediately” has, I think, not come into this clause by chance but was deliberately put there. I say this because if you read clause 2 (2) (a) (i) carefully you find that it states specifically—

1. (i) in the case of any tissue, other than eye tissue, two other medical pactitioners have stated in writing that in their opinion the use of such tissue in the body of another person is immediately necessary …

What does this mean? It means that where the relatives cannot be traced or where the relatives are for one reason or another not available, and the tissue is immediately necessary to save a life, in that particular case, and in that particular case only, we take away the rights of the near relatives and vest them in two medical practitioners. To my mind it would not be sufficient to leave it in the hands only of a district surgeon. I would think that it would be too great a responsibility for any district surgeon to carry by himself. Now let us take the case of a kidney transplant. As the hon. member has said, it is quite right that such a patient might be kept alive for a considerable time by other methods. In a case like that it is not immediately necessary to transplant the kidney of a person where the relatives are not available. In the case the hon. member mentioned kidneys usually come from other sources. To-day kidneys are readily available and I am therefore unfortunately not in a position to accept this amendment proposed by the hon. member. I do think that this clause serves a definite purpose which was foreseen by the Select Committee and which was deliberately included in this Bill. I want to support this clause very strongly so that in the minds of the general public there will be no question of their rights being transgressed except in eases where there is an immediate necessity for saving the life of a person. I would like the hon. member to accept that I am not accepting his amendment, not because he introduced it, but because I want to give full credit to this Bill and to the tenor of the deliberations of the Select Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I can quite easily see the reasons for the hon. the Minister’s opinion and I find it difficult to disagree with him, because I was a member of that Select Committee. It is true that a certificate of immediate necessity is a safeguard, but I feel it is a safeguard that may cost lives, if surgeons have to wait for a certain length of time in these cases. We must assume that in the carrying out of this particular clause, the district surgeon will satisfy himself that every effort to trace the relatives has been unsuccessful. The donor himself may be unindentified. The amount of damage in, for example, a kidney transplant to a body is minimal and it does not, as in the case of for example, the cornea which is excluded in this clause, lead to disfigurement. In kidney transplants no disfigurement takes place and there will be no pain to relatives if they find that a kidney has been removed, except in very exceptional cases.

They might have religious reasons.

That is true. Those reasons are very rapidly breaking down these days. It is very seldom nowadays that doctors, pathologists and other people who carry out investigations after death have any difficulty in obtaining permission from relatives for certain investigations by doctors as to the cause of death or for some other scientific reason. The religious difficulties are not, I think, insurmountable, but in view of the hon. the Minister’s feelings about it, I will accept his explanation. I do so because I think with regret my amendment will interfere with the findings of the Select Committee.

Mr. Chairman, following on the hon. the Minister’s reasoning, which I fully understand and appreciate, I would say that we on this side of the House accept what the hon. the Minister said. Following on what the hon. the Minister has said, I think it makes the amendment standing in my name even more necessary. It would appear that there is no alternative, in the clause, to a district surgeon. As the clause now stands, if a district surgeon is unavailable, then the chances of authorization are negligible. To avoid the possibility of missing the use of part of a donor’s body in an emergency, I would suggest that after the word “surgeon” in subsection (2) (b) we insert “or any other medical practitioner designated by the Minister by regulation”. The hon. the Minister will know how often it happens that district surgeons are unavailable at a given time. We all know how necessary it is to obtain immediate sanction. For this reason I therefore say that the hon. the Minister should, by regulation, designate whom he thinks could be an alternative to the district surgeon. The same set of circumstances arise in subsection (2) (b) (ii) which reads “such district surgeon is satisfied that all reasonable steps have been taken to trace the persons referred to in paragraph (a)”. If the hon. the Minister will accept my amendment, this paragraph will read as follows: “Such district surgeon or any other medical practitioner is satisfied that all reasonable steps have been taken to trace the persons referred to in paragraph (a).” This will avoid what might happen when a district surgeon is not available. I move—

Mr. Chairman, with reference to the hon. member for Rosettenville’s argument and his amendment. I would like to point out to the Select Committee members who have spoken, that our deliberations were actually around two factors. The one was the sanctity of the family as far as the deceased person was concerned, and the second was that we gave a lot of thought to the protection of the medical profession in dealing with donors and donatees. If we accept the amendment of the hon. member for Rosettenville, it actually means that we are now taking the whole matter away from the department back to the doctors. If one takes this in conjunction with the amendment of the hon. member for Durban (Central) it simply means that consent will only have to be given by one medical practitioner, designated by the Minister by regulation. Is that correct?

No.

Why not? I say it will be so if we also accept the amendment of the hon. member for Durban (Central).

But we are not going to accept that amendment. We have accepted the hon. the Minister’s explanation in that regard.

I see. When we discussed this matter of the district surgeon on the Select Committee we felt that there should be a referee who is actually responsible to the department. If other medical men have to be accepted by regulation by the hon. the Minister, it simply means that the hon. the Minister will probably appoint the various superintendents of hospitals.

Only if he approved of them.

But surely there is nobody whom he will not approve of. Those persons are, however, not directly responsible to him in terms of departmental rules and regulations. Our whole discussion was that we should have a completely independent referee so that we could avoid any criticism of doctors in hospitals. One would find, for example, that the person appointed by regulation is the superintendent of the hospital. The surgical team would also be members of the same hospital. The family cannot be traced. After a few days the members of the family suddenly come onto the scene and they ask, “What has happened to our deceased brother?”, or whatever the case may be. Then there is immediately criticism. But this whole matter was handled by the internal staff of the hospital. When the district surgeon is present, at least one can say that in this case the district surgeon was entirely a departmental medical Officer apart from the members of the particular hospital where the operation took place. To say that the district surgeon could not be found, I do not think is correct; because where these operations take place there is always a district surgeon at hand.

Mr. Chairman, we have to realize that when we refer to district surgeons in this clause, we are dealing with a very important function which is now being placed in the hands of district surgeons in addition to their other functions. I should like to remind hon. members of the fact that in terms of this legislation the primary right to donate his body or part of his body rests with the person himself. At his death, if he had not done so, either his wife, a major child, a parent, a major brother or a major sister may make such a donation. I think this is fine. The “sanctity of the family”, to use the words of the hon. member for Prinshof, is being preserved here. When they cannot be found, we place the onus in certain respects for the machinery which has to be created as well as for certain decisions which have to be taken, on the district surgeon. This is a great responsibility. I think hon. members will agree with me that if it is at all possible to do so, we should place this responsibility only in the hands of district surgeons who are officials of the State and of my department. I have control over them. That is the first point.

The second point is that one does not want to delay transplants or donations unnecessarily. At times, speed is required in connection with these things. If that danger did exist. I think the amendment of the hon. member for Rosettenville would have been valid; but in reality this does not exist. I want to tell the hon. member that I have 514 part-time and full-time district surgeons throughout the country. I think this is a sufficient number for covering the entire country. The second point is that most of these situations will arise in our larger cities and not as much at the small hospitals. In our larger cities we have a district surgeon and several assistants who have a permanent Office. In other words, there is an organization that is available for this service at any time of the day.

The further point I want to make is that if the onus were to be placed on me to authorize other practitioners as well, the two hon. members, who are medical men, will realize that I simply would not be able to turn down any superintendent of a hospital. Surely I cannot make a choice and say that the superintendent of Groote Schuur hospital is suitable, but that the superintendent of the Beaufort West hospital is not suitable. They are both registered doctors. I am afraid that I shall be flooded by applications, because this is also going to be a matter of prestige. Hospitals will feel that they also want their man in that position, where as that will, in fact, be superfluous in view of the large number of available district surgeons.

But allow me to mention a further point which to my mind is also very valid. The hon. member for Prinshof also touched on this. We want to create as much satisfaction and confidence as possible in the minds of the public, because we want to acquire as much tissue as possible, or, entire bodies of deceased people on behalf of patients who need certain organs. Now, I am of the opinion that it will bring about complete satisfaction and confidence if the public were to know that this important function would be in the hands of district surgeons only, who, under no circumstances, could play any role whatsoever in the transplant team. I think this is a very important argument which I should bear in mind in considering this proposed amendment. For that reason I want to ask the hon. member for Rosettenville the friendly question whether he does not want to agree with me that we should rather leave matters as they are. I am prepared, if real problems should arise at any time, to reconsider the matter. I am of the opinion that we should leave the firm foundation which the Select Committee created for us, and which seems to be capable of full implementation by me in practice, undisturbed, and that we should not accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister will understand that we on this side of the House have introduced this amendment in the spirit of helpfulness. There are two sides to this question. There is something in what the hon. the Minister has said, but there is also something in what I say. I feel that if we can avoid the question of unnecessary delay, we should take the opportunity of introducing this small amendment now. However, if the hon. the Minister feels that we should first see how the provisions of this clause work in practice, let us do so. If he should later find that it becomes necessary to introduce the type of amendment which I put forward to-day, I understand that the hon. the Minister will readily come forward to the House and amend this Bill. In that spirit I would be prepared to withdraw my amendments.

With leave, amendments proposed by Dr. E. L. Fisher withdrawn.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper at page 131, as follows—

The effect of this amendment is to give the district surgeon in cases where relatives cannot be found and where he has to give permission for the removal of an organ from a body for transplantation, a little more leeway. This would be possible if the words, as I have moved in my amendment, “because such person is unidentified or for any other reason”, are inserted after the word “traced”. As the Bill stands at the present moment, if the spouse or any major child or any parent or any major brother or major sister of such person cannot be traced, the district surgeon may give his permission for the removal of the organ. Clause 2 (2) (b) (ii) lays down that a district surgeon can give his permission provided that “such district surgeon is satisfied that all reasonable steps have been taken to trace the persons referred to in paragraph (a)”, that is the persons that I have mentioned, namely the spouse or any major child and so on. The man who has to issue a certificate to this effect is a Government official. This is a fairly serious decision that he has to make. He cannot make the decision unless he is satisfied that all reasonable steps have been taken to trace the persons referred to, that is, the relatives. If the prospective donor is unidentified, the district surgeon cannot strictly speaking be satisfied that all reasonable steps have been taken to trace the persons referred to, i.e. the relatives. He cannot be satisfied because no steps in fact can have been taken to trace the relatives because the man is unidentified. Therefore the district surgeon cannot satisfy himself that all reasonable steps have been taken in this regard. The amendment which I propose will, I think, clarify this position. This is not a terribly important matter, but I should imagine that a large number of the donors in these transplant cases are, for example, unindentified motor accident victims whose brain function has ceased and who are in fact dead. I would suggest that this will in fact help the district surgeon in satisfying himself that reasonable steps have been taken to trace the relatives. If the person is unidentified, the district surgeon cannot satisfy himself of that. Therefore, I move this amendment in the spirit of helpfulness, the same spirit in which the other amendments have been moved.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to move the amendment as it appears under my name in the Order Paper. This amendment is complementary to the one which was moved by the hon. member for Durban (North). I think this is a matter of phraseology and also clarity in so far as the duties of the district surgeon are concerned. In terms of subsection (2) (b) (ii) of clause 2, the district surgeon must be satisfied “that all reasonable steps have been taken to trace the persons referred to in paragraph (a)”. If a person has not been identified, no steps can be taken or could have been taken to trace relatives. If one has it clarified, the position will be that the district surgeon must be satisfied that reasonable steps have been taken to trace the persons referred to in clause 2 (2) (a) provided those steps could be commenced. In other words, the donor body has been identified or he must be satisfied that reasonable steps have been taken to identify such a person. It seems to me that such an amendment would clarify the position as far as the district surgeon is concerned. Either the person has been identified and he is satisfied that reasonable steps have been taken to trace the relatives, or he has been satisfied that the person is unidentified and reasonable steps have been taken to identify that person. It is merely a matter of wording, but I think it does clarify the duties of the district surgeon. I do not think it does violence to any of the views we had on the Select Committee. It certainly does no violence to the motivation of this clause and the protection of the unidentified person’s relatives from any hasty decision which could have been taken where the removal of an organ for transplantation is involved. I therefore move the following amendment as it appears on the Order Paper—

With respect to both my learned friends and also with a feeling of gratitude for the spirit in which these amendments were requested, I am of the opinion that the amendments requested are, in fact, already contained in the existing wording of this clause. To me it would appear that if we were to add anything, such an addition would, in fact, serve no purpose. I think the hon. members are quite correct in maintaining that the word “unidentified” would clarify the position to some extent. I am of the opinion that in the case as indicated by the words “if none of the persons referred to in paragraph (a) can be traced”, two medical practitioners may certify that the tissue is required to save a life if “such district surgeon is satisfied that all reasonable steps have been taken to trace the persons referred to in paragraph (a)”. In my modest opinion it is virtually axiomatic that once the district surgeon has made that determination, it would have been necessary for him to have taken certain steps before in order to determine that such a person could not be identified. He cannot simply say that a person is unidentified. Certain steps have to be taken to try to identify that person. If that is impossible, it is also automatically impossible to identify the family of that person. Consequently there is a series of steps which have to be taken before the district surgeon will be satisfied. He will say, “The following steps have been taken for identification purposes: they have failed and as a result it has been impossible for me to trace the people and I hereby certify.” I want to suggest that what my hon. friends should, in fact, have requested was possibly for a small amendment to be made at some later stage to the Anatomy Act, which in fact deals with unidentified people and indigent people, but in this Bill, as it stands, the existing phraseology is, in my opinion, adequate to achieve exactly what my hon. friends would like to achieve.

I have always felt it to be a major shortcoming in my education that I have not had legal training as well, because how are we, as doctors, to decide when our learned legal friends differ to such an extent? In this matter, at least with regard to those who participated in this debate, we are three against three. I know the hon. members for Rosettenville and Durban (Central) will side with me and that the other three members will side together. Last night and this morning I made a very careful study of this matter, and I have just listened to the speeches of the hon. members here. Let me concede this one point at once: I think there would be more clarity if I were to accept the amendments of the hon. members for Durban (North) and Green Point: I want to concede that, but I am not certain whether I seek more clarity. It seems to me that the clause as it stands is adequate and that the proposed addition may be some what superfluous. Let me put it as follows; it seems to me that the Select Committee acted very sensibly with regard to the function of the district surgeon in merely underlining the question of tracing and did not go as far as to bring in, as is now being proposed, the question of identifying as well, because, in my opinion, this is going to complicate the entire position. I say this, because if it were to be laid down specifically that the district surgeon, in terms of the wording of the Act, has to satisfy himself that reasonable steps have been taken not only with regard to tracing but also with regard to identifying, one would be widening the burden on the district surgeon. What would one have to do if the Act provided that one had to take all reasonable steps in order to ascertain whether it was possible to identify the man? I can think of 110 things which might not have been done, and if the Act were to have prescribed to me that I had to give my specific attention to those things, I could imagine that I would hesitate to give permission In other words, in my opinion this would be a handicap to obtaining certain tissue expeditiously. It is for those reasons—I have already conceded that if I were to accept the amendment that would bring greater clarity—i.e., the fact that this would bring about more complications, the fact that this would, in my opinion, cause more delay, and the fact that this would leave greater doubt in the mind of the district surgeon because it would be prescribed by the Act that he would have to see in his mind’s eye the whole series of procedures for identification and that he should ascertain whether those procedures had been followed, that I think that in this case we should leave the matter as it is, not for the sake of clarity but for the sake of being able to bring this matter to finality without any waste of time.

Sir, one appreciates the attitude of the hon. the Minister regarding the suggestions which have been made to him. Does the responsibility to trace include identification? You cannot trace before identification: I realize it is a fine distinction. But, Sir, while we are dealing with this particular clause may I, on this question of unidentified persons, refer to the problems which arise in accident cases where people are injured and unconscious and arrive at the hospital without any means of identification. In subsection (5) of this particular clause provision is made that where a person at the time of his death is wearing any prescribed identity tag issued by an authorized institution, such person shall be deemed to have made a donation, in terms of this section, of his body or of any specified tissue, as the case may be. Then later in clause 13 (g) we come to the power to make regulations as to the form of such tags. I rise merely. Sir. to say that this is a matter which concerned me and my colleagues on the Select Committee considerably, as to how the public could be educated towards the greater use of this system of identification, not only for the purpose of consent to the donation of one’s organs if one is involved in an accident and some use can be made of one’s organs, but also for ancillary purposes such as blood grouping and matters of that sort which could well be indicated on the same disc. I rise to mention this merely from the point of view of identification. Secondly, I am sure that those concerned with hospitals and this very great problem of identification, will watch with interest the developments that can take place— I believe they are based on Medic-Alert, a voluntary organization to ensure that as many of the population as possible wear discs of a type which will not only identify them but will reflect their blood grouping and other relevant information which should be readily available at the hospitals to which they are taken.

With leave, amendment proposed by Dr. A. Radford withdrawn.

Amendments proposed by Mr. M. L. Mitchell and Mr. L. G. Murray put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In the Bill which we have just passed in Committee, we have attempted to help the living and to preserve the dignity of the dead, but one subject has not been fully aired and it is of vital importance, namely the procurement of donors. This problem is not confined to this country—it is worldwide—largely because this is, of course, a new development and members of the public have not yet appreciated the importance of the donation of hearts. But there are many other parts of the body which have not the emotional significance of the heart. Many a wife would hesitate to donate the heart of her husband whereas she might not hesitate to donate his kidneys. Sir, the House heard the hon. member for Green Point saying that at the present time donors consist of people who either have a stroke, which does not happen much to the young—and it is the hearts of the young under-forties which are needed—or are injured in motor accidents or similar accidents. This does happen to young people, if perhaps not as frequently as to older people, but nevertheless it does happen to them because they are the quick ones—not the dead. Sir, some effort should be made by the Minister either to set up a committee—not a commission—or to have a conference, a world conference if necessary, to determine what steps should be taken to procure donors. There is no doubt, as I said yesterday, that World War I brought forth the donors of blood. Before that it was very difficult to obtain blood donors. We cannot wait for a world catastrophe to produce donors of hearts and other organs. One body, as I have said, can supply at least 17 recipients. One would therefore like to have the bodies.

This problem is world-wide. So far only one successful or partially successful register has been introduced. This happens in London. It is so successful that donors are now coming forward, not voluntarily, as I would like to see, because of their desire to make a donation, but because London is such a big area and there are so many motorcars and so many industries in it that there are numbers of accidents and accidental deaths every day. As one doctor from the National Heart Hospital said, this registry in one day provided more donors than he had been able to obtain through the natural process of admissions to his hospital in six months. The registry works on a principle which is quite different from the usual principle. In London there are over 200 surgical hospitals dealing with accidents. They receive these untraced, unidentifiable accident cases, but they also receive accident cases which are traced. At most there are some 10 or 15 transplant teams available in London in the large teaching hospitals and a few other special hospitals which deal with the chest, and then there are kidney hospitals etc. The way this system works, is as follows: Any hospital receiving an accident case where death is likely to ensue despite all efforts, will notify the central registry, and the central registry knows where a recipeint is available. The registry knows the tissue type of the recipient. It does not know the tissue type of the donor. But in the average resuscitation process a blood transfusion is usally carried out. To carry that out the donor’s blood grouping must be known, and that is one part of the tissue typing. Then, when the donor or potential donor dies or is reported to be dead, according to our system here, the registry knows where recipients of that blood group are waiting. They do not have to look for a recipient; they know where he is, and at the same time once the donor has been declared dead, tissue can be taken for typing. Up to that time it cannot be done, but then it can be taken, and that is also done by the registry, which maintains a laboratory for this work. We therefore have the position that the registry can inform the hospital where a suitable recipient is, and the donor, or perhaps the organ only can be taken to the recipient. It is not as a rule possible to move the recipient to the donor, firstly because many of the hospitals are not able to do a transplant. This is one way of working it. It works, as I say, in London and it has been tried out in New York, but it has not been a success there.

I should also like to say that this Bill cannot be the end of transplants for always. The scientific work is advancing so rapidly that it is now within the bounds of possibility to remove a viable heart and keep it alive for eight hours, so that in the case like the one I have spoken about, where the tissue has been matched at the registry, it would be possible for one hospital where the donor is to prepare the heart after the man’s death and it could be moved to the recipient. In some parts of the world—I will not mention them—the habit has existed of moving potential donors to the recipient before his death. We in this country feel that such an action is not justified in the case of a man who is not actually declared dead. This could be of interest to the public in the case of moving it from a very poor hospital to a very well-equipped hospital, but in general it is not advisable to deal with the donor until he has become a donor, that is, until he is dead. But the advances are such that the doctors who do this work and the district surgeons who will have to make many difficult decisions will find that they will soon have to ask for amendments to this Bill to meet the increasing knowledge facilities.

I rise to say a few words in pursuance of what was said by the hon. member for Durban (Central). I think he used very moving words here when he said, “We have passed this Bill to help the living and preserve the dignity of the dead.” I want to agree with him. That is, in fact, the object of this legislation. Those are very moving words, but I think it may be appropriate to say at this stage, where this legislation has been passed, that we should draw the attention not only to the outstanding scientific achievements of the recent past, but also—and I believe these are the feelings of the entire House as well as the scientists—to the fact that one wants to place on record, and wants to acknowledge, with deep gratitude, in South Africa, in any event, that there is a Higher Hand that disposes over all these things, and that if our scientists, too, were to realize that at all times, the blessings on their work might be so much the greater in years to come.

The hon. member referred to the effect of this legislation. I think there is a great task ahead to educate the public to be more forthcoming with regard to the donation of bodies and tissue, and I hope the publicity that will emanate from here, will be of some help in this regard. Secondly, the training of doctors and post-graduate students will have to be adapted to these new developments of modern times; and, thirdly, I think without distracting anything from the tremendous achievement of heart transplants, that I should nevertheless point out that that is a dramatic matter, but that there are other transplants which can be done in much greater numbers and with great success for the benefit of patients. I think the public should realize that we should not seek the dramatic only, but also and especially the type of transplant which will enable us to assist the largest possible number of suffering and sick people. The other thing I want to mention in passing before I resume my seat, is the new importance which is arising at present for the establishment of banks for the preservation of tissue so that that tissue may be available at all times. I think the bodies and persons concerned with this matter should give their particular attention to this matter in the years ahead so that we may build up these banks for the benefit of the suffering people who require tissue.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Simply in order to take up the threads where we left the discussion here last night, I just want to refer to the fact that the hon. the Minister presented to us this matter of citizenship in a brilliant second-reading speech, and that the main speaker on the Opposition side was so indignant that he rejected this Bill in the strongest terms and also moved the amendment you have just read out, i.e. that the Bill be read this day six months. But it is also interesting, Sir, that the hon. member was so indignant that he appeared to have run out of words, because on this very important matter he could only express his indignation for 20 minutes. I told the Opposition that they did not understand our task: the task of founding peoples and forming countries, as the Minister put it so well yesterday. But I also asked them to have regard to a few realities, and I said that this Bill was a logical conclusion of the policy of the National Party and that it was an obvious next step and an indispensable element in the implementation of our policy. Furthermore, I pointed out that it fitted into the pattern of such constitutional and political development as Bantu peoples had already gone through up to this stage. In addition, it creates for the various peoples ties with the traditional homeland policy, which has become historical. What is more, I only started making this point last night, i.e. that we should also take note of what has happened in Africa. I said nationalism had struck Africa like a tidal wave. This was also manifested in strange forms, and here and there independence was granted at too early a stage, to our way of thinking. Along the road leading to liberation it left a tragic trail of revolt, racial tension and group conflict, and everywhere there is still evidence of instability and uncertainty. But the fact of the matter is that nationalism has won the day and that states have come into being, each with its own citizenship. Our neighbouring territories, close to our borders, the former High Commission Territories, have also been caught up in this maelstrom and in this process they have also acquired their own states and their own citizenship. We are also of Africa, and inside the borders of our country there are also ethnic communities and, although they can be distinguished from the ethnic communities of Africa, major differences can also be observed amongst them, but they are nevertheless not immune to the course of history, and least of all immune to the course of history in Africa. Therefore, whether it is still a latent feeling of nationalism which is present amongst our Bantu people, or whether this will only come to the fore to-morrow or the day after, or only years from now, our Bantu peoples will not be able to escape that flow of nationalism which is a historic thing. Whether this is present already, or whether it is yet to come, they are hoping that they will reach maturity as regards the feeling of being a nation, and also to reach the practical realization thereof in some political system or other. And in our policy we are giving them those materials for that political system.

It is, in addition, an acknowledged fact that the vast majority of Bantu in this country are favourably disposed to and support the policy of the National Party. The Bantu know that we are in earnest about assisting them—at the pace at which it is possible for them to accept responsibility—along this road, and also the political road, and even along the road leading to full self-realization. They believe, and they have confidence in this Government, that as regards our intentions towards them we are in earnest about helping them along that road. The National Party has never believed in buying the goodwill of the Bantu. Nor does the National Party allow itself to be forced or pushed into the next stage of development, but it has won the goodwill of the Bantu peoples through the sustained implementation of the policy of this party to proceed to the next stage of development when the Government believes that the time is ripe for doing so. But now we know that within the framework of their policy the United Party also want to develop the Bantu territories. In those Bantu territories, or the reserves as they often call them, they want to establish a form of government, and they say this form of government can develop into provincial status and even higher.

Not higher.

The question I now want to ask is just this: The hon. member for Yeoville said it would develop into provincial status and even higher. Now I ask. if this is the case, how would these territories be identified? I want to ask the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) how these territories would be identified. Would they merely be given a geographical description, or would they indicate the territories and say this is the home of the Xhosa and that is the home of the Zulus? Or would they merely indicate, by wind direction, the territory which is situated to the east or to the west? That is the question. Do they deny the existence of these peoples, i.e., that there is no such thing as Xhosas or Zulus or any of the other peoples, and do they begrudge these peoples the right to want to be peoples; and if they begrudge them the right to be peoples, how are they going to grant them, within the framework of their policy, representation in this Parliament?

Have you ever thought that it could be as human beings?

I want to make this statement. The United Party is creating a numerically superior non-White group by not recognizing them as separate peoples, because in their policy and according to their remarks last night and the interjections they made, these people are apparently receiving no place and recognition in their policy or in the representations which these people should have. Therefore, this is a numerically superior group, a creation which jeopardizes the position of the white man and other minority groups within that numerically superior group. But I shall leave it at that.

It may also be argued that it is being proposed here to grant citizenship to people who have not yet reached the stage of full self-realization. I want to read out some of the views held by an authority on this subject, i.e. Mr. Werner Bertelsman, the Secretary of the Institute for Foreign and Comparative Law of the University of South Africa. As regards self-determination, he said the following (translation)—

Therefore, what we are dealing with here, is not an absurdity. If we proceed in accordance with this process and at this pace, then these people are already availing themselves of their right of self-determination within the framework of the present State. Mr. Werner Bertelsman went on to say—

This is an authority speaking here, and according to him we are, by granting citizenship in this manner, also giving attention to self-determination. Two very important matters are involved here: the position of the Whites and the position of the non-White peoples. Everything we do here guarantees, on the one hand, the position of the Whites in South Africa and, on the other hand, offers security to the position of the non-White peoples in South Africa. The party sitting over there has a policy of white leadership in an undivided South Africa. We simply cannot see how the Bantu peoples will fit into that pattern and how that pattern will offer security to the position of the Whites. Furthermore, they envisage that this Parliament will be divisible, and once we have started with political integration that integration influence will in due course extend to the social sphere. This legislation is being fought because we are preventing them from carrying out their plan, because we are moving away here from the idea of “one fatherland”. But the danger exists that it will be impossible for them to retain that one fatherland. Those people whom they are now begrudging citizenship, will eventually take that citizenship themselves and do so in a manner one would not like to describe here. In any case, it will be done in such a manner that the United Party itself will not be able to lift a finger.

By indicating a few of the main guide lines, I have tried to show that this legislation fits into the pattern of our policy and that, after the example of what has already happened in the Transkei, we are doing the right thing by also granting citizenship to other non-White peoples in South Africa.

I shall deal in the course of my speech with the points made by the hon. member for Germiston. At the moment I should like to enter an emphatic protest on behalf of the Opposition for the happening which we had in this House last night. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration appeared before us and made a speech which had so little relation to reality, to the practical realities of South Africa, that we honestly wondered who wrote it. It seemed to me to come from the innermost recesses of a nut house. I honestly cannot see how the hon. the Minister can come to this House with a speech such as the one he made last night. To me it seemed as if he was on a psychedelic trip, floating up in the clouds with rosy rainbow hues all about him and the hon. member for Germiston accompanying him looking down on South Africa while seeing nothing of the reality under which we live in this country. I am unable to understand how the hon. the Minister can come to this House seriously with the type of speech he made last night and pretend that it has any relation to what is going on in our country. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister says he will give his reply, Sir. I say it is time that he came down to the practical reality of what is going on in South Africa. The attitude the Minister, his department and of the Nationalist Party seems to be that if one looks long enough at the Bantu they will all go away. In any event, that is the practical effect of what he said last night, the speech he made concerning the Bantu population. One can come only to one conclusion and that is that the Nationalist Party has been wiped out as far as the practical problems of South Africa are concerned. What did the Minister say? According to him the policy of the Nationalist Party is not that we have a racial problem in South Africa anymore, but a problem of nations, of various national groups of people each one evolving in its own particular homeland. Let me ask the hon. the Minister a question. Say the Zulu people by chance all turn white overnight, what will the Minister’s policy be? Will he still insist that they have a homeland of their own?

Is that question based on reality?

It is about as realistic as the approach of the Minister to this problem. Because if the Zulu should all turn white overnight, what will the hon. the Minister do? Will he still insist that they have a homeland of their own? Or will he simply say that because they are now Whites they now no longer need a homeland? If the Minister says that they still must have a homeland of their own even if they are white, then what about the English-speaking people in this country? What will the Minister’s approach be then? On the other hand, if the Minister says they do not need a homeland, then the Minister’s policy to-day is based upon colour, because the only reason why they are insisting upon the different peoples in South Africa having separate homelands is because of colour. Despite the spurious reasoning of the hon. the Minister last night, their policy is still based on colour and we still have a racial problem in South Africa, a problem which we have to solve. For the hon. the Minister to turn his back on this problem and attempt by painting pretty pictures in the sky to pretend that it does not exist, shows that he is deluding himself, the entire South Africa and the whole world.

You were not listening.

I have listened very carefully. The hon. member for Germiston and other hon. members in other debates reproached the United Party because they said the approach of this Party was. an economic one. But what is history? Surely, what we have seen over the past half century or so is history acting through economics. The struggle and rise of the working class has been the realistic politics of the past 50 years in every nation of the world and to-day is spreading far beyond the confines of Europe. Politics is being used as a political weapon to better the position of the lower classes. Here in South Africa the Bantu spent R4 million a day. You cannot, therefore, simply turn your back on them and pretending that they do not exist by creating for them a political homeland within a framework outside the purview of South African politics. Simply by wanting to send them to a homeland of their own, the Government seems to think that they have solved the problem. Our problem in South Africa is to build a stable political society in one form or another, and this has to be based on democracy. That is the real problem that we have to face in South Africa to-day, i.e. to build a stable political society. It has to be stable. The hon. member for Germiston mentioned in his speech how many countries with a democratic system in the world are not stable. And there is no worse system of Government on earth than an unstable democracy, because it leads to every type of perversion, explotation, dictatorship and that type of thing. What this Government is doing is wishing precisely that form of Government upon the Bantu populations of this country. They do that by attempting to create the sort of homeland which they say they are attempting to create. The hon. member for Germiston was quite plain about it that independence was still the policy of the Nationalist Party, to give independence to the Bantu homelands and to limit their rights to those homelands. But what the Government is doing is that it is creating a situation with eight independent Bantu homelands in South Africa, homelands which, according to the estimate of Professor Tomlinson in 1955, could absorb only 10 million people and even then they have to be developed to their fullest capacity. But we are told that by the end of the century we will have 40 million black people in this country. That means that we will have 30 million non-citizens within white South Africa.

Citizens of another country.

Yes, foreigners. We will then have 30 million black non-citizens as against the 8 or 10 million white citizens. Hon. members have accused us of having an economic approach. But, surely to goodness, the pressure from these non-citizens is going to be to attempt to take over the white area in which the whole of their future will, even by the end of the century, still be founded. Why should they persist in accepting the nonsensical theory this Nationalist Party puts forward that they can find in their homelands any kind of a secure and stable future for themselves or their children?

Let us look at the Bill to see what it says. Here we have a Bill which proposes to give citizenship to the Bantu population, to every single Bantu in South Africa. Everyone of these is now going to become a citizen of a foreign country, of their respective homelands. Because citizenship has to be tied to a territory. But what goes with that citizenship? The franchise? It is stated here in the Bill that there shall be a franchise. What about the right of residence? If people who live on my farm are given a certificate to say that they are citizens of a particular portion of Natal, for argument’s sake, will they have the right of residence in that homeland? Will they have the right of employment in that homeland? If they are registered on my farm as labourers and they leave and go into the homelands, will they automatically have the right to go into the urban areas and find another form of employment? When they are registered as citizens and come from a homeland, will they receive preference in the white areas? We know that in the Bantu areas, and here I think specially of the Transkei, there is no more land to allocate to people returning from outside, land on the ordinary basis of living in a kraal and have a little piece of ground to cultivate and for the grazing of stock. Already to-day there is in the Transkei no more ground to allocate to strangers returning, to this “scattered flock” the Minister spoke about, returning from the white areas to their homelands. What is the intention of the Government then? They are creating here a dual system of citizenship, dual nationality, dual loyalty. We have heard that a house which is divided against itself cannot stand. But the Minister here is creating neither flesh nor fowl. He is giving these people a conditional citizenship, a citizenship which does not as yet have any real meaningfulness. This much the Minister himself admitted. These people are still being protected by the laws of South Africa as members of the South African society. But, meanwhile, it is proposed to give them some form of spurious and synthetic citizenship. That then is the answer of the Nationalist Party to the problem of overwhelming numbers of black people in our country—they create a synthetic citizenship, a mental apartheid, something which in the minds of all these people must create the impression that they are now citizens of somewhere else; they will then go away and leave us alone here in the white areas. Sir, how will this affect Bantu labour on the farms, for instance? I speak for my own area, the area of the hon. member for Klip River, and also for the bulk of Natal, as well as for certain other areas in the Transvaal, when I say that the relationship between the farmer and his labour has been a family relationship. On my farm we have Bantu families …

Are those Natives your property?

What a cynical remark to make. That is the typical sort of remark from a member who is fighting for his political life. The hon. member asks me whether they are my property. What kind of a mind does one have to have to ask a question like that?

Are the members of your family your property?

That is a very good question. Are the members of that hon. member’s family his property! On the farms in our area Bantu families have been settled for a hundred years and more. There is a very close and intimate relationship between the white farmer and his family and the Bantu labourer and his family. This is what gives one stability in the countryside. There is a permanent relationship between the white farmers and the Bantu peoples in the countryside who to-day comprise a third of the total Bantu population. Supposing that one now gives such a Bantu on a farm a certificate of citizenship, with his photograph on it. This is now his incwadi! What does that man think? He has now been told that he has been given citizenship of another country, even though his family has lived on this farm for a hundred years. He is now being told that he does not really live there any more and that he now has citizenship somewhere else. Immediately these thoughts will spring to his mind: What is my status? Where am I permanently employed? Can I go there if I want to? Will the Minister tell us that, because such a person now has a certificate of citizenship, he has a right to reside in his homeland?

You do not know their minds.

The hon. the Minister cannot wriggle out of this. This is a practical problem I am putting to him. A farm labourer, a man who has had fixed and stable employment, with his family, for a number of years, is suddenly issued with a certificate. What happens in that person’s mind? One immediately cuts the ground from underneath the relationship between the white man and the black man throughout the length and breadth of the farming areas of South Africa, because a doubt exists in that person’s mind. What is he going to do?

If every Bantu worker of a family which has already been on your farm for a hundred years has four wives, how many people will there be on that farm?

Mr. Speaker, my Bantu labourers are not in the fortunate position of being able to have four wives each. I think that is really a hypothetical question. We know that on every single farm there is a continual flow of labourers. Sons are born into these families and then leave the farms, but a stable nucleus of that family remains on the farm throughout the generations. This happens on that hon. member’s own farm too. There is no need for him to ask me that question. He knows what happens. If a Bantu labourer is issued with a certificate of citizenship of another area, he will immediately wonder whether this is the first step towards dismissal on the part of the white man. We must remember that the white farmer is the government in the eyes of his labour. He is the representative of the white government on the platteland. That is why I attach so much importance to this. The white farmer and the relationship he bears to the Bantu labourer on the platteland is the one stable element in the society of White South Africa which will guarantee the survival of the whtie man in this country. Without the stability of farm labour and without the stability of the position of the white man in the countryside, we are going to have to give way time and time again. I have mentioned this before in this House and I mention it again now. The control of the countryside is the key to the white man’s control of South Africa. We in this country are facing the threat which has come from the Communist Chinese that Communist China will inevitably gain control of the world because they will gain control of the countryside. We have seen this happen in country after country, in North Vietnam, in China itself and in South Vietnam to-day. The control of the countryside throttles the towns. Mao Tse Tung himself said that control of the towns and the countryside will give them control of the rural continents of Africa, Asia and Latin America. This sort of law creates a doubt in the minds of the Bantu population permanently resident in the country areas as to what their future status is and what their relationship is with their white employers, a doubt which can lead to the downfall of the one stable element in white society, namely the farming population resident in the countryside which gives control over those vast outlying areas which I believe is absolutely vital to the future of the white man in this country.

Let us come to the homelands. The hon. the Minister says that we will provide citizenship for these people. I believe that citizenship is the ultimate right and it carries the ultimate duty. It was said by the Romans: “Dulce et decorum est pro patria more”—Your ultimate duty is that you must be prepared to die for your country. One of the proudest boasts of St. Paul himself was: “Civis Romanus sum”— I am a citizen of Rome. What are the Government providing for the Bantu in the homelands? Let us ask two simple questions. Supposing that the entire Bantu population decided to go to their homelands, what would happen? The hon. member for Houghton said the other day that they would have to call the army to stop them but it would not help them. In Natal the Zulu homeland consists of so many little pockets and pieces that the whole South African Army could not even block it off entirely. What would happen to White South Africa if the Bantu went to their homelands and stayed there? What would happen to Black South Africa if the Bantu went to their homelands and stayed there?

That is an admission.

No, it is not an admission. This is the truth and every hon. member on the other side knows it. This is the truth; this is reality; this is not the dream of a Nationalist Party existence. If the Bantu population left to-day and went to their homelands and stayed there, what would happen to White South Africa and Black South Africa? What rights are they given in terms of this Bill? Citizenship is a special status, a status which gives you an exclusive right to a country. I have a newspaper clipping in which it is reported that Chief George Matanzima said that within 25 years all the Whites will have left the Transkei. They will have left the Transkei.

Are you sorry about that?

Mr. Speaker, let us look at the other side of the coin. If all the Whites will then be out of the Transkei, how many Blacks will be back in the Transkei in terms of the Government’s policy? According to a reply by the hon. the Minister to a question put to him recently, there are 41,000 opportunities of employment in the Transkei today. There are 41,000 opportunities to absorb a population of some 3 million people.

Only in specific categories.

Yes, only in specific categories. The few others farm or scratch plots of ground to grow mealies, tend a few head of cattle, and so on.

They are subsistence farmers.

Yes, they are subsistence farmers. The reality of what is offered to the Bantu population in this Bill is absolutely nothing. It upsets the whole existing relationship between the White and the Black, as I have already said. I believe that it is even more dangerous in that it is attempting to pack back into the Bantu areas a population which they can never absorb. I want to make the point that the Bantu population which the Government are attempting to pack back into the Bantu areas can only become an underprivileged, underfed and discontented proletariat totally divorced from the ground with no connection whatever with the homeland in any practical and real sense. It will be merely a dormitory, a reservoir of labour to go to work in the White areas. All the attempts of the hon. the Minister to develop the Bantu areas as a showplace of his department, at Temba and so on will not be able to bear fruit between now and the end of this century, in 30 years’ time. What has been necessary during the 21 years that this Government has been in power, is an intensive programme of development. The Government knows perfectly well that when this side of the House first proposed that we should go into the Bantu areas and develop them economically with the white man’s private capital and not Government money and with private white initiative, we were called economic colonialists. This is the sort of approach we have from the Government on the other side. [Interjections.]. They say it is quite true.

The hon. the Minister is now piloting the Bantu Homelands Citizenship Bill through this House. Suppose it is passed by this House, what use is the Government going to make of it? I want to suggest that the only purpose this Bill can possibly serve, is to make propaganda for the Nationalist Party that they think they have found a solution to the problem of the numbers of the Bantu population, living in the white areas. That is all that they can possibly make out of it; because we know perfectly well that the fact that one issues a certificate to a person, does not mean to say that he is going to live in his homeland or that he is going to get any kind of practical benefit at all from having been issued with this certificate. My first impression was that this is merely the tail of the paper tiger, this elaborate structure of laws, of papers and bits and pieces that the Nationalist Party have constructed over 21 years, trying to make apartheid mean something. To-day it has collapsed utterly and completely, crunched under the reality of economics in this country. But when one thinks about it the second time, this is potentially one of the most dangerous bits of legislation that the Government have ever introduced, because this is creating a doubt in the minds of the Bantu population as to what their status is, as to where they might have to reside and what their future might be. We on this side of the House certainly intend to oppose it. I believe any thinking person in South Africa will be against the provisions of this Bill, because it has nothing whatever to offer to the Bantu population. It offers them no future, no security—nothing. It destroys what they have now, namely their future and security.

Mr. Speaker, it is very obvious that there is one respect in which we have very definitely not had any success over the past 22 years. We have not succeeded in bringing home to the Opposition the faintest understanding of what the policy, the direction and the aim of separate development is. I agree that we have not succeeded in doing so. But there is a fine saying which is as follows: “Nobody is as dense as those who would not understand, and nobody is as blind as those who would not see.” The hon. member for Mooi River who has just resumed his seat, referred here to Vietnam and the conditions there. I want to tell him that it is this kind of legislation and the fact that the National Party with its policy of separate development has been governing this country for the past 22 years, which give us cause to be grateful that we do not have conditions here such as those being experienced in Vietnam. This kind of legislation is precisely aimed at preventing such conditions. We had the contrast here of this hon. member accusing the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development of having made a speech here last night in which he did not take into account the practical realities and politics in South Africa. Immediately after that he indulged in the same thing by asking this hypothetical question, “What is the hon. the Minister going to do with these 13 million people if they should turn into Whites overnight?” On this hypothetical premise he now bases his argument. Actually, this is what is happening here. It is so hypothetical that one cannot really discuss it. I may as well tell him now that one does not wish them to turn into Whites overnight. The Minister knows this and that is why he is taking the practical realities into account in introducing legislation of this nature in the House of Assembly.

It is also very obvious that up to now in this debate this measure has emphasized, and will do so further, what the actual fundamental differences are between the school of thought of this side of the House—and by that I mean the school of thought of the white electorate in South Africa—and the school of thought of that side of the House. These differences are fundamental, because this legislation is fundamental to the policy of separate development. Furthermore, it is obvious that that hon. member very clearly revealed in his speech that he has no understanding of the feeling of national pride everybody has.

Ha, ha!

Yes, everybody has a national pride which is intangible. He lacks an understanding of that national pride which is deeply seated in every person, irrespective of the colour of his skin. We, and particularly we on this side of the House, had experience of this when the South African Citizenship Act. was placed on the Statute Book in 1949. We also know what attitude was adopted on that side of the House at the time. We know what it meant to us to become citizens of South Africa and not be British subjects any more.

You are staying in South Africa.

We are grateful for that Act which was placed on the Statute Book. If hon. members are quarreling about that Act, I want to ask them whether they would, should they come into power, repeal that Act and once again make the citizens of South Africa subjects, which will not be the same as being South African citizens. The hon. member spoke sneeringly and disparagingly of the development in the homelands. He also wanted to know what would happen if all the Bantu, having received their citizenship certificates, were to decide to flock back to their homelands to-morrow.

He was right.

He is being quite unrealistic. The hon. member did not lis ten to what the hon. the Minister said in this House yesterday. Apparently the hon. member has not even read the Bill.

Have you read it?

I have read it over and over and the hon. member would be well advised to read it as well, for then he would not have delivered himself of the nonsense he did last night. This Bill answers all the questions the hon. member for Transkei asked here yesterday. I want to ask the hon. member for Mooi River, if he has not done so yet, to take the trouble to have a look at what is being done for the Bantu homelands, and what is being done towards creating viability and what the Bantu have already accomplished there. Then the hon. member should also take the trouble to talk to the Bantu and their leaders. Having done so, he will only receive one answer, one of gratitude for what the Whites are doing there for them, but also the plea that the white man should not let go of their hand before they can stand on their own feet. That is why this hypothetical premise of the hon. member, i.e. what would happen if all of them should go back to-morrow, is quite unrealistic. The hon. member is entitled to adopting a critical attitude towards this matter, but then the hon. member should also be prepared to accept the consequences of an alternative. If all these measures effecting and emphasizing separate development should be repealed or withdrawn, what would happen if the entire non-white population should decide to-morrow, if I may also be hypothetical, to flock from their own territories into the white man’s land? How would the hon. member receive and accommodate them here, and what would he do with them here? The hon. member is prepared to argue in one direction only, but he is not prepared to accept the consequences of an alternative, and will not be able to stop this influx either.

I do not wish to dwell any longer on what the hon. member said. In this short session, under the prevailing conditions in South Africa, we have had stormy debates. However, during this short session the House has also been afforded the opportunity of discussing, under much calmer circumstances, a very fine measure, i.e. the one which is before the House at the moment. I regard this as one of the finest pieces of legislation we have ever had the privilege to discuss in this House, and I agree wholeheartedly with what the hon. the Minister said last night. We must avail ourselves of this opportunity to convey to those who drafted this Bill and the explanatory memorandum our congratulations and appreciation which we feel are due to them. These are clear and fine documents, and I think any layman can understand them. I want to associate myself with what was said by the hon. member for Germiston, i.e. that we have to express our appreciation to the hon. the Minister for a very fine speech of which probably all of us can be proud. We are proud that a speech of this nature now forms part of the records of this House, a speech from which it will be possible for many of us, and also hon. members opposite, to procure light in the future. It will be possible for the hon. member for Newton Park to procure light from that speech, because it was so well-thought-out and illuminating that it once again gave us an image of the policy of separate development and the aim of separate development. If the hon. member had listened to it, this speech would also have told him what his task was, not as viewed in a political context, but as viewed in a national context in respect of our relations politics and our relations policy in South Africa. Mr. Speaker, what is more, we on this side of the House regard this measure as forming part of the mandate given to the National Party by the white electorate. We have no alternative but to implement it. This is a man date we did not appropriate to ourselves, but which we received as far back as 1948, and time and again since then. This legislation is, in truth, a logical consequence of the legislation placed on the Statute Book up to now. It is the next step that has to be taken. That is why we shall not shrink from it. I should like to quote from the election manifesto of the National Party as published on 29th March, 1948. It reads as follows (translation)—

What year was that?

I am quoting from the election manifesto which appeared on 29th March, 1948.

But, surely, that is no longer your policy?

Mr. Speaker, I shall not allow that hon. member to put me off my stroke. The National Party has never deviated from this policy. It has been implementing that policy systematically. I am proving that the measure before the House at the moment, has been introduced here on the instructions of the electorate who gave us this mandate after this manifesto had been submitted to them. I shall quote further—

This is a quotation from the election manifesto of the National Party which was published in 1948, before the general election. We may not stand still. The policy of this party and, in particular, the policy of separate development, is a dynamic policy. It is not a thing which can be finalized all at once and then put down Many of us in this House will not see the end of this road. Many of us will not see the realization of this ideal.

Oh yes, you will.

No, many of us will not. The remark that hon. member has just made, is a very petty one. We have a task to perform in this country. We do not only see the people living in South Africa as 18 million people, but we also see the diversity in those people. The diversity we see, is not determined by the colour of the skin. We see a white nation in South Africa, but we also see multi-national non-White nations. This matter was set out very clearly by the hon. the Minister last night when he dealt with it. This is a processs of growth which we have initiated. Each of us must do in our time what there is for us to do. We must do so according to our convictions. On that side of the House there are hon. members, and outside there are people who support them, who believe in this process of growth, who believe in the policy of separate development. Whether they always agree with the methods whereby it is being implemented, is a different matter. But there are people who believe that this separate development is a process of growth which will continue. Even if we shall not see the end of it in our time, we are nevertheless doing what we find to do and what we have to do now. I submit that this Bill, which we are dealing with now, constitutes the task which has been entrusted to us. This is what we have to do now. It fits into the pattern of separate development in such a way that it has to be done now, because it is not an ill-considered policy; it is a well-planned policy.

This Bill which we now want to place on the Statute Book, forms part of that pattern. This policy of separate development is not an entirely unfounded one, as is often being said by those who want to make political propaganda out of it. This policy has become an absolute necessity. It was born out of and stems from a historical background. Any person who wants to take the trouble to go into the historical background of South Africa, will find that the white people and the black people, coming from the North, occupied the southernmost point of Africa almost simultaneously. The white people settled in certain areas and the black people, in turn, settled mainly in other areas. Historically and traditionally it is a fact that they settled in separate areas. In this way, therefore, the occupation brought this about. It brought about much more than only this. The crux of the whole matter is that it resulted in our having a multinational population of 18 million in South Africa to-day. All we seek to do by means of this Bill, is to grant citizenship to each of those various population groups. We are not running away from this problem and we do not regard the population of 18 million as an integrated unit, but we regard the population as a diversity, a differentiation of peoples living together in one country. We are engaged in creating channels along which these inner urges may be channelled, not only physically but also spiritually, in order that we may afford everybody the opportunity of returning to his own territory. It is for this reason that these territorial authorities have been established. In this manner it is possible for us to make any Bantu living in South Africa to-day, a nationally and geographically oriented person. Even if he were to leave his territorial authority area in order to sell his labour here, we would still regard him as a person who is here on a temporary basis only. We do not regard the Bantu as forming a permanent part of an integrated population in South Africa. The day will come when this man will seek a place to rest and will want to exercise his rights and his interests. All of that he can do in his own territory. This legislation makes provision for that. The white man also wants to know who finds himself here in South Africa. In this manner we shall continue to channel away people, physically and spiritually, to their territories in order to give them a character of their own and national identity. Apparently hon. members on the other side of the House do not understand this. That is why we are not only developing the territories, but also, in a systematic manner, the human material that is going to live in those areas. We are preparing the human material so that we may grant it citizenship. Therefore, this Bill emphasizes and recognizes the diversity of multi-nationality in a very real manner and not theoretically only. It also creates for the Bantu new prospects and stimulates them into new directions. We cannot wish these people away from us. They are here, and under the superior leadership of the Whites they can develop themselves and make progress. We are now giving them the opportunity and the potential of developing themselves further.

In conclusion I want to say that separate development, just like this Bantu Homelands Citizenship Bill, is mainly aimed at these three basic things, which are absolutely essential in a country such as South Africa with its multi-national character. In the first place, it seeks to eliminate points of friction which, under present circumstances, can so easily develop. We are eliminating these points of friction here, i.e. by the provisions of this Bill, which are clearly understandable to everybody who is interested in them. In the second place, it seeks to create opportunities. Opportunities and possibilities are in fact being created here for every Bantu in his own national context and in his own territory. He can avail himself of these opportunities there; they are given to him now. I also want to say that he sets great store by his being nationally oriented. He is not as free of ties as is sometimes suggested here. We are confirming this now and creating opportunities for him in his own territory, as a citizen of his own homeland. In the third place, it seeks to accomplish something which is extremely important, i.e. the preservation of a separate identity. In this measure his identity is being guaranteed and ensured; if he is a citizen of that particular homeland, he will know where his and his children’s future lies. Mr. Speaker, for as long as the National Party is in power—and this is an assurance which we can give to South Africa—it will, for the sake and in the interests of all the peoples living within its borders, proceed with legislation of this nature in order to achieve our object, and for as long as we are in power, we shall continue to regulate race relations which can only be to the benefit of all the peoples living within our borders, for it is aimed at, and it will succeed in, guaranteeing South Africa a peaceful co-existence. I said at the beginning that the policy of separate development was a dynamic one. Sir, this House will not be able to close the Statute Books before all the laws required for guaranteeing peaceful co-existence, for creating harmony amongst the peoples of South Africa, have been adopted. We shall, without apologizing to anybody, continue to place legislation on the Statute Book until we, as we see it, have achieved the ultimate object of this policy.

Mr. Speaker, I will be dealing in the course of my speech with many of the general points made by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad. I want really to turn to the hon. the Minister, to whom I listened with a great deal of attention last night. I might say that if I had closed my eyes I would have imagined that I was listening to his predecessor because he is certainly beginning to make the same sort of noises. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that if he does not look out he will soon begin to look like his predecessor as well. The other evening I was at the cinema and I saw a very jolly little short where the hon. the Minister and his predecessor were enjoying some tribal authority celebration. While tribal maidens and tribal young men were rejoicing around them they were presenting some of the paraphernalia of Office to the tribal authority—the robes and staffs of Office. It was a very colourful ceremony indeed. The only thing, of course, is that the hon. the Minister did not get a kaross like his predecessor. Probably the word had got around that he was not a collector! Looking at him carefully—and he is very photogenic by the way; I will say that for him right away—I saw the same sort of far-away gleam in his eye as he watched all these tribal maidens celebrating the acquisition of tribal autonomy. I saw the same sort of gleam in his eye that used to appear in the eye of Mr. de Wet Nel when he was telling us all those fairy stories about the Africans in the Bantustans with thousands of rands (pounds in those days) stacked away in their mutji, eager to invest in Bantu Investment Corporation projects and so on. This hon. Minister is getting the same sort of gleam in his eye. He certainly had the same sort of gleam in his eye last night when he was telling us all about the joys of nationhood. He waxed lyrical about the pride taken in a separate nationhood by the seven or eight different Bantu nations. Sir, I have heard this sort of talk from the hon. the Minister before. It is usually the sort of argument he uses when he is going to come with his final conclusion, which he has used on previous occasions, that South Africa is not governed by a minority government. That is the sort of argument he uses for overseas consumption. He comes to this conclusion on the ground that the 3½ million white people outnumber the Tswana nation, the Zulu nation, the Sotho nation and so on. He says that all those are separate nations. The White nation, of course, which also speaks different languages—and he laid great stress last night on the importance of different languages—is one nation. South Africa therefore, he says, is ruled by a majority government of the white people because the Africans are split into so many nations.

Do you disagree?

Of course, I do. It is a lot of nonsense. South Africa is one multiracial nation consisting of all the different African peoples, the Indian people, the Coloured people and the White people as well That is the reality of the South African nation

You want to equalize all the nations?

I doubt whether the hon. the Minister is going to succeed in convincing the outside world with this argument. In fact, I want to point out to him that he first has to convince Matanzima because Matanzima does not believe this sort of thing. He made a statement not so very long ago, on the 31st March, 1969. This appeared in The World which, as you know. Sir, is a newspaper which the Africans read. It reports that when Matanzima was at Sharpeville he had a message for the people; what was the message? He said that “the Africans are one nation,” and that is heavily underlined. The hon. the Minister first has to convince the Prime Minister of the one African area that has any pretensions to any sort of limited autonomy, that the Africans consist of several nations before he can convince anybody else. He might have convinced some of his more gullible supporters, like the hon. member over there who seldom makes a speech but makes very many interjections.

I know a little more about it than you do.

Sir, while I am on this subject of nationhood, it also strikes me that while the Minister’s Bill is all about citizenship, the Minister’s speech is all about nationhood and these, of course, are two entirely different concepts although they are both aspects of State membership. They are quite different concepts. I took the hon. the Minister’s words to heart. He quoted an article which appeared in this book “Tydskrif van Hedendaagse Romeins Hollandse Reg” and I read the article. It was a very interesting article, but it makes it quite clear that the concept of citizenship and the concept of nationhood are different concepts of State membership.

That is what I said last night.

Well, it is very interesting. The hon. the Minister devoted all his time to eulogizing nationhood but his Bill is all about citizenship. His Bill does not mention nationhood.

I distinguished very clearly between the two.

The Minister’s Bill grants citizenship; it does not grant nationality at all, but the hon. the Minister spent most of his time arguing about the benefits of nationality, and I listened to him very carefully indeed. Of course, the interesting thing is this: The one African territory that has any pretensions to some sort of limited economy, is the Transkei. It is very limited indeed since no laws may be passed which are repugnant to this Central Parliament. It is a very limited autonomy therefore. Only some of the portfolios have been handed over to the Transkei and others are retained here. In any case the Transkei is completely dependent on South Africa for all its finances; so it is a very limited autonomy indeed and even that area can only be governed in the shadow of Proclamation 400.

Ah!

The hon. the Minister says “ah”; it is very nice to forget about Proclamation 400.

You are obsessed with Proclamation 400.

Well, I am not obsessed with it. I will tell the hon. the Minister what I am obsessed with; I am obsessed with the rule of law. This to me is very important indeed, and when I see a country which still has hanging over it a proclamation like Proclamation 400, which is the very abrogation of the rule of law, I know that things cannot be too good in that country. I use the same argument about South Africa when we hear all this talk about peace and quiet and law and order, and I wonder why it is necessary to have the Draconian laws which this Government has passed in order to maintain law and order, the sort of laws that are not required by any country where there is proper contentment and real peace and quiet. I want to tell the hon. the Minister, if I can get his attention away from the hon. member for Durban (North), that it is too late for South Africa to start making separate nationhoods. South Africa has been in existence for over 300 years, and it is too late now to start making separate nations. It is even too late to try to revert to the South Africa of 50 years ago, which is what the hon. member for, I think, Germiston (District) and the hon. member for Wolmaransstad nostalgically would like to do. They would like to revert to the South Africa of 50 years ago, because then they can say that the African is in the white areas and more particularly in the white urban areas only to provide the necessary labour for the white man, the concept advanced in the year 1922 or 1923 by the Stallard Commission. Sir, lots of things have happened in South Africa since then which makes this concept absolutely untenable. The sort of thing that has happened in South Africa is an industrial revolution—just a small thing like an industrial revolution—where the Africans are now no longer required only as migratory unskilled workers but for all sorts of semi-skilled machine-operative jobs. Technilogical changes have taken place in South Africa over the last 50 years which make it impossible for us to go back to the conditions of the 1920’s. Most important of all, Sir, great sociological changes have taken place in South Africa. To-day we have in this country urban-born Africans of the second and third generation, not the temporary sojourners that the hon. member for Wolmaransstad was talking about this morning but people who have been born in the urban areas and whose children have been born in the urban areas and whose parents have been born in the urban areas.

They must go back.

Sir, the hon. member on the back bench over there says that they must go back. I do not know how he thinks he is going to make them go back and I do not know what he thinks is going to happen to this country if they do go back. His own standard of living will suffer a very drastic drop indeed. I do not think that the hon. member, however nostalgically he may want the conditions of 50 years ago, is going to be able to reintroduce those conditions in this country. Sir, if one is to be realistic about this, one has only to step outside the House and stand on a street corner in any city in South Africa and watch urban Africans wearing all the trappings of Western civilization, reading our newspapers, listening to transistor radios, listening to the news, and humming modern jazz. Those people do not want to go back and reinstitute tribal systems for themselves. What they yearn for is more of what Western civilization can offer them, because we have brought them into these areas for our own economic uses and here they have stayed. They are now urban people and they do not want to go back to tribal cultures, however much the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development may prefer the tribal African to the urban African. I notice that this is a common thing among South Africans. They much prefer the simple tribal African who is easier to deal with and who is not so cheeky. Well, I am afraid however much hon. members may want to re-establish that condition it is far too late. I want to say this about the hon. member for Wolmaransstad: More so than his Minister, he certainly gave us a very clear interpretation of the objects of this Bill. It is quite clearly part of the softening up process of preparing the ground before the Africans lose whatever remaining de jure rights they may have of permanency in the white areas. They are all to become temporary sojourners and are not going to have any rights of permanency. This is part of the softening up process. This is part of the quid pro quo. This is going to be the ethical explanation when ultimately all the remaining de jure rights are removed from the Africans, not only of those in the urban areas under section 10, but also all the Africans who eventually are going to be moved off the white farms. These people are to be shifted back and there has to be some ethical explanation, and the ethical explanation is that they are citizens of their own Bantustans and therefore they have no rights or claims and can enjoy no privileges in what we are pleased to call white South Africa. That is the invisible part of this Bill, and the invisible part of the Bill, if I may say so, is much more important than the visible part of it, because it is the invisible part of the Bill that ultimately is going to have at least the de jure effect of turning permanently urbanized people into this hideous mass of migratory workers, which involves as it does the man miles travelled, the man hours wasted, the breakup of family life and all the instability which follows in its trail, the sort of people who are so brilliantly described by Professor Hobart Houghton, when he called them “the men of two worlds”. This Bill provides the ethical justification for that sort of thing. I want to say that in Soweto alone there is a population—I mentioned it the other day, but want to remind hon. members of it again— more than 2½ times the population of Lesotho, and these people are eventually going to be given the status of aliens, despite the fact that many of them have been urban born for the second or third generations.

I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that, as in the other Bill which the Deputy Minister introduced the other day, this Bill takes no cognizance whatsoever of the administrative difficulties which are involved. Here we have a Bill which will have the effect of giving every African citizenship of one or other of these seven or eight Bantustans, and based, according to a clause of the Bill, on the ethnic origin of the people concerned and on the language they talk. Now, amongst the people I have just mentioned, the Africans in Soweto, there is an enormous degree of intermarriage. They have not married only within their ethnic groups at all. There has been a tremendous amount of intermarriage between those Africans, and many of them talk several Bantu languages. I want to know how the officials are ever going to decide which citizen belongs to which homeland, by virtue of the years and years of ethnic intermixture that has taken place in the urban areas.

They will find a solution, never fear.

I cannot hear what the hon. member is saying and in any case I do not think he knows what he is talking about. But I want to ask the hon. the Minister what the point is of this certificate of citizenship which is bestowed on the Africans in terms of this Bill. What benefits will attach to this document which may—they do not have to—be obtained? Now I see that an African who has a citizenship certificate will not need an identity card, but since the identity card, as far as I know anyway, is at present incorporated in the registration book that the African still will have to carry, I do not think that has any particular advantage. Is that correct? The African’s identity card is incorporated in his registration book.

The certificate will not be incorporated.

I know that.

The old identity card will fall away when the new books are introduced.

There is no identity card. I mean, the identity card is incorporated in the registration book. I do not know why the hon. the Minister thought fit to mention that, because I have already read it in the White Paper. But I cannot see the advantage of that. He is still going to have to carry two documents, the registration book which gives all the usual details, which of course determine his whole life when he seeks work and where he lives, etc., and the citizenship certificate is not going to confer any benefits on him at all unless, as was mentioned by an hon. member last night, it may be used as a sort of lever whereby people will either get work or will not get it; in other words, to be able to come back to this House in a year or two and say that so many millions of eager Africans have taken their certificates of citizenship, and the Minister, or the people administering this Act, will make sure that it is only people with citizenship certificates who will get privileges in the way of being allowed to work in the white areas. Other than that, I can see no advantage in these certificates. Even if the African wants to travel abroad, he will still have to be issued with a South African passport, because at present he retains his South African nationality.

The hon. member for Germiston said last night that this Bill flows logically from the Government’s policy. Those were the words he used. Well, of course, everything the Government does flows logically from its policy, but there is only one trouble, namely that the whole policy is based on false premises. That is the whole trouble, and of course this way madness lies. The entire policy is based on false premises. It is all part of a wild fantasy, and there is no other way of describing a measure like this which offers people rights and privileges in areas which are not even established as separate nations as yet, areas which many of them have never seen and which many of them will never see, in exchange for enjoying rights and privileges in areas where they live, where they have always lived and where they in all likelihood always will live. One can only call this Bill an anachronism, because it comes far too late. The time is long past when the hon. the Minister can try to forge new nations out of the South African nation, which as I say consists, and always will consist, of millions of people of various race groups. The Bill may satisfy the hon. the Minister’s conscience, and it may even satisfy the consciences of some of his followers, those—and I do not know how many there are—that bother to find any sort of ethical justification for what they are doing to the African people. But I want to tell the hon. the Minister that to the Africans themselves this Bill is nothing but a fraud.

The hon. member who has just resumed her seat, has once again proved through her speech that she and her party do not have the faintest understanding or knowledge of the soul of the Bantu in this country. But I want to tell the hon. member for Houghton that we in this country have now become very tired of this continuous usage of the word “African” on her part and through her Press. We are all “Africans”, including that hon. member, and it is high time the hon. member learned who is a Bantu and who is not a Bantu. I want to reply to the hon. member at once by quoting what the Bantu themselves are saying about citizenship. This will be the answer to her arguments. Example number one to the hon. member for Houghton, is Bruno Mtolo, who is apparently known to that hon. member, a former communist and a former member of Umkonto we Ziswe, who, having had a change of heart in the course of the Rivonia case, wrote as follows in that particular book of his, “The Road to the Left”—

It was his pride in being a Zulu which caused this man to repudiate communism. Why not grant him his Zulu citizenship at the present stage, something which the hon. member now begrudges him? Just as is the case with us, it is pride in one’s nation—be it White, Brown or Black—which gives meaning to one’s life. I want to mention a second example to the hon. member for Houghton. The policy of separate development is to a large extent the result of our Christian guardianship which has developed, through the Afrikaner nation over the past two centuries of living together with the black man in one country. Let us, in regard to this separate development, consider for a moment, for the purposes of to-day’s debate, what the Christianized black man, for whom I as a Christian have the greatest respect, thinks of the granting of citizenship and regaining his own citizenship within the borders of our Republic. I quote from what was written by the Rev. Saul Selepe of Lady Grey in the “Kerkbode” of 27th September, 1967. In a spontaneous manner he wrote (translation)—

These are his own thoughts on separate development—

This is what the hon. member for Houghton should like them to be. This Bantu clergyman went on to emphasize the work done by the church in this important sphere. It is this sincere endeavour on the part of the Christianized black man which is so atrociously being rejected by the Opposition, of which the hon. member is a member. It has been proved that the Opposition’s interest in the weal and woe of the black man is an opportunistic one, as the hon. member for Germiston rightly said here last night, and only goes as far as the economic aspect is concerned.

But I want to proceed to another statement made by the hon. member for Houghton, and I want to refer her to a report which appeared on the front page of The Star of 17th November, 1966, under a five-column heading. It read: “The Call of the Kraal after Fifty-Five Years”; and the hon. member would be well advised to read it up. In reading this report, a person who does not know the soul of the Bantu must find the conduct of the Bantu in question incomprehensible, as it will probably seem to the hon. member and the Opposition as well. It is a simple story. After 55 years of uninterrupted, loyal and good service in an urban area—perhaps in Houghton with a white family, whose children and grand-children he helped to bring up—this Zulu servant announced one day that he was going back to his kraal, that he was going back—

In addition, he grew a beard for the first time, and The Star wrote—

This was not written in a National Party newspaper, but in the mouthpiece of the Opposition. But, quite rightly, they gave an accurate description of the soul of the black man, which is different. After a long life of comfort with a rich urban family and the enjoyment of everything within his material reach, he experienced the call of his kraal in his old age. He began to yearn for his people and his traditions. He left behind the white man, the dress and the other trappings of the white man and got his kaross back, the kaross to which the hon. member referred to sneeringly. The article goes on to say—

This is the melancolic concluding sentence of the report which looks so strange on the front page of The Star, but it is accurate and it is true.

The hon. member says we have been a multi-racial community from the beginning, but what does history say? The history of the implementation of a separate homeland for the Zulu between the Umzimvubu and the Umtamvuna Rivers, attended with the separate Zulu citizenship in the Republic Natalia, is known to everybody and need not be repeated here as an argument. But what is probably not as well-known to the hon. member for Durban (Point), is the story of one of the tribes of the Tswana people with which it deals. This tribe is the Ba-ma-Tau which in turn is descended from the blood-line of the Bakwena, which was descended from the Baharutsi and formed part of the original large Tswana group of old Kghama. Sir Theophilus Shepstone came across this tribe, i.e. the Ba-ma-Tau—of which the hon. member for Durban (Point) knows so much—near Potchefstroom in 1880, after they had been driven out of their natural abode by the Matabele. What is interesting, is that under chief Sefanyetso a group of the Ba-ma-Tau, having wondered about a great deal, settled near the Selon River. Incidentally, this river was named after Thebe Maseloane, or Herman Selon. Some of them remained behind in the Potchefstroom area while others settled in the Orange Free State. It is interesting that scattered as they were, these tribesmen nevertheless remained sub-ordinate to Ma-Tau. They retained their citizenship in spite of the fact that their subjects worked amongst the farming community in the Potchefstroom area. This information is recorded in “The Short History of the Native Tribes in South Africa”, 1905.

In this book the story is also told of the Baphalane who, along with the Ba-bedidi, fled before Mapela. Both of them were of the Bakwena group. They merged into one tribe and, as the Baphalane tribe, they settled near Zeerust. Intermarriage did in fact take place, but this did not lead to the tribal tradition being broken down. In fact, the descendants of the Baphalane adopted the citizenship of that tribe. For the hon. member’s information, I may mention that they are still loyal to that tribe to this day.

What did the Opposition Press say about this legislation? I notice that especially the hon. member for Durban (Point) is very talkative. Writing in his political comment column in the Sunday Times of 16th March, 1969, Mr. Stanley Uys gave the United Party the recipe for reacting to this Bill. I now want to ask that hon. member why they did not react the way Mr. Uys told them to do. He said—

Then we would also have been able to go home sooner. He went on to say—

Continuing, he said—

Why did the leaders of that party not follow the advice of Mr. Stanley Uys? Have you ever seen a better example, Sir, of how the far-leftist tail wants to wag the far-leftist dog?

What did the U.P. leaders have to say about the Bill when it was announced for the first time? The hon. member for Durban (North), who is not present in the House at the moment, stated his views clearly in that same newspaper of 16th March, 1969. It was published as a seven-column article. The pith of his whole argument was contained in the following paragraph—

Why is that hon. member not talking about that this afternoon? Why is he not present in the House? The report states that the hon. member also said the following—

This argument is the same as the one the hon. member for Houghton has just used—

A moment ago I proved from history that this was not the case. This has not happened. According to that hon. member the reason for this legislation is that the Government wants to divert the attention from he fact that, as he calls it, “the edifice of apartheid is collapsing”. What are the consequences of these views held by the hon. member for Durban (North)? They are that the member is, like his party, shortsighted in respect of the long-term solution of the particular colour problem which the Republic has to contend with. They, on that side of the House, are running away from problems. As usual, everything is approached on a short-term basis. This was very clearly illustrated by the hon. member for Transkei yesterday afternoon. They do this in order to be popular and to catch a few votes of uninformed persons. The further consequence is that the hon. member, like his party and his Press, is deliberately opposing this particularly constructive legislation because it seeks to take the already inherently safe and stable Republic another step nearer to permanent peace and calm and further away from that unrest which the United Party and its Press apparently desires so fervently. They do this in order to be able to say, “See there, we told you so!” I am glad the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is back in his bench. I am looking forward to hearing what he has to say in regard to the establishment of the Lebua territorial authority, where he was present. It has been obvious for a long time that, in flaming confusion and throwing suspicion on our bona fides, the United Party and in particular, its left wing, sees the opportunity for making progress at the polls. In doing this they are diligently assisted by their Press organs, as mentioned. The further consequence is that the member, like his party, deliberately keeps silent about the fact that this step is merely one of a long series of steps—all of which have been known for a long time—for implementing the policy of separate development in its entirety. A further consequence is that, in this matter, the hon. member, like his party, deliberately ignores the views of the Bantu themselves. By doing so he has proved once again that to him the Bantu is merely a pawn in the political game of chess. A further consequence is that the lessons taught by the history in this regard are incomprehensible to him and his party.

Another interesting thing is what the United Nations Organization itself has to say about these principles. The Opposition, like UNO, will find it difficult to believe that this Bill clearly carries into effect a conclusion arrived at by a UNO seminar on the subject of “Multinational Society”—about which the hon. member for Houghton has so much to say—held in Yugoslavia from 8th to 21st June, 1965. I refer here to a UNO document, No. ST/TAO/HR/23, paragraph 111. I shall quote the following passage from it—

(Also representatives from Africa)—

(About which the hon. member for Houghton speaks so sneeringly)—

This is what was said at a UNO seminar. This is not what was said at a National Party congress. Citizenship is one of the corner-stones enabling a people to develop such traditions and culture. Admittedly, the question may be asked whether UNO have not already started politics in its proper perspective. This piece of legislation is one of those which does therefore comply fully with UNO requirements. The only difference is that it was born in this country and specifically worked out for the peoples of this Republic. In spite of what the Opposition is saying, this is an exceptional Bill in our constellation of multi-nationality. It brings with it the finishing touches. It is going to create a spirit of voluntary co-operation amongst the Bantu, for if one’s language, one’s identity, one’s culture and one’s citizenship are respected in a tangible manner, one has made a great deal of progress towards gaining permanent goodwill. This is something we should so much like to have in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to follow up on what the hon. member for Pretoria (District) said in his speech, for most of it consisted in any case of quotations from what other people had said. If I had had a tape recorder I could perhaps have recorded as well as he did what was said here. The hon. member said that this side of the House knew nothing about the soul of the Bantu. Is it now the sole prerogative of the hon. member for Pretoria (District) to know something about the soul of the Bantu? Does it differ so much from the soul of the Whites? Then the hon. member also asked why we had not done what Stanley Uys had told us to do. I just want to say to that hon. member that if they allow themselves to be taken in tow by Mr. Piet Cilliers, they must not expect us also to be taken in tow, by Stanley Uys. [Interjections.]

Sir, I want to dwell for a moment on the speakers who spoke before that hon. member. In particular I want to begin with the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration. After that I shall refer to the two hon. members on that side of the House who followed up on what he had said, and who in their speeches displayed the same kind of pattern as he did. They spoke as if they were floating about in space, 120 miles above the earth, at a speed of 17,000 miles per hour, and as if they saw the earth as a whole, as if they had nothing to do with the reality which exists here in the Republic of South Africa. I want to thank the hon. the Minister for having made his Hansard available to me. Unfortunately I received it too late to make all the quotations I wanted to make, but I nevertheless want to refer to a few points raised by the hon. the Minister. I want to agree with the hon. member who a moment ago spoke from this side of the House that the hon. the Minister, during the Second Reading of this Bill, spoke for a long time about the ideological view of the process whereby races become nations, and devoted very little time to the Bill itself. The Minister said, inter alia, yesterday—

Then he continues and states that he regards it as his task “to help establish the number of Bantu nations in South Africa as separate distinctive nations and to assist them in their development into proud national and spiritual havens for the members of those nations, no matter how dispersed they were”. Sir, these are wonderfully ideological words. I shall come to the implications and the interpretation of these words later on.

The hon. the Minister goes much further than this. He says that with this Bill he wants to “nurture the slumbering national ethnic feeling”. He goes even further and states “that the Bantu as such still have their ethnic pride, and that is why it is our duty, the duty of the Whites, to guide them in the process of becoming independent nations with their own identity”. He goes further and states that “they want to identify the Bantu, so that we can see to what nation they belong”. I should like to put a question to the hon. the Minister and the hon. members who spoke after him, i.e. the hon. members for Germiston and Wolmaransstad, who followed such a similar pattern in their speeches. I can see from that that the mantle of the man who is no longer with us, the deceased Prime Minister, who drafted this concept of independent sovereign Bantu peoples, is now being donned by the hon. Minister, Mr. M. C. Botha. As that concept unfolds he is making us feel more and more uneasy, because we see where we are headed with this impossible situation as based on the hon. the Minister’s pattern. I should like to put a question to the hon. the Minister, and also to the hon. members who spoke after him, who accepted his pattern by using the same words and the same kind of language and who paid homage to the same ideology. They are people who want nothing to do with reality. What on earth lets the hon. the Minister think that it is incumbent upon him and that the mantle has fallen on him to lead the black peoples to nationhood, in view of the fact that they came into this country at the same time as the Whites? We claim for ourselves as Whites the right to establish nationhood for ourselves, with all our different elements. We want to build a white South African nation out of all the different white elements present here. But what is the hon. the Minister saying to the Bantu? When it comes to the Bantu, he wants of identify them, and place them in a stud book. He wants to put clips in their ears so that they have an identity which is different to their South African citizenship. That identity is different to the South African citizenship of the Bantu, although according to this Bill they still retain that citizenship. But the Bantu must also have a citizenship of an independent state which must become their own.

Now I want to state the reverse of this position. We are hearing such a great deal of national loyalty among the Bantu, and the desire in them to have their own nationhood. Sir, if matters had chanced otherwise, or if they should within the foreseeable future chance otherwise, what would the position be? Let us suppose that within the next 10 or 20 years we found ourselves in the same position as Swaziland where, owing to external influences or something which I cannot at this stage predict or do not even want to think about, the majority governs the country. Let us suppose the various Bantu groups inter-married and occupied the whole country. They in their turn would then say: “We also want to create a nationhood in the Republic of South Africa. The Whites can get along with 13 or 14 per cent of the land, and we shall keep the rest for ourselves. We now want a Bantu nation here which is peculiar to the Republic of South Africa, but after all, you Whites also originated somewhere. Some of you originated in Holland, some of you originated in England. Some of you are of Jewish extraction, of Scottish extraction or of German extraction. We are now saying to you: The only way in which you will get a vote, and become a member of a nation, is when we allocate your areas to you. We will give you your citizenship in those areas. We will give you a certificate.” [Interjections.] Sir, it will not help those hon. members to shake their heads. This is the reverse of the coin. Let us suppose that if this should happen the Bantus would say: To those who speak Afrikaans, and who are of Dutch extraction, we give the Free State. To those who speak English, we give Natal. To the Jews we give the Transvaal. [Interjections.] They, in their turn, if they are in the majority, will probably have the courage of their convictions sufficiently to say to the Coloureds: To you we will give our Western Cape. This is the reverse of the coin, if the majority group were to govern the minority group. They would, under such circumstances, have just as much right to do so as the hon. the Minister is now arrogating to himself, by saying that these people are proud and that they would very much like to have this citizenship. If one has nothing, one will of course want something like that. If the Whites, not as one group, but individually in relationship to a language group from which he stemmed, were to be asked under such circumstances whether he wants something like that and whether he, for example, as a person of Dutch extraction, wants a certain area, with citizenship of that area, what would his reply be? [Interjections.] Sir, that is not the idea. This side of the House is prepared to accept that those people are as anxious to have citizenship of a country in which they are living, and that they are as anxious to achieve nationhood as these Whites would be. How could it be otherwise? Where is the soul which that hon. member spoke of? Will they not in their souls be the same? In this Bill there is not even a definition of what a Bantu is. Mr. Speaker, you will call me to order if I discuss the clauses of the Bill, but in this Bill there is not even a definition of a Bantu.

Read the very first line of the Bill.

I did in fact read the first line of the Bill. I also read the clauses in which it is being provided that if a person is from a certain area or if he is related to a certain area or person of an area …

You are making a fool of your whole party, apart from yourself.

Mr. Speaker, may I be as courteous and say that the hon. the Minister made a fool of himself yesterday already. He did so long before yesterday, but particularly yesterday afternoon with this compartmentization of the Bantu population. Apart from the definition in the first line, mention is made here of a man who has a relationship with an ethnic group, as defined in this clause, by means of a family relationship or a language affinity. Furthermore, I must take it that he may be married with a person from another group or that he can be a cross between an Indian and a Bantu, or between a Bantu and a Coloured, or between a Zulu and a Xhosa, or between a Xhosa and a Swazi, or whatever the relationship may be. But where is the definition which indicates whether he is the Bantu who belongs to a certain ethnic group? Although we have this broad definition of what we think a Bantu is, it surprises me that we even try to force these people into compartments and to say: “You belong in that ethnic group because you have a certain nature and because you speak their language. Even if you stem from many generations born here in the Republic, you are still a Xhosa, a Zulu or whatever the case may be.” I marvel that we, the minority group, can arrogate to ourselves the right to designate places for the majority group in this country and say that we want to identify them. With identification we want to accept that you are proud that we want to give you a country and that we are giving you citizenship of that country. I want to repeat that if the situation were reversed and we were asked, under the same circumstances, where we would be stateless, whether we wanted this, then we would in the same way have grabbed at the straw in order to say that we have citizenship of a state Where do we get the moral right to do this? The further this policy develops, the more uneasy we become that the whole policy is going in a direction which will eventually make life untenable and indefensible for the Whites here. Do we have the right to do what the hon. the Minister asked at the conclusion of his speech—

Where do we come by the differentiation between the Bantu people living in this country and those living in the reserves? That hon. member asked how we wanted to define the areas. He asked whether we were simply going to use the geographic outline which exists at the moment, or whether we were going to use something else as a norm in order to determine that the one is a Xhosa and the other a Zulu? But then I ask myself whether this was not always the case. Has this not been the case for many many years? Do we not have the Ciskei and the Transkei and the Zulu and the Tswana areas? Since when is it necessary to define the borders so definitely, which this Government never wanted to do before, and then to state that in a certain area there are only the citizens of a certain ethnic group? The hon. the Minister then put a second question—

The hon. the Minister is exposing himself here to criticism from the outside world which could be unparalleled. Biting criticism can be levelled at him because, in order to avoid his problems in this country, because he is afraid to face up to the situation as it is, because he does not want to look reality in the face, he is now engaged in creating artificial nations in order to run away from his problems. We must not make any mistake about this, for the outside world will not regard it in any other light. What will cause it to be regarded in another light? Will they really think that this Government is being honest in its attempt to create nations, but nevertheless want to have everything belonging to those nations? For the Government wants the vast majority of those people to be in our employ here in the Republic. If one begins to quote figures in this regard, which has already been done by one of the hon. members in this House, then one finds that by the year 2,000—30 short years from to-day—there will, by way of a projection. be between 35 and 40 million Bantu. At least 20 million of them will have to live within the Republic as we want to define it. Most of them will be people who would subsequently have been born here, but to whom we have allocated a certificate and citizenship of another place but who are nevertheless working in a white state. This is the tremendous labour force we need for our economy.

Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the hon. member? Will the hon. member tell us whether they are prepared to give an unqualified certificate of citizenship to anyone throughout the country regardless of his colour or race?

[Inaudible.]

Order! The question was not put to the hon. member for Transkei.

Mr. Speaker, I want to reply to the question of the hon. member for Vryheid. Do the Bantu living in his part of the world not have citizenship of the country? Of course they have, and the same applies to the rest of the country. If that hon. member had read the Bill he would have seen that it makes provision for citizenship of a state plus citizenship of the Republic of South Africa and all the obligations which go with that. Then he would soon have realized what the Government meant by this. I want to repeat that those hon. members are living in a dream world. We cannot say it emphatically enough that the hon. the Minister and the people who follow him are living in a dream world. Perhaps we can still shake them out of it? Perhaps they will still descend to the reality of what is happening in this country. What is happening and what will happen here is that we will have to live with 20 million and more Bantu in this country for the next 20, 30 years. We will have to find means other than the ideological means of this Government to deal with them. This Act will cause us boundless difficulty in the future. It will not indemnify us from the criticism of the outside world. We should rather face up to reality and find the best means at our disposal to deal with them while they are here with us in order to give them a feeling of pride in being citizens, or semi-citizens, of the Republic as such, with a patriotic feeling for, and a root, or as the Englishman says, a stake in this Republic. By so doing they can also help defend this country against any kind of aggression, wherever it may come from, instead of being citizens of another state outside our borders.

Mr. Speaker, honestly—and you must believe me, I am an honest man—since I have been sitting in this Parliament I have never seen a person so completely lost. The hon. member for East London (City) is completely lost within his own party. Does the hon. member for East London (City) want to tell me that what he expounded here this afternoon is the policy of his party? Surely this is a tragedy taking place here before our eyes. Not only is the hon. member completely lost within his own party, he is also lost within the reality of our South African politics. The hon. member does not have any idea whatsoever of what apartheid or separate development is all about. But he is not only completely lost in his party; he is not only completely lost within our South African politics; he is also a solitary fighter. He is like a lonely, solitary bull fighting history. In politics one may win an election here and there and a few seats here and there and scrape together a few votes, and one may achieve a temporary opportunistic victory, but a man who opposes the course of history, and does so without knowledge, is damned and lost. That hon. member to-day fought a solitary battle against hard, historical facts. The great significance of his speech is that he ignorantly and stubbornly resists one historical fact or more—one cannot deprive a people of its right to self-determination. What is this Bill doing? I remember very well that in 1957 I addressed a meeting at Linden in Johannesburg. As is my custom I always ask someone to take notes of what I said. It is always a good thing to read what another man thinks and how he interprets what you say. If I were to-day to read out to that hon. member from minutes of what he once said, he will feel ashamed. In any case, in 1957 I, in all humility, uttered these prophetic words. I said that in spite of all the legislation within our master plan, our master plan for separate development would not be completed before we had a separate citizenship Act. This measure is a confirmation and a re-confirmation of an historical, irrevocable law, namely that without citizenship for the individual, one cannot give shape to a national identity. That is what this Bill is doing. With this we are giving the United Party a terrible blow, a slap in the face. We are giving them a slap in the face as far as their stories about integration are concerned. This Bill will take the course of all the other laws we have placed on the Statute Book. It will follow the same pattern, namely vehement opposition by the United Party, invective and spectres being conjured up. I can mention 20 or 30 of those Bills to hon. members. Eventually they support them or reach that stage where they can no longer withdraw or change them. When this Bill has followed the stipulated pattern of the other laws and neither we nor they can withdraw it, it will no longer be so easy to talk about integration. Then they will have to have another story ready.

What has our party been doing since we came into power? We have, with all our legislation along the road leading to separate development, done one major thing: We have prevented the representatives of the number of Bantu here in our economic sphere within the white country from acquiring legal rights. It is this party which prevented political rights from being granted to Bantu here. It is this party which prevented the Bantu from acquiring proprietary rights within the white country. It is this party which prevented the Bantu from acquiring the right to make investments in the white country and preventing them from obtaining physical control over property and business undertakings. Now this party is preventing the Bantu from acquiring, through their presence in the white areas, citizenship rights together with the Whites in their own country. That is our master plan. That party does not have a master plan. They have nothing which serves as a principle for their policy. A party which does not have a base in principles, which does not have a principial approach or construction, has nothing on which to base a policy which has to be functional. The cardinal difference between this party and that party opposite is that they do not have a master plan, whereas we have. We prevented the presence of the numbers of Bantu in white areas acquiring rights for the Bantu, which would by implication cause areas of friction and chaotic social conditions in future. What we did and what they did not do or did not want us to do, is a cardinal difference between my party and theirs. They refuse to have the Bantu forgo what is on the whites’ level of authority. They want to draw in the Bantu on the level of authority alongside the Whites. We with our master plan have always guarded against that break-through, and we have succeeded. It is through us that that break-through was unable to take place and that the Bantu do not to-day share power on the same level with the Whites in the white country. A party which has done this, has done everything for South Africa. We may have our minor differences in regard to mealie prices, telephones, roads and trivialities like that. But what is cardinal to the survival of our people, this National Party has done. This party has seen to it that the level of authority of the Whites has remained intact up to now. The significance of this measure to my mind, and I do not even need to read it, is that it is now giving final shape to the great concept of separate development, with this master plan, as this Bill virtually perfects it and what will follow on it, we are making it for that Opposition as a party totally unnecessary to continue to exist as an Opposition in South Africa. As I was listening to the speech made by the hon. member for East London (City), I asked myself whether South Africa could afford any longer to have an Opposition like that. The existence of that party is to-day a political unreality. Could you imagine our having an opposition in South Africa which could speak with one accord to the outside world in regard to what is cardinal to our existence? However, they are the cause, with the kind of speech that hon. member has made to-day, of that whole horde of enemies overseas, with the cordon which they have drawn about us from the UNO right down to black Africa, which are sitting and waiting for a break-through, should that Opposition succeed in taking over the government. With this measure the Opposition is being deprived of a hackneyed story, namely the story that there are now more Bantu in the white areas than there were before, and that this signifies integration. Before I resume my seat, I just want to say that there can be no question of integration if one has four basic things. There can be no question that a Bantu’s presence in a white area means integration, because he does not possess four basic things. He does not possess any political rights; he does not have any proprietary rights; he does not have any right to make investments, and he does not possess any citizenship. How can anyone be integrated if he does not possess those four basic rights? The Bantus’ presence in white areas makes of them at the very most an economically active group of people within the white areas, where they hire out their labour as agreed upon with their employers. I welcome this measure because it is the culminating point of a whole series of legislation which has been piloted through this House over the course of years. These were all component parts of the great master plan of our separate development policy, and these also form an inseparable part of our concept of our relations politics between White and Bantu.

Mr. Speaker, it is always very amusing to listen to the hon. member for Carletonville on the few occasions that he does make a speech in this House. I want to say immediately that for that hon. member to talk about the hon. member for East London (City) as a lost soul in the United Party, is really laughable, because if anyone can be described as a lost soul in a party, it is that hon. member. I have been here for about four years and I have not been able to find out yet where that hon. member stands. Every week I hear a different rumour. One minute he is a verkrampte, then he is a verligte and then he is going to be an independent. I therefore think it ill becomes the hon. member to talk about hon. members on this side of the House as being lost souls.

There is not a doubt in my mind that the underlying theme of hon. members opposite has been that this Bill is tied up very closely to the success of separate development in South Africa. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad even went so far as to say that the Bill is fundamental to the Government’s policy of separate development. This comes very strangely from that side of the House, because I want to remind hon. members opposite that after 21 years of so-called separate development, all we have to-day is a complete hotchpotch of unviable Bantustans and a massive tide of would-be black workers streaming into the white areas. This makes me wonder whether the Government is in fact serious about its policy of separate development. It makes one wonder too whether in fact the people who support the Nationalist Party are serious or know anything about separate development. It is very strange to find that Nationalists themselves, and Nationalists of standing, seem to query this. I want to quote very shortly from an interview given by a very highly placed Nationalist, namely Professor Coetzee. I would like hon. members to listen very carefully to this quotation. Professor Coetzee said the following:

This is just a sample of what people think today. That is why I seriously want to ask if the people who support the Nationalist Party really know what separate development is.

I want to say that the Bill before the House has been in our possession for a number of months. Obviously we have had full opportunity of studying the Bill and of going into the implications of it. Besides the Bill we had a very lengthy analysis of the Bill by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. After studying the Bill and after having listened to the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, as well as to the speeches of hon. members on the other side, I have had to ask myself two questions. The first question is whether there is anything in this Bill to justify this Bill being introduced. Secondly I must ask myself whether in fact this Bill contains anything at all that can help a better understanding of race relations in South Africa. I want to say that even after having listened to the pious platitudes that flowed so easily from the lips of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, for example, that this Bill is a milestone along the road of building nations in the Republic, that this Bill would add lustre to the history of South Africa, that this Bill should be regarded as a building stone and a corner stone in the process of the development of nations, I realized that this Bill said very little about citizenship. The hon. member for Houghton pointed this fact out as well. In passing I want to say that if this is to be the hon. Minister’s valedictory second-reading speech, as it possibly may be, I believe that it will be remembered, not as a great speech, but as a speech coming from the brain of a person living in a dream world.

Mr. Speaker, I am certain that the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development will agree with me when I say that once a self-governing Bantu area becomes autonomous, citizens living in that particular area will be given documents which they will obviously use within the borders of the Republic of South Africa If this is true, surely the hon. the Minister is guilty of jumping the gun by wanting to issue documents that would have been issued in any case by the authorities concerned. One must ask why it is necessary to have a Bill that will bring in its wake the need for a new, complex administration, a Bill which will make more unwieldy the bureacratic structure under which we are suffering in South Africa to-day. It would seem to me that despite all the assurances we have had from the Government, this Bill will do nothing but symbolize in a new document that the Government regards all Africans outside the Reserves as aliens. There can be no doubt about it at all that the Government’s unrealistic approach to the vital and crucial issue of race relations in South Africa has been stripped of all its trappings and is certainly laid bare by the introduction of this particular Bill. I feel that the Bill is completely meaningless because the Bill provides for giving citizenship to people who are already citizens of South Africa. There is no doubt in my mind that the Government does not realize or does not want to realize that the march of history has made South Africa a multiracial state. To deny this historic fact, as the Government obviously tries to do by introducing legislation of this nature, is to deal in theory and phantasy without any solid foundation.

Let us for a moment examine the process that has led to the introduction of the Bantu Homelands Citizenship Bill. Firstly, the process started with the pretence by the Government that all Africans outside the Reserves were nothing more than labour units and that they were dispensable when their labour in South Africa had ended. There can be no doubt in my mind that this Bill is nothing more than an attempt by the Government to lower the status of the African in South Africa. We then had the phase of the so-called states within a state, or the Bantustan concept. This was an obvious attempt by the Government to clothe the slogan of apartheid in a mantle of respectability and morality. Then we had the latest phase when the hon. the Prime Minister told us that numbers no longer counted in regard to the Africans and that it was only their status and the relationship that counted. Now we have the final phase in the form of this Bill before us in which the hon. the Minister proposes to give citizenship to Africans, Africans who in all probability have never seen a homeland and who certainly have no desire whatsoever to go to such a homeland. Is it then any wonder that the African, and in particular the urban African, regards this Bill with a great deal of suspicion and distrust? I made use of the opportunity during the recess to have discussions with a very good cross-section of intelligent urban Bantu in Johannesburg. I did this because these people are not represented in this House. It is only we, as Members of Parliament, that can vet any legislation which affects their lives. I want to give the hon. the Minister and this Government the assurance that they will not find a single Bantu in South Africa who has learned to think for himself, who will welcome this Bill or who believes that the Bill was designed for his particular benefit. There is no doubt in my mind that the Government, having failed dismally to reduce the large numbers of Africans in the white areas, has now come along with this Bill in order to negate the physical presence of so many non-Whites in the white areas. This is nothing more than a big bluff. I believe too that this Bill as it is to-day should never have come before this House. I believe there are many more important and vital matters that could have been discussed in the time being spent in discussing this particular Bill. I think that the Bill is completely meaningless. I believe the hon. the Minister knows as well as I do that the only type of citizenship that means anything at all, is the type of citizenship that is given to a person by a sovereign independent state. Any other kind of citizenship is not worth the paper it is written on. I feel that we should never have discussed this Bill. I believe the hon. the Minister should never have brought it before this House. I have no hesitation whatsoever in supporting the amendment moved by the hon. member for Transkei, namely that this Bill be read six months from to-day.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) and I know each other very well, and I regret that it always turns out that we have to cross swords. I can give hon. members the assurance that he is not a bad fellow at all. It is just that he finds himself in bad company there in the United Party.

As I listen to the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) and also to the other members of the United Party I come to the conclusion that the United Party has never had enough respect for any citizenship, not even for their own citizenship of the Republic of South Africa. When we wanted to declare South Africa a Republic, they opposed it, because they were not at that stage prepared to be citizens of the Republic. Now they accept the principles of the National Party, as they also accepted many other things, but then they turn around and say that the National Party has in fact taken over these principles from the United Party. The only citizenship the United Party has ever known and for which they ever fought, was the citizenship of Great Britain. In that time they did not even want to grant the Afrikaner his citizenship, for they did not even want to grant him his language rights. Every piece of legislation which was ever tabled in this House and which made it in any way possible for some population group or other of South Africa to go ahead and to develop on its own level so that it could in the long run have a citizenship of its own— just think of the Population Registration and our Coloured legislation—this United Party has consistently opposed. But this question of citizenship for the various ethnic groups in their various homelands which the United Party is opposing to such an extent, is nothing new. This is a road we have been following for a long time now. The principle of this legislation was laid down as long ago as 1912, 1913 and 1914, and since then the National Party has been following that road until to-day we have arrived at the realization of that ideal. I should like to quote from the 1914 Constitution of the National Party. It appeared in high dutch and reads as follows—

This is the National Party—

These are the main features of what was contained in that constitution. To-day it is the final goal of this Government to grant citizenship to these people. The National Party has been following that road consistently. We have been following that trail and we made those promises to every Coloured group in South Africa. We promised each of those groups that they would develop on their own level and according to their own nature and that they would one day be given their own basis. As time passed, we adapted to this. There, in the initial stages of the National Party, when General Hertzog first set foot on this road, he said: “South Africa first! ” We are still following that road, but that road is not only intended for the Whites or for the Afrikaner in South Africa, but for every population group. To every population group it has been said: “South Africa first!” We are still following that road to-day. Along that road we grant to each his development, his rights and his citizenship in his own sphere.

At least the hon. member for Houghton is honest. She says that this is one common people. The United Party will not state this so explicitly, because they believe that race relations in South Africa is like one pot which is boiling over; it does not matter to which side. Their view is that South Africa shall have one citizenship. for Whites, Blacks Coloureds and Indians. Then they come along in good faith. The hon. member for Houghton stands by and sees to it that the integration which she advocates will happen to me and to others because she knows with her principles and her creed that her kind and her people will not in fact mix with them. The United Party is living in a dream world when they come to those principles of theirs. It is their principle for example to have eight Bantu representatives in this House. as well as a few in the Senate. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) told us a moment ago that he had consulted someone and that these people were not in favour of this citizenship. Surely he will not deny that negotiations are being conducted on Government level with the leaders of these people in regard to this self-government. These people accept it, and this is the way they want it. Did they consult anyone when determining the United Party’s policy of Bantu representation in Parliament? Whom did they consult in that regard? What People did they ever consult in regard to their Colour policy? Did they ever consult anyone of those races, or did their proposed policy ever meet with the approval of those race groups? Did they ever find out whether those people were satisfied with it? The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) said that we were living in a dream world. However, the United Party is fast asleep. They consult only themselves and never South Africa. They have never done so and they have never established anything for the population groups of this country. They have never acknowledged this, and in the earlier days of the first National Party Government the National Party had to come up for the group of Afrikaners so that South Africa could also have sovereign independence. This the United Party also opposed. It is the National Party who fought for that group of Afrikaners so that they could have their own language. They opposed the Republic; they opposed the severing of ties with the Commonwealth. They have constantly opposed everything which constituted benefits for some population group or other. That is what they are still doing to-day. When their numbers have dwindled further after this election they will, when these people already have their citizenship, and are satisfied with, say that we have stolen their policy.

This legislation we have before us is as it it were the zenith of our separate development. In 1959 we granted self government to the Bantu. How on earth can an ethnic group have self government, and how on earth can they identify themselves if they cannot recognize their own people? We as citizens of South Africa, and by that I mean the Whites, know where our people are. We know what they are doing and we have control over them. How can there be a state or a population group which must govern itself but does not know where or who its people are? With this legislation of ours it is clear, surely, that these people will come into their own as far as their own survival among their own people is concerned. The United Party would do well to listen to what I am saying now. Do the hon. members know what our guarantee is? Our guarantee is the fact that these people have their own political rights in their own homeland and among their own population group. This guarantees to us something which the United Party has never been able to guarantee, and that will mean their downfall. If they should ever come into power in this country, it will mean the end of the Whites. This legislation makes provision for that, and it is the guarantee to us that the Bantu will never receive any political rights in the white areas in white South Africa. This legislation affords them citizenship in their own homelands and not in our homeland. That is what is so important to us.

The hon. member asked here what this citizenship was worth to these people. I now want to ask them what the citizenship for the same Blacks from Botswana, Lesotho, Swaziland and Malawi is worth to them here among us. They are doing the same work in the white areas as our own Bantu. Surely we can identify them and their countries of origin know where they are and who they are. Precisely the same thing will happen here. The only difference will be that they will in addition receive the guarantee of the protection of their citizenship of the Republic. These other people do not even have it. The population of the entire Africa consist for the most part of Blacks. After all, they are various countries with various Governments, and each inhabitant of each one of those countries has his own citizenship. Does the United Party begrudge these people the pride of having a nation? Do they not want that person to be able to give you that citizenship certificate when you ask him who he is and where he comes from, which shows that he is a Swazi, a Malawi, a Zulu or a Transkeian? Do they not want him to be able to say that a certain territory is his country and that those people are his people? If those hon. members are perhaps not proud of their own citizenship, grant another population group the right to be proud of theirs. That is why this legislation is a milestone and I almost want to say the final milestone in our history of separate development.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Mayfair who has just resumed his seat accused this side of the House of having no respect for the citizenship of another race group. I can just inform that hon. member that I was born in South Africa and that I have never known any other citizenship than that of the Republic of South Africa.

Who fought for South Africa?

His theme was that we should grant the same citizenship to the other nations in South Africa. These national relations ran like a thread through all the speeches which came from that side of the House in this debate. I shall return to this tribal nationalism which is being worked up here. The hon. member told us that with our policy we are living in a dream world. At the end of this debate, which will still carry on for a long time, namely to 22nd April, he will realize that this policy of theirs is in reality nothing but a chimera.

You are not coming back.

I can assure the hon. member that I shall return with an increased majority. The hon. member for Germiston also put a question when he spoke last night. He asked us why, if we believed in a development up to a provincial or federal status, we are then opposed to this Bill. The hon. member’s ignorance is tragic. We have a provincial system at the present moment in the Republic of South Africa, but does a Transvaler or a Free Stater or a Natallian or a Capetonian, as I am, have separate citizenship? Do we have a dual citizenship in this country? Our views in the various provinces are different; we have other interests, but we have citizenship in South Africa, and we expect that under the system which we offer to the public, to the races and nations in South Africa, this system will also apply in regard to race relations.

May I ask the hon. member whether he wants the Bantu to have the same citizenship in South Africa as the Whites have?

They have it at present.

Sir, it is very easy to reply to that for they have it at present, and under this legislation they retain that citizenship. They are simply getting dual citizenship now.

And all the rights as well?

No, that is the chimera of National Party policy; they do not see the policy for what it is. At the present moment the Bantu have South African citizenship of the Republic.

And they are retaining it.

But not the same.

It is precisely the same. His passport is the same as that of the Whites, except that his photograph on the passport is a black photograph and not a white photograph.

Will he have the same rights which go with that?

If he goes overseas, he has the same rights. The hon. member can ask the hon. the Minister of foreign Affairs about that.

But if they remain here?

That hon. member will be given a chance to speak. Sir, after having made a thorough study of the White Paper on this Bill, two questions arise, and the first question is this: How far must this policy of separate development be allowed to go if it goes hand in hand with this policy of the development of nations towards sovereign independence, which has repeatedly been announced on platforms and in this House and in the Other Place? In his introductory speech the hon. the Minister spoke about a national government for every nation, and only last week in the Other Place the hon. the Minister said, on 5th June—“our policy is a policy of supremacy (baasskap) for every nation; every nation must be master in its own country”. Now I come to the second question which arose here, and it is this: How safe is dual citizenship? And when I put this question, I am coming closer to my part of the world, to the Ciskei and the Transkei. We know that there was mention in the past and that there would be mention in the future of an amalgamation of the Ciskei and Transkei; we know that the Transkei has already received citizenship and that the Ciskei is now going to receive citizenship; we know that it could very easily happen that these two Xhosa-speaking tribes or areas—there are various tribes in the area—can amalgamate. After 21 years of government and of apartheid and of separate development, the people of the Transkei and the Ciskei—I am not speaking only of the Bantu now but also of the Whites—did not up to now know precisely what lies ahead for them in those areas in the future. Here, Sir, a question arises for this policy of dual citizenship is the policy which the European countries have been applying during the last few decades in Africa. It was stated here by various members on the opposite side that the European countries withdrew and granted sovereign independence to the states long before they were ripe enough for it. But they could not prevent this. After they had granted them dual citizenship and after they had made the promise, they could not prevent the flood, and with their withdrawal and with their neglect of the responsibilities of the Whites in Africa, they opened the gates of the sluices of chaos and communistic infiltration. During the last few decades we have seen, from the north to the Zambesi in Africa, civil wars. coups d’etat, starvation and military controlled one-party states. But the states of which Europe got rid, are all areas far across the sea from the homeland, they are not within the homeland as these areas are which we are now debating, and in that I see a great danger. I am sorry that the hon. the Minister of Defence is not here to-day because I wonder whether the military historians of the Department of Defence were consulted in this matter. You must remember—it is also mentioned here—that the old Protectorates did in fact receive their freedom from Britain and that no difficulty was experienced with them. But, Sir, these countries are totally surrounded by the Republic of South Africa; they are economically dependent on this state of ours. But the Transkei now to a certain extent has its own government; it has received the promise of self-government and George Matanzima, according to a report in the Express of 23rd November, 1969, talks about a possible army for the Transkei. He said—

The difference between the Transkei and the old Protectorates is the following: The Transkei has a coastline.

Are you afraid of that?

Yes, I have children who have to grow up in this country and who have to live on in this country; I have no other place in the world.

It seems to me you are a coward.

These interjections coming from behind here prove the military ignorance of certain hon. members. It is to-day possible to land anywhere along our coast. You heard what the hon. the Minister of Defence said the other day when he made a statement here in regard to Simonstown; he told us about Russian activities in the Indian Ocean. The Transkei area is along the Indian Ocean. What consultation has there been between our military authorities and our Bantu administrations in this regard? What prevents people, if they have their own citizenship, and their own government, and a promise of sovereign independence, from making a unilateral declaration of independence? That has been done in history. What prevents the Transkei from amalgamating with other States? Sir, I am definitely opposed to this Bill. I agree 100 per cent with the hon. member for Transkei. In conclusion I just want to say that whatever the hon. the Minister does at this stage—whether he continues and pushes this Bill through, or whether he withdraws the Bill unconditionally, we will win the election on 22nd April precisely because of this legislation which is now being considered by this House.

The hon. member for Albany must excuse me if I do not follow him up here in his incomplete argument. However, I want to invite him to come to my constituency when he is in Pretoria. I have a few first year students there who would not mind exchanging a few ideas with him now and then and giving him a little help where he has lost the trail.

Mr. Speaker, in respect of the citizenship of territorial authorities it is, in the first instance, important to realize that traditionally speaking there were actually no particular rights of citizenship among Bantu people; there was, in fact, the position of a chief and his subjects, bound to that chiefship authority by an obligation of loyalty. A chiefs prestige was built on the number of subjects he had. by the extension thereby given to his authority; the more subjects, the greater the chief, and it was the endeavour to bring people together, in tribal contexts, in the largest possible groups. It is also interesting to realize that although the core of each Bantu tribe consists of people related to the chieftain’s line through several generations, there were, however, people present in every Bantu tribe who did not genealogically fall within that chieftain’s line; i.e. that as the history of mutual tribal quarrels and conflict developed, people from one tribe broke away in order to link up with another tribe, even though that tribe lived very far away at times. This mutual interchange of individuals between tribes was far greater in extent than we normally realize. To-day it is still discernable in a Kgoro analysis of any tribe that one would care to undertake. However, it is striking that when people sought affiliation within an extraneous tribe like this, it was always within a culturally related tribe. Therefore, in a Tswana tribe one would originally, traditionally, have found a tribal core related to the chieftain’s line, but alongside that also a reasonably large number of extraneous groups who came from other Tswana tribes to this respective one—in the course of years; but in a Tswana tribe you would not have found a group of people of Venda origins. They were foreigners to them, not only tribally foreign but also culturally foreign. Thus one would find the same thing in the formation of other tribal groups, be it the Venda, the Zulu or whatever other tribe. Mr. Speaker, this matter is important because it points to the fact which we are systematically recognizing in later years, i.e. that among these people there was originally an awareness of the mutual cultural ties which are usually not generally recognized.

In the second place, one must remember that in the homelands to-day a change is taking place in the direction of western culture. This is unavoidable. The Bantu cannot escape the effect of the example set by western culture. When one studies the traditional culture in the homelands, one finds the norms of correct behaviour to be very well known, because they go back to the traditional cultural basis prior to the advent of the Whites. But what is found in practice in the homelands deviates so distinctly from this norm that one is compelled to say that one still knows the norm from one’s contact with books, but that owing to changes one cannot recognize this in practice any more. Conversely, in the urban areas, from our studies, we normally only know things as they are in practice, the things that prove that an excessive change took place in the direction of western culture, but we know nothing of the norms that parents in urban areas teach their Bantu children, and this is ignored in studies. However, what does remain fixed is the fact that these norms are still basically Bantu norms. They are ethnic norms. In urban areas it is found that Tswana children are brought up by Tswana parents and Zulu children by Zulu parents. This means that, although a process of westernization has taken place in the homelands as well as in the urban areas, this is perhaps very much more in evidence, and also very much more advanced, in the cities than in the homelands; but there is nevertheless a large ethnic consciousness among people in the urban areas and ” also in the homelands, by virtue of the territorial authority ties. This is very important, because in the modern circumstances in which we live we can at present make use of that phenomenon as a basis for development. It is a traditional basis which did not have full expression in the past. Thirdly, the traditional expression of political ties has brought this matter to the fore. Traditionally speaking there was never the full political embodiment of ethnic units in the total context, as one finds it now within the context of territorial authorities. For example, the so-called Zulu empire first developed, if one can speak of a point of development, with the advent of the Chaka empire in about 1816, and in the ensuing years Chaka devastated Southern Natal, Northern Natal, South-eastern Transvaal and North-eastern Free State, so that there was a large stretch of territory upon which his authority impinged, but the Zulu territorial core was actually surrounded by a large stretch of burnt earth where nothing could have lived, so that from Durban up to the Umzimkulu in Southern Natal, a distance of 100 miles and even more, there was no human being, animal or maize plant to be found. Yet the sphere of influence of Chaka’s kingdom is described as having stretched from the Lebombo in the North to the Umzimkulu in the South and the Drakensberg in the interior. This merging of the Zulus, whom Chaka moulded into one solid unit, was destroyed in 1838 by the advent of the Voortrekkers. The Zulu national consciousness today builds itself, therefore, upon a history of about 18 years, or one or two years more, but not much longer, and it is now interesting to ask what would have happened to the Zulu government under Chaka if the Voortrekkers had not come. The chances that this kingdom would have crumbled, as was the case before Chaka, are actually very clear. But the most important aspect we find in this history is that the Voortrekkers came with a particular philosophy of life, that they made an end to the barbarity upon which Chaka built up his kingdom, and that, by their coming and their actions in subsequent years, they left the Zulu nation a superb ideal to which they can still hanker back to-day and upon which they can also build to their advantage.

I want to mention another great tribal unit, i.e. the Northern Sotho, the Pedi kingdom of the Eastern Transvaal, which was established by chief Thulare in the year 1800. Thulare governed by means of marauding expeditions which he carried out upon the surrounding tribes, subsequently subjecting them to his authority. He did not exterminate them, but they had to pay tribute to him. He and his successors governed at full length and controlled the greatest part of the Eastern Transvaal up to about 1827, when Umzilikazi destroyed them. The final destruction of this kingdom only came about in 1856 with the Sekukuni War. I just want to tell the hon. member there—he perhaps does not understand my terminology—that what I mean by “destroy” is what it meant at that time. Therefore, the Northern Sotho image of nationalism has a history covering a mere 56 years. In the ensuing 100 years it was never again restored to its full glory. It is only now, as for the Zulu, that there can be a national expression of that consciousness, and this is being offered firstly, by the territorial authority ties and, secondly, by the linking up of definite citizenship to that ideal which, as I have already indicated, exists in the homelands as well as in the urban areas. On the other hand, one can indicate precisely the same pattern as far as the Venda and also the Shangaan-Tonga are concerned. However, I shall not pursue my discussion of them, but I particularly want to say a few more words about the Tswana. In respect of the Tswana who, according to territorial authority, extend from the district of Bronkhorstspruit in the North to about Kuruman, one must note that they have never had a total political context. In point of fact they came from the Magaliesberg in the north in about the year 1400, about 250 years before the Whites, and those 250 years were, for the Tswana, a period of division, of tearing one another to bits, of conflict and calamity, so that as a result there were small tribes such as the Barolong, the Hurutshe, the Baquena and the Bakgatla, all of them splintered units within the Republic, as well as tribes found in Botswana, such as the Bamangwato, Ngwaketsi and the Baquena. If one now takes a closer look at the large tribal ties among the Tswana, for example the Bamangwato, one notes that the Bamangwato came into being in about the years 1720 to 1730, and they remained in existence up to about 1824, when first Sebetwane and later Umzilikazi knocked them flat and destroyed them, and only in later years did they return to their old dwelling places and try to restore their old glory. They are beyond our borders, but it is, however, a good thing to point out how these people never had great national ties and never gave complete political expression to it. The greatest of these ties that remained in existence was that of the Southern Sotho. In looking at the history of the Southern Sotho we also find that, actually, they were merely bits and pieces that Mashesh gathered together in his mountain stronghold in Lesotho in the year 1822. But their national history also only goes back about 150 years, half of the existence of the Afrikaner nation.

The Transkei is actually a unit without any common political expression. The southern area, the area of the Gcalekas, has much closer Xhosa ties with the tribes of the Ciskei, who are also Xhosas, but through British administration and administrative tie, from the previous century up to to-day, a period of almost 100 years, was brought about, which also found expression in a general consciousness and recognition of a Transkeian context, so that when to-day one places those people in particular relationship, it is, as history goes, not so much of a mistake as some people sometimes think. All this is to point out that the granting of citizenship is an extension from, in the majority of cases, a political-national consciousness for short periods in the past, but above all it is a recognition of a cultural and ethnic tie which is now being given a new dispensation at a higher level than was the case with the old relationship between subject and chief. In the establishment of citizenship, recognition is of course now being accorded by the Whites, in terms of the principle of separate development, to national consciousness which could otherwise only have found expression by way of violence —as has been said on occasion, i.e. that the international boundaries in Europe are lines of conflict that have become cold. People living on either side of those boundaries direct their thoughts away from those boundaries. The Frenchman directs his thoughts to Paris and the German to Berlin. The boundary divides them because it was the contact point in conflict between their two peoples and their two cultures in the past. In South Africa we do not have such borders of conflict, because the white man came as an intermediary factor in this crystallization of national entities. That is why the policy of separate development is sometimes referred to by some people as an experiment in nationalism. It cannot be any experiment, because if an experiment in the laboratory does not succeed, one flushes the results down the toilet, but if it fails where people are concerned one has to continue working with the material. We do not experiment in South Africa; we do what we know to be correct, as the past has taught us. It must be remembered that nationalism is a stimulus with two supports. One could describe nationalism as a group of peoples striving towards self-expression, and this means that nationalism, in the first place, reveals itself as a consolidation against an enemy, and therefore one finds that under so-called national endeavour in Africa, one has a large variety of tribal units linked together in a unified front against white colonial authority in particular. Unfortunately, as soon as this common enemy disappears these units evidence a tendency to crumble, as the old conflict elements between the units, which linked together temporarily, once more assume significance. A really significant national sentiment can only continue to exist if it also has a second support, i.e. a common pattern of life, a common culture, common values and common norms. This was also the case in our own history where the losing of a war at the beginning of this century did not entail the destruction of our national consciousness. Those mutual links constitute the core of nationalism. It is this element in respect of the Bantu peoples in South Africa that must be recognized by the Whites, when this cultural linkage is taken as the incentive for the granting of citizenship. On the other hand, the Opposition’s argument throughout their debate was built upon the existence of a common Bantu language in South Africa, which, if we must see it as a political entity, will reveal a national expression in the face of a common enemy. In the first instance they will reveal it not only in the face of the Whites on this side of the House, but also in the face of the Whites on the other side of the House. And if the Whites should thereby vanish from South Africa, it means that the only common cultural tie which the remaining Bantu will have is the hundred years of contact they had with Western civilization, and nothing more; and then the old seed, the old differences found between these Bantu groups, will come to the fore again, and I can give you many examples of it.

Therefore I want to say that this legislation is a very good piece of legislation, which is truly a firm cornerstone in the policy of being able to handle the contact situation between Whites and non-Whites, and I very gladly support it.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech which has been given by the hon. member for Rissik, who has just resumed his seat. One matter which has been highlighted by the address of the hon. member is the conflict which exists in the minds of the Government side in so far as their approach to the Bantu of South Africa is concerned. It is a conflict of ideology based on the national grouping of every person within the boundaries of the Republic of South Africa which conflicts with the realities of the 1970s. It is a conflict of thought which one finds difficult to understand. The historical survey which has been given by the hon. member is interesting. It is interesting as a historical survey of the tribes in South Africa over hundreds of years. But where does his thinking equate itself with the industrial life of 1970? When I listened to some hon. members their concept would appear to be that the Bantu population of South Africa should be utilized during daytime in sophisticated industrial set-ups, using sophisticated modern machinery and telephones, while at night it is expected to go back and use the tom-tom to communicate with his own people. That is what is happening here.

You are talking nonsense.

I am glad the hon. the Minister said that. I had an opportunity recently through the courtesy of the hon. the Minister’s department to visit one of the homelands. I visited Sibasa and the adjoining homelands. It was a first visit of mine to the Transvaal homelands. I of course knew the Transkei and the other Cape Provincial homelands. When I went there with a view to seeing for myself what was happening under the policy of this Government I want to say immediately that where the Government was able to adapt the Bantu people to the practical aspects of what one might call a Western way of life, they have been highly successful. In so far as the agricultural college and the trade school at Sibasa are concerned, one could not help but be impressed, not only by the degree in which the Bantu were absorbing practical training, but also by the dedication of those who are teaching and working with them. One also found that the Bantu can absorb and were absorbing assistance in so far as soil conservation and farming were concerned. But the pace is the pace of an ox-wagon in so far as the Government is concerned in getting over that training and that self-sufficiency for the Bantu people When one listened to the hon. the Minister in introducing this Bill and in his emphasis on the tribe as the unit, one wondered how on earth that can be done when one comes to modem government. One can deal with a tribe admittedly in its surroundings and in its primitive state. But that is gone in so far as the Government’s dealing with these people are concerned. While they want us to accept that the Bantu’s whole approach to life is one of primitive tribalism, they themselves in so far as Turfloop, the University College of the North, is concerned, have abandoned their initial approach, namely to provide education within the tribal atmosphere of the Lapa. That is gone. The Government realizes that in 1970 you cannot educate the Bantu within the atmosphere of the Lapa.

When did we do it?

But that was the whole basis. The hon. the Minister and his predecessors waxed eloquent in this House …

About the Lapa?

Yes. The whole setup was going to be tribal. There would be lovely small rondavels with a surrounding courtyard in which students could according to tribal custom have their debates and their discussions. In a very short time the Government found that that was not realistic. Now one finds modern buildings at Turfloop. I do not say that it is wrong. I am saying that they are realistic. The student residence is no longer a rondavel with a lapa round it. The residence for the students is a five-storey building. Is that so in order that the students can live according to tribal customs and habits or is it that the Department of Bantu Education has realized that we have to get away from tribal thinking to modern thinking when it comes to the education of the Bantu people. That is what is happening. When it comes to the thinking of the political future of the Bantu people, then all this education, all these facilities and all these three-storeyed libraries must be forgotten and the Bantu must be returned to and stay within the fold of the customs and habits of his ancestors of whom we heard from the hon. member for Rissik. When one notices the inconsistencies of the thinking of the Government in this respect, and when one is asked to accept this type of legislation of tribal nationhood because it is acceptable to the Bantu people, what are the institutions that have been foisted upon them by this very Government? Here again one has seen in person and on the cinema screens the induction of a territorial authority. I do not think anybody can seriously suggest that the induction of a territorial authority is a tribal occasion or a tribal custom. It has all the pomp and ceremony of the opening of a Western parliament. The hon. the Minister is accompanied by high ranking Officers. And what are the symbols handed to them? They are not tribal symbols. They are handed a mace and the robes of Office of the chairman and secretary.

Did you want to give them a knobkierie?

That is just what I am getting to. The hon. member for Pietersburg realizes that. If we accept this legislation, we should be handing out knobkieries. I have no objection to the handing out of the mace. But let the Government be consistent. The only thing that was primitive or tribal that I saw were the gifts of tom-toms and so on which were handed over at the induction ceremony. As far as the institution of a territorial authority is concerned, there is nothing further removed from tribal custom than the very territorial authorities that are being established. Nothing could be further removed from tribal custom than the territorial authorities. I welcome it. I believe that that is right. I believe that we should be doing that and that the people of South Africa of whatever colour or race should be trained and educated as rapidly as possible within our democratic way of thinking. One cannot put the clock back and tell these people that they should not have a South African outlook but a limited tribal outlook. If we are doing that then surely we are building the very basis for conflict within the borders of the South African Republic. That will be the result of emphasizing apartness instead of oneness as citizens of South Africa.

That brings me to the question of this citizenship which is here offered. We as a country have been through a period of evolution in so far as the acquisition of citizenship is concerned. I want to agree with the hon. the Minister when he said during the introduction of the Bill that citizenship is an evolutionary process. I think we in South Africa all know that. We all know the evolutionary process which has brought us now to a state where we have a South African citizenship which is respected and honoured by everybody in South Africa. But during the course of that evolution we had, for instance, the statements that were made, that we do not want citizens who only have one foot in South Africa and who are merely satisfied to exploit South Africa. It was said that we want citizens whose love in the first instance is for South Africa; South Africa first. Those are correct sentiments. But what is this legislation doing? Is this legislation creating citizens of South Africa whose love in the first instance is South Africa and for whom South Africa comes first? Or are we creating citizens who, because of our dependance upon them in the economic life of this country, will be here merely to exploit South Africa for economic benefits that are available to them. We are creating under this legislation a type of citizen who might be equated to that type of person who comes and settles in South Africa, establishes a successful business, has all the benefits of life in South Africa and is roundly condemned by both that side and this side for not taking out South African citizenship and accepting the responsibilities attaching to it.

Now they are manufacturing them.

As the hon. member says this is what is now being manufactured. I in my industry or the industrialist must now have in his factory persons who owe a loyalty, not to South Africa first and South Africa only, but loyal to some territorial authority or independent Bantu state as and when it is established. I want to suggest that the fallacy of this Bill becomes more apparent when one looks at the basis upon which citizenship is to be determined. We in South Africa, as I think in most countries, have citizenship which is based on four fundamentals. Firstly, we are citizens of the State because we are born within the State. Secondly, we are citizens of the State by descent. Our parents are citizens and we become citizens by descent. Then there is a third basis of citizenship, namely registration. Briefly it means that if a person is born outside the Republic of parents who are South African citizens he can become a citizen of South Africa by registration. Fourthly, we had citizenship by naturalization, namely the voluntary act of the immigrant who comes to the country to make his life here and voluntarily applies for naturalization. Those are basic and fundamental approaches to the question of citizenship. But what do we find in the Bill before us? In this Bill we find only one of the generally accepted grounds for citizenship and that is the first one, namely the Bantu persons born within these territorial areas. That is a normally accepted principle, according to the lex soli, as it was called, namely the law that one becomes a citizen of the country in which one is born. But what of the other grounds? Where, in any nation or in any country, is citizenship acquired by domicile, that is to say, mere residence in that country? Does the mere fact that I happen to live in a country make me a citizen of that country? That is what is provided for in terms of this Bill. It contains a concept of law and citizenship which is unheard of in any other part of the world, as far as I am aware. I shall be interested if the Minister can tell me of one country in the world where citizenship is acquired by domicile.

Does that matter?

The hon. member asks me: “Does it matter?” surely, when one is legislating for citizenship, one legislates seriously and not purely on the basis of domicile? I shall indicate later what I think this Government is trying to do under the guise of citizenship.

The third basis upon which citizenship can be determined in terms of this Bill, is if persons speak the Bantu language used in a particular area or belong to an associated linguistic group or speak a dialect of such language. A Bantu linguist now runs the risk of being categorized in any one of the nations of which he speaks the language.

Then we come to the fourth ground of citizenship, which to me is quite unintelligible by any standard. Paragraph 7 (d) of the White Paper (W.P.2—’70) reads as follows:

Sir, let us take this to its logical conclusion. If a Zulu who was born in the Western Cape and who lived in Langa found himself in the company of Xhosas with whom he became very friendly, and in the course of generations, they found common interests and took part in the same recreational activities, the Xhosa would immediately run the risk of being a citizen of Zululand and the Zulu would run the risk of being a citizen of the Transkei. One finds it difficult to take seriously the use of the word “citizenship” in relation to this type of thinking. I can find no reason for a citizenship based on these fallacious grounds. One only exists, and that is of birth, but hon. members know that their great theory of the separate nations will come tumbling to the ground if they have to base Bantu citizenship on birth only.

Our circumstances differ from those in other countries.

I am glad the hon. member has said that our circumstances differ. They certainly do, but they do not differ when it comes to the question of loyalty to South Africa. Hon. members opposite are dividing our citizens, and I throw back at them the arguments that they have used about the evolutionary process of citizenship in South Africa, to which the hon. the Minister referred. They are trying to create a divided loyalty amongst the black people of South Africa.

The divided loyalty is there.

Sir, I do not accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Algoa that the divided loyalty already exists. I believe that we are very fortunate in the degree of loyalty shown by the non-white people to South Africa, in preference to loyalty to their tribes. I think we are very fortunate, and I believe that one of the most valuable contributory factors to the peaceful co-existence which we in South Africa happen to enjoy is the loyalty of the non-white people to the South African Republic. But what do those hon. members want to do? They want to chop it down and tell these people that their loyalty is now transferred to their territorial authority or to their self-governing homeland

Do you want them to have a double citizenship?

No, Sir, the hon. member does not understand me. I said that the Minister, with this Bill, was creating a double citizenship. This is something which was the curse over South Africa’s history for many years. It led to strife and difference in this country. We have got over that. Evolution has taken place in that regard in South Africa, We now have a South African nationality and a South African citizenship. This Government is now creating that very same situation by introducing this Bill. [Interjections.] Sir, the Government goes further and creates a worse position than existed before. The double citizenship in earlier years existed because people came together from different countries. But what is the Government doing now? Those who are together must now be separated outwards to create a double citizenship. That is what the Government is doing. I can only think that what the hon. the Minister really wanted to do was to give some further attention to the Population Registration Act. He has now got mixed up with citizenship. As you will realize, Sir, the opening definition defines a Bantu person as being a person who in terms of the Population Registration Act is a Bantu.

Sir, I want to add to the words of warning which have come from this side of the House. This thinking on the part of the Government and this step which is being taken can only do one thing, and that is to hasten the evolution of a nationalism within the black races of South Africa. It will create a tribal nationalism which will grow. Once that evolutionary process is on the move, we shall be hard-put to stop it. We say: Do not let it start. Let us realize that these people, as they are part of the economy of South Africa, are also a part of the population of South Africa, and they owe a loyalty to South Africa and not to these created homelands and territorial authorities which are the obsession of this Government.

Order I Before calling on the next speaker, I wish to point out that up to now I have had to listen to considerable repetition. I want to point out to hon. members that they must raise new arguments; otherwise they must resume their seats.

Mr. Speaker, I tried to listen attentively to the arguments of hon. members opposite, inasmuch as it is possible to do so in practice. I must come to the conclusion that one of two facts is true. Either those hon. members did not study the Bill properly, or, in the second place, they do not have much of an understanding of what it contains. This reminds me of the anecdote the hon. member for Middelland told here the other day about the old days when Bills were read as many as eight times. I wondered whether this was not still necessary for the members on that side of the House, so that they could at least understand something. It was very clear from the hon. member for Green Point’s argument that he fails to appreciate the basis of this entire Bill. We proceed from the standpoint of the multi-national composition of peoples in the Republic of South Africa. Previous speakers on that side of the House also lost sight of the fact that we are dealing with the multi-nationality of the inhabitants of this country.

Sir, in 1948 the National Party came into power with a very unequivocal mandate. This mandate was to apply apartheid, or separate development, or multi-national development, in this country. It is just as well that we came into power in time to implement that policy. Now one asks oneself what the word “separate” means. Separate from who or what? We have many peoples here in the Republic and those peoples cannot all be assimilated. They are all different peoples and one must recognize them as such. The National Party recognizes the diversity of the peoples here in our country, in contrast to the United Party, as they have proved once more in their yellow booklet. They speak of a federation of communities in which each race group must obtain representation in Parliament. That concept of race groups, as they put it, is actually very vague and confusing. It is surely a law of nature that people should try to be a part of their own people, and to be like their own people. We all know the Bantu. The Bantu is an emotional type of person. He also has certain urges in him and one must recognize those urges. He wants to be a member of a people just as we all want to be members of a people. However, the term “citizenship” has thus far been foreign to the Bantu. Although he inherently felt that he was a member and a citizen of a particular group, that term was still foreign to him. There had to be a gradual process of education in order to bring this term and these concepts home to him. This is also one of the points that hon. members opposite do not notice.

When we think of the two concepts, citizenship and people, we must remember that these two concepts are actually inseparably linked. When one speaks of a citizen one immediately thinks of a people and when one thinks of a people one immediately thinks of the citizens of that people. In order to be a citizen of a people one must first recognize that that people exists. There are various requirements that must be met when one gives recognition to a people and to citizenship. In the first place one thinks of the fact that a people and the citizens of a people must be aware of their own independence. The various Bantu peoples have already proved this during the previous centuries. They have their own languages, their own morals, their own customs and everything that goes with that. In the second place there must also be systematic co-operation towards a common goal. There must be a common aim among those compatriots. When people no longer value their ethnic ties so highly, in other words, if they do not associate them with citizenship, then it has actually become dangerous for that people, and not only for that people but also for its neighbouring peoples. Thirdly, we also involuntarily think of the fact that a people can only become an independent people if it is a certain kind of people and is at a particular stage of development.

What is actually very important for a people and the citizens of that people, is that they should be aware of a natural environment. Together they must have experienced those natural stimuli. They must have experienced them together and counteracted them together, because in that way they are more closely bound to one another, to a people and the citizens of that people. The more a people developes a national self-awareness, the more will the people actually initiate co-operative undertakings. The citizens of a people are actually very closely linked together when those citizens clash with the members of another people. In speaking here of a clash, I do not actually mean a clash on a battlefield. It could be a clash in many spheres. Just as the feeling of individuality of a people is developed by that so will the feeling of individuality of each citizen be further developed by it. The continual conflict among the various peoples has helped to preserve that purity of their race and to bind those citizens more closely together. Instead of further deviation taking place in respect of citizens who have deviated, or are in the process of deviating, they are now called up once more by their own people to form a common bulwark against the influences of other peoples, and that is why I speak of the mutual clashes of the peoples. The citizens must not be imitators of other peoples. They must be supporters of their own people.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to mention the ethical basis which binds the citizens of a people closer together. This is the moral struggle of a self-conscious people which strives with moral integrity to eliminate everything that is detrimental to the forming of that people’s character. Only when each Bantu person in the homelands and in the Republic sees that he can best fulfil his calling in striving to be a citizen of his own people, not striving to be a citizen of another people or perhaps striving to be a white man, can he fulfil his calling to the best of his ability. If he will strive to be a citizen of his own people, racial hatred and unwilling servitude will eventually disappear and make room for moral individuality. They will then imbue their white compatriots with greater respect, and only then will friction and suspicion make room for cooperation and respect. Every citizen must have a national self respect which lies in the appreciation and development of an individual language. It is very important, and this is where each citizen will benefit by obtaining citizenship within his own people. They must develop an individual literature and culture and they must thereby be able to repeat their national legends, national anecdotes, folklore and deeds of heroism from generation to generation. This is also why the continuity and the recollection of their life history is so important. Without a certain measure of continuity in their actions, customs and traditions from generation to generation, such a group of people eventually easily disintegrates into separate little groups. We must try to avoid that in respect of those people. There must be a memory among these people. This memory must be there to transfer their history from generation to generation. A person cannot actually become nationally self-conscious if there is nothing from which to become nationally self-conscious. There are also other factors which bind citizens more closely together. We think of economic, intellectual and aesthetic motives which are all coupled to that.

The granting of citizenship to the various Bantu peoples within the Republic contributes a great deal to the finishing touches of the policy we began with in 1948. When one considers all the requirements, the necessary pride and self-respect will be cultivated in those Bantu in order to extend that citizenship for them, as is expected of every people. On the other hand we know that before 1948 the United Party was moving on a very shaky foundation. If the National Party had not come into power in 1948 I wonder what chaos would have developed, had we not intervened to put everything right again. Everything would have drifted, because the United Party had the policy of “letting things slide”, a mixing of the races which would have made it difficult to raise the cultural level of every people and every member of every people in this country. The granting of citizenship will now actually be an inspiration and an incentive for the Bantu to co-operate in their own interests and in the interests of the Whites in this country and to build towards a common goal. The United Party had the policy of “let things develop”, and this is also how it is stated in their booklet. One reads it very clearly there. This would have led to the resistance of the Bantu, beginning to weaken, and the resistance of their neighbours would also have begun to weaken. This would have been to the detriment of all the Bantu peoples and of the white people here in the Republic. In order to lay this citizenship legislation before the House today, it was necessary for the National Party to have taken this course, step by step, since 1948. Everything fits together like a large jigzaw puzzle. In now looking at the parts again, we shall see that this picture is fast beginning to take shape. Perhaps by the end of the century this puzzle will have been completed, and the Opposition will join us in reaping the benefits of this policy of separate development.

Over the past 22 years we have already had, before this House, several pieces of legislation that have led to this important legislation of to-day. We call to mind the Population Registration Act, an extremely important Act; the ethnic classification of people, the passbook system, tribal authorities, the clearing up of the slums or the slum residential areas and the Bantu townships that developed. Everything led to this important legislation before the House to-day. We also think of the border areas development, the Promotion of the Economic Development of Bantu Homelands Act. These are extremely important pieces of legislation. I also call to mind the funds created by the establishment of the Bantu Investment Corporation and the Xhosa Development Corporation. This is important legislation which made it possible to give those citizens the necessary self-respect to work for the benefit of their own people. However, for that purpose legislation such as the abolition of Native representation in this House, and the establishment of separate universities for the various non-White peoples, was also necessary. Everything formed a part of the policy of the National Party. We must take note of these very important words of Dr. Verwoerd (Hansard 1962 Column 70 and 71)—

They can obtain this greatest possible degree of governmental separation by appointing their own people there to govern them and to implement their legislation. That is why we have already recorded the system of Bantu law and custom throughout the years, so that they can apply it. Now the Bantu are there to apply their own administration. They choose their own people from their homelands and from their own citizens in the white area to continue their development on the basis which I have now outlined here to the House.

Mr. Speaker, I would have thought that the hon. member for Potgietersrust could take comfort from the history of the Afrikaner people themselves. The hon. member pleads for this measure and this whole policy because, he says, in this way we will be able to create “die nodige trots en selfrespek by die Bantoevolkere”. They will be able to have their own culture, ideas and selfrespect. But, Sir, the Afrikaner people see themselves—the Nationalist Party vision certainly does—as a separate people, apart, with their own culture, traditions, way of life and everything else; but they are living in a country at least with their English fellow countrymen, the Coloured and the Indian people. They do not each have their own homeland. Why are hon. members so insistent that this is necessary in order that these Native peoples should be able to have their “eie nasietrots” and so forth. It will be perfectly possible for them, indeed, under the United Party policy. They will be recognized as separate ethnic groups. They will be recognized as separate ethnic groups in the homogeneous areas which they occupy. There will be no attempt to break down their differences as they are. This may occur with the passage of time, but they will be as free as the Afrikaner people are to maintain their own identity in this country of many people. This whole approach of the hon. member for Potgietersrust lies at the very foundation of so much that has been argued from the opposite side.

This measure is obviously a further step in the Government’s policy. I belive it is more a theoretical step than a practical one and has far greater theoretical significance than it will have practical significance. But it is basically a step on the road to sovereign independent states, which is in accord with the Government’s policy. I have no doubt that within the bounds of the possible, they will attempt to give effect to this and take us a stage nearer to sovereign independent states. It is interesting to note the following. We have come to know that we get these measures from the Government in pairs. This is the one part of the pair. The other one was the Bantu Laws Amendment Bill, which we have just passed. The Bantu Laws Amendment Bill, of course, on its very face, and everything about it, shows that it amounts virtually to a deprivation of the rights of the Native peoples in this so-called white part of South Africa. This, in turn, is meant to be the quid pro quo which they get. What do they get? They get a certificate, which will probably confuse anyone who attempts to read it, with very few exceptions. As the hon. member for Mooi River said, it will probably lead to considerable unsettlement. This measure will clearly cost a good deal. It will undoubtedly overload our Civil Service, which is already overloaded. I believe that there will be grave unsettling of the traditional peace quiet and status quo as a result. It is a further step towards sovereign independence. We have sketched very clearly and truly the dangers that there are at the end of this road. We remember how Dr. Verwoerd told us in this House that these states would be entitled to have their own armies, that they would be able to make treaties with whom they please, whether they were communists or not, and it would be no concern of ours. When one realizes that this was the thought of the conceiver of this policy, one also realizes how he failed to appreciate how extensive the communist danger was and was going to become. In this period of time the Government is much more aware of those dangers than then. But they are prepared to go forward despite these known dangers. They are prepared to move towards independence at a time when we know the great mass of the citizens of these territories will be outside their so-called homelands.

I think it is time again that we stood still and examined whether there are present any of the basic necessities for success of this policy, whether there is a sufficient foundation laid for them to have any hope that it could succeed. I believe the answer is clearly “no”. I should like to deal with this question under three heads. Do we have or can we hope to have in future a sufficient territorial separation? Secondly, can we win the non-reserve Native, as well as the reserve Native for this particular idea? And thirdly, do the reserves provide a sufficient national home, a sufficient area of land for this purpose? Let me say that the first two, particularly, are the criteria which are laid down by thinking Nationalists in regard to this policy and its hope for the future. Then I should like to deal shortly with alternatives to this policy. First there is the question whether we have or can hope for a sufficient territorial separation. Everyone must concede that this is a basic question. The Government themselves appreciate that you have to have a certain degree of separation before anything of this kind can have validity. Thus, in regard to the Coloured people, they say that the question of homelands is out. There is much too much interlocking or “ineenstrengeling” or whatever word one uses. There is much too great a mixing of the people on the particular piece of land which is South Africa in regard to the Coloureds. We know this is so. In the United Kingdom there are English, Scots, Welsh and Irish, particularly English, Welsh and Scots. They are so intermingled that nobody ever seriously thinks that they should become completely independent sovereign states. Occasionally one finds a person or two with an aberration of nationalism, and a bit of pressure in that direction, but it very soon evaporates before the hard fact of the way the people are disposed upon the land which is the United Kingdom. And so, in regard to the Coloureds, even the Government can see that this is not possible. I think they can see this as far as the Coloured people are concerned. There is no need even to speak of it in regard to the English-speaking people of South Africa. This is clearly a very basic aspect, when one is considering establishing nation states. It is interesting to find that the Nationalists have been very divided on how great a degree of separation is needed. I now speak of territorial separation. There is the well-known approach of Dr. Verwoerd at the time of the White Paper on the Tomlinson Report that parity would be necessary at the end of the century. We have had the statement from a man like Dr. Geyer some years ago that the Native reserves should at least be able to take up half of their peoples. His statement reads as follows:

This was said by Dr. A. L. Geyer as Chairman of SABRA in 1963. We know that wrestling with this problem other speakers on the Government side have said that numbers were immaterial. How well do we remember the former hon. member for Heilbron telling us …

Order! I want to call on the hon. member to come back to the Bill.

Sir, I hope that I will be able to convince you that I will stay well within the terms of the Bill with what I have to say.

The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to develop the point that we are considering here the basic questions for success of this whole step which we are taking, namely to give citizenship to these people, and I maintain that there is not a sufficient basis for separate citizenship. If I am careful, I hope you will be tolerant with me. We remember that the former hon. member for Heilbron said that whether there were 5,000, 50,000 or 5 million people in the white areas it did not matter as long as one accepted their policy. In other words, if one only has regard to the citizenship aspect one sees that they were going to give citizenship to these people, no matter how many were in the white areas. If that was done, they argued, no more would be needed. One wonders if that was so, why indeed was there any effort to get these people back to the reserve areas. One realizes that when that effort is being made, they know that you have to get a certain ratio of physical separation for this policy to make sense. We would like to know from the hon. the Minister what ratio does he consider in the present time is necessary so that there shall be a possibility that this idea of separate nation states can work? We know how the figures have been running completely against the hopes of the Nationalist Party and we know how to-day the forecast is that there will be 25 million to 30 million Bantu in the white areas at the end of the century. This question of whether we are too interlocked in a country to make an attempt at establishing separate nation states completely abortive is a most important one. It is one which I suggest the facts of the situation quite clearly answer against the policies of this Government.

I now come to the second question to test whether this policy has any future. This question is whether the non-reserve Natives can be won for this idea. The hon. the Minister, in his speech at Potchefstroom in March, 1969, indicated a new emphasis in Government policy. He said in effect that it was rather the process of “ontvoogding”, the removal of trusteeship, and the anchoring of these people to their homelands which was vital and which was the main point. He put it this way:

He therefore clearly stated that to be an absolutely fundamental point for the success of his policy. What do we find in that regard? We have had the testimony of the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) that many thinking Natives in Johannesburg have no interest in this idea of the homelands. We know that there have been statements from the Advisory Board of Soweto in the past that they believe they will be in Soweto until doomsday. This can be said of all the other 8 or 9 million Natives in the white area. I want to quote to-day the testimony of somebody that the hon. the Minister will be more inclined to accept than that which I have so far quoted, namely that of a supporter of his policy, Dr. Rhoodie. Dr. Rhoodie, in his book “Apartheid en Partnership” at page 331, says the following:

That is precisely what we are trying to prevent now.

The hon. member for Algoa says that that is what they want to prevent, but what I am saying is that in fact the urbanized Natives are not interested in these states to be established. I am citing to him the fact that an expert in this field and a supporter of his way of thinking comes sadly to the conclusion that the urban Native in increasing measure is indifferent towards the idea of self-governing ethnic enclaves spread over South Africa. I quote further:

Mr. Speaker, now the hon. member for Algoa says: “Yes, this is what we want to prevent.” They want to prevent it. However, we as realists must consider what the chances are of their being able to prevent it. What are their chances of being able to win these people for the idea of these distant Bantustans to be? I believe that if the hon. member for Algoa and other members on that side of the House will reflect seriously, they will realize that they are fighting a losing battle here. The fact is …

What do you want to do with those people?

Let me deal with this first. The fact is that after 20 years of the Nationalists trying to cause the enthusiasm of these urban Natives to grow for these areas, it has not grown. Indeed, I believe it is declining.

How do you know?

I say it on my own knowledge. But I say it above all on the authority of Dr. Rhoodie. Indeed, I believe this is the experience of all observers. We know how the European tends to leave the platteland and tends to come into the towns. Once he is in the towns it is pretty difficult to shift him out again. He may have a certain sentimental affection for the farm and the country life, but one will not be able to move him out. He becomes another man in the cities. I think exactly the same process is occurring in regard to our Native people. They are moving into the towns. I believe they find the towns much more attractive places. First of all, they receive far better rates of pay in the towns. They can therefore, live on a higher standard. The bright lights attract the Native people just as they attract us and our wives.

You know better than that.

I make these statements on certain authorities including the authority of Dr. Rhoodie. I ask hon. members opposite who are unbelieving, including the hon. member for Brakpan, how many traders have they been able to persuade to go back to these areas? One can count them on the fingers of one’s hand. How many doctors want to go back to these areas? One can count them on the fingers of one’s hands. Perhaps the traders particularly, get a few favourable commercial opportunities there. However, hon. members on that side of the House would have as much knowledge as anybody else of the difficulty of persuading people to go back Jo the platteland.

Another point which is important in discovering whether these people can be won for these Bantustans to be, is the material advantages to which Dr. Rhoodie refers in his book. The material advantages of remaining linked to South Africa, in a federal system maybe, are far greater for these people than it can ever be when they are in an independent State in the future. The material advantages are so much greater that I can honestly not accept that a man in his senses will want to forgo those for the chance to be able to return to a homeland which he probably will not live in most of the time. Let it not be thought that the Native peoples of these reserves themselves are completely in favour of this policy. What we have heard of the statements of Native leaders in those very areas is that they accept what is being offered them. However, they want much more. They differ very, very greatly with many aspects of Government policy. They want to be able to have the right to come in to work. They want to have ownership there. They are opposed to the endorsing back. It is quite incorrect for hon. members opposite to claim that the reserve Native has been won for this policy.

My third point of test is whether the reserves can be said to provide a sufficient national home or base upon which to raise a nation? The Transkei is a fairly solid unit. I would think that there is a sufficiently solid base for that purpose. However, in regard to the others, if one looks at them, one gets the impression that they are looselying areas to a large extent. I should also like to cite the testimony of another expert in this regard, no less a person than Professor J. H. Moolman. Professor Moolman was a member of the Tomlinson Commission. This is what he said when he spoke to the SABRA Conference in October, 1967:

That is to say other than the Transkei—

Therefore, in my opinion, we have the fact that the very foundations are not present for a further step forward. The very foundations for adequate physical separation, the attitude of mind and willingness to accept these Bantustans, and the very territorial base upon which a State is meant to rise, are not present. I say in all seriousness that this is time to call a halt and to think again.

One realizes the Government is on the eve of an election. One realizes that the Government has not so far been prepared to see matters in a different light. One realizes that this is obviously a step in their general direction towards sovereign independence. However, I do not believe there is any enthusiasm for this measure on that side of the House. I did not see those benches in the House packed when the hon. the Minister rose to announce what he claimed was a far-reaching step. I do not believe that this measure will get much prominence from our friends opposite in this election.

In this connection I want to call in evidence the testimony of Dawie of Die Burger. I do not have a cutting of that particular article with me, but I hope hon. members opposite who may have seen this, will confirm what I say. Dawie, not so long ago, said that there was a definite reluctance on the part of Nationalists to state at their public meetings their conception, their policy for race relations in South Africa. He said that it is very seldom that a member makes a full statement of the Nationalist’s race relations policy when he is speaking to his electors and the public. This, I believe, is true. One never hears them stating it in full in the way that one finds United Party people stating their policy.

I now, very briefly, come to the question of the alternatives. I say at once that if any hon. member opposite thinks that we wish to eliminate all differences, they are quite wrong. We accept that there are considerable differences, not only as far as the four main groups in South Africa are concerned, but also as far as the Native group is concerned. And we accept that these differences will continue. We also, of course, accept that there will have to be growing self-government for these reserve areas, these Bantustans to be. Indeed, it is particularly simple to allow self-government in a homogeneous black area. We will certainly follow that policy and, as it has been stated here, it will be extended to provincial powers or may be beyond that. This all forms part of our idea of a federation to handle the future South Africa. It shall be a federation with a central parliament which will hold the control of affairs. Hon. members opposite are apt to say that this means integration. They throw up their hands in the air. Let us talk straight to each other on the subject of these terms. When the hon. members opposite stood for separate representation for the Coloured people in this House, it was called separation. Now, when we stand for it, it is called integration. I can give them some encouraging views. Some leading thinkers on the Nationalist side consider the idea of a federation …

But we have never said that there can be Coloured persons in Parliament.

You had representatives for the Coloured people in this Parliament. Your policy was representatives for the Coloured people in this Parliament. If that is the test, then why call it integration when we stand for it that the Natives should be represented by white people in this Parliament? What is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander.

What about the

Coloured representatives you want to have in this Parliament?

The Coloured representatives …

Order! I think the hon. member must come back to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am trying to answer the various interjections. I just want to say that the notion of federation has been accepted by leading thinkers on the other side as not involving integration. I refer to no less a person that Mr. Willie van Heerden. He wrote in the December 1960 issue of “Optima” under the heading “The Road to Separate Racial Development in South Africa,” and I should like to quote:

I am sorry, the chapter is too long and the hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Speaker, you twice found it necessary to instruct the hon. member who has just sat down, to return to the Bill. Consequently I do not want to follow him outside the ring. What the hon. member said here at times this afternoon and what all the other hon. members said, clearly spelt out one great truth to us. The hon. member for Mooi River gave us a sermon about doubting. What has happened in this debate is that there is no longer any doubt about the hollow story that we have taken over the policy of that side. There is no longer any doubt in anybody’s mind about this matter. This debate has shown us the difference very clearly. Those stories of theirs that we have taken over their policy have now been proved groundless. The test in this Bill, which clearly states the cardinal principle of the policy of the National Party, has proved this.

In 1965 Dr. Verwoerd said very succinctly in this House that our policy is separation and that the core of the policy of separation is political separation. Our present Prime Minister has again told us that we have irrevocably taken the course of separation. This policy of separateness and of separate development is not a barren, mechanistic policy. It is not separation purely for the sake of separation, but separation with a positive content. The positive content is to give people development and rights which you grant them in terms of the moral basis of this policy. The principle of self-determination is inherently contained in this policy.

The hon. member for Pinelands told us that they would still take differences into consideration, but that they were so scared that we would allow these people, with the status they are now acquiring, to develop into a danger. They wanted to keep them together, which would supposedly ensure our safety. I want to quote from page 3 of New Nation of February, 1970. This magazine gives a summary of the policy in respect of these peoples as set out by the hon. member for Hillbrow. He speaks of the “basic realism of the United Party”. I quote—

He speaks of an “amalgam” here, in other words, an amalgamated mixture of dissimilar elements. This is the definition of “amalgam”.

In the course of the debate hon. members have referred to dual citizenship and its dangers. We heard about dual citizenship which would be in conflict with the tradition of the Afrikaner in this country. There is a great difference. In the past dual citizenship meant the following for the South African, and for the Afrikaner in particular. It was an obstacle on the road to his freedom. Here is the difference. This status which is being given to these peoples is not an obstacle, but the starting point, the point of departure towards becoming free. This is the difference between the two.

We have two basic questions before us. The one is: Is the principle of this Bill properly founded in law? In the course of the debate this afternoon there have been references, innuendoes and questions such as “How do you obtain a status through domicile?” It has been asked where on earth this was found. The second question is: Is the legislation politically sound and constructive? These two principles form the basis. We would have liked replies and constructive contributions to these questions, but the main speaker on that side of this House astonished us here last night. I must honestly say that, from a political point of view, the hon. member’s performance amounted to a sledge-hammer peroration with many war-cries, much noise and many blows in the air. From the legal point of view his speech was a vacuum performing an egg-dance.

That is an ugly thing.

When the Minister quoted an authority for his information, the hon. member made the blunder of admitting that he had never heard of the Journal of Contemporary Roman-Dutch Law.

I did not say that.

He called the Journal of Contemporary Roman-Dutch Law a “Dutch authority”. It is a South African law journal which has been in circulation for more than 20 years. Here we have a legal practitioner who is not even aware of its existence.

I did not hear what the Minister said.

This concept of a local citizenship is not a new-fangled innovation. It is not something which South Africa has thought up and which is found nowhere else in the world. It is not even alien to constitutional law in general to differentiate between the citizens of a state. Sir, I have here a book by a world authority, Dr. Hansjörg Jellinek. The book has a very long title: “The Automatic Acquisition and Loss of Citizenship in Terms of Rulings in International Law and Simultaneously a Contribution to the Doctrine of State Succession.” I quote what Dr. Jellinek says on page 40 of his book—

This is a world authority, Sir; he has nothing to do with apartheid, and he is stating the general rules in this connection.

But, Sir, we must draw a distinction—and hon. members on the opposite side have not done this—between nationality or national citizenship which has significance externally, in international law, i.e. in the sense of the law of nations, and, on the other hand, local citizenship, which does not enjoy recognition in international law, but which nevertheless has a proper basis in constitutional law. This is one basic concept which hon. members on that side apparently refuse to understand. If hon. members ask me what I base this on, my reply is that I find numerous examples in the Western world. Sir, I mention to you the case of Malaya. The Union of Malaya consisted of several principalities. Each principality had its own local citizenship over and above its British citizenship. Until 1957, before the Federation of Malaya became independent, they had a local citizenship, and here I refer to an authority, Clive Parry’s Nationality and Citizenship Laws, the second volume, page 1151—

In other words, just like these people, in spite of the retention of nationality for the purposes of international law, they will enjoy a status, the status of local citizenship, which will afford them certain rights, but which will in no way detract from their nationality. In other words, this is not an unknown principle.

Sir, we also find variations on this theme. It has been said here that this breaks up people. I mention to you the Swiss variation on this theme, and they are surely a highly civilized nation. I refer you to an authority, “The Federal Constitution of Switzerland” by Hughes. Sir, I want to draw your attention to the fact that there is a difference in the Christian names; this makes a very big difference to the authority. I am referring to Christopher Hughes. This author draws a distinction among three types of citizenship in Switzerland. He states—

This refers to citizenship in international law. But along with this we find “cantonal citizenship”—

This is what we find in Switzerland. But there is a third form, namely “communal citizenship”, and this has nothing to do with municipal electoral laws—

And then, strikingly enough—

the homeland document—

Here we have a variation, in the case of one of the most advanced nations of Western Europe, of the concept of a local citizenship with strong sentimental links to which the people are attached, links which bind them outside their canton or “commune”, and which contain for them the promise that, although they do not live there, they may go there one day, that it is their home.

Provincialism.

Sir, my time is limited; I should very much have liked to exchange a few words with that hon. member, but I think that when we are discussing this type of subject, he should rather keep his lid on.

Sir, people will perhaps say to me: Very well, you have now been overseas, but what about South Africa? I now come to the authority, Prof. Heine, who was quoted by the hon. the Minister last night from the Journal of Contemporary Roman-Dutch Law. This is very interesting. He wrote this critical analysis with reference to the Transkei Act and he stated—

Here we again find the statement that was made by Dr. Jellinek. And then he states this—

He is referring to the Transkeian Constitution—

He then continues, and bear in mind that this Bill is based on the Transkei Act—

And then, with reference to all these dangers that have been seen, we have this significant quotation—

Sir, we also heard here this afternoon that this legislation does not comply with the basic requirements for the acquisition of citizenship, and the question of domicile was then mentioned. This learned author analyses the Transkei Act and then states—

He goes on to say—

Sir, we have been asked to mention an example of any country in the world where one can obtain citizenship through domicile. That hon. member is forgetting his own country. I refer here to Verloren van Themaat’s Staatsreg, page 373 (translation)—

And those are all your United Party people.

Sir, as far as South African authorities are concerned, I want to point out to you that these learned experts too find no fault with the concepts in the Transkei Act. and they go further than that. They mention the example of Canada, in British constitutional law, which had its own citizenship in 1910, but which did not receive international recognition for it and whose citizens were not recognized in England as British subjects. We have all these variations of this concept. In law, therefore, we can find no fault with this. The dual citizenship bogey has no foundation.

Sir, with reference to the view taken by that side of the House, I now want to ask this question: Have they acted constructively? They have shown that they have no arguments against the legal principle of this Bill; their opposition is to our policy of apartheid. What they are in fact saying is this: The U.P. do not grant the Bantu peoples in the Republic the perpetuation and the development of their own language and cultural community. They do not believe that the Bantu have a national pride and a national sentiment of their own. The U.P. do not believe that the Bantu people can undergo a separate political development; they do not support the establishment of territorial authorities; they refuse to grant the Bantu recognition of their own identity along the road of their own citizenship with its emotional value and sentiment, because all these factors are in conflict with the U.P.’s dangerous race federation plan. In the few minutes I have left. I want to ask them this question, with reference to their statement that the non-white peoples of this country are not in favour of this plan: When did they consult the leaders of the Bantu peoples about their federation plan? Sir, I shall present to them the evidence of a Bantu leader, as recently published in Mr. Stanley Uys’s column in the Sunday Times of 1st February, in which he quotes a speech which a Transkeian Minister made at the University of the Witwatersrand.

Read the whole speech.

I would need another half-hour for that. [Interjections.] No, I am not running away from it. He delivered a speech which, seen from his point of view, was a very good one, and although I cannot fully agree with what he said, he gave a definite reply to the U.P. on their plan. This is the one aspect to which he gave a decisive reply, and this is what he said—

In other words, their own people—

And now?

Mr. Speaker, this is how the Bantu feel about the policy of the U.P., and therefore we must follow the policy of this side in order to give them citizenship, a future, a homeland of their own in which to realize themselves politically.

He goes on to say this, and in so doing gives us an insight into the soul of the Bantu—

This is what the Bantu look forward to— “a sense of belonging”. But what do we get from that side of the House? Only two carrots, in fact. They tell the Bantu that there will be one large common fatherland, the “amalgam”, common citizenship and a common central government with eight representatives for them. But how will these eight representatives be divided in practice? After all, we have the urban Bantu, who will perhaps have more than one council, and we have the differences, the “diversities”, which the U.P. want to recognize. Will all these peoples such as the Zulus and the Xhosas have the same number of representatives? Who will have representatives and who will not? This is the one carrot which they hold out. Then they have another carrot for the Whites. They say that they will maintain this position for ever, but it has already been admitted on that side that “it will be inevitable” that changes will have to be made. In 1965 the hon. member for Yeoville said he believed that the representation would not always remain White. But what we have never had a reply to is this: In 1965 Dr. Verwoerd repeatedly asked the Leader of the Opposition across the floor of this House whether they would be prepared to maintain that sovereignty over the whole of South Africa by force. They only use the word “maintain”. When the Leader of the Opposition replied, at the time he said, “with all the means at my disposal”. Dr. Verwoerd asked whether this included force, but to this day they still owe South Africa a reply to that.

I have had the opportunity of listening to quite a few speeches from hon. members opposite on this subject and I have come to the conclusion without a doubt that if this is the best hon. members opposite can put up to further their cause within the next few months, then I have no doubt whatsoever about the outcome. I want to put a few questions to the hon. the Minister before I go further into this Bill. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister who first thought of this Bantu Homelands Citizenship Bill? Who asked for it? I am asking hon. members. Where did it originate? Did the Bantu ask for it? Did any Bantu ask for it? Did the white people ask for it? No, now there is no answer. Apparently no one asked for this Bill. Did the late Dr. Verwoerd ever suggest a measure of this nature? Did he in his vision of independent states for the Bantu people suggest that eventually a Bill of this nature would be brought before this Parliament to give every Bantu living in the so-called white areas citizenship? No, it did not come from Dr. Verwoerd. Did Dr. Tomlinson in his report suggest that a measure of this sort be introduced? I am putting these questions to the hon. the Minister and I would like a reply, whether Professor Tomlinson suggested in his report that there should be a Bill of this nature. And why was this Bill brought before Parliament on the eve of a general election? It is quite obvious that it was brought to Parliament and is being rushed through on the eve of a general election, not in the interests of the Bantu or in the interests of the white people outside, but only in the interests of the Nationalist Party sitting here. If that is not so, why can they not answer my questions? Yet now, on the eve of the election, we have another Bill dealing with Bantu, more and more laws forced on to the South African Parliament dealing with Bantu, and the more apartheid laws there are, the more economic integration takes place. I often wonder, if we had a yardstick and we could measure by some means or other the time spent in this Parliament discussing the Bantu, as against the time spent discussing, and working out problems in the interest of the white man, what we would find? I think most people in South Africa would be alarmed because there are already many who wonder how much time is spent on the Bantu and how little time in the interest of the Whites. So much of it is unnecessary legislation. It is not all that important. This legislation is not in the interest of the Bantu. It is only in the interest of the party opposite.

I want to deal briefly with clause 2 (b) in the White Paper. It says that as in the case of the Transkei, a positive value is placed on citizenship, namely the exercise of franchise rights in the territory concerned, apart from other benefits, duties, rights and responsibilities which may follow on such citizenship. It refers to these rights and duties which may follow on such citizenship. I can say right here and now that these sweet words will not bluff the Bantu people. In the first instance, when they were asked to apply for the franchise in the Transkei under the new Territorial Authority, their Parliament, they were very sceptical at that time, and to this day I know of many Bantu who are still not registered as voters in the Transkei, Bantu living on the borders of the Transkei. They have refused to register as voters because they were and still are afraid that if they registered, they would be sent back immediately to where they are supposed to belong, and they were afraid to do that. Now a measure is being introduced to give them a certificate of citizenship. Apparently it is not all that important because they will not have to carry these certificates at all times, such as is the case of having to carry their identity books. I cannot see why at this late hour of this short session a measure of this nature should be introduced. This Bill is only to smokescreen the failures of the Nationalist Party, because we see now, on the eve of an election, the culmination of years and years of failure on the part of this Government.

Order! That point has been made already.

The hon. the Minister mentioned last night only some of the Acts which have been placed on the Statute Book. The hon. member for Carletonville this afternoon mentioned that there were some 20 Bills which have come before Parliament dealing with the Bantu. The hon. the Minister mentioned the 1959 Bill dealing with the promotion of self-government, the 1963 Transkei Constitution Bill and the 1968 Bill dealing with South West Africa. We have had years and years of legislation, and what have they got to show for it to-day? Nothing at all. Many people have been bluffed by all this legislation, and not only that, but a lot of time and of the taxpayers’ money have been spent here. The hon. the Minister mentioned also last night a certain book which he read and studies, entitled South African Nationality, and he quoted from this book, but that was only one man’s opinion, the opinion of the author. I found it very interesting, but here I want to quote from another magazine, a fairly old one printed in 1892, here in Long Street, Cape Town. Dealing with this very issue, it mentions what President Reitz had to say about the Native problem. The headlines are, “The Native Question”, and this is what he said—

Then he gives six points which I feel are very interesting, and I would like the hon. the Minister to listen to the six points which President Reitz maintained contained the solution to the Native problem some 70 years ago. Hon. members opposite are always very keen to quote from President Reitz and President Steyn and President Kruger, and I believe they should be interested to hear what President Reitz had to say. His first solution was to get rid of the tribal system: secondly, to abolish the chieftainships. We said that if there are no chiefs there can be no responsible leaders and no rebellion can be successfully maintained without a central figure around whom the people may rally. His third point—I am only giving the headings of these six points—is that “by the sweat of thy brow thou shalt earn thy bread”, and with a view to this end. to break up all locations, great and small. The fourth one is to suppress by law all heathen rites which are undoubtedly and flagrantly immoral and degrading. The fifth was to discourage polygamy, and the selling and buying of women which it involved; and the sixth one I believe is very significant.

I hope it is also relevant.

Yes, it is very relevant to this subject. It is to adopt the principle and maintain it steadfastly that there shall be no equality between the aborigines of South Africa and the people of European descent who have made this land their home. He went on to deal with the franchise and said—

And then he ends up by saying—

Where do we find ourselves to-day under this Nationalist Party? Granted, for the last 22 years we have been under their rule, but much has happened within the last 70 years since President Reitz had a say in affairs and was ruling, and a lot of changes have taken place in the philosophy of the Afrikaner. This new philosophy has been successful in as far as it has won them votes, but the day has dawned when the people have now woken up to the fact that very little is taking place to further apartheid. The hon. the Minister mentioned last night in his second-reading speech, and this I found interesting, that “die Bantoe sal nie vreemdelinge wees in die blanke gebied nie”. Those were his words. They will no longer be strangers in the so-called white area. Sir, I am left guessing as to who the Nationalist Party in fact regard as strangers. I am pleased that the hon. member for Carletonville is in his seat, because not so long ago I asked him a question at a public meeting in Queenstown. We were dealing with this very issue. I asked him how the franchise would work in regard to Bantu living in the so-called white areas. I asked him whether this would involve postal votes. I think the hon. member will remember. He was on the platform and I was asking him questions. That night he stated categorically that we must regard every Bantu in the so-called white area as “uitlanders, vreemdelinge of besoekers”. Those were his words.

What is wrong with that?

Then, last night, the hon. the Minister said that we must not regard them as “vreemdelinge”. They are not strangers, he said. Now whom are we to believe?

You are playing around with words.

The hon. member’s leaders are playing around with words. We want facts. We must come down to earth and find out just what they mean.

Order! Could the hon. member come back to the Bill? That is the most important thing.

I recall the time when there were vans being driven all over the country taking photographs of the Bantu for their identity books. Now the Minister has not explained to us what procedure would be followed once this Bill is placed on the Statute Book. We should like to know who all these photographers are going to be, and who is going to appoint them. We should like to know what this is all going to involve and what it is all going to cost the white taxpayer. If it is not going to cost the white taxpayer any money, who is going to pay for it? this is what we want to know. I do not want to repeat what has already been said. I will bring up some new points; and here is another issue which has not yet been mentioned. All the Bantu living in the so-called white areas are going to be given citizenship in their so-called homelands. The Xhosas are going to be given citizenship of the Transkei, the Zulus will have citizenship of Zululand, and so on. Meanwhile these people have all been born and bred in the so-called white areas. They know no other place, and many know nothing about a homeland. How does the Minister justify his philosophy in this regard, when one bears in mind all the white people living in the Transkei, Zululand, Lesotho, Swaziland or anywhere else? Those people living there can be and many are South African citizens, regardless of their language or ancestry. Now we come to the interesting point. I want to ask the hon. the Minister: When this Bill becomes law and every Bantu becomes a citizen of a foreign state, who is going to undertake the issuing of passports should any of those Bantu want to go overseas?

The answer is in the Bill.

I want the hon. the Minister to answer this question.

The answer is in the Bill. You do not have to wait for a reply.

I have read the Bill. [Interjections.] Sir, here is another point which has been mentioned here, and outside this House before, but I should like to mention it again now. When people become South African citizens, some members, particularly on that side of the House, object to them speaking about the land of their ancestors as “home”, whether it be France, Germany or Britain. I include myself amongst those who object to this practice. What is to happen to the Bantu when he gets his citizenship? What are hon. members opposite then going to think and say? Will he be entitled to speak about a land or state which he has never seen or heard of as “home” when he lives here in another state? What are hon. members going to say then? They must give us these answers because we want to know the answers for the election pending. After all the years of warning from this side of the House, warnings of the dangers involved in all these laws that have been passed, only the other day the hon. the Minister of Labour, when discussing the problem in Lesotho, said that the trouble there was Communism. Communists are the instigators of all the trouble in Lesotho, he said. If it is so easy for communists to reach a country like Lesotho which does not have a coast-line at all, how is this Government going to protect our shores from communists, when a large section of our eastern seaboard and comprise an Independent State? I ask these questions and I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister will reply to them, sooner or later we must have the answers, and members supporting this Government will have to give them. Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation in supporting the amendment moved by the hon. member for Transkei.

Mr. Speaker, we listened to the debate and after some discussion amongst ourselves, we came to the conclusion that one hon. member, who represents a constituency in East London, will not be returning to this House. Now that this hon. member has spoken, we are sure that two hon. members from East London will not be returning. The hon. member for East London (North) continued in the ineffectual attitude which the United Party has displayed in respect of this legislation. He too simply proceeded to make a Committee-Stage speech. From the main speaker down, their speeches have dealt with clause upon clause. He in turn expressed concern about the legal validity of this citizenship. The hon. member for Odendaalsrus made an excellent speech here. He proved that this citizenship has a perfectly sound legal basis. But what has the theme of the United Party been throughout this debate? Their theme has been that this legislation is unrealistic. It is not practical. They said that it was unnecessary and asked why we had to have it. This is precisely the attitude adopted by the United Party. We are three and a half million Whites on the southern tip of Africa, while there are approximately 220 million non-Whites in Africa as a whole. Africa consists of about 48 states, many of which were established in the past decade. The Whites of Europe fled, because they had to give way to the rising nationalism of the black states of Africa. That is what they had to do. Here we are taking into account the nationalism of our own non-Whites in South Africa. Those hon. members say it is not practical politics. I want to say that this legislation is excellent and really practical politics, because we as Whites must devise ways of existing here and of coexisting with the non-Whites in this country. The only way in which we can coexist with them is by recognizing the nationalism in the non-Whites, because we ourselves know what nationalism is. We know what the urge for self-fulfilment means. That is why we take this into account. We acknowledge it.

I want to say that, apart from the hon. member for Albany, the hon. members on that side did not raise any matters of principle. He was the only man who produced the old story about the danger which independent homelands present to the Whites. At least he is thinking about the Whites and their future. I believe he is sincere in that. But the hon. member for Green Point—unfortunately he is not here—surprised us terribly. He had apparently visited Vendaland for the first time and was surprised to find a modern university at Turfloop. He said: “It is not a tribal university”. What he actually meant by a “tribal university”, I do not know. The hon. member is really a stranger in Jerusalem. Does he not realize that there are more than 35 universities in Africa, excluding the Arabian countries? There are 42,000 non-white students in Africa. Are those all “tribal” universities? What did he expect to see at Turfloop? He reminds me of the American visitor who arrived at Turfloop, looked at the little hill behind the university and said: “This here is a wonderful rockery. It sure must have cost a lot of money to erect it”. This is what he thought when he saw that rocky little hill. It is this sort of observation which the hon. member for Green Point reminds me of.

Do you regard yourself as a clown?

The hon. member must keep quiet; he knows even less about it. The hon. member for Green Point had the audacity to speak in this House about the nationalism and the aspirations of the non-White peoples. Has he ever met any of the non-white professors there? Has he ever had discussions with the leaders of these peoples? Does he realize what they are thinking and what they are talking about? No, Sir, I want to tell you that this hon. member is a danger to the white man in South Africa. If we have to leave our future in such hands, it would mean the downfall of the white man.

But now the hon. member for Albany comes forward with the old story about the terrible danger which our homelands policy and this legislation along the road of political development will present to the future of the Whites. After all, the hon. member for Odendaalsrus explained very clearly what the consequences of the United Party’s policy would be. Eventually the United Party would have to yield. They admitted that there would be non-white representation in this House. The result of this would be that the Whites would be placed in a powerless and indefensible position in an anaemic way, and would have to hand over the country as a whole. Eventually it would be under non-white control, because of their superior numbers.

But you maintain that numbers do not matter.

Wait a bit, not those numbers. I would not say they want to do it, i.e. hand over to non-white control, but I do say that they are on the wrong road. They would not be able to refuse the demands that will be made by the non-Whites. They would have to yield and eventually this country would be under black control. Our policy is one of separation, of having separate states.

Where is the separation?

Mr. Speaker, this poor man does not understand what separation is. He does not know what political separation is. Does he think that, because he sees a few non-Whites walking around here, it means the end of separation? No, Sir, our policy involves the right of citizenship for the non-White in his own area. It involves full political development in his own area. It places the Whites in a very strong, defensible position, because there will be inter-state negotiations between the leaders.

You have no confidence in your own people.

No, I have confidence in my own people.

Mr. Speaker, I was busy proving that the National Party’s policy of political development for the Bantu presented no greater danger to this country than the normal dangers which any sovereign, independent state has to face every day. It carries the normal risks which any state must run every day. The United Party’s policy means and implies the end of white civilization in South Africa. Our policy offers a safe way to the future. The United Party has once again proved that it stands naked before the people in its complete inability to penetrate to the core of this country’s multi-national problems. The shallowness and the ineptitude of its policy are being exposed here. It can only act negatively. It is once again revealing the fact that it really has no long-term policy. It is also revealing the fact that it is totally ignorant of the feelings and aspirations of the various Bantu peoples in this country. In its dogged opposition to this legislation it is also denying every Bantu people in this multinational country of ours the fundamental right to national pride and self-respect. The United Party denies the real physical facts which have been left to us by history. History has left us a certain legacy. What is that legacy? That legacy is that within the Republic of South Africa and within the borders of South West Africa we have 15 different Bantu peoples, each with its own language, its own culture and, what is very important, its own territory which it actually occupies. This situation we inherited through history from the hand of the Almighty. It is also a fact that the position of power was left in the hands of the Whites. We, the Whites, could therefore choose in which direction we wanted to use that position of power. We could have used it in the direction of suppression and exploitation. We could have used it in the direction of the well-meaning guardian and according to the principles of a Christian moral basis. We have chosen the direction of separation and not that of integration and assimilation. The Whites made that choice, and it is a very clear choice. The people who made this choice were the supporters of the National Party. The National Party has a particular point of view which is basically the political point of view of the Afrikaner. The Afrikaner is, after all, through and through a product of Africa and Africa alone. The choice was made and in 1948 a mandate was given by the people of South Africa. I do not intend to read the mandate again. It was read out this afternoon by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad. I do, however, want to refer to a few sections of that mandate. That mandate provided that the Whites would look after the non-Whites, and that it would be done on the basis of the Christian principles of justice and fairness.

How do they eat?

Oh please, the hon. member asks how they are to eat. They have always had something to eat, but we cannot live by bread alone. There are other things too. The Great Book says so too. These hon. members can only drag in the economic facet. The mandate of 1948 contained, inter alia, the following provision—

But you did not say so in 1948.

But that is precisely what I am reading now. I would really be glad if that hon. member would not display his ignorance in this way. I even feel sorry for the hon. member. I feel embarrassed on his behalf. As I said, that is the mandate we were given. The people had to decide and we had to continue from there. That mandate indicated the direction, the road which we were to follow. That road still had to be prepared and opened up through the forest of multinationalism and multi-racialism in this country. That road had to be opened up without disrupting our economy and without disturbing racial harmony. We could not seek advice from any place in the world. There was no blueprint. There was no other country which could show us what to do. We had to do it ourselves. In order to do it, we had a few resources at our disposal. The first of these was our faith and the confidence that we would be able to complete this task. The second was the strong, rising national desire we had for retaining our identity. The third was our maintenance and our knowledge of the code of Christian justice and fairness. In the fourth instance we adopted the standpoint that in everything we did, we granted anyone else that which we claimed for ourselves.

This National Party therefore grants any people which has the capacity and the will, the opportunity of complete self-realization. It grants any people the opportunity of achieving file highest degree of national pride. It also grants any people the opportunity to achieve the highest degree of political development. It is very clear that the United Party, in opposing this legislation, will grant no people which might ever be placed in its power, these fundamental rights. It thinks only of the economic aspect and how things fit into the economic cycle. This so-called measure of self-government and white leadership which that party is hawking with, are to my mind nothing but political opportunism. It is a form of overlordship which will lead to the eventual downfall of the white man in South Africa.

Since 1948 the National Party has made brilliant progress along this unknown road. Slowly but surely the Bantu have become aware of this new message. It brought them the hope of retaining their own identity. To the tradition-bound and nationally conservative Bantu this message of the National Party was one of joy. The Bantu have rediscovered themselves under the policy of the National Party. All the tempting words uttered by the liberalists about mixed statehood together with the white man the Bantu allowed to pass them by. They did not believe in that. A new attitude has developed among the Bantu. This course of self-realization in the political sphere is fundamental and basic to our policy.

[Inaudible.]

I did not know there were so many ignorant people in Johannesburg. It would be a disgrace if they were to return to be a blemish on this Parliament. I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on this legislation. I want to praise him for coming forward with this piece of positive legislation. This Bill will be accepted by the Bantu throughout the country. It does not matter where they live or where they work. Now for the first time they have a tangible link with their own territories, with their own nations and with their own people. Now they will belong not only de facto, but also de jure to that to which they want to belong.

Mr. Speaker … [Interjections.] … I must say it is nice to be so popular in one’s own home. When I say it is my own home I want to say to the hon. member for Pietersburg that although he might think that we are a nuisance to him, I can assure him that we are going to be more of a nuisance to him when we come back in July. That is particularly so when we come back as the new government of this country. The hon. member talks about a new awareness amongst the Bantu people. He spoke about support for this measure from the Bantu throughout South Africa. I just want to quote an editorial from the Week-end World of Sunday, 6th April, 1969, written by a Bantu for the Bantu. He was writing about the Citizenship Bill and said this—

Is that support for this measure?

Who wrote that?

This was written by the editor of a newspaper called the Week-end World. This paper has one of the largest circulations in South Africa.

Is he your authority?

He is a Bantu. That hon. member claimed that there was support throughout the country for this Bill. This was read by over 400,000 Bantu. That is their circulation. I am sure it reflects their opinion.

The hon. member said that in 1948 this Nationalist Government was given a mandate, a mandate to carry out separation or apartheid. Perhaps they were given that mandate. But what have they achieved in 22 years?

Absolutely nothing.

They have achieved absolutely nothing. There was plenty of talk.

There were other aspects raised by this hon. member and other hon. members during the course of this debate. I will reply to those points during the course of my speech. Unfortunately my time is limited. I must get on with what I want to say.

Dealing with this question of apartheid the members of the Nationalist Government and the hon. the Minister have repeatedly stressed that the Bantu are only in the so-called white areas for their labour and for the service that they can provide for the white man. They have stressed repeatedly that they can have no rights in the so-called white-owned land, whether political or economical. That is the whole basis of this Bill, namely to try to establish for the Bantu rights in the so-called homelands, before this Government comes to remove the last remaining rights the Bantu do have in what this Government likes to call white South Africa.

I am going to remove all and every one of them.

I am glad to hear that admission from the hon. the Minister because this is exactly the point that I am making. Here we have this Government coming with this half-baked measure which really confers nothing whatsoever on the Bantu, primarily so that they can turn to their own supporters and their critics, whether in this country or outside this country, and say that they have given them this right and as a quid pro quo are removing their rights in the white areas. That is the object behind this Bill. That is the iniquitous object behind this Bill and the dishonesty of this Government in introducing this Bill.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “dishonesty”.

I withdraw, Sir. As I have said, the attitude of this Government is that the Bantu are in the so-called white areas on sufferance only. When they cease to be useful to the Whites they must be sent back to the so-called homelands whether or not there is provision for them to eke out a living there. They have also said that the white man is under no obligation to develop the Bantu areas for the Bantu and that the Bantu must to this for themselves. They say that the white Government will, however, assist them where they can, from a sense of charity, and, of course, as their “kindly guardians”, as this hon. Minister continues to tell us. This Bill is a further manifestation of this attitude, namely that the Bantu do not belong in the so-called white South Africa and that they must be forced to their own areas and be allowed to develop themselves. They must be “tied”, and these are the words used by the hon. the Minister himself, “to the homelands politically”. They will then no longer be our problem. What this Nationalist Government must realize is that the Bantu want nothing from the white man himself in South Africa. All that they expect is that this Government that rules them must do its duty by them. This Government cannot rule the Bantu, cannot tax them, cannot legislate for them and at the same time repudiate its obligations to the Bantu people and with it the duty to be responsible for the welfare of the Bantu people. This Minister and others have claimed that this Bill will destroy the myth (I think this is the way the ex-Deputy Minister of Planning put it), that Whites and Bantu are citizens of one multiracial state. Only to-day the hon. member for Mooi River handled this matter very well. He burst the unrealistic and illogical bubble of the thinking of the Nationalist Party. It is all very well passing a Bill denying the Bantu their South African citizenship, but where is the land of which they are to be citizens? Does such a land exist? Let me say that when this Bill is passed it will only be a land which exists in some ethereal dream in the mind of that hon. Minister. No such land exists in reality and I believe that the Bantu do not really want such a land. I believe also that when the Bantu consider the mass of illogical legislation which is being passed by this Government, this illogical legislation which governs them and their relations with the so-called white South Africa and, above all, this illogical Bill which is at present before this House which will deny them their South African citizenship, the Bantu would prefer to take the land that is given them as their homeland. The Bantu will accept this under protest because they do not desire it. All the Bantu desire are to be treated as persons and citizens of South Africa, to which country they have at all times been loyal.

The tragedy of what this Government is now doing to the people is compounded by the fact that even before this Bill was introduced, this Government was actively fostering and encouraging nationalism amongst the various Bantu people. We had the speech of the hon. member for Germiston. We have also had the speech of the hon. member for Pietersburg now. We have also had statements by the hon. the Minister. I do not believe that anybody on that side of the House will deny that this Government is actively fostering, and I do not intend any pun in that word, and encouraging the development of nationalism amongst the Bantu people in this country. Does anybody on that side of the House deny this point?

What is wrong with it?

The hon. member for Potchefstroom says: “What is wrong with it.” They are fostering this nationalism amongst the Bantu people. That is all I wanted to hear. I want to make the point that nationalism is an evil philosophy because it is based on a hatred for anyone other than their own. This is the definition of nationalism.

Do you prefer Communism?

I never said that I would prefer Communism at all. That hon. Deputy Minister need not try to be clever and play with words. [Interjections.] He is trying to make a political point now. As I have said, hon. members on that side of the House admit to actually fostering this nationalism. I want to say that this is a tragedy for South Africa. This Bill is but a further step in the encouragement of the growth of this nationalism. I want to make the point that this nationalism is black nationalism. This is the Government that, a few years ago, said that it was so actively working against black nationalism and that it has set its mind to stamping out black nationalism.

Nonsense!

The hon. member says that this is nonsense. Well, what about the 90 days and the 180 days and all the other powers that this Government took? Why did they take those powers? They took those powers to stamp out this very threat of black nationalism, the black nationalism which they claimed was being sponsored by Communism. To-day we have the position that black nationalism is not sponsored by Communism, but that black nationalism is sponsored by this Government. Where does the threat to South Arica lie to-day? If there was a threat in the black nationalism a few years ago, surely it exists to-day. Before I have finished my speech, I want to make the point that that black nationalism is becoming more militant. It is being actively sponsored by this Government. It is being encouraged by this Government. I believe that this Government is actually financing part of it. It is giving financial assistance to black nationalism.

Order! That has nothing to do with this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, with respect …

Order! No, the hon. member must obey my ruling and come back to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, there is for each of the ethnic groups recognized by this Government and particularly recognized by the Bill which is before the House to-day, with the exception of the North Sotho or the Pedi people, a National Party which has developed in this country. These National Parties have binded themselves together into an organization known as the official African Political Parties of South Africa. They issue a publication which is registered at the General Post Office, called Africa South. It is registered as a newspaper. This particular magazine has been brought to the attention of the hon. the Minister before. At that stage he denied all knowledge of it, and I accept that denial. However, I am sure that he is aware of the existence of this newspaper now. I have here an edition of this newspaper dated October, 1969. On the front page at the bottom is written “Africa South is the official organ of the official African Political Parties of South Africa”. On page three we find the following statement with regard to the function of this particular periodical:

Quite in line with Government thinking—

Then it places the following advert:

What is this United States of Southern Africa? We find in this particular edition an article written by the managing editor who, incidentally, is also the national chairman of the Zulu National Party in which he makes the following statement:

This is the nationalism which is being sponsored by this Government and which this Bill actively propagates. This Bill actively makes it easier for all these particular national parties to go ahead. They propagate that they will form a United States of Southern Africa which should include all the countries in southern Africa south of the Sahara. Is this really what this Government is propagating and supporting? Do they want a black nationalist movement of this nature?

This nationalist movement amongst the Bantu people is becoming more militant towards their own people who will not join this movement. I want to take it further. If any further evidence of the involvement of the Government in this movement is required, I want to quote the following case. An influential Bantu was visited by the Managing Editor of this magazine who is also the National President of the Zulu National Party. He was asked to write for this magazine. He described the visit in the following terms:

It looks as if this movement is really fostered by this Government. If this editor can say this to an influential Bantu, who declines to support him in his views because he was afraid of the activities of the Security Branch, it is further proof that this movement is actually fostered by this Government. This editor claimed that he could deal with the Security Branch.

Now it is becoming even more militant, particularly towards its own people as I have said earlier. I want to quote from a letter which was written by this Mr. Ndaba to another influential Bantu. This letter was in connection with the development of this particular political party. I quote:

I hope the hon. the Minister realizes this is a serious matter. I see that he thinks it is a joke. It is no joke as far as I am concerned. I quote further:

Nak, did you write this?

How long, Sir, is it going to be before this particular movement becomes militant towards the Whites of South Africa?

You do not know what militant is.

Sir, I hear the hon. member for Koedoespoort making some comment about my not knowing what militant is. The hon. member for Germiston admitted that no one was able to contain this militant black nationalism in Central and East Africa, and he described the tragic and disastrous consequences of black nationalism in Central and East Africa. What makes this hon. Minister think that he can contain it in South Africa? Does he think that he can encourage and actively foster the development of militant black nationalism in South Africa and still contain it?

Why militant?

Because it will become militant. The hon. member for Germiston said so himself. He has admitted that it will become militant.

You want to bring them here, and what will happen then?

Can the hon. the Minister of Defence contain them? Sir, there is no question of our bringing them here. We will give them representation here, and the difference is that we will have these people on our side. There will be no question of pushing them aside. Sir, I want to say what I have said before in this House, and the wisdom of this is going to be borne out. This is not my thought; it is a thought that I garnered from a very much wiser man than I am; ultimately there will be a confrontation in South Africa between Black and White. As sure as the sun rises after the night there will be a confrontation here between Black and White, and unless the white people in South Africa to-day work towards getting the black people on their side that confrontation is going to be violent; it is not going to be a discussion around a table. The black people will certainly not be on the side of that Government, who think that by this measure they can push them aside, that they can abrogate their responsibilities towards these people and say: “But why must we worry about them; they are citizens of a foreign state; they do not belong to us in South Africa; they are here to sell their labour only. We owe them nothing.” Sir, that is what this Government is saying with this measure which is now before the House. The hon. member for Germiston made a peculiar statement here. He said, “Our Bantu will be subjected to the draw of this nationalism.”

You are not quoting me correctly.

The hon. member did say so, Sir.

He does not know what he said.

He went further and said, “In this Bill we are giving them an outlet for this nationalism because we accept”.

I did not speak of an outlet.

I have his Hansard here; it is useless for him to deny it. What outlet does he think he is giving them? The only outlet that he is giving them is opportunity for the furtherance of this black nationalism.

You are giving them an inlet into Parliament.

Has he asked himself these questions: If a person has citizenship he must belong to a country.

Yes.

Well, he has answered that one. If that country can confer citizenship it must be sovereign. Has the hon. member asked himself that question? If a country can confer citizenship it must be sovereign, and then there is a further question which he must ask himself: If it is sovereign, it must be independent and must be able to act unilaterally on its own.

It is not impossible that that can happen; we have stated that over and over again.

The hon. member says that it is not impossible that that can happen. Of course, it is not impossible that that can happen, and it will happen particularly when this black nationalism takes over unless that Government is thrown out on the 22nd April and replaced with a sensible government which will come with a practical solution to to-day’s problems in South Africa. Sir, is this what this Government intends with this legislation; is this a further step towards the independence of the Bantu areas? Is it the intention of the hon. the Minister to stick to what he said last year, towards the end of the session, in this House when he said that he wanted to give them independence within his time, or does he stick to what he said in 1968 when Mr. Canca in the Transkei Legislative Council introduced a motion asking for independence for the Transkei soon and when he said that there were 11 reasons why they should not have it now? To which statement is he going to adhere? Or was the hon. member for Transkei right when he said that this Bill was the final admission by the hon. the Minister of the failure to implement his policy? Which is the right interpretation? The hon. the Minister does not want to answer, Sir. Perhaps we will hear from him in his reply to this debate. Which is it; is it his intention to give them independence now notwithstanding the development of this black nationalism, or is it his intention not to give them independence as he said in 1968?

Sir, hon. members on the other side and the Minister have spoken a lot about “nasiewording”. In fact, one hon. member made the point that although this Bill deals with citizenship the hon. the Minister never mentioned citizenship in his second-reading speech; he only spoke about the development of nations. Perhaps hon. members on the other side did not mean “nasiewording”: they meant “nasiebou” or perhaps “nasieverbastering” …

How do you spell “nasie”?

Don’t encourage him.

… especially when you look at clause 3 which does not provide for a pure nationhood. I wonder why? Of course, the hon. member for Green Point dealt with this very fully but I want to quote briefly from the White Paper dealing with this particular Bill. Clause 3 of this Bill defines Bantu persons who acquire citizenship as those who are born in the area, those domiciled in the area; those Bantu persons speaking the Bantu language used in that area or any associated linguistic group; every other Bantu person related to a member of the Bantu population of that area or who has identified himself with that group or with any part of that group. Sir, I want to come back to this Africa South of October, 1969. Here is an interesting point: A Bantu, writing in a newspaper which is reproduced in this periodical which is subsidized by that Government, says that he wonders where he belongs. He says, “I am a Tswana by birth, Ndebele by upbringing, Xhosa by inclination; I speak Zulu better than Xhosa and English better than Tswana”.

He is a United Party man.

And he votes Nat.

I wonder if the hon. the Minister could explain to me where this individual fits in. This is a true South African Bantu. I have not got confirmation of this but I believe that his wife is Ndebele. I do not know, so I am not going to say that that is so. Incidentally, he lives in Soweto.

Does he want a filling station?

Just to complicate the matter even further he lives in Soweto. I would like to know from the hon. the Minister where this man belongs. This is why I talked about “nasieverbastering” because in terms of the provisions of this Bill you are not going to develop a nation of Zulus or a nation of Xhosas or a nation of Tswanas or any other group that you care to mention. What you are going to develop is a group of people who think that they might like to band together. That is what you are going to find. And, Sir, you are going to have the further difficulty that the territorial authority concerned will have the right to oppose the application of one of these people for citizenship. But you will have a Bantu who, in terms of clause 3, will have an association with a particular group and think that he might like to join one of those groups but the territorial authority will be able to oppose it. What is the hon. the Minister going to do with a person like that?

Sir, I think I have shown that it is extremely dangerous at this stage, with the development of a militant black nationalism in this country, to pass a measure such as this. Sir, this is no joke: I mean this in all sincerity. This militancy is developing and their militancy is going to be pointed towards the Whites unless we are extremely careful about it. This Bill goes a step further in advocating and developing and building up this black nationalism, and for that reason I support the amendment of the hon. member for Transkei that this Bill be read this day six months.

Mr. Speaker, one cannot help being anything but light-hearted when the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) is speaking. As a matter of fact, I must say that both this side of the House and the other side always enjoy his little jokes, and perhaps this is as well, because as far as I can remember even the great Shakespeare always brought in the fool to provide some comic relief between the greater moments of his dramas. If the hon. member does not return after 22nd April, I shall regret it, because then we shall no longer be getting this comic relief from him from time to time. While the hon. member was speaking, someone sent me a note in which he said that if Solomon had known the hon. member, he would probably have expressed himself as follows: “He is a finished speaker, finished not in the sense of polish, but finished in the sense that he is at last through his speech.” [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Transkei has already made his speech.

I am only laughing at his jokes.

One does not sound like that when one is laughing.

He laughs like a baboon.

Sir, to come back to serious matters, I think that never before in this House was there a debate in which one could weigh up the differences in the philosophical approach of the United Party and that of the National Party so distinctly and so clearly. For the first time in a debate it has become clear to all of us that the fundamental approach of the United Party is that South Africa is a multi-national country in which there must be one allegiance, one communal feeling, one citizenship, one loyalty.

But that is right.

I shall come to the hon. member for North Rand later, and then I shall see whether he will still be nodding his head so happily. Over against that we have the policy of the National Party that there are various peoples in South Africa, each with its own language, each with its own culture, each with its own particular background, and that for those reasons we cannot all be one people. I think if one compares the policy of the United Party with that of the National Party, one must have an historical approach in the first place, and one must measure it in terms of the guiding lines and criteria of the requirements of the 20th century in the second place. If one adopts an historical approach and one looks at the dilemma in which we in southern Africa find ourselves to-day and generally at the conditions, the problems, of South Africa, then the problem of South Africa is indeed the problem about which we are legislating this evening, i.e. the fact that South Africa is faced with a problem of Africa to-day.

Mr. Speaker, centuries ago the colonial powers came to this continent and found peoples here with more than 800 different languages. The hon. the Prime Minister mentioned here the other morning that the New Testament has been translated into 435 African languages alone. There are at least 400 different nations in Africa, and those 400 different nations are grouped together in only 42 independent states. When the colonial powers came here centuries ago and measured out their colonies, they did not do so according to national units. The one did not come and establish a colony for the Xhosa and the other for the Zulu or the Damara. They established them according to natural landmarks which one could see with the naked eye—rivers, coast lines, mountain ranges—and drew the boundary lines along those landmarks. And what did they do in the process? In many cases they divided a people so that, for example, half of the Okvanyamas are in South West Africa to-day and the other half in Angola. But what happened in most cases, is that from four to ten different peoples were enclosed within the borders of the same colony, with the result they of necessity have to coexist today, so that in South West Africa to-day you have the Bushmen, the Nama, the Herero, the Damara and the Ovambo, and in South Africa the Zulu, the Venda and the Xhosa, and in Nigeria you have the Fulani and the Ibo, and so forth. What is more, these various peoples differ from one another not only in language, but also in background and culture and every other aspect. If we only look at what happened in Nigeria, we see that the Ibos or the Biafrans did not want to identify themselves with the rest of Nigeria, with the result that 200,000 of them died on the battlefield and more than two million of them died of famine, and they only stopped fighting when they were completely vanquished. And what happened in the earlier history of South Africa and South West Africa? There were wars of extermination among these various peoples so that in South West Africa you had no fewer than 56 different wars among them in the 60 years from 1830 to 1890. Now we come to the reality of the situation. In Africa 400 peoples are grouped together in only 42 independent states. [Interjection.] If the hon. member for North Rand would just keep quiet now, he too would learn something. [Interjection.] Now you have the situation that if you apply a modern Western system of democracy in Africa, in any state in which these different peoples are grouped together, you find that the majority constitutes the government and the peoples in the minority are always in the opposition. They can never come into power, not only as a result of their policy, but also as a result of simple little figures and numbers and human nature, because they are in the minority. That is why you have the situation that there have been more than 16 coup d’états in African states in the last 20 months. Because that is in fact the only way in which an opposition party can come into power in a multi-national African state. That is why in any African state, including South Africa, one can to-day never think in terms of a democracy as we know it in the politics of the Western world, because it is impossible.

Nonsense!

If a system of one man, one vote, the modern Western concept of democracy, were to be introduced in South Africa, you would find that the minority groups such as the Zulu, the Venda, the Tswana and others, including the Whites, would for ever be in the minority and would never be able to come into power unless they applied a coup d’état. You now have this situation; this is our dilemma. It is true that the present boundary lines were drawn as a result of the actions of our colonial forefathers, but we have to solve this dilemma, and we must solve it not only for to-day or to-morrow; we must solve it for the distant future, for centuries, for posterity.

But you cannot even see the end of the road for the Coloured people.

That is why I say we cannot think lightly about this matter. We cannot simply try to find a solution which is nice and convenient for us and which is popular. We must find a solution which will hold good in the centuries to come. What is that solution? One solution is that in the direction of which hon. members opposite are moving, and this is simply integration; one allegiance, one citizenship in one South Africa. And the other solution is to grant each people in South Africa its own citizenship, its own territory, its historical land and eventually its sovereignty, because whichever of the two directions you take, you must follow it through in all its consequences.

For the white people as well then?

Now we have this situation, and we must look to the future, and let me tell you. Sir, this Concept of separate development and of separate citizenship is nothing new in the world. What happened in Europe centuries ago? There you had the Gauls and the Romans and the Greeks and the Anglo-Saxons and the Goths, and they lived amongst one another and warred against one another for centuries. They lived amongst one another as hon. members opposite want the position to be. Consult the history books and you will see that fighting and peace and wars of extermination alternated all the time.

And that is what you are asking for here.

It was so bad that more than 1,400 peace treaties were made in Europe during the past three centuries. But to-day we have a separate Germany, a separate Britain, a separate Italy and a separate Holland.

But how did that come about?

Because they were unable to coexist in the same country. I want to say that although there were not such profound cultural differences in Europe, they were still unable to coexist, but now the hon. members on the opposite side want us to coexist in South Africa under these circumstances. [Interjections.]

Order!

What we are envisaging in South Africa, is the same idea which has taken root in Eruope to-day, i.e. the idea of separate territories. Only it is not necessary for us to go through that long series of defeats and battles; we are doing it in a peaceful way. That is the only difference. I want to tell you, Sir, that when the United Party chooses the course of integration, as it has now done, then it must also be prepared to accept its full consequences. It must not think that it chooses a course simply to find a nice solution for five or ten years. It must know that the solution which it chooses must be one which will hold good for centuries, and I now ask hon. members of the Opposition whether they are prepared to apply the modern concept of Western democracy on the course which they have chosen. Are they prepared to grant the collective body of South African citizens, irrespective of their colour, the same vote and the same rights in all respects? [Interjection.] Let the hon. members suffer from no illusion. Are those hon. members prepared to say with their hands on their hearts that the course which they are following to-day, is the course which they will still be following a hundred years from now?

Yes.

With one man, one vote? [Interjection.] No, the hon. members opposite are choosing a course which leads to death, but when they come to the abyss they will ask where the National Party is and why they followed that course. I can tell you, Sir, that the very same standpoint adopted by hon. members opposite this evening has been adopted in history before; and adopted in precisely the same form by, for example, the imperialists of Britain. To-night we have before us the imperialists of South Africa. They see a great kingdom before them, with a conglomeration of people, with a vast country which they want for themselves, and they want to pocket as much as possible, but they do not see the real consequences of that. When it was debated in the House of Commons from time to time whether Britain should relinquish its colonies, whether it should grant India and Australia and Canada and South Africa their own citizenship, there were also the great imperialists who said: No, we are one British Empire. All must be British citizens. And do you know what saved Britain? Only the fact that its colonies were not situated adjacent to it; otherwise they would have swallowed it up. That saved Britain, but in South Africa it will be a different matter, because these territories are situated within South Africa. I see before me to-day the imperialists of Britain in the flesh. I see Lord Kitchener before me. In the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) I see Rhodes again, because he has the heart of a Rhodes, but not the intellect to go with it. The hon. member for Durban (Point) is a Disraeli; he also thought that he could lay hands on the world. He is too keen; not only does he want for himself that which is his own, but he also wants to lay hands on everything from the Cape to Cairo. He wants a collective citizenship.

And we are looking at a Van der Merwe who is a joke.

I want to make this point and emphasize it. If you, Mr. Speaker, appreciate it, I am still not so sure that hon. members opposite will appreciate it, but I just want to say this, that the same imperialistic idea of the old British Empire is the spectre which is still stalking in this chamber to-night, and it is the spectre which will destroy hon. members opposite. [Interjections.] Just as South Africa and Britain’s other former colonies destroyed that imperialism, so it will be rejected not only by the Whites in South Africa, but also by the Bantu in South Africa and, for that matter, by the world as well, for remember that even the Charter of the UNO provides for self-determination for the colonies of Britain, of which we were also one at one stage, and for all the peoples of the world. The policy of those hon. members has one dangerous aspect, and this is indeed what I am concerned about most, i.e. that it serves as a stimulus to the imperialistic Bantu in South Africa who is not satisfied merely with what is his own, but together with that party wants to lay his hands on what he can get, and on white South Africa as well. If agitators come forward in South Africa and say that they are not prepared to accept separate development, the hon. members opposite will have set them the example and will have to bear the consequences of the attitude they are adopting in regard to this Bill in this House this evening.

In conclusion I just want to say this: If there has ever been a reason why hon. members opposite should be rejected on 22nd April, it is this irresponsible and reckless attitude which they are adopting in regard to this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Middelland says that this debate is providing a clear indication of the differences in philosophy between that side of the House, the Nationalist Government, and ourselves. Of course he is absolutely correct. This debate has indeed shown the difference in the basic philosophy between the two sides of this House. But, Sir, he is entirely wrong in his deductions. What has the hon. member for Middelland said? He has said that we on this side of the House, the United Party, consider South Africa to be one multi-racial state. That is perfectly correct, and any person who is prepared to see the facts of the present-day situation as they are must accept this. What does that side of the House say, Sir? They say, as the hon. member for Middelland was at great pains to tell us, that South Africa is made up of a number of separate nations. I should like to examine this for a moment, because this is the fundamental philosophy behind this Bill, which grants citizenship to the various Bantu nations, as the Nationalists like to call them. The essence of the argument of the Nationalist Party that the various Bantu peoples of this country, the Zulus, the Xhosas, the Tswanas, and so on, are separate Bantu nations, is based on two things. Firstly, there is the fact that they have separate languages, and secondly, so the argument goes, they have separate cultures. Let us look at this more closely. It is correct that these Bantu groups I have mentioned have separate languages. The argument is, however, not so strong when you speak of different cultures, because the different cultures are not so different. These groups do have different languages. We therefore come down to the fundamental fact that the Nationalist Party claims that the Bantu groups are separate mainly because they speak different languages. Let us take this argument to its logical conclusion. What do we find then? In a country like South Africa and in a country like the United States of America we find persons who are of french extraction, speaking French as their home language. We find people of Portuguese extraction whose home language is Portuguese. Then there are people who speak Spanish, Greek, and so on. To take the Nationalist argument to its logical conclusion, each of these peoples are within South Africa separate white nations. [Interjections.] Of course it is so, Sir.

That is a stupid argument.

Exactly, Sir. I agree with the hon. member for Middelland. It is a stupid argument. This is the very argument advanced by the Nationalist Party to justify their contention that the Bantu peoples of South Africa are separate nations. I challenge any member on that side who gets up to speak after me … [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, they are not going to put me off by shouting me down. They must listen. I challenge every single one of them to deny that their fundamental reason for saying that there are different Bantu nations in South Africa is based mainly on a difference of language. Take that argument to its logical conclusion and you find that where there are different languages, you must acknowledge different nations. What will the position in South Africa be if we have to acknowledge different nations within the white peoples of South Africa simply because their home languages are different and they have to some extent certain different cultures based on their origins?

Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with another argument of the hon. member for Middelland. He explained the historical development of this trend. He pointed out that from this trend stems the Italian State, the British State, the Greek State, the Dutch State, and so on. Of course, he is correct, but what he failed to tell the House was that in none of these states are there different nations based only upon differences in language. Let us take the United States, for one. The hon. member for Middelland paid a visit to the United States last year. He knows that in the United States of America, for example, there are very distinct language groups. There are French-speaking, Italian-speaking, Greek-speaking and other groups, all of whom are very proud of their own historical ancestry and customs. They maintain these customs. On the basis of his argument, all these groups must be accepted as being separate national groups within the one state. Sir, this is nonsense. Of course, there are different states with different languages, but you never find one state with different national groups in it, based on language differences.

The further fallacy of the Nationalist philosophy is that the so-called separate Bantu nations in this country, while they do have separate languages, as I have conceded, and to some extent separate cultures. do not all have separate territories, and I doubt whether they will have them under the Nationalist Government. But, above all. Sir, and this is the important aspect, they do not have separate economies. How can one possibly have a separate nation which can be developed to separate statehood when that group does not have its own separate economy? The whole thing is so fallacious that one can shoot holes in it

Order! I wonder whether the hon. member cannot come back to the Bill now. We have not heard anything about it for a very long time. [Interjections.]

What about the hon. member for Middelland?

I also asked him to come back to the Bill, and then he sat down.

Sir, I propose to come back to the Bill. What I should like to deal with just before I deal with the Bill specifically, if you will allow me, Sir, is one other aspect of the arguments we have heard during this debate. At this stage of the debate I think it is important to examine the arguments that have been put by the Nationalist Party to justify this Bill. In particular, I think we must examine why this Nationalist Government was so keen to get this Bill through the House before it rises prior to the forthcoming election campaign. No argument has been advanced to justify this haste. However, it has become clear from the arguments raised by hon. members on that side of the House, and particularly from the attacks on the United Party, that the reason for introducing the Bill at this stage is political, as can be expected. Every time an election is to be held this Nationalist Government comes forward with a “swartgevaar”-measure, some measure which they can use to prove to the electorate that they are carrying out this mandate that they tell us they have had from “die volk daarbuite” since 1948.

Which they have done little about.

Yes, a mandate that they have done very little about. This year they will not have the same opportunity. In the past this “swartgevaar”-horse has run very well for the Nationalist Party, and they have come to this Session of Parliament to introduce the Bantu Laws Amendment Bill and now the Bantu Homelands Citizenship Bill and they hope that the “swartgevaar”-horse will run well for them again. But it is not going to run for them this time because “die volk daarbuite” are not going to be misled by the Nationalist Party any longer. In this election they are concerned with their pockets; they are concerned with the high cost of living; the sales tax and so on. It is going to boomerang on them because their intellectuals, who are outside this House, of course, have been admitting that the Nationalist Party intend to create independent black states within South Africa. But what do their organizers and candidates say? They play this down for all they are worth, because they know that “die volk daarbuite” do not like this horse at all. They do not support the idea of independent black states. What are they then going to find with this Bill? How are they going to counter our propaganda that the only interpretation of this Bill which grants citizenship to every Bantu in South Africa is that it is the very important next step towards independent black states within South Africa? Let us have a look at this Bill. What will happen to the Bantu in South Africa from the day that this Bill is passed by this Parliament? In terms of clauses 2 and 3 every single Bantu in South Africa, whether he happens to be in the so-called homelands or in the white areas, and I want to stress this, becomes automatically a citizen of one or other Territorial Authority. I should like to know how the Nationalist Party is going to tell the electorate that although it has now granted a separate citizenship of the Bantu territorial areas, separate from citizenship of the Republic, to every Bantu, at the same time it does not intend to grant independence to black states. I should like the hon. member for Umhlatuzana who is not in the House at the moment or the hon. member for Klip River who is also not in the House this evening or the other hon. members representing Natal constituencies, to tell us how they are going to deal with this when we tell the electorate in Natal, who would not believe us in previous elections when we said that the Nationalist Party intended to create independent black states within South Africa, that this is so. This “swartgevaar”-horse that the Nationalist Party is going to try to ride in this election is going to boomerang against them. It is going to run in the wrong direction; it is going to run back to them.

Their jockey will not get a visa.

We have had another curious scene during this debate. We have been told by the hon. member for Middelland that we are opposing this legislation because we are Imperialists. Mr. Speaker, did you think that you would see the day when this Nationalist Party would come to this House to sponsor dual citizenship? What about all the comments we had from that side of the House about dual citizenship and the fact that this was British Imperialism? They have forgotten about this. I see that the hon. member for Middelland is somewhat silent at this stage. I think that he was one of the most vociferous members in condemning the dual citizenship which this country had as part of the tradition coming down to us from Britain. Now, not only do they sponsor it, but the hon. member for Odendaalsrus spent half his speech quoting authorities to be able to tell us with approval that dual citizenship was such a wonderful thing and could be fitted in with the philosophy of this Nationalist Government.

I want to deal now with a very important aspect of this Bill. As I said a moment ago, once this legislation is passed, every single Bantu in terms of clauses 2 and 3 will become a citizen of a Territorial Authority. Now we come to the curious situation that in terms of 2(4)—

That is all very well. In terms of the proposed subsection (4) he is not regarded as an alien but nevertheless he is a citizen of a separate territorial authority, a citizenship which is entirely separate from citizenship of South Africa. It is deliberately separate, that is the whole object of this Bill. What is the situation in South Africa going to be as far as labour is concerned once this Bill is passed? The situation is perfectly clear. Once this Bill is passed by this Parliament every single Bantu in South Africa, in other words the entire Bantu labour force in South Africa, becomes a citizen of a territorial authority which is self-governing and, if we accept the Nationalist Party argument, will be developed to independent status. I want to refer to an editorial which appeared in the South African Financial Gazette which everyone knows is Government sponsored.

That is not true.

The hon. members appear to be a little nervous about this article. Some of them may know what is coming up. If they will just listen with a little patience, I will tell them what is coming up. This article appeared on the 10th April, 1968. It is an indication that this Bill which is to-day before the House was mooted by the Government as far back as this. I challenge the hon. the Minister to deny that what I am about to read out will be the effect, labour-wise, when this Bill is passed. This is what they say—

Then they go on to examine various matters. I do not have time to read everything out.

[Inaudible.]

I have very little time left and I would appreciate it if hon members would allow me to finish this. I appreciate that they are nervous about what is coming, but they are going to hear it anyway. They then go on to say—

That is what the Minister has said—

That is the hon. the Minister’s philosophy—

Then the article goes on to say—

Will the hon. the Minister admit this, or will he deny or ignore it? Of course, he knows that this is the logical outcome of this Bill that we are passing to-day—

Then they go on—

Yes, Mr. Speaker, this is what we are coming to in terms of the Nationalist Party policy—

Is this what is going to happen? Of course, how otherwise are they going to manage affairs? Then they go on to say—

The next paragraph I wish to stress very much. It reads as follows—

What a state of affairs this Government is leading us into by this Bill! Nothing could possibly justify this legislation.

Finally, I want to refer to a passage to which the hon. the Minister referred with such enthusiasm, in an article entitled “A Transkeian Citizen of South African Nationality?”, written in the Tydskrif vir Hedendaagse Romeins-Hollandse Reg by a certain professor. The hon. the Minister quoted this passage with great enthusiasm. It reads as follows—

“Functions of sovereignty”, not complete sovereignty—

Now the hon. the Minister has quoted this passage with approval as being the type of status that he was creating under his Bill for these territorial authorities by creating Bantu citizenship for all the Bantu within South Africa. What is going to be the outcome if this view of international law is correct? The outcome is that the hon. the Minister is inviting the United Nations to treat these different Bantu territorial authorities as having a measure of sovereignty, despite the fact that there is a large measure of residual sovereignty in the hands of the white Republic. This is what the hon. the Minister is inviting the United Nations to do. He is suggesting that in terms of the law which he is creating, this is the situation which could arise and will arise when this Bill is passed, according to his argument, because he quoted this passage with approval. If this is what the hon. the Minister and his Government wish for South Africa, it certainly is not what we in the United Party wish for our country. We will certainly oppose this Bill with all the force at our command.

Mr. Speaker, after debating this Bill for hours we have now reached the stage where one hon. member on that side has at least read the explanatory memorandum and has also read quotations from an article in the South African Financial Gazette, which gave him an insight into the policy of this side of this House. But most of those hon. members have not the least idea what is involved and what the policy of this Government is. I had hoped that, as this debate progressed, they would perhaps give us an alternative and state what their approach is. All I have been able to gather about what they have in mind, is that they want a conglomeration of nations, races, colours, odours and languages here. Then they will call all of them South African citizens. The self-realization of these people of different descent, tradition, language and culture is of no concern; they must simply be a conglomeration. That is all I have been able to gather.

I just want to tell the hon. member for Musgrave that this idea which he feels is quite alien to him, namely that there will possibly be dual citizenship, is in fact the position at the moment. The policy of the National Party on this side is that these Bantu territories must gradually develop. As they become able to accept more responsibility, they will be granted full independence. Time will tell when this must happen. But we accept the responsibility that these territories should eventually reach that stage. This measure now provides for certain rights to be granted to these people. In the first place they are identified not only with a language; they are also identified with a territory and with certain customs. How the hon. member can draw comparisons between the conditions in this country and conditions in the U.S.A., where there are limited groups of Germans, Italians and Portuguese, I do not know. He said that in that case these people should really also be able to obtain separate citizenship. To my mind there is no parallel at all. The position is simply that in this country and in the whole of Africa there are separate Bantu peoples with their own traditions, languages and so forth.

What the National Party is doing here, is to give statutory recognition to what has been traditionally accepted in this country all these years. I think it is a process which we should accelerate, if these people can develop quickly enough. Let us contrast this with the policy of that side of the House. They say these people, a conglomeration, are all accepted as South Africans. How will they do justice to that large group of non-Whites in the political sense? Let us consider their numbers and try to establish how many there are. I have last year’s figures here, and I think it will be a good idea if hon. members on the other side listen to them. Last year there were approximately 3.5 million Whites in this country. The Xhosa population totalled almost 3.6 million, the Zulus 3.3 million, the Swazis 395,400, the Ndebele together with the North Sotho 1.5 million, the Tswana 1.1 million, the South Sotho 1.5 million, and in addition there are the Vendas and the Tsongas, who together number about ¾ million. How will the Opposition, without providing for citizenship for these people in terms of an Act such as this one, give these large groups of separate Bantu peoples an opportunity to develop to the full? The only alternative is that they must attain political maturity in the white areas and must have the same political rights as the Whites.

At the moment the Opposition is saying that the Bantu will have eight representatives in this Parliament, representatives who will be Whites. This system can surely not be continued indefinitely. It is very clear to us that the only alternative is that those people will eventually have to capitulate and submit to the superior numbers of Bantu who will have to come here. Therefore it is our policy—and we are very honest about it, as already stated in the National Party Constitution of 1914— that we will guide every population group of this country and will do justice to them so that they will reach fulfilment. We have reached the stage where we have full development of the policy of separate development, of developing all groups along their own lines, or also called multi-national development, or whatever we want to call it. The fact of the matter is that we are not concerned with something fictitious here, but with the naked realities. Here are the figures, there are the people and there are the territories. We must take these facts into account. It is suggested that we are dealing in ideologies and that we are trying to bluff the white population of this country and are presenting things to them which are not really so. But what is more realistic than what is actually happening? What is really happening and what is a reality in this country are that we have eight very clear Bantu population groups, each with its own language, tradition and territory. These peoples must be guided to full independence in the distant future. This is an exceptional step to satisfy their political aspirations and to grant them political rights. If we argue that these people can be fused together in one large group under the name “South Africans” and will then be able to live together in peace, I think we will be bluffing ourselves. It cannot be anything else. When we analyse, we must not merely talk superficially about people. The fact of the matter is that these Bantu of the various population groups in South Africa have profound differences. These differences are not merely a question of colour; these differences are inherent and hereditary. Nor is it a question of inferiority or superiority.

The idea which is often bruited abroad by hostile people that the white man regards himself as superior and wants to keep these people inferior and in a subordinate position for all time, is quite untrue. The fact of the matter is that there is a difference which is inherent and hereditary. There are many good qualities in these people and there are also certain qualities which differ basically from those of the Whites in make-up, spirit, mind and the functioning of the entire being. Here these people will have the right as independent citizens in an independent state to develop according to their own nature and their own capacities. This side of this House has given those people the assurance, and with this legislation we intend granting these people citizenship so that nationalism can be fostered among them, as well as a love for what is their own, the language, the territory, the people and the traditions of each population group. This is something which can inspire them; they will then not have to live as an unmotivated conglomeration of people without any sense of purpose. I wish we can make the people on that side of this House who were in fact traditionally British and who were inspired by a nationalism such as almost no other country has ever known, realize that here in South Africa they are trying to begrudge it to other nations and to pretend that they do not understand it. They give out that we will have peace and will be able to develop beautifully together, and every time they place the emphasis on the economic aspect. As far as we are concerned, South Africa cannot develop economically at the cost of the soul and the nature of these different population groups, and especially not at the cost of the soul and the nature of the traditions of the Whites of this country. Therefore we have adopted this course and argue in this way. In our opinion it is only realistic and sound common-sense to approach this matter in this way. Why do we have the position that the rest of the world does not understand it? It is because they are not part of Africa and because they have not learnt to know Africa.

Reference has been made to the various problems which arose when other states in Africa became independent, such as the civil war in Nigeria. Similarly, the conflict in the Congo was mentioned. What is the position there? Those events occurred because the states in Europe did not realize that they were lumping together different non-white races under one régime, races which differ very widely from one another and among which jealousy existed in many cases. The low level of civilization of those people resulted in their not being able to bear the responsibility which was imposed upon them. But let us look at other states which were established in the past decade. We know what happened in Cyprus, but let us consider a state such as Israel. On what basis was a state like Israel established? Only on the basis of religion, namely Zionism, and as a result of nothing else. However, hon. members on the other side say that we cannot establish non-white independent states here and guide them to maturity on the basis of language and culture. And yet in that case a state which is recognized by the United Nations was established on the basis of religion alone. Other unifying factors were added which have become a very important political factor. Therefore I want to emphasize very strongly that this side of this House is not at all afraid of accepting the responsibility for what we are doing here. We are granting only limited citizenship at this stage, but as these peoples develop, we must accept the responsibility to give it greater content and to give them everything implied by citizenship in the full sense of the word.

As set out in clause 2 (6) (b) of the explanatory memorandum, a positive value is now placed on citizenship, as in the case of the Transkei, for example the exercise of franchise rights in the territory concerned, apart from the other benefits, duties, rights and responsibilities which may follow on such citizenship. Such a citizen is not regarded as an alien in the rest of the Republic. This is what the position is going to be. There is nothing, as that hon. member tried to indicate, which will prevent negotiations about labour from taking place when, in years to come—how long it will take we do not know—these people achieve full independence. The ultimate goal of our policy, is, after all, that we should have the greatest possible measure of separation. These people will then be citizens of Bantu territories in this country which can achieve their independence. If they then have labour to sell to us, they will negotiate with us in regard to the basis on which they want to sell that labour. If they have something else to sell, they will also negotiate with us. Surely it is obvious that this will have to happen. Therefore I regard this as an important facet in the development of the basic policy of separate development in this country. It is a milestone which is so important that it will in future be regarded, as far as I am concerned, as one of the most important events of our time. I think the public outside cannot have the slightest doubt that it is the sincere intention of this side of this House to carry out this policy consistently. We do not doubt that the electorate outside will understand and accept this policy. It is in the interests of everybody.

In conclusion I therefore want to say that I congratulate the department and the hon. the Minister on having progressed so far in this matter. The insinuation is made that this has only been done with a view to the election. But last year there was no talk of an election and then this Bill was already on the Order Paper. References have also been made to another Act of the Deputy Minister which, too, was allegedly piloted through Parliament with a view to the election. But that was also on the Order Paper last year. Owing to lack of time it had to stand over until this year. I cannot see why it must stand over further now. I shall content myself with this. I think this is a very special event and a sign of progress in this country. It is especially in the interests of all the race groups which want to live together in peace in South Africa in the future.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Nelspruit, who has just sat down, made the point that this measure was not fiction. He said, “Daar is die mense, en daar is die gebiede.”—There are the people, there are the areas. This is apparently a simple question of now giving the people the citizenship for the area. The people are there, he says. The area is also there. What is the problem? But, if it is as easy as that, why does clause 3 have to provide that citizenship will be determined fa) by where you were born, (b) by where you live, (c) by what language you speak, including any language belonging to an associated linguistic group and (d) by relation to any member of the Bantu population? In other words, the measure has to cover a wide variety of circumstances which have nothing to do with where you live, where you are or who you are. It covers people who, because they cannot be covered by this “non-fiction” of the hon. member, have to be covered by a fictitious measure. I want to describe this measure as the political LSD of apartheid. It is the political LSD which, it is hoped, will lift the public into some sort of cloud world, some dream world, where the lack of reality in the thinking of the Government will be counteracted by the lack of reality created by the political LSD of this measure. It can have no other purpose than to try to take people into some unreal world, because it does not apply to this world, to our world in which we live. It is a form of LSD for the Bantu too—designed to hypnotize the Bantu into believing that they are going to get something out of this measure. However, in point of fact, all they will get is a little piece of paper dreamed up in the hazy cloudiness of the hon. the Minister’s mind as something which will now create reality out of the fiction of this policy. Therefore, for the white electorate it is a drug being fed to them to try and bolster the illusion of apartheid. And to the Bantu people it is a drug to make them believe they have something which in fact they do not have. It is an opium to make them feel they are receiving something and an opium to the white electorate to make them believe that apartheid can be made to work.

The hon. member for Nelspruit said that this was on the road to the development of full independence and that time would tell us when. What he fails to tell us and what the hon. the Minister and the Government fail to tell South Africa is, how will they control the time-table? Once they have started on this road how will they be able to control the time-table to independence? They have said that this is the road to self-determination. By what right do they then deny this self-determination to the people to whom they have made this promise? They have started on a road, they have put the Bantu people’s feet on to an accelerator of a movement which the cannot control. They have taken their foot off the brake and they cannot control the development of that movement. The hon. member says that there is no alternative to this because otherwise the white people will have to capitulate to numbers.

Yes, that is so.

There he confirms it: no alternative or the white people will capitulate to numbers. I am sorry that the hon. member for Pietersburg is not here because I would have liked to make this point to him. He says that if one has a small white population and a vast black population, then the Whites are outnumbered by Bantu. However, he says that if separate states are created for them with their own citizenship, the Whites are no longer outnumbered. In other words, if we have 13 million Bantu they outnumber the Whites. But if you have eight times 2 million, 16 million Bantu in a few years’ time—which is a reasonable expectation—the Whites are no longer outnumbered.

They are not.

The hon. member for Rustenburg says they are not. Is this the new maths that is being taught, that you are outnumbered if you are 13 million to one but you are not outnumbered if you are eight times 2 million to one? This is the sort of illogical nonsense which is built up round this so-called policy.

What about the ethnical grouping?

The hon. member asks me about ethnical grouping. I will deal with that in a moment.

I should like to deal with another argument of the hon. member for Pietersburg. Firstly I wanted to deal with the nonsense that if you divide the Bantu into separate nations, they will not outnumber us. Then he said that one cannot live on bread alone. I should like to remind hon. members on that side of the House of a famous historian who wrote of Africa that he hoped that history would not record that while the Boer people thought they lost the Anglo-Boer War and while they thought they won the Battle of Blood River, in fact they had won the Anglo-Boer War and lost the Battle of Blood River. That is what is happening under this policy of this Government. Afrikaner Nationalism is rampant and victorious. The defeat of 1902 has now been avenged. So that war which they thought they had lost had been won. But the battle of Blood River which they thought they had won—is that being won or lost to-day? The hon. member for Zululand is not here, but he could well talk of what will happen to Zululand under the logical consequences of this policy.

Throughout this debate member after member, starting with the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Rustenburg by interjection, has hammered on the fact that we are dealing with separate nations.

It is so.

The hon. the Minister accepts it. Thank you. The hon. the Minister went so far as to say “Hierdie volke verskil van mekaar soveel dat hulle, wat taalgebruik betref, meestal mekaar se taal nie eens kan verstaan nie”. He went on to say that they differ in various aspects “en sterkste van alles irr taal”. In other words, the whole basis on which the concept of the Government of Bantu nationhood, of separate nations, is based on language.

Why do you read two words out of their context?

I will read the rest.

Why do you play such a false game?

I do not need to follow the false tactics of the Government. I am making the point that language is important. I shall read all the words to show that I have omitted nothing material. I quote:

I said “various factors”. I quote further:

I quoted the last part, because I was dealing with language. I said specifically “other factors”, and then I quoted “strongest of all, language”. Everybody on that side except the hon. the Minister said “hear, hear”.

I say “hear, hear” for my words and not for your words.

Does the hon. the Minister accept that strongest of all is language?

As bond to link them up with their nation.

Let us have a look at this. I do not know how this hon. the Minister, the Minister of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, can come to this House and make statements like this.

He does not do his homework.

I want to quote from “Contributions to the History of Bantu Linguistics” by Doke and Cole. Will the hon. the Minister accept that Professor Doke is the accepted authority on Bantu languages in South Africa?

He is one of them.

I want to refer to the paper by Professor C. M. Doke which deals with the earliest records of Bantu. It is interesting to see that he finds that the earliest records of Bantu are found in a place called Punt. That country represented what the Egyptians called Bunt. This happened because the P and the B are interchangeable in the Egyptian alphabet. The Bantu were the people who inhabited this country called Bunt. That was the earliest record of the use of the name Bantu in the history of the world.

Who has done his homework?

I do not need to do homework. I happen to know something about the Bantu people of South Africa, which that hon. the Minister does not know.

He cannot even “crib” intelligently.

I want to refer to one of the earliest findings—i.e. the finding of Heinrich Lichtenstein in 1808. In his paper, “Bemerkungen über die Sprachen der Südafrikanischen wilden Völkerstämme”, he said that all linguistic types of the South African aborigines must be classified as dialects of either one or the other of these two principal classes. Those were Hottentot and Bantu. He further stated:

I am quoting from page 55 of Heinrich Lichtenstein’s analysis. As early as 1808 all the Bantu people on the East Coast south of the 12th degree, were regarded by him as one nation.

How can that be?

I have quoted it, whether it is right or wrong. I am dealing with authorities and not with the pipe dreams of this Government. I can go on quoting person after person until we get to the earlier subdivision of Bantu people.

Are you talking of the days before Adam and Eve or after?

I now want to refer to Carl Richard Lepsius, who lived from 1810 to 1884. and who did the first grouping of Bantu people in South Africa. He found that there were basically three groups. They were the Original African Negro, under which the Bantu Negro and the Mixed Negro is classified, the Hamitic group and the Semitic group. Within the group Original African Negro he grouped the Bantu peoples who became the Bantu in South Africa, and this group was considered as one language group. I can go on quoting authority after authority. I can quote Needham Cust and Father Toreend, for example. I can quote this book page after page, and it comes to the inescapable conclusion that the Bantu form one nation and one linguistic group. I want to quote one of the latest subdivisions, this was made by Professor Lepsius and it was published in Berlin. Strangely enough, most of these authorities are German authorities. He divided the original African Negro into the sub-headings Bantu Negro and Mixed Negro. Under the Bantu Negro he classified the Herero, Mpongwe, Fernando Po, Kafir, Xhosa, Zulu Tswana, Sotho, Rolong and Swahili. Under the subheading Mixed Negro he brings in the Ibo group who have been mentioned by the hon. member for Middelland, as a different separate group. Besides the Ibo, the Mixed Negro Group consists of the Efik, Ful, Kanuri, Dinka and Shilluk tribes. Then there are still the Hamitic and the Semitic groups. I want to refer to the latest position. I quote from page 77 of “The Growth of Comparative Bantu Philology”:

Once again the Bantu races of South Africa and Southern Africa south of the Congo are classified under the Bantu family.

What is your point?

I am making this point at some length because it has been emphasized over and over again that language is the issue which is of prime importance. Yet if you study these records and comparative Bantu languages, which I have done in my time …

It does not appear to be the case.

I happened to take it as a major subject at the university, which I think is more than that hon. Minister did. That is why I know about these authorities. The language division between the Bantu race groups in South Africa has developed from a basic language, namely the language Ur-Bantu. If you make certain sound changes the Sotho and Zulu languages become one language. If I talk to the Deputy Minister here and say: “Uyangizwa ’fundini?”, he will understand me. He comes from the Eastern Cape. If I say to the hon. Maruti from Marico: “Uyangizwa ukuti ngitini maruti?” he will understand me. He comes from the North Western Transvaal. If I talk to my hon. friend on my right, he will understand me because he comes from Natal. We all understand each other when we speak Zulu whether we come from the Eastern Cape, the North Western Transvaal or Natal. If you speak to a Swazi, a Xhosa, a Pondo or a Matabele in Rhodesia in the same language, they will all understand you. Is the hon. the Minister going to tell me that the Ndebele of Rhodesia and the Zulu of Zululand are different nations with different cultures and different languages?

Yes.

This just shows the fallacy of this argument. The Tswana and the Sotho will understand each other. They all come originally from one basic Bantu people.

You are stupid.

I am not interested in insults from the hon. the Minister. If I wanted to tell him what I thought of him personally you would not allow me to do so, Mr. Speaker. He can say what he likes about me being stupid. I only quoted historical facts. The hon. the Minister represents a party which claims to represent historic rights of the Bantu people. They are always talking about their historic background, their historic homelands, their historic Bantu culture and their historic bonds. But as soon as you take history back to any sort of beginnings of history then you must not do it. Then it is no longer history. Then you are being stupid. But as long as it suits the Nationalist Party’s case history starts whenever they want it to start. They determine a date and say that 1913 is the start of Bantu homelands. They say that these historic Bantu homelands were born in 1913. But when they want to talk about Bantu culture and the cultural bonds then they go back further. When I bring in facts, hard linguistic facts which he cannot dispute, his only answer is that I am stupid. This is what the hon. the Minister said. Has he the right to determine where history starts and ends? Has he the right to say that the Fingo ...

May I ask the hon. member a question?

I am so pleased to see a Natal member here that I will answer his question.

I should like to ask the hon. member if he would regard the Germans, the Dutch and the Anglo-Saxons as being the nucleus of a single nation.

They have been and they are the nucleus of the South African nation …

Are they all a single nation in Europe?

… for which that hon. member pretends to plead. He pretends to plead for national unity.

I spoke of Europe.

Mr. Speaker, he did not say “of Europe”. He asked whether I believe that the English, German and Dutch can form the nucleus of a nation.

In Europe.

It is not true. He did not say “in Europe”. And I say yes, we on this side believe so. But that hon. member who, if I am right, sends his children to a German school and speaks German, does not believe that we can form one South African nation out of those three groups. Does he know that there is such a thing as a Swiss nation where there are Germans, French, Italian and Austrians, forming one nation, the Swiss nation? Has he ever heard of a Belgian nation with Flemish and Belgians? Has he ever heard of a Canadian nation with French and English? And then he and his Government pretend to believe in a South African nation. How do you have one set of rules for the white man in Europe, another set for the white man in South Africa and a different set for the Bantu? If this is true, then it must apply equally whether it be to the English, Afrikaans or German speaking South African or to the Zulu, the Xhosa or the Swazi; these three particularly. Where does the Fingo come in who lives down in the Ciskei but who speaks a Zulu language and was chased out of Zulu-land by the Zulu? Where do we end with this sort of utter nonsense trying to pretend that you can tie every single Bantu by some invisible link to some mythical homeland and give him a piece of paper and say: “You have now got the citizenship of a country.” There are not even the countries to give them citizenship of. There are not even self-governing territories. Parliament is nevertheless asked to pass this fiction.

What are you worrying about?

My hon. friend says what am I worrying about. I am worrying because I believe that this measure holds within it potential evil and danger to the future of white South Africa. I believe that this measure can be part of the destruction of the future of the white man in South Africa. In this measure we are deliberately destroying the loyalty of the black man to the power and authority of the white Government of South Africa. To-day there is one citizenship and that citizenship implies one loyalty and one authority. That is the authority of this Parliament. With that authority goes the power to ensure the safety and the security of the whole of South Africa. This Parliament, by claiming the right to govern South Africa, has the right to demand the loyalty and the obedience of all the people who live in South Africa. The fundamental evil of this measure is that it consciously sets out to destroy the loyalty of the black man to the authority of the white man in South Africa. This sets out to tell him that there is no longer any need for him to pay respect and accept and recognize the authority of the white man’s parliament in Cape Town. This bit of paper makes him a citizen of a separate country, with his own government, his own flag, his own loyalty, his own parliament, his own foreign affairs and, if he does not like the S.A.B.C., his own tom-toms. This is a deliberate act of suicide which we are being asked to carry out, suicide of this country, if we pass this measure. That is why we are opposed to it. We are opposed to it for three basic reasons: (1) because of its danger to South Africa; (2) because it is bluffing the white electorate of South Africa; and (3) because it is holding out false hope for the Bantu people of South Africa. For those three reasons we strongly oppose this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban (Point) has already made good speeches in this House, and he has made worse ones, but I think that the speech he made this evening will certainly be remembered as one of his very worst. At one stage the hon. member tried to teach us. It is probably the most confused quoting of authorities I have ever listened to. The hon. member would probably make the worst lecturer one could possibly find. The hon. member tried to put across the biggest lot of nonsense here. For example, his argument boils down to the fact that everyone who understands Afrikaans, English and German belongs to one nation. That is what his argument boils down to. Now I should like to ask the hon. member: Is his argument that all nations using English as a medium are one nation? That is the ridiculous kind of thing the hon. member advocated here. The hon. member referred to Switzerland and to Belgium, but he need not have done so. He need only look at South Africa, where we have English-and Afrikaans-speaking communities in one South African nation. That argument can simply not hold water, Sir. It is also illuminating that this hon. member, who is very experienced, was so afraid of this Bill now before the House. His entire speech, particularly the end of it, evidenced the fear he is harbouring.

I shall still reply to what the hon. member said, but I should also like to align it with what the hon. member for East London (North) said. This evening he asked the question: “Who asked for this legislation?”. He asked it repeatedly. It is not the practice that legislation must always be asked for before a governing party will submit such legislation to the House. However, if the hon. member had just taken the trouble to read the late Dr. Verwoerd’s speech, made in this House on 20th May, 1959, in which this matter was discussed very fully, he would have noticed that there was already a movement in this direction, and that this pattern had alread been clearly laid out at that stage. I just want to mention to him an example of someone who did, in fact, ask for this legislation. That person is Chief Lucas Mangope, chief of the Tswana, who asked, inter alia, for legislation incorporating this idea. This is what he said—

This is now what a responsible Tswana, who is at present their Chief Minister, says. He is a man who is proud to be a Tswana. According to him that is what this policy of this side of the House means to him and to his people. I preferably take note of this Tswana leader’s remarks than the remarks of some writers quoted by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District).

There is something else I want to refer to. The hon. member for East London (North) also asked: “Who will defend our borders against communists?”. This is more or less what his question boiled down to. I now want to read him another quote, and I think he can draw on this to determine what his own standpoint in this connection must be. On the same occasion Chief Lucas Mangope said this—

Then he makes this illuminating remark—

This is now the communists about which the hon. member is so concerned—

That is what this Bantu leader says his and his people’s conduct will be in respect of this so-called danger. This matter goes very much further. The question was asked: Who asked for this legislation? Who wants this kind of legislation? These are the typical questions of hon. members opposite who are not keeping pace with present-day realities. Sir, what is the position? To-day we find that Bantu leaders, and also those in the cities, come along and tell us that they want the recognition of an individual citizenship. They come and ask us this.

When did they come and ask it?

They did not come and ask Parliament. I am now speaking from personal experience. To that hon. member, who is now so talkative, I may just say that two or three days before I departed for Cape Town this Bantu leader came to my Office and asked me: “Would you not, if possible, convey this standpoint of ours to the Minister and to Parliament? This is what my people and I ask.” He is at present Chairman of the Bantu Advisory Council of the Potchefstroom Ikageng Bantu township. He is an elected leader who has been chairman for quite a few years. He is a man of whom notice can surely be taken. He came along to speak on behalf of his people. He said: “Please tell your Parliament, for which I have the highest respect, that we want to see ourselves as Tswana. We want to be recognized as Tswana. We want our Tswana citizenship to be recognized.” This idea of an individual pride, an individual nation and an individual citizenship, goes so far that these same people say: “Why can we not obtain a school in our own area which uses only our own language? Why cannot only Tswana, English and Afrikaans be taught in the schools in our area? Why must it be a matter of other languages?” I do not want to speak about that now, Sir. This is not the opportunity for expressing an opinion about that. These people even go as far as saying: “We want a Tswana area influx control in respect of the other Bantu nations in South Africa. In other words, we do not want Xhosa in a Tswana township. We do not want Zulu or Venda here, unless it is necessary for us to have them here.” Then hon. members ask who requested this kind of legislation. Such are the questions put to us.

Did that Bantu leader ask for independence?

It did not form a part of the discussion. I do not now want to convey points that he did not ask me to convey. It was purely a private conversation, and as the hon. member himself realizes, one does not convey standpoints if one is not authorized to do so. I am now conveying what I am authorized to convey. These are surely positive signs of a nation in the process of maturing. I cannot understand hon. members opposite being so out of step with reality in respect of the Bantu people. I cannot see that this policy of the United Party in respect of this matter can mean anything but what General Smuts also meant by his holism. This idea of unity, that all are “Africans”, may have strategic value, but we are dealing with ethnological concepts here. Then the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) comes along with the alarming repetition of the militant idea of Bantu nationalism. On several occasions they have said that “Black nationalism is becoming militant”. He must have repeated it five times in his speech. If in future any problems arise in this connection, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) will hear more about this speech of his. This is not the first time this Session that he is using this concept of militant action on the part of black nationalists. He is wrenching the concept of nationalism altogether out of context. He does not want to see the positive and the attractive aspects of nationalism. We must think of the problems we are faced with in respect of communist actions, the moulding of thought and the tendencies within the Pan-African Organization in South Africa, which we must suppress, and in the people now sitting here on Robben Island. These are the people the hon. member wants to present as black nationalists. But he is altogether out of context with this idea. Nationalism is surely something fine and something positive. Surely it is not something subversive. The present position is surely not dangerous to the State. But now the hon. member comes along with this kind of speech in which he incites that black militant action, and I can only tell the hon. member that he is extremely irresponsible in that attitude he is displaying. I do not reproach the hon. member for referring to nationalism as “an evil philosophy”. He does not understand the concept, but what he does, in fact, understand about it, is that it looms before him and his party like a wall and is preventing them from ever governing in this country and from ever sitting on this side of the House. That is the most important reason why it is an “evil philosophy” for him and for his party. I shall reply to the hon. member’s standpoint that independence and sovereignty are a requirement of citizenship. To a certain extent the hon. member for Mus-grave used the same argument as the hon. member for Durban (Point) used in respect of language. With reference to clause 3, in the light of what the Minister said in his second-reading speech, hon. members will see that they are backing altogether the wrong argument, because in clause 3 there is specific reference to the area where a person is born, where he is domiciled, to his language and then further—

If they would only read clause 3 it would surely be clear, together with what the hon. the Minister said, that the hon. the Minister’s argument is not chiefly based on the question of language. It must be considered in conjunction with the other aspects of the matter. The statement was also made here by hon. members on that side, and in particular by the hon. member for Green Point, that the situation we are now in here is analogous to the situation in 1949 when the hon. members on this side of the House adopted another standpoint in respect of dual citizenship. It is surely not analogous, and I shall also go into that in detail. There is also another aspect that must be distinguished in that connection and that is: What is primary, nationality or citizenship? If one were to refer to the various authorities on this subject, one would find that in constitutional law citizenship is not identical with nationality in respect of international law. They are two separate concepts. In constitutional law a distinction is drawn between citizens having full political rights and others who are mere subjects, although the latter are also members of the state, enjoying its protection in international law.