I move—

At this late hour I think the hon. the Minister should be warned of the dangers that he is facing and the injustice that he is allowing to be perpetrated upon fellow-farmers in this country. The hon. the Minister was warned in the earlier stages of this Bill by his own members on that side of the House as to what happens when these fences are cut. The hon. the Minister, notwithstanding those warnings, has persisted that Section 21bis, which is provided for in Clause 8, must remain. I think the hon. the Minister should be warned of the inconvenience and the dangers that may flow from what he permits in this Bill. May I reiterate that a well-constructed vermin-proof fence just cannot be cut any old way and it cannot be repaired within a very short period of time, and certainly not within the period of time prescribed in this Bill; and as far as other fences are concerned, which are to be allowed to remain open for seven days, although a guard may be put on, I think the hon. the Minister is being unreasonable in not accepting an amendment or attempting to overcome the difficulties in some other way. If the Minister will not reconsider the position, I want to ask him now to bring in an amendment in the Other Place to meet the demands of the farmers of this country.

Sir, boundary disputes among nations have often led to wars, and before wire was introduced in the 1860s for the construction of fences, the lack of boundaries led to strained conditions among many farmers and occasionally even to bloodshed. Stone walls were constructed at considerable expense to avoid the kraaling of stock at night. Like the hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) I fear that the provisions of this Bill for the cutting of jackal-proof fences at the discretion of jackal clubs may lead to the revival of the old antagonisms which we thought had been relegated to the past. I associate myself with the hon. member for King William’s Town in pleading with the Minister to realize that fences, especially jackal-proof fences, are regarded as sacred by land-owners; that they cannot be restored to the condition in which they were before they were cut, and I plead with the Minister to give this request of ours his most earnest consideration.

I feel that I owe a reply to hon. members opposite who have again expressed their fears and doubts. In the first place, I want to tell them that it will happen very seldom in practice that vermin-proof fences are cut, because if it was such an effective fence as hon. members have described, there would be no reason for cutting the fence because then a jackal could not escape from that camp. Secondly, I want to say this.

Does the hon. the Minister realize that no vermin-proof fence has ever been erected which has prevented jackals from climbing over?

That is a brand new proposition the hon. member is now stating. If the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) is correct, then I do not know why people continue to erect vermin-proof fences. In the second place, I want to allege that all the vermin-proof fences in our country are not in such an excellent condition as hon. members aver. I have seen vermin-proof fences which were just an apology for a fence, because for years that area or district was never menaced by jackal; but later, by means of a road or in some other way, it entered certain areas. But a third point I want to make is this; I think it is also an exaggeration to say that one cannot restore a fence to its original condition. We all know that one never erects fences in sections of more than about 500 yards, and when a fence has been cut the owner is still at liberty to insist on the registered jackal club breaking up that fence, at least for that distance of 500 yards, in order to repair it properly. If the repairs have to be made according to that extremely high standard, and if such a case occurs, it will only have the effect of the people who in terms of the Act are given the right to cut the fence, making use of that concession as sparingly as possible, because it may possibly involve them in such high costs. I feel that this provision in the Act which provides how the fence has to be repaired is really the guarantee against abuse on the one hand, and on the other hand I must say that I do not support the idea which by implication underlies all the objections raised by hon. members, namely that registered hunt clubs and their officials will are so irresponsibly, because usually they consist of practical farmers of that area, and I think our farmers, when dealing with the property of other farmers, act very responsibly, particularly when they are put in responsible positions. I am therefore sorry, but I fear that the Bill will have to remain as it is, and I do not intend amending it in the Other Place.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

From this side of the House we give this Bill our blessing. We think it is a desirable administrative development which is taking place here and we are therefore prepared to support this Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I should like to bring the question of school feeding to the notice of the Minister. If we take the translation of Dr. Kempel of “educare”, viz. “to nourish”, and if in addition we accept that it means the nutrition of the body, the mind and the spirit, I think the hon. the Minister will realize why I regard it of such importance. Kipling said, “There is no wealth but health”. A low level of health is detrimental to a whole nation, but it is possible to prevent it, and it is possible to regard it as a national investment, and when I say that I want to come back to our schoolchildren and I particularly want to emphasize that in order to have a healthy mind the schoolchild must be a properly fed body. A properly fed body does not only mean having enough to eat, but eating the right food. The world has realized that this is of great importance and we find that even National Nutritional Councils were established by the old League of Nations and that thereafter this matter was emphasized year after year at nutritional and agricultural conferences. We in South Africa also made a national survey in the year 1938, and thereafter the matter also often received attention. A National Nutritional Council was also established by an Act passed by this Parliament in 1940. I find it very significant that the personnel of the Nutritional Council consisted of medical men. There were also people on it representing commerce and industry…

Order! Under what Head is the hon. member discussing this matter?

I am discussing the Minister’s policy under his salary. I am mentioning this matter particularly in the interest of the child, and I will immediately pass on to the quesstion of schools…

The hon. member cannot discuss provincial schools here.

The National Nutritional Council as such falls under this Minister, and not under the provincial schools.

It is often said that a child is lazy at school, and when he falls behind the blame is put on his lack of intelligence, whilst the actual fact is that he does not receive the right food. The standard of physical health definitely has an influence on a child’s mind. The National Nutritional Council in its survey found that 40.3 per cent of our schoolboys in the Union of South Africa were underfed, i.e. between the age of 6 and 16 years. It is for that reason that I regard the matter as being of the utmost importance. I also find that Russia, peculiarly enough, is one of the nations which has made most progress in this respect.

Order! The hon. member cannot continue like that. The matter cannot be discussed under this Vote.

I thought that the National Nutritional Council falls under the hon. the Minister. It has always resorted under the Department of Education, but I abide by your ruling.

In regard to what I said last night about the necessity for having greater co-ordination in the purchase of valuable archives by the State, I now want to refer to Sub-Head “L”, Libraries. I do not know whether all hon. members are aware that the S.A. Public Library in Cape Town and the State Library in Pretoria are the two great refererence libraries in our country, where rare and valuable collections should be housed. Now we find that even here there is competition between institutions which do not have to perform this function, but institutions which evidently have a super-abundance of funds available to them. I want to mention two specific cases here of which I have knowledge. In the first place there is a unique and extremely valuable collection of authoritative books on heraldry which were written years ago by a well-known herald, Mr. E. Pama, which was offered for sale to the Government for R4,000. The State’s reaction to that was that the matter should stand over until the Heraldry Act had been passed by Parliament, when further negotiations would take place in regard to the purchase of this collection. In the meantime this collection was purchased by the library service of the Cape Provincial Council for R11,000 and of that sum they had received several thousand rand by way of subsidy from the Central Government. The Heraldry Act, for which I was the first one to plead in this House, has now been passed and will now have to be implemented by the Central Government, and not by the Cape Provincial Administration, but now the Cape Provincial Administration has these books, which the Central Government ought to have had, in a library which is not a reference library.

And at a much lower price.

We could have bought it at a much lower price. The library service of this same Province also outbid by far a Department of the Central Government in order to acquire the valuable Africana collection of Dr. P. J. Nienhaber. You will remember, Mr. Chairman, that Dr. Nienhaber had a collection of every book published in the Afrikaans language. That was the most valuable collection, in so far as the Afrikaans language is concerned, of Africana in South Africa. Those books should be kept in one of our two big reference libraries, our State Libraries; they should not be kept in a Provincial Library. And do you know what happened? The Central Government could have bought that collection for R7,000. The Cape Provincial Administration’s Library Service bought it for R11,000 and still the provinces are always complaining that not enough funds are made available to them, and then they do such things; they compete with the Central Government, which to a large extent subsidizes them in regard to such matters.

But if the Central Government does not want it?

In both cases the Government wanted these collections; they simply jumped in ahead of the Government. They make use of subsidies they receive from the Central Government in order to outbid them in respect of documents and collections of books which should be kept in our archives or in our State Libraries. I am now asking that in one way or another an end should be put to this unhealthy competition. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to effect a greater measure of co-ordination, and to make sufficient funds available to the State Libraries to enable them to perform their functions properly. If we are to have this sort of competition between the Central Government, which must perform the functions of a Central Archives and to which the control of our State libraries is entrusted, and the Provincial Administrations which receive large subsidies from the Central Government, and we then find that in two such important cases the Provincial Administration outbids the Central Government, a stop should be put to it. The hon. member behind me says it is every man’s cleverness, but it is also sometimes every man’s stupidity, because the State could have obtained those documents and books at a much lower price to make them available to the whole nation, but the Cape Provincial Administration paid thousands of rands more, and they are not available to the whole nation. Sir, I want to ask the hon. the Minister to consider this matter very thoroughly and to see what can be done in regard to getting more co-operation between the Provincial Councils and the Central Government in so far as these two sub-heads “F” and “L” are concerned.

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to give serious consideration to providing in the educational establishments under his control, proper training in the development of the individual’s skill in communication, that is to say, through a training in speech and drama, with, of course, particular emphasis on speech-training. I believe that in this technical and scientific age one finds too many students and scholars who lack the ability to express themselves adequately and who lack the ability to think clearly and logically. No matter what a student’s occupation in life is going to be, I believe that it is important for him to be able to express his thoughts clearly. Mr. Chairman, I believe that one of the aims of education—and here I include also technical education—should be to achieve a balanced personality. I believe that if we can achieve that object we would do away with a lot of the juvenile and adolescent problems which we have to-day. I am convinced that one of the best ways of achieving a balanced personality in the students that we educate, is to develop the individual’s skill in communication, his thoughts and feelings to his fellowmen, that is to say, to provide proper speech-training. That I believe must be so because, after all, speech is the tool of thought; speech is the common man’s means for the development of his power to think clearly, and for the development of his power to feel and understand. I believe we should not make the mistake of believing that the power of recording speech in terms of reading and writing is of equal importance with speech. I believe that speech is fundamental, and that the writing or recording of speech is merely a way of transmitting thoughts. It is, I believe, with the development of the power to think, that educationists should be concerned, because it is upon the skilled use of human thought and speech that all the possibilities of the development of the human personality depend. It is, I think, interesting to note that in the great civilizations of the past—for example, classical Greece and Renaissance Europe—a training in the development of the individual’s skill in the thought process appears to have formed an indispensable part of the education of man. I think that if we wish to produce an educated, civilized person in the very broadest sense of these words, whatever his field of specialization or whatever his occupation may ultimately be, a training in speech and drama with particular emphasis on speech-training should be an indispensable and fundamental part of the whole educational system. I go further, Mr. Chairman, and I say that such a training is, I believe, a prerequisite for the preservation of democracy, because I believe that the survival of democracy depends upon the individual’s power to think.

Finally, I would suggest that one of the best ways of arresting the deterioration in speech, which I understand from educationists exists in regard to both languages in our country, is through proper and adequate training in speech. I therefore ask the hon. the Minister to consider the provision of adequate speech and drama training in the establishments under his control.

The hon. member for Durban (Musgrave), who has just resumed his seat, has made his maiden speech here. He is a young man and he is now starting on a career which can mean much to the nation and to future generations. I want to congratulate him on having practically taken the words out of my mouth in regard to things I wanted to mention. These are things which lie so near to my heart, the language, its expression, the personality and the education of the man as a whole for civilization in this democracy of ours. I want to welcome the hon. member here very heartily, in this debate and in other debates. He will sometimes receive blows and knocks, but he can be assured that he started off very well to-day.

I just want to continue with what I said last night, or rather, with what I wanted to say but was unable to say. I was coming to the question of education outside the school, for which there is an amount of R7,000 under sub-head “L”. This whole matter of education outside the school connection is in its initial stages. I referred here to the question of tests and how fallible some of these tests are. Particularly when scholars and students fail, or when they feel they cannot proceed any further, and they go out into life, they drift away. Many of them are lost; their road leads nowhere. In Britain there are approximately 300,000 such people practically every year. Provision is made by youth clubs, youth organizations and youth camps for about 100,000 but the other 200,000 are lost. I may say that this movement is under the patronage of the Duke of Edinburgh and one of the greatest promoters of this scheme is Viscount Montgomery. We in South Africa have a great need for the care of these young people who lose the way, and that is often the result of these tests being wrongly applied. You see, the old method of psychoanalysis is something of the past. It is something we can forget about. I said last night that we attach far too much value to the intelligence quotient alone. That is why so many students get lost between the schools and the university. They go through school with flying colours but when they go to the university they fail in the first year. They are frustrated young people. Their aptitude was not tested, their skill was not tested, nor their efficiency, their heritage, their environment. Their personality, as the hon. member has said, was not tested. They were analysed but they were not fully tested, and they were not tested as complete individuals to see where they fitted in. Just recently Prof. MacMillan of Natal said this, and his great obsession is those transition periods in the lives of these young people when they suffer shocks, and I suppose there are few greater shocks than those sustained by the child who is disappointed, the failure, those who fall by the way and who begin to feel that they do not count. Such a person sinks down and he is frustrated and feels he cannot achieve anything, and he is lost. That is what causes these so-called “ducktails I have the greatest sympathy for those children, and together with Viscount Montgomery I can say: They are not bad; there are no bad children; there are no bad people unless one makes them bad. But these children are made bad and they sink down and they seek consolation from one another, but they cannot console each other. Therefore I want to plead with the Minister for great developments. I know I am not addressing an unsympathetic Minister. We are agreed, we are in the same caucus and in the same party and we think along the same lines, but I feel that the note should be sounded for us to establish an organization for these young people who get lost along the way and get nowhere, and that we should do something for them by means of this education which has no connection with the schools. There are too many people in this country who think one can only learn in a school. That idea should be dispelled. Those young people can go to their work and continue taking courses whilst they work—this is generally known as “learn as you earn”. It was recently said in this House that the employers in industry, etc., are not very favourably disposed to this idea. That is not true. The Federated Chambers of Industry held a symposium and got educational experts to tell them how the employer could help the youngster in his employ to study further. Mrs. White, of Grahamstown, made that suggestion, and Mr. Leloffs accepted it. He said: You are right, and we will form a committee. But then the State should not first allow those children to slip out of its hands, and then try to get them back. It is very difficult to get them back. Let them come directly under the care of the State. He said that those people in industry would assist them to find direction in their work, outside the school connection, so that they would still study, and that they would give them guidance in this manner. In other countries methods are being tried to direct these young people into good careers, and it has been very successful. In England there are already 100,000 who are assisted every year in finding the right direction. They come from the slums, from the East End of London, and they become useful citizens who fit into the modern democracy, as that hon. member pleaded for.

I can no longer resist the temptation to express my appreciation here for the calm and pleasant atmosphere and the high level which has characterized this debate on educational matters right from the beginning. As this is my first appearance in this capacity, I want to express my appreciation for the great interest revealed in the various spheres of education until now, and I hope it will continue in that way.

I want to begin with the first speaker on the Opposition side, the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp), whom I want to congratulate on having raised a very interesting subject, because in my career as a schoolmaster I was always interested in the under-privileged, in those who are under-privileged intellectually. I always adopted the standpoint that it was really wrong to reward the clever student with prizes and to give him school reports which he could go and boast about at home because he came first or second in the class. It is not the achievements of the student himself, but the gifts with which he has been endowed by his Creator, which he has merely developed. But the others, the poor plodders who are endowed with fewer, talents, but who also have to struggle along in life and try to get somewhere, are really the people who should not only receive our sympathy, but also our support. The hon. member for Hillbrow made a stirring plea here. I do not want to say that we always see eye to eye in regard to who can or cannot be educated. We may differ on that. But in the main it really amounts to this, that the hon. member made a plea for which I want to congratulate him, and he has substantiated his statements by furnishing proof.

There are, however, a few things I should like to tell him. In the beginning of his speech the hon. member expressed the opinion that we are still making available too little money for education. I am glad he said so. It is just a pity that the Minister of Finance was not present. I do not want to quarrel with my colleague, but I think that any Minister of Education who is saddled with so many divisions in education, not only direct education, but with all the various items which appear in this Vote, must certainly always bear in mind the fact that any Government should appreciate that it is an investment in a spiritual sense and not so much an investment where one can always see concrete material dividends. But unless one invests now, there will be insolvency in later years, and then one has neither the investment nor the dividends it pays. Therefore we must continue pleading. This is a difficult old world, this present materialistic world in which we live, but with the assistance of this Committee I will always exert myself in that direction. But I do think the hon. member for Hillbrow was perhaps a little unfair in his criticism in regard to the State subsidies to universities. The hon. member said that we contribute very little per student.

The general contribution.

The hon. member said that we do not make enough funds available for the universities. I want to point out, however, that in this respect we make fairly big contributions. According to the data available to me, the State contributes 73 per cent of the running expenses of the universities, whilst in England it is 71 per cent and in many of the other Western countries it is less. I think that in regard to contributions to the universities, we as a State contribute to the running expenses fairly generously. But the hon. member mainly dealt with the problem of the subnormal. The sub-normal, the so-called uneducatable children, constitute a difficult problem in regard to which I would like to say something. As the hon. member knows, we have divided control, and at the time a commission of inquiry was appointed under the chairmanship of the late Dr. Wouter de Vos Malan, the ex-Superintendent-General of Education of the Cape Province. They suggested the set-up we have now, and ever since the report of that commission was published, the position has been the same. Now it seems to me that there is only one way out. I first wanted to say that this would perhaps be the first task of the Education Advisory Council which is about to be established, but later I thought that I should rather suggest appointing a committee of experts to advise us in regard to this matter. Hon. members will remember that my colleague, the Minister of Social Welfare, already referred to it, particularly when we discussed the Rudolph Steiner Schools, and he said he had paid a visit to Hermanus. He then mentioned that we intended appointing an interdepartmental committee to investigate the matter. Actually, it appears to me that this interdepartmental committee should more specifically confine itself to the question: Is this a function for Education, for Social Welfare or for Health? And if it is their collective function, what percentage of the responsibilities are to be borne by these various bodies? I think that can continue. I have no objection to what was announced by my hon. colleague. In fact, it was done with my co-operation. But now I would rather suggest that we should immediately as a Department of Education, together with all the departments concerned, review the whole matter, and with reference to the Wouter de Vos Malan Scheme, in co-operation also with the provinces (where there is divided control) appoint a committee of experts to investigate the whole matter and to determine what the best thing is to do. If I get that co-operation. I can immediately instruct my Department to do so. I do not want to eliminate the others. Let the other departments also be represented, and also the Provincial Administrations, but let us examine the whole matter de novo to see what is best for these people. We may differ on this. The hon. member, for example, became quite excited about one of those children who got lost in the town. The hon. member regards the fact that the child knew his address when he got lost, and that he knew he was lost, that he cried and knew that he had lost his way, as proof that he can be educated. With a few educational qualifications we have retained, the hon. member and I, after having become sullied by politics, I just want to express an opinion. I think I also have the right to express an opinion, and it is my opinion that it is possible to teach these people something by repetition, by drilling them. Even a person who is practically without any intelligence at all can be drilled to remember certain things.

We are quite agreed there.

Yes, but the hon. member cannot tell me that as a result of that it is clear that these people can be educated. It is not for me or for us to decide that. That is what the whole argument has been about all this time. Because the hon. member went further and pointed out how, for example, in Britain £485 a year was made available to mentally defective children in occupational centres. On the other hand, I know that many people in Britain consider that this amount is far too high, and they consider that it should not be more than £300, and that one can achieve the same object with £300. In this country there is only a very small number of such people, almost an insignificant number, and the unfortunate parents of these unfortunate children simply have to pay. I agree with the hon. member that on the one hand much is being done, but I am not yet convinced that because much is done in other countries we should also succumb to the temptation of doing much without ever having had a proper investigation of the matter. I do not think we know where we stand with these people. There are many teachers who may each have his own opinion, and they may differ from me, and we may perhaps differ from the hon. member for Hillbrow. But that is not the point. Actually, the standpoint here in South Africa is that this type of person cannot be educated. I think I should once more congratulate the hon. member and give him the assurance that I have decided to devote so much attention to this matter that we will really know where we stand, whether these children can be educated, etc. The hon. member accepts that anyone with an I.Q. of under 25 cannot be educated. He may be correct. The I.Q. of those who cannot be educated may even be higher. But it is no use trying to decide what the position is in this Committee, and I will therefore try to obtain the advice of experts.

The hon. member for Witbank (Mr. Mostert) is of course well known to all of us as one of the authorities, not only in the educational sphere, and he has had a very long career in which he has shown his enthusiasm and his real interest in educational matters. When he speaks I immediately feel uplifted, just as the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt), whom I now see sitting there, feels a little uplifted to-day. I do not think I will be blamed if I congratulate the hon. member, on behalf of all of us, on what he has achieved. But the hon. member for Witbank is a person who thoroughly knows everything about education, and after having listened to him I want to agree with him that the many troubles experienced by our youth to-day place a great responsibility on us. The hon. member mentioned, as one of the remedies, post-school education and the organization of activities. Therefore I agree that to a large extent in our complex society and in the troublous times in which we live, in which everybody is in a hurry, and when particularly the father and the mother are in a hurry, the so-called “ducktails” are the result of our complex social life. We are so inclined to say that these people are bad, and one doesn’t even want to look at them, one despises them, and one adopts a sort of ascetic attitude, and one says, “Fortunately I have been spared that”. But that of course does not solve the problems. In the short time available to him the hon. member stressed the importance of post-school education and training, and I want to tell him that I regard these matters in the same light. I think we should continually, as educationists, insist that employers should even allow time off to employees to take part in physical exercises to become more physically fit, and to take part in the training and education referred to by the hon. member for Musgrave, that is speech training and drama, etc. We must remember that the play-learn method and entertaining programmes without having a schoolmaster in the class with a cane, is most attractive to the young generation even when they have left the school-benches. I want to thank the hon. member for the ideas he expressed and the support he has promised in this regard.

Now I come to the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) who has put numerous questions to me, some of them burning questions too. The first matter he mentioned was a paragraph in our annual report mentioning that the Board for Nautical Training did not meet last year. He asked me for the reason. There is a very obvious reason. A committee of inquiry was appointed during last year and while the committee held its investigations, it did not meet. The report of the committee is now under consideration, and I can assure the hon. member that the investigation also included Coloured fishermen.

Secondly, the hon. member wanted to know what items are met under the Audiovisual Education sub-head. First of all, projectors are bought for schools with funds subsidized by provincial education departments and the Department of Education, Arts and Science; also films provided by the National Film Services; it also includes gramophone records, charts, etc., all being supplied by the film division of the Department of Education, Arts and Science. Another question was put to me in connection with the N.T.O. A committee of inquiry was appointed at the request of the N.T.O., as this organization ran into financial difficulties. The committee was appointed by my predecessor, the report has been submitted to me and it is now under consideration. So far I can tell the hon. member that we know for sure that these financial difficulties occur especially on the debit side of the Afrikaans-speaking section. So far the English theatre has carried the Afrikaans theatre. That was also said by the late Andre Huguenét, as the hon. member quoted him yesterday. Generally speaking, performing arts are a loss in all countries and have to be subsidized by the governments in all countries. The opera group, known as the Eoan Group, are Coloureds and this matter must as such be dealt with by the Department of Coloured Affairs.

As far as the Africa Institute is concerned, the Cabinet approved a grant of R26,000 to them last year. The Institute has been established to study the culture and the customs of the various peoples in Africa, and to publish the information obtained. Very interesting and useful material has so far been published which I can commend to the hon. member. I sincerely believe that if he reads it he will realize the necessity of a subsidy to this Institute.

I wish I could agree with you.

The hon. member put a question to me: What are the performing arts? This is referred to in sub-head L. I am very pleased to state that I succeeded in convincing the Cabinet this year that more money should be made available for the advancement of the performing arts. The following are included in performing arts: Various stage productions, music, i.e. chamber music, vocal as well as the ordinary musical instruments, ballet and opera. We sincerely hope to see these very important facets develop in the near future. We think that creating certain centres in the whole of the Republic will be much better than to try to organize this on a national basis; but that is also still in the mould.

The hon. member also asked a question in connection with the R48,000 which has been allocated for community theatres. I just want to remind the hon. member for Kensington that as stated in a reply to a question last Friday and also to-day by the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) this amount of R48,000 has as yet not been allocated. The allocation is still under consideration. I may say that this amount is intended to assist local authorities to provide community theatres. The idea is to pay this to local authorities on a subsidy basis. The basis on which assistance is rendered is the F for R subsidy, up to a maximum of R60,000 for any particular proposed project. Application for such assistance has to be made to the National Advisory Council for Adult Education which in turn will make recommendations to me.

Finally the hon. member asked me to make a statement in connection with the leakage of examination papers. I should like to accede to that request and I accordingly make the following statement: As long as written examinations are held there will be attempts to obtain question papers beforehand. Leakages have in the past occurred not only in the Department of Education, Arts and Science, but also in universities, in provincial education departments and other examining bodies. When my Department discovered towards the end of October 1960 that some of the National Senior Examination papers had leaked out, immediate steps were taken to substitute new question papers for those known to have leaked out. Further, a departmental committee was appointed by my predecessor to investigate the security measures and to recommend possible improvements thereon. The recommendations of this committee have been given effect to and amongst others a departmental disciplinary committee was appointed. When leakages of the November 1961 Senior Certificate examination papers were discovered, the police, in close collaboration with the disciplinary committee, investigated the matter, and I am glad to state that the official responsible for the leakages was caught and brought to justice. He was found guilty and sentenced to two months’ imprisonment. At the time of his arrest he had already resigned from the service.

*The hon. member for Karas (Mr. von Moltke) sent me a note to say that unfortunately he has to attend a very important meeting and that I should reply in his absence to the matters raised by him, which I shall now do. The hon. member was very serious in asking that funds should be provided for the purchase of valuable archives which are in private possession and which cannot be obtained in any other way than by purchasing them. People do not always want to give away these things. He particularly referred to the purchase of the Hoogenhout collection by the Cape Library Service. In reply to that, I can only give this assurance, that if similar cases occur again, I will sympathetically consider granting the necessary funds for such a good purpose. I trust, however, that this sympathetic attitude of mine will not give rise to persons who are in possession of valuable archives abusing my offer. Hon. members will realize how essential it is that particularly in the sphere or archives the public should also assist in preserving all this historic material for posterity. These archives will be purchased only in exceptional cases. The hon. member mentioned a few instances here. I accept that his facts are correct, because I know nothing to the contrary. He mentioned that the Cape Provincial Administration, through its library service purchased these archives and other things like Prof. Nienhaber’s collection of books, at a high price. It is, of course, difficult for the Central Government to interfere with the autonomy of the Provincial Government and to tell them: You may not buy that; we want to buy it. They also have the right to buy it if they want to. But the hon. member has drawn my attention to the fact that it is essential that there should be better co-operation between the provincial administrations and the various services that they render, and the Central Government and the service it renders, and that they should not bid against each other, with the result that, even in the case of people desiring to sell these things, unnecessarily high prices are paid. I will undertake to have the necessary consultations, with the assistance of my Department.

The hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) discussed a matter which I think the Chairman quite correctly ruled was really a provincial matter. Because the position is that in regard to the schools which are under my supervision, the children are mainly boarders living in hostels where sufficient food and other facilities are provided. In cases where parents cannot pay the full fees, they are assisted by means of bursaries. Therefore, actually a national nutritional scheme, in so far as I am concerned, is not really essential. Each province at the time had its own reasons and decided on its own to abolish its feeding scheme. I therefore cannot assist the hon. member by advising her how to tackle the matter if she feels strongly about it. Although she is not present now, I want to advise her to contact my Department, which will give her good advice in this regard. I think these are all the matters to which I have to reply now.

I want to deal for a moment with an item under sub-head F “Special Departmental Services”, especially those services which provide commercial, housecraft and technical education. May I preface what I have to say by indicating that at the present time it does seem as if we are entering a period where scientists are going to play an increasing part in our daily lives and in our economy. As remarked recently by a professor of mathematics: the mathematician is the man who is at the basis of the scientific pyramid to-day. The whole pyramid rests upon the mathematician. The scientist, with all his ability, with his capacity to present his science in practical terms, is unable to do this job unless he has technicians to help him. Behind the technicians you still have to have the civil administration; the ordinary commercial and industrial life of your country must go on, so I put the ordinary commercial and industrial life of our country at the bottom because, through taxation and other means, it must carry the technical side, which, in turn, gives effect to the idea of the scientist which may be based upon the mathematician. This is preliminary to asking the Minister to give particular attention to these institutions which fall under sub-head F. I note from the schedule which is provided, the number of such institutions in the large centres, especially urban areas. I would be the last person to complain about the benefits which those big centres are enjoying as a result of the developments which have taken place in this part of the Minister’s portfolio. I would be the last to complain. But, Sir, I do want to say this: In regard to so many of our smaller centres, the hope of further education, continuation classes and so forth, in regard to commercial schools and technical education is very limited indeed. You find in the poorer type of home that the parents very often take their children out of school at an early age. I think those parents can be persuaded to allow their children to study further if facilities are reasonably available to them. We have railwaymen scattered along the railway line at various centres; we have houses right away in the bundu where the Roads Department people live; we have people right away on the farms and in the small towns in the country. The children of those people are living in a closed world, Sir. It is very difficult for the parents, with their meagre earnings, to send their children to the bigger centres where free education is available to them. Even if free education is available to them, the parents must still provide accommodation and clothing. What I am pleading for is for the provision of these facilities in the smaller centres. A good centre for the purpose can be chosen—that is for the Minister to decide—to which children from the surrounding areas can come in; children from poor homes. Those are the children for whom I am pleading to-day. Let us give those children the chance to play their part in commerce and industry and in the technical life of the country. I am making a special plea for them, Sir. It is true that boarding accommodation is also a problem, and perhaps the hon. the Minister will bear that in mind particularly. I hope, however, that the Minister will feel that this is something which warrants his attention. The hon. the Minister spoke about the arts a few moments ago. I cannot quarrel with that, Sir. That is part of our culture, a very necessary part. But what is the use of art to a youngster with a Std. VI certificate? You see, Sir, these children are taken out of school to be fed into the labour market at an early age. Their parents can be persuaded to allow them to go on with their schooling by means of continuation classes and technical education, but the facilities are simply not there. It is no good our saying to them that there is free education in Durban or Pietermaritzburg, or that there are two schools in Johannesburg or Pretoria or somewhere else where they can get free education. That does not help, Mr. Chairman. That is no good to those parents. There are those areas in which self-help is available. Local people are prepared to give their time, their effort and help, and where the parents are willing to respond. If we spend money in this particular manner and for these purposes, it will be money spent on the welfare of our children and on the future of our race. It is in these areas where this money can be spent to the best advantage because it is there where it is so difficult for the children to go to the larger centres. In any case, many of their parents do not want them to go to those larger centres. I had experience of a case recently where I got a group of parents together, people closely associated with the railway service. I said to them: “Look here, under such and such circumstances, will you send your children to town? Will you send them to Durban to be educated?” I can assure you. Sir, that I was much moved by the remarks of one of the mothers who stood up, a wife of a railwayman, and said: “Mr. Mitchell, my son and my daughter are going to work. They have passed Std. VI; they have left school and they are going to work. I will not give them that extra education in Durban at the cost of the risk which they run of mixing with all those ducktails and that type of youngster. I cannot control their lives there. They are too young for me to put them in that environment. They are not accustomed to that sort of life. They will not be able to adjust themselves to that environment. I cannot do it. I would much sooner they stayed here and worked.” I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, that those are the difficulties which are facing those parents. With all due respect to the arts, with due respect to those other intangible things, which I accept as valuable and of great benefit to South Africa, I plead with the Minister please to help those children and to provide them with those amenities, those privileges, so that they can continue their education and play their part in the future, and so that they will not be debarred and shut in simply because their parents are not in the position to give them that additional financial assistance to go to the big centres to continue their education.

I do not want to follow in the footsteps of the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. I should like to bring a few other matters to the notice of the hon. the Minister. If different educationists are consulted, everyone would define the object and the task of education differently. To me the task and object of education are the following—and where the Minister is responsible for the education of our children throughout the Republic, it is also his task—the child, his education, his training, his preparation for life as a useful member of his community and a useful citizen of his State. That is the basic point in all education. In my opinion this is the central idea underlying education at all times and in all circumstances. I also think that schools should be equipped to educate the whole man, and not only his intellect, or his body, or any other part of him. Youth is the most valuable asset of the nation. Only the very best that the nation has to offer and can afford is good enough for the youth. In the Republic of South Africa we have special circumstances which must be taken into account. In the struggle to preserve our civilization on the Continent of Africa, that battle will not be decided on the battlefields or in the political council chambers or even in the economic field. In my opinion it will be decided on the school-benches and in our educational institutions. I want to quote the words of the late Dr. Malan, who said—

On one occasion our present Prime Minister put the matter as follows, and I just want to quote it—

Against the background I have just sketched, and the value we attach to education, and the value which education has for the future, I want to say that the school, in my opinion, is there for the child, and never vice versa. What do we find in practice? So often we find that the child is enticed to a certain school and is kept there, not because it is in the interest of the child, but because the principal is interested in having a large number of children so that he can boast that he has a bigger school than his neighbour; or often, for the sake of his salary or the grade of the post he holds, he wants as many children in the school as possible, whilst he knows very well that it will be in the interest of the child to attend another school which would suit him better.

Hear, hear!

If our schools are unable to overcome their pettiness and to give prime consideration to the interests of the child, then I say we have reached a stage in our educational development where an investigation should definitely be held. If our schools are not able to accept the challenges of the times, in my opinion we are failing in an absolute and fundamental requirement of these modern times and the particular circumstances in which the Republic finds itself.

In the light of these facts, I want to plead for a few matters which I want to bring to the notice of the Minister. In the first place. I ask for a new approach to education as a whole, a new approach in respect of our whole attitude towards the child in South Africa. I want to start in the first place by pleading specifically for the intelligent child. I quite agree that there should be special privileges for those who are less endowed, and provision should be made for that. But I want to ask seriously whether in the times in which we live now enough attention is being devoted to the gifted child, to the intelligent child, the child who has enough intelligence to go far in life, to make a positive contribution to the development of the country in various spheres, in the economic sphere, in the scientific sphere, in the technical sphere, in the sphere of administration, or whatever sphere it might be; that child who is particularly gifted. I ask whether we are giving the necessary attention to this child; does the State do enough for this child, and is it interested enough in the education of that child? Are we not too busy devoting our efforts to the moderates and the weaklings, whilst the intelligent child is in fact being crushed in the maelstrom of mediocrity? Is it not the task of the State every year—this is what I suggest—to skim off the cream of the crop at the end of the Std. X examination? Supposing we take the 40 children who have shown the best achievements—I do not say they are necessarily the most intelligent children—is it not the task and the duty of the State to take those 40 children and say: You are the cream of this year’s crop; we will provide you with the necessary background, the necessary assistance, to equip yourselves in the direction in which you want to go so that you may become the future leaders of the State in various spheres. Is it not the duty of the State to act more specifically in that direction? Mr. Chairman, I want to put it to you even stronger than that. It is a generally recognized and accepted fact that 7 per cent of the people of every nation become the future leaders, the administrative leaders and the leaders in the various spheres. In the Republic of South Africa that percentage amongst the White population must be even much higher than that, because we are dealing here with a non-White population of several millions which cannot produce their full quota of 7 per cent. The Whites must, therefore, produce between 12 per cent and 14 per cent of the future leaders in order to develop the whole community. Is it not our task and duty to tell those children who have these gifts that we will give them that opportunity because the State will assist them? Often those children come from the poorest families in the country, and financial considerations result in their landing in the labour market and disappearing there amongst the broad masses, instead of becoming the leaders of the country.

I want to mention another matter, and that is the provision of buildings. I have quickly calculated, according to our Estimates this year, that the expenditure of the Department of Education is 3.2 per cent of the total budget. According to information at my disposal, in Britain it was 6.7 per cent of the total budget, whilst in Russia—which is behind the Iron Curtain, and the figures are not specifically available—it is at least 15 per cent of the total budget which is spent on education. It seems to me that high percentage spent on education has already borne fruit in Russia. Russia regarded it as a long-term investment, and the advantages reaped over the years are already clearly visible in the prominent role played by the Russian people in science and technological research. I want to refer specifically to the erection of buildings, and try to solve the problem. According to the data available to me, there is at the moment a backlog of R40,000,000 for the erection of buildings for the various divisions of the Education Department. This year R7,500,000 was made available in the Estimates. New circumstances and needs are developing every day, and consequently we will never be able to catch up with the backlog at this rate. There will always be such a backlog, and consequently the Education Department will always suffer from it. I want to ask whether it is not possible for the Public Works Department to delegate more powers and make more concessions in respect of the Department of Education. Arts and Science, so that private architects and quantity surveyors can be appointed. Further, the control boards or technical schools and other institutions must be enabled to borrow money, the repayment of which will be guaranteed by the State. [Time limit.]

The hon. member who has just sat down said that the whole person must be educated. He says that should be our new approach to education. The hon. member also referred to the individual, the intelligent child, and he said that we should make exceptions of them. I do not want to make any exceptions in this debate this afternoon. At the moment I am not interested in either the intelligent or the less intelligent child. What I am interested in at the moment is the young people as a whole, the broad masses of the people outside. Consequently I again wish to raise a matter which I have often raised in the past, and that is the question of providing physical education to our young people. When we look at Item L under this Vote, and when we think of the physical education which is provided at educational institutions, the camps, the youth camps, and we include the other organizations, there seems to have been a substantial improvement in what we receive from the Department of Finance as compared with the past, to give physical education in South Africa a big boost forward. As a result of discussions and as a result of speeches made in this House in the past by the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. Smit) and myself, the hon. the Minister was asked to call a national fitness conference where all persons interested in education, in defence and in the physical fitness of our young people could gather. Under the leadership of the hon. the Minister and the Department such a conference was held last year in Pretoria. On that occasion the report of the Department of Education was an important consideration in deciding to hold the National Physical Fitness Conference at Pretoria which was opened by the Minister and at which conference various prominent people, including Dr. Holmans of Cologne, Germany, spoke. The previous Minister, the present Minister of Social Welfare, also played a prominent part in calling the conference and we wish to thank him for having done so. The question which I want to raise this afternoon is this. This conference has been held and it seems to me as though we are going to leave it entirely to the Society of Physical Training to see to the physical fitness of our nation and to make recommendations as to what should be done. I hope I am wrong and that the Department of Education will not leave this matter in the hands of a voluntary organization, but that it will assume definite leadership in this respect. The point I wish to make is this that it seems to me as though we as a country regard this matter very seriously. Other countries are also serious, but we must take the matter a little further. I want to urge upon the Minister to see what is happening in America for example. During the time of the election campaign, the present President became so conscious of the decline in the physical fitness of his people that fitness assumed somewhat of a political colour. After he had been elected he decided to appoint a physical fitness adviser to himself. His younger brother, Mr. Robert Kennedy, the present Attorney-General, in particular, regards the matter in a very serious light, and to-day the President has his own physical fitness adviser. They are conscious of the fact that the fitness of the nation has deteriorated. They know that because of mechanization and automation and the shorter working hours and the tremendous number of motor-cars and the easy way of life the physical fitness of the nation has deteriorated. If a nation really wishes to play its role it should not only concentrate on mental education; it should educate the entire being, because the physical is as important as the spiritual and you cannot educate the spiritual properly unless you give proper attention to the physical as well. That is why I plead with the Minister to tell us what progress has been made in regard to the recommendations of the conference which was held last year, what the plans are for the future and what can be done from a practical point of view to promote the physical fitness of the South African nation as a whole.

I want to raise another point. Some time ago a medical doctor wrote as follows in the Eastern Province Herald, under the pseudonym “Stethoscope”—

When you look at the figures, Sir, it seems as though the major illness from which young people and people of the middle age group suffer to-day is heart disease. Prominent medical men maintain that it is not so much the animal fat which people consume that is responsible for this disease, but that it is due to a lack of proper physical exercise. The Minister is responsible for promoting physical education and we must realize that we in South Africa lose a very high percentage of our people at the very age, at an age when they can make their best contributions; and that is middle age. I just want to quote what Dr. Williams, Secretary-General of the Chest and Heart Association said. He said—

Another well-known surgeon wrote along similar lines in “Family Doctor”, according to a report in the Burger. [Time limit.]

Under the item “Museums” I should like to raise the question of open-air museums and I should like to plead with the Minister to incorporate open-air museums under museums as such. The idea is not that the open-air museum should supplant the traditional cultural historical museum. On the contrary, the idea is that it should be supplementary to it. I have come across the following succinct definition of the open-air museum—

The idea of an open-air museum is to have a collection of buildings which, during the course of years, have been associated with the nation in the making of its history. Every building in the entire complex will be faithfully copied and reconstructed on that site with the original material which has been collected all over the Republic. Every building will represent a period, an occurrence or even a spiritual development. The appropriate objects can be placed in the various buildings, furniture from the periods concerned, ornaments, war weapons, hunting weapons, pieces of clothing, musical instruments, even a medicine chest, toys, vehicles, etc. so as to give a picture of the generations who lived during the various periods. Furthermore, a little daub-walled thatched house can be constructed, a farm house with barnyard and accessories, a baking oven, a smithy, a bucket pump, and the pole for preparing riems etc. You will be able to form an idea from the barns and workshops of how the former generations lived and made their living from the soil.

Alongside the aborigines the Protestants, the Huguenots, the German ex-soldiers of the Crimean War, the Settlers and the Voortrekkers have all contributed to the development of the country. It will be the function of the open-air museums to give a true picture of the way of life of each one and to remind us of the basis of our history in an interesting and touching manner.

I immediately want to give the assurance that the idea is not to encroach on the field of the Historical Monuments Commission or on the field of the Simon van der Stel Foundation. We know that the Simon van der Stel Foundation is a body which purchases buildings of historical or architectural value, restores them and preserves them for future generations. Now I come to the important point. There are many such buildings which are of particular historical or achitectural value which are situated in the centre of our cities on very valuable sites, and it is impossible to preserve those buildings because the buildings as such are practically no longer of any commercial value, whereas the land on which they are situated cannot be bought. As a matter of fact, that is the problem which has already confronted the Van der Stel Foundation. The idea of the open-air museum is that little building which stands valueless from the commercial point of view, in the centre of the city, should be demolished. Before it is demolished it is photographed from various angles; it is then carefully demolished and reconstructed on the site which is intended for the open-air museum.

There are many of these open-air museums in other countries. In America you have the well-known Henry Ford Museum at Dearborn, near Chicago. There are world-famous open-air museums in Norway and Sweden. The most famous one is at Arnheim in Holland and at Stockholm in Sweden. They attract tens of thousands of tourists every year.

It becomes obvious immediately that the museum must consist of a number of buildings and that the area should be big enough so that additions can be made later on which fit into the whole set-up. If a suitable site can be found, the establishment of an open-air museum should cost relatively little every year. The buildings which are reconstructed will often be given as presents and you will only be faced with the building costs, Sir. That is why the capital outlay ought to be relatively small. A small beginning can be made and you can add something every year. Furthermore the buildings will be small and it will no longer be necessary to have the expensive building in which the orthodox museum is housed to-day. The advantage is that there is no limit to the expansion and that justice will be done to all periods and decades in our history. I must add that the climate of South Africa is particularly suitable for the establishment of such museums.

Its value is obvious. There will be the cultural historical value, the educational value, it will be valuable for research purposes, it will have a publicity value as a tourist attraction, particularly in our country where tourists want to get an idea of the country’s past in a short space of time. There they will be able to see our history in a nutshell.

I understand that the South African Museum Association already passed a resolution in this connection in 1957. Many other cultural bodies have become interested in this field and they support the idea. I have in mind, for instance, the Historical Society of South Africa, a society which is well-known to the hon. the Minister. The big question is where to make a start with such a museum and my immediate reply is Pretoria. My most important argument in this respect is that in 1955 the City Council of Pretoria has already made a beautiful piece of land of approximately 35 morgen available in the scenic Valley of the Fountains for this purpose. At the time when the bequest was made that site was worth approximately R300,000 and I think it is worth over R500,000 to-day. Secondly, you have the Society of Old-Pretoria which has for years been interested in this matter and which has gained a great deal of experience. They have also sent people overseas to study the management of open-air museums. They can form the nucleus to tackle this matter. Furthermore, I think Pretoria, more than any other city, is the culminating point in our history, the Great Trek, which is also proved by the fact that the Voortrekker Monument has been erected there. In the fourth place, as the administrative capital it is an important centre which attracts many visitors from overseas. In the fifth place it is literally and figuratively on the great north road and consequently very easily accessible. [Time limit.]

I want to compliment the hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Dr. Otto) on the support he advocates for the Simon van der Stel Foundation. I wish to advocate that everything possible should be done to preserve all buildings and places of historical interest in this young country of ours. Our very character and evolution has developed on the records of our ancestors, and these we are losing day by day. I appeal to the public to show greater interest in our wonderful historical buildings which are now being ruined to a great extent.

Last Session an Archives Bill was brought into operation in which provision was made for the establishment of archives depots at various centres. I would like to ask the Minister whether any such depots have been established in any centres. I would appreciate it if the Minister could inform the House as to what his policy is in regard to establishing these depots at various centres. Perhaps he would also tell us which centres are likely to receive preference. Although these depots will obviate the accumulation of unimportant papers at our central archives, they will also be places where microfilms and photostat records could be preserved for research purposes. Not only that, but these depots will encourage the duplicating of valuable historic records of educational and national value, and by this duplication we will be assured of the preservation of these records in case of fire or through any other cause, like even a bomb, which may destroy invaluable records, and if the Minister would encourage the production of photostat records and microfilms of documents of this nature, it would be of great value to the country. I would like the Minister, when formulating his policy, to consider the establishment of a depot in the Eastern Province. The area of the Eastern Province is as large as that of any other province in the country. We only have one university. The students have to travel from 500 to 1,000 miles to our central Archives to do research. This retards research being done and research, as the Minister knows, becomes more essential every year. I appeal to the Minister to encourage and to facilitate research to the utmost. Our very existence in future may depend on what research does for us. We have had examples of that in the past. We had the example of Sir Basil Schonland, who through his research work was perhaps responsible for radar and other defences in the military field on which our very existence depended, and that may happen in future also. I know that the Minister is curtailed in this development by the Minister of Finance not granting him the necessary funds, but I want to appeal to the Minister as strongly as I can to impress on the Minister of Finance how essential it is that our facilities for research should be encouraged and increased. It is only to the national good, and money spent on this may be a very good investment.

Then I would also be pleased if the Minister would give us some information about the development of the Indian University College at Durban. The country is very interested in the development of that university, and Fort Hare. We would like to know what patronage it is receiving, and what faculties are provided at those two universities, and of what nationality the professors and lecturers are. There is a lot of information which I do not want to detail, but which is of particular public interest, particularly now. We have seen some as news in the Press but nothing really authentic like the Minister could give us, and I think it is in the national interest that the Minister should give us information on these subjects. We in this House particularly want to know whether the money spent on these universities is justified and if these people are reacting to what is being done for them. I appeal to the Minister to give us as much information as possible. I know that in regard to universities and research our Government can never rise to its responsibilities, but I am pleased to see that five universities now receive assistance from the Government of well over R1,000,000 per annum, which is a definite advance, and I hope that as the years go by this assistance will increase and that we will have a greater interchange between universities and greater cooperation between them in the development of education and research in particular.

With reference to Sub-Head “N”, State Film Production, I want to say that when the Archives Bill was introduced, I mentioned something which I want to touch on again, in regard to the establishment of a sub-division of the State Archives entrusted with the task of tracing and preserving valuable film and disc recordings. To-day I venture to repeat that request on a broader basis and I want to ask the Minister to give consideration to providing enough funds in his next Estimates, to be earmarked for the establishment of a State-aided S.A. Film Institute with wide aims in respect of the tracing and preservation of cinematograph and phonographic material, such as old films and disc recordings and other related material. This Institute, in view of its character and its close association with the existing libraries, should in my opinion be controlled by a board of curators, to be composed of representatives of the Department of Education, Arts and Science, together with representatives of the related Archives group, such as the State Archives, the Museum Association, the Library Association, existing films services, the Association of Film Producers and any other specialists which the Minister might consider it necessary to appoint to such a board, and perhaps the new Department of Information should also be represented on it, and even the S.A.B.C. The knowledge and experience and the collections already made by these bodies may be very valuable to such a film institute, but from the very nature of its character and its composition such a Film Institute should never be a State Department. It ought to become independent and autonomous as soon as possible. What is urgently required, and what in my opinion should be done speedily, is for the State to grant an appreciable amount of money as a christening present for this body, and that is what I am asking for to-day. When a nest-egg is provided, and when the Board is appointed and is functioning, I believe that other bodies will also make contributions to the maintenance of such a Film Institute. I also learn from reliable sources that in State Library circles steps are already being taken to establish such a Film Institute. The Board of Control of the State Library, I am informed, is very sympathetic to the establishment of such a body and has offered accommodation to such an institute in the initial stages. All that is required are the funds and the initiative and guidance on a high level to set the ball rolling. In my previous speech I asked for the appointment of an historian with an expert staff to tackle the task. Perhaps that was asking too much, and therefore I will content myself today by asking for just one expert, perhaps with an office and a typist, who can set the ball rolling. I ask that the State should take the initiative, because in the past it was only State initiative in other spheres of the development of the film as an educational and cultural aid that resulted in any praiseworthy success being achieved. I am thinking, e.g. of the appointment of the National Education Bureau of the Union Education Department, through which the film has been developed since 1921 as an important educational aid. I have in mind the establishment of the Film Bureau during 1936 as the result of the report submitted by the then Minister of Education, as Chairman of a League of Nations Committee for Intellectual Co-operation, to the Government in 1935. This Film Bureau later split up into (1) the Film Service and (2) the State Film Service. The first-mentioned was only able to achieve what it did with the financial assistance of the Provincial Education Department. The point is that the State or the Provincial authority was responsible for the success of those undertakings. The important defect which exists to-day lies in the fact that both the Film Service and the State Film Service, because of their constitution and functions, are mainly interested in the use and the exhibition of films and not on the tracing and selection of films, nor on the preservation of old films. The question arises: What about old, used films? Are they preserved, are they being selected, or are they simply destroyed? Wonderful recordings exist of South African artists, poets, political figures and historical events, which in my opinion and also in the opinion of many people interested in the subject should not be lost to us. In European countries the tracing and preservation of films is done by approximately 40 State-supported film museums and film archives and film institutes. We know that as early as 1934 the establishment of a film archives was mooted, but nothing came of it. The then Minister of the Interior instructed a certain Edgar Hyman to trace films dealing with the Anglo-Boer War and President Kruger. That was done, and the films he found were handed over to the New South African Film Archives. But to-day we know that of the eight news films originally made about President Kruger, only two remained in existence. Where are the other six? The matter was neglected. Films, as hon. members know, are very delicate. This work was, however, not continued with and I believe that numbers of valuable and irreplaceable films have already been irreparably lost to those who want to do research in future. I believe that as soon as a film archives has been established and the Film Institute has become known and has acquired status, through negotiations with film producers and distributors here and overseas, there will be a continual and increasing supply of valuable film and disc recordings which eventually will be of inestimable value to the Republic. I pointed out last time that we are living to-day in the age of speed and sound and images, and that no nation or government dare fail to keep pace with the demands thereby made. The valuable film material which may still be in existence and obtainable and which may be used as corner-stones in the establishment of a valuable South African Film Archives should not be left to lie and rot. Those things should not be lost to us through lack of interest and initiative, and particularly through lack of funds. The valuable work already done by existing bodies in the film world and also by private individuals like Mr. Germishuys, of the staff of the Transvaler, who has been working in this direction for years, is appreciated, but it merely emphasizes the need for an institution like the S.A. Film Institute to undertake it on a national basis. Large sums of money are continually being spent on the excavation of fossils and bones in order to determine what plants, animals and human beings looked like centuries ago. [Time limit.]

I just want to read to hon. members in general the following section in the Standing Rules and Orders: A member may not read his speech, but he may refresh his memory by consulting notes.

I would like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to two matters which I believe are of great importance. The first one is the question of the impending shortage of medical practitioners in South Africa. A couple of years ago the National Bureau of Educational and Social Research published a Survey of the Training and Employing of Scientists and Engineers in South Africa. I want to mention only a part of this report, which is Chapter 4, Part 5, in which detailed reference is made to the Bureau’s assessment of the shortfall of doctors in South Africa in the near future. They estimated that by 1965, i.e., some three years from now, there would be a shortfall of nearly 2,000 doctors in South Africa I believe this to be a matter of very grave concern to the country, so the hon. the Minister must lose no time in doing something about this matter. As he is well aware it takes six years of basic training for a medical student to graduate, and thereafter there are two years of compulsory internship—training in a hospital under expert tuition—and I would say that it is only from that stage that a doctor learns his job; so, if by 1965, this country is going to have a shortfall of something like 2,000 doctors, then the hon. the Minister must lose no time in doing something about it immediately. There are two ways, of course, in which he can resolve this problem. The first is to see that existing medical schools make greater use of their facilities. In other words, I believe that the existing schools could make greater use, as far as training hospitals are concerned, of the material at their disposal by using not only the large general hospital in the immediate city but also by using the large perimeter hospitals. Let me take the case of Johannesburg where a medical school trains its students mainly at the Johannesburg General Hospital and at hospitals like Coronationville, Baragwanath and Edenvale; that means the whole of the Rand, the East and the West Rand with its large hospitals, the perimeter hospitals which could also be used as training centres and where part-time staff could be employed to train students, is left out.

The other factor—and here I hope the Minister will have some influence over his colleague, the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, whose views on television are only too well-known to all of us—is to see whether something cannot be done about making use of modern communications in the training of medical students. At overseas modern hospitals, closed colour television circuits are established in those hospitals so that cases may be demonstrated by the teaching staff on television, thus reducing a great deal of the routine drudgery of teaching, for one thing, and sparing the existing staff, but secondly, and much more important, making it possible for an innumerable number of students to witness the demonstrations on the television screen. Every doctor who has had medical training will bear me out when I say that one of the difficulties, of course, is that in teaching on an actual patient it is very difficult for more than a very limited number of students to be taught at any one time. But at overseas medical schools it has been found that by using this colour television screen in the teaching of medical students, a vastly increased number of medical students can be taught at the same time. As the hon. the Minister knows, at the present stage every medical school in the country, I believe, with the possible exception of Pretoria—I am not sure of my facts there—limits the number of medical students because of the difficulty of accommodating students, particularly in the later clinical years of training. As I say, the difficulty would be relieved if these modern methods of teaching were adopted. I think it is quite wrong that the admission of medical students to medical schools should be a privilege because of limited accommodation. We are fortunate in this country in having a large number of young men and women who are prepared to dedicate their lives to this important aspect of science, medical science, and I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister will give some attention to this particular aspect of increasing the accommodation for medical students. This arbitrary choice of students with first-class matriculation certificates is not even a good choice, because the need for students is so varying; you need doctors to do research, doctors to do teaching, doctors to go into private medical practice and doctors who are fit for institutional practice. All these require a different type of talent, and therefore the existing test, which is an arbitrary test, of a first-class matriculation certificate, is a bad one, and the only way in which one can do away with it is to make facilities available at Medical Schools. If you cannot increase the accommodation at the available Medical Schools—and obviously there is a limit to the total number of students who can be trained at any one Medical School—then of course we must also increase the over all number of medical schools in South Africa. It is to these two particular aspects that I particularly want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention. There is another subject which I would like to raise in the short time available to me, and that is the question of the transfer of the Archaeological Survey—I am going now from our future need to our past history and heritage—from the Government to the Wit-watersrand University. If the hon. the Minister will look at page 113 of the Estimates, he will see that the Archaeological Survey has been taken over by the University of the Wit-watersrand. I have no objection to the University of the Witwatersrand taking over archaeological surveys, of course, but what is worrying archaeological experts in this country is whether this means in principle that the Government is removing its moral support from the whole question of the Archaeological Survey, which was doing extremely valuable work. It was established, as the hon. the Minister knows, way back in 1935. It has done some wonderful work in the field of archaeological discoveries since that time. I notice that a few questions were put on the Order Paper to-day by the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford) and the answer to those questions is standing over, so I shall not embarrass the hon. the Minister at this stage by asking him to give me a detailed reply as to the amount of money which he is going to make available to the University of the Witwatersrand to continue with this survey, but perhaps he could tell me in broad, general terms what is going to be done about the expansion of this particular survey; whether additional money will be available for expanding this survey. The reason why I raise that is that it has already been found that in the field of archaeology it really rests on the Government to take over expanding operations and, what is most important, rescue activities as far as archaeological research is concerned. A normal pattern of development in this country such as the Orange River scheme, for instance, which has now become one of the future projects of the Government, will in itself involve great rescue activities on the part of archaeological teams if our heritage is not to be lost for all times—and it is not only South Africa’s heritage but it is the heritage of man at large. I understand that the areas which the Orange River scheme is going to cover, which areas will have to be flooded, are themselves very important basic sources of archaeological research and information; and I hope that the Government, by allowing this survey to be taken over by the Witwatersrand University, is not abandoning its interest in this very important field of research. I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to re-assure us to some extent as far as this is concerned.

On the same subject I would point out that in this country our museums are very sadly understaffed as far as archaeological personnel is concerned. I believe that in only two of our museums, Kimberley and Windhoek, are there actually archaeologists on the staff. I believe there is an establishment in Bloemfontein which at present is not filled, but none of our other major museums have archaeologists on their staff. This, I believe, is also a matter of very great importance. [Time limit.]

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity of finishing my speech. I was saying that large sums of money were continually being spent on excavating fossils and skeletons for the purpose of determining the plant, animal and human life of the past. The skeletons are reconstructed and restored to represent a picture what they looked like in primeval times. While it is done scientifically and deliberately according to a carefully planned system, live documents in connection with persons and happenings in the past and present get lost just because they are not under the control of a responsible body on a national basis. I have read that a bio-acoustics institute has been established by the Parks Board with the object of translating animal noises into a language understandable to human beings. According to the report this institute enjoys the co-operation and support of the Department of Education, Arts and Science and also co-operates with the South African Broadcasting Corporation; and if that is so, I think I have all the more right to emphasize the need for a film institute which will cover a much wider and more important field. As I have already said other countries have realized the value of the live document to such an extent that more than 40 film institutes have already been established to preserve this aspect of archives preservation for future research workers into history. The film can be a live historical record of the various phases of the development of our country in the field of agriculture, industry and mining. Secondly, it can give an animated picture of the language and cultural development of the two major White racial groups in this country, the Afrikaans-speaking and the English-speaking sections, as their languages develop, because a language is a living organism which grows. It can record and preserve much of the original languages of the Bushmen and other ethnic Bantu groups which are disappearing. Thirdly, it can give a living picture of the wonderful constitutional development of our fatherland until it ultimately became a Republic and of what is to happen in the future. We are to-day already very impressed by the almost primitive silent films of a quarter of a century ago because they give us a realistic picture of the mannerisms and ways of life and forms of speech of the generation of that time. The printed word or document, Sir, can never give you such a lively insight into the being and the spirit of an artist or a particular personage as the film. Just one short visual episode in the life of a person can already assist to make the study of that person’s work and achievements much more alive and more interesting. Somebody was recently sent overseas—I think by means of Government support—to make a study of the writing of biographies. In my opinion film archives justify as much and even more immediate attention and investigation.

I conclude by pointing that according to Mr. P. Germishuys, to whom I referred a moment ago, and who has already been engaged for years on drawing up a catalogue of historical films relating to South Africa, only two of the eight original news films about President Kruger are still in existence to-day. We do not know how many exist of the Second War of Independence. The film “De Voortrekkers” which was made in 1916 from a script by Gustav Preller cannot be shown to-day because no exhibition copy exists or has been preserved. In this catalogue of Mr. Germishuys you find, for example, films such as “African Conflict” which Mr. E. Burrow, who is at present at the head of the V.S.A. Information Service, made a few years ago and in which Dr. Verwoerd, the then Minister of Bantu Administration, explains his racial policy in South Africa. We know that statements of policy by him will be available to prosterity in periodicals and in Hansard but what will it not mean to posterity if they can see the living picture of this far-seeing Statesman on a film and hear him talk? With the assistance of the Department of Education, Arts and Science and perhaps with the assistance of the newly established Ministry of Information, the necessary steps could be taken quickly and investigations made and the necessary funds made available for the establishment of a Film Institute which will be able to do valuable tracing and preservation work in this field.

When I raised this matter last year in this House, the hon. Minister asked how it was to be determined whether a happening or a speech would become of historical value so that it could be recorded and preserved. I make bold to say to-day that if the hon. the Minister will take the initiative and provide the money for the establishment of a South African Film Institute, that will indeed be a historical step for which posterity will thank him. That is why I have the temerity to repeat and to emphasize this request. I believe that the hon. the Minister will give his attention to it and that he will surprise us by providing for a considerable nest egg in the following Budget.

The two subjects to which I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister would bear a great deal of discussion, but in view of the pressure on accommodation in this debate, I think I would be well-advised to deal with both of them within the ten minutes allowed to me.

The first is the item on page 118, “Study bursaries to students from the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Germany, Commonwealth and Italy”, R38,270. The first point I wish to bring to the notice of the Minister is that the amount budgeted here is actually a reduction, however small, on that for 1961-2. But the significance of this item will be found. I think, in the number of students who are being trained in South Africa out of this amount of R38,000. Sir, I have no facts on that subject, but presuming, as I do, that each student costs R1,000 it means in effect that we have budgeted here for 38 students from all these countries and from the Commonwealth. I hope the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but probably the cost per student is far greater than that. One might make a guess and say that this amount could not cover more than 20 students. I believe that we are going quite the wrong way about this. In view of the fact that there is so much money—and I do not want to go into detail—for more obscure requirements under the hon. the Minister’s Vote, I believe that he would be well-advised to consider making a very substantial increase in this amount for bursaries in the future.

Sir, at a time when all of us make common cause at least about one thing, and that is the lack of understanding about this country in the so-called outside world—and I refer particularly to those countries which are on friendly terms with South Africa—we would be well served by admitting to this country as many students, and particularly post-graduate students, as may be prepared to come here. The extraordinary thing is that in spite of all the adverse propaganda—adverse from certain points of view—there are still numbers of people in Europe who would like to come to South Africa. I was particularly struck not very long ago—in fact in the second half of last year—when I visited Germany as the guest of the Federal Republic, to find that in a university like Hamburg with a student body of 13,000—which is greater than that of Pretoria and Wit-watersrand Universities combined, 5,000 were foreign students, all of them studying there on bursaries. Sir, that is a very significant fact. I do not want to mislead the Minister, and therefore I say immediately that the majority of these 5,000 students would be referred to in this country as non-White. Many of them come from the African Continent and others come from other parts of the world, but they are not White. But there are also many White students among the 5,000 who go to Hamburg University. Whereas I realize that in the present situation in which we find ourselves vis-à-vis all or certainly most of the states of this Continent, it would be idle to urge the Government to invite students from African States to our universities. In the first place, it is unlikely that they would be invited and given bursaries, and in the second place it is unlikely that they would come, for the obvious reason that they would not be prepared…

What are you going to say?

Sir, I hope this does not come off my time, when the hon. member asks me what I am going to say. The point I am trying to make for his benefit, as well as for the Minister’s benefit, is that with R38,000 a year we are not doing the job that we could be doing in bringing students from other countries to our universities. The fact is that in certain fields it is commonly known throughout the world that South Africa is sufficiently far advanced to be able to provide even post-graduate study. I would refer, for example, to the techniques of mining and engineering; I would refer to tropical medicine and for that matter to the study of the human race in Africa, for which, as I am sure the hon. Minister knows, the Institute for the Study of Man in Africa was formed some years ago, and which has already collected a great deal of funds; and which, according to the best information from those who have supported it, will one day attract as many people, pro rata, to this country to study the origin of mankind in Africa—one of the cradles of man—as, say, the Smithsonian Institute in Washington. What better way to ensure that we are understood by some people, at least—the European countries particularly, and for that matter the United States? There is no provision here whatsoever for students from the United States or from the Scandanavian countries. What better way of making sure that there is some understanding amongst some people who will go back with a knowledge of our civilization in South Africa, which is all too little known in the outside world, as a result of having spent one or two or three years studying here, whether as students or postgraduate students? Therefore I believe that this amount of money in the future should not be trebled or quadrupled, but increased tenfold. I think that in regard to such things as State film services we are spending rather more than we should, and we are spending far too little on study bursaries.

The other matter is that which I raised in a question to the hon. the Minister in regard to the Performing Arts. I must say with respect to the Minister that he was rather vague—perhaps I should have said “suitably vague”—in the answer which he gave me this afternoon. He said that this was a matter which was now “receiving consideration”. I want to tell the Minister that this is a matter which, to my personal knowledge, has been receiving consideration for quite a number of years. For example, in 1960 the then Deputy Minister of Education, Arts and Science, the present Minister of justice, presided over a conference in Pretoria which was called at the instigation of several bodies, of two of which I happened to be the chairman, in order to discuss the subsidization by the State of certain art forms, and more particularly opera and ballet. The Deputy Minister of Education then assured the conference, which was called with the very excellent co-operation of the Administrator of the Transvaal, that the Government intended to make available a sum of not less than R300,000 a year to be devoted to setting up a State Opera in South Africa. This R300,000 a year was then, in 1960, considered as the minimum amount required to put South Africa, which has certain cultural claims to make, somewhere on the map by following up the many efforts that have been made through the years by individuals, societies and groups and local authorities to propagate opera as an indigenous art form, and furthermore to propagate the very closely allied art form of ballet. And after that we were assured that a committee would be set up in order to devise ways and means to bring into being this State Opera organization. The plea was made at the time, and the Deputy Minister accepted this basis, that it would be a State Opera subsidized by the State, but not controlled by the State. Two years later we are told that the matter is under consideration. Now the hon. Minister surely knows that as recently as this year the Administrator of the Transvaal again presided over a conference in Pretoria at which, according to the information I have here, a regional body was set up. This is information, that was given to one of the bodies of which I am chairman, and which had taken a very great interest in the matter and still does, and the further information was that the Secretary for Education, Arts and Science had indicated a grant of R160,000. not R100,000. to be made available by the Government for the advancement of the four arts: Opera, R60,000. Drama, R60,000. Ballet, R20,000 and Music R20,000. A regional board would be appointed for each province. The regional board for the Transvaal would be constituted as follows—I say this in great deference to the hon. the Minister that this information came into the possession of this particular body in March, and that it is not reasonable to say to me or anybody else that the matter is receiving consideration—the regional board for the Transvaal would be constituted as follows: A chairman to be appointed by the Minister of Education, Arts and Science, one representative of the Department of Education, Arts and Science, one representative of the S.A.B.C., one of the Provincial Administration, one of each of the municipalities Pretoria and Johannesburg, one of the training institutions, one businessman with a thorough knowledge of finance, and that the Minister of Education, Arts and Science would appoint the Board from a panel submitted to him by these different bodies. The reason why I have raised it in this form, I want to tell the hon. the Minister, is not in order to embarrass him, but to tell him of all the efforts that have been made by the people, without any state support, and all these efforts are likely to come to nothing, as similar efforts have come to nothing since the war, unless the State now does implement this long-standing promise to provide certain funds. I believe that once this amount of money, not the R160.000 which was discussed apparently on a promise made by somebody in authority at this particular meeting in March, and not the R300,000 which was referred to by the then Deputy Minister of Education in 1960, but at least the R100,000 which is included in the Minister’s Vote is made available to the existing organizations as soon as possible, at this very moment…

But you are voting for this amount here and I cannot give any money before you have voted it. We are dealing with that now.

I am not going to vote against it, but what I am trying to get at is this question of “consideration” by the Minister. What is there left to consider? If the Minister had said to me, in reply to my question, that as soon as this item is voted, the money will be granted, I would not have raised this matter.

I want to talk about the talented child, the scholar who is more gifted than the normal type of scholar. Where the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) pleaded yesterday for the sub-normal child, the child who is mentally less endowed, I just want to say, with a full sense of responsibility and having thoroughly considered what I am going to say, that I think we are giving a little too much attention to-day to the sub-normal child and the mentally less gifted child and too little attention to the intellectually gifted child. I immediately want to ask this question: Why has the United States of America been awarded so few Nobel prizes in the past in comparison with Germany, England and Italy? Let me give you the figures, Sir: For every 1,000,000 people Germany has produced three times more and England two-and-a-half times more and France one-and-a-half times more Nobel Prize winners than the United States. Let me give another example. Twelve basic facts had to be discovered for the purpose of splitting the atom. Of the 12 chemical, physical and mathematical discoveries which had to be made, the Germans discovered three, the English three and the French three, the Danes one and the Italians one and the United States of America only one. I want to say that it does not lie within our power to produce geniuses and super-gifted persons according to recipe, but it does indeed lie within our power to discover talent at an early stage and by encouraging and feeding that talent, to give it a value which it does not enjoy to-day. I think our educational system is responsible for that. In the year 1860 Huxley and Stope and Darwin were not allowed to attend Royal parties because in spite of their intellectual talents they were unable to break through that social barrier and that was as a result of the educational system which operated in England at the time. Thus Arnold said in 1960: “Never did people believe anything more firmly than nine Englishmen out of ten at the present day believe that our greatness and welfare are proved by our being so very rich”.

Our approach to education will determine whether we immediately accord this super-gifted, intellectually gifted scholar and person his rightful place. The national approach to education and intelligence determines the role which the discoverer, the philosopher and the scientifically professionally trained person must play in our lives. It determine our ability to maintain the rapid industrial expansion of the country, and I want to say this that our intellectual capital in this country is today of much greater value than any amount of foreign capital that we can borrow. In the peculiar position in which South Africa finds herself, it is essential for us to make up with our intellect what we lack in numerial strength. Any modern industralized country is based on science and technology and has to maintain itself on those and such a country has to look for such maintenance to the product of the brain of the professionally trained person, apart from the functions which can be performed by the administrator and the technically skilled artisan and workman, and apart from the valuable contritutions made by the spiritual leaders in the country. Our entire political power, our status, our entire military strength and military status and military impregnability, our entire industrial strength are all dependent on the scientifically trained person. That is the basis on which it rests. I want to plead to-day, firstly that more attention should be given to the talented scholar. I want to plead for facilities to be provided so that they can pass quicker through the primary and secondary phases of their schooling. Facilities should be established so that they can start with their advanced studies as soon as possible because their ability to master what ordinary education offers, is so much greater than that of the average child. I plead for better remuneration for them. I plead for the shortening of that long road which that man has to travel in the Public Service before he becomes incorporated in productive labour. The legal person and the medical doctor do not have to travel that long road which the scientist has to travel before he can start working productively. The knowledge which that man gains systematically goes into full production when that man, trained and exceptionally gifted, gifted beyond the average, starts to work. At that stage he produces at full capacity. I want to ask this question: Who moves the beacons of knowledge in our country? It is not the average man; it is the supergifted man, the scientifically trained man, the scientist who thinks and makes discoveries, it is the technologist and not the technician who moves the beacons. It is our duty to look after him because according to surveys which have been made (I refer only to Lehman) it has been irrefutably determined that the productive life of the natural scientist is far shorter than that of the ordinary average labourer and technician and man of mediocre learning. I want to know how many of them have already disappeared as a result of this long road, as a result of these limitations which are placed on the scientifically trained man by administrative officials. We find them in our schools, brilliant, and once they leave school a great number of them simply disappear and you never hear of them again. They become frustrated, powerless, because we treat them on the same level as the average man. Our educational system is in danger of under-estimating values and intelligence. We are in danger of not appreciating our men and women of high intelligence and of not according them their rightful place. We are in danger of congratulating ourselves too much on our wealth and on what we have already achieved on the broad front, we are in danger of those countries who have already freed and encouraged their scientists, their super-gifted men, producing more to-day than we are. [Time limit.]

I want to draw the hon. Minister’s attention to Item G: R11,131,000 under the heading “Universities”. I don’t propose to query the amount spent on universities. What I would like to ask the hon. the Minister is whether he thinks that we are getting value for the money spent. We have a large number of our young people at universities and one hears the annual cry of the university authorities saying that many of the students who are sent to universities are not of an age or a stage of education to warrant them coming to a university. On the other hand, one finds many parents in this country deeply concerned with the wastage at our universities. I would like to know whether the hon. the Minister with his recently appointed commission of inquiry into the finances of the universities will not broaden the scope of that inquiry so as to examine the question of the financing of each of the universities. I know for example that the University of Natal has one of its residential buildings comparatively empty. We have seen a phenomenal growth at the University of Natal, and I give full credit to those responsible for getting all these buildings built in Durban and Pietermaritzburg. Mr. Chairman, as the years pass I am not satisfied, because I have no evidence before me that the success of the University of Natal, the number of people qualifying, the amount of research work done, compares favourably nor not favourably with that of the other major universities. I think it is time that we had a report, a more informative report from the Department of Education on the comparative work done at our various universities. One gets the impression that there is a series of empire building going on at the various universities in South Africa, making appeals to commerce and industry and agriculture in respect of work to be done, and one feels that if instead of there being so much competition, there was better co-ordination, one might get better results for the money spent. I think sometimes that every university is anxious to have as many faculties as possible. There is a pride in achievement. But is the position not this that with our small population we are trying to create too many faculties and too many universities and that we are not getting the best material available? I know from my own knowledge—I am speaking of Natal in particular—where young people in classes of 80 or 100 have gone a whole year and have had no lectures marked at all. The answer may be given that they are not school-children. But, Sir, I am not talking of the brilliant youngsters, I am not talking about those who go to a university to have a good time; I am talking of the average conscientious student who realizes that his parents are making a sacrifice to enable him to go to the university, and he finds that he is not getting the tuition to which he is entitled. I have discussed this matter with friends of mine who have sent students to the Natal University as compared with those who have sent students to the Stellenbosch University, and I was surprised at the detailed attention given to small groups of students at Stellenbosch as compared with Natal. At the same time I recognize some of the outstanding work done by certain sections of Natal University. But I think we have reached the stage where it is not a question of trying to say that this university is better than that, but where we should examine the expenditure when we pass it and we would have more information than we have before us today. I do not criticize this report we have had from the Department of Education, but I hope that the hon. the Minister by next year will be able to get a more detailed report on the work done by our various universities. The argument is sometimes offered that one can’t get the best in lecturers. I know of some lecturers who are lecturing at a university, making a great sacrifice as they could earn far more outside; they are making the sacrifice for their profession. I also know of other lecturers who could not earn that salary outside and who are sitting out their time at the universities and getting away with it, lecturers who have got their professional qualifications but cannot impart their knowledge, such little knowledge as they may have, having no qualifications for teaching at all. I know of cases in recent years where a student got his degree, a science degree, then carried on at the university as lecturer having had no outside experience whatsoever. I appreciate that there are difficulties experienced by the universities. I appreciate that there is a shortage of funds. But I think we are entitled when voting money of this magnitude—and I have no complaint on that score, I would be prepared to approve of a lot more if we could be assured that we could get value for our money—to have more information. We hear the annual cry—education is no different to the other professions—that the students come to the university not properly prepared. All the experts disagree. The educationalists at the university says that the teacher at the school has not prepared the student properly; the teacher at the school says “this boy passed first-class in matric and he should do well at the university, but he has been wasting his time at the university without getting a degree, going out into the labour market”. And then sometimes he gets a degree in later years through part-time education. I should like to know how many students fail at the end of the first year, shall we say in the straight B.A. or B.Sc. degree in all the universities of South Africa, and how many who fail in the first year don’t get through in the second year. I think if we were to get some indication as to this wastage, we might be in a better position to assess the value of this expenditure which we are being asked to vote and we might bring home to the staffs of the universities a sense of responsibility that as lecturers they also bear a responsibility as trustees of public finance and that it is not sufficient just to deliver a series of lectures, but that they should see to it that the material available in our young people is developed as efficiently as possible within a reasonable time as envisaged by the university curriculum. I do feel that our universities are getting a tremendous amount of publicity: Fine buildings, celebrations in the way of invitations to overseas lecturers, big conferences bringing a lot of kudos to the principal, the council and so on. But basically, we are concerned with voting money to get our young people to qualify and to ensure that there is a minimum wastage of this human material. I feel that too long the emphasis has been on these great buildings, these monuments of brick and stone, these conferences with all that goes with them, and we are in danger of missing the main function of the universities and that is to educate. I hope the hon. the Minister will next year be able to put before us more information, that he will get reports from these universities, and if possible will have an inquiry so that we can appreciate the extent to which the finances of all our universities are sound and the extent to which the education they are giving is sound.

The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) delivered a very earnest plea for the expansion of technical training, etc. I may say that I fully agree with the hon. member, but we must be cautious not to erect buildings and big schools in vicinities where you are not very sure of filling the building. Technical education is a very costly type of education, but my Department is prepared to establish continuation classes in any centre provided that at least 15 pupils will attend the classes. The class fees amount to approximately R1 per subject per term, and the Department contributes in respect of these continuation classes the difference between income and approved expenditure, that is to say plus/minus 99 per cent of the costs.

*The hon. members for Randfontein and Ventersdorp pleaded for the child who is above average, and I want to support their plea and to say that it is certainly necessary for more attention to be devoted to the child who is above average. All of us who are ex-teachers know that if the child who is above average is put into the average class, the speed of the classs is determined by the average children, and sometimes by the weaker ones, and the one who is above average becomes so bored that in fact he is not benefited by the education given. This is not an easy problem to solve. In the Transvaal attempts are now being made in that direction. I do not wish to express any opinion about it now. It seems to me that the whole arrangement, even in regard to classes and the type of children, is something which should be referred to the Education Advisory Council which is about to be established. But whilst this Advisory Council is not in existence yet, my Department mus give consideration to these pleas. It can undoubtedly be held against us that we have neglected the clever children and allowed them to retrogress, and that no proper attention has been devoted to them.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) mainly pleaded for the physical fitness of the nation. I had the privilege and the honour of opening the National Physical Fitness Conference in Pretoria, where I also met people from other parts of the world who could be of assistance. The hon. member will know what the result actually was. The first result is the R25,000 made available in the Estimates for youth camps and work in connection with the young people. The object is to train youthful leaders. That is the main object. The division for education outside the school connection follows on the recommendations made at last year’s conference and the resolutions adopted there. R10,000 has, e.g., been made available for a survey for suitable sites for camps. The Department also sent Mr. Jan Botha, the head of the division, overseas to America, England, Germany, Holland and Belgium to make a special study of the organization of youth work, with a view to planning in our own country. Therefore we are doing what we can at the moment with the limited funds available. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that I am a strong supporter of his motto that a sound body leads to a sound mind, as long as one does not lose the balance. I think sometimes too much emphasis is laid on the one and too little on the other, but to follow the golden mean is the art of living.

The hon. member for Pretoria (East) pleaded for open-air museums and particularly asked that such a museum should be established in Pretoria. Of course, there is a committee of investigation in regard to museums in Pretoria and the recommendation of that committee fit in with the recommendations of the committee of inquiry in connection with art museums and associated institutions, and that will have to be considered when the Estimates for 1963-4 are drawn up. I just want to issue a warning that the open-air museums for which the hon. member pleaded are surely very desirable, but I immediately want to say that at the moment it is something which is perhaps not really necessary. Our difficulty is that the Cabinet has to distribute the available funds, and it has to preserve the balance, and particularly when we come to education the most important thing is to provide every student with a school-bench and also with accommodation, if he needs it, so that he can receive education. All the other things must sometimes wait. But I want to give the hon. member the assurance that we will certainly consider this item in drafting the 1963-4 Estimates.

The hon. member for Marico (Mr. Grobler) has repeated his plea for the establishment of a film institute, as he calls it this time. Whatever it is called, I want to tell the hon. member now that a Bill has already been drafted for the establishment of a Film Board as a corporation. I have already had consultations with my colleague, the Minister of Information, to ascertain whether he will take under his wing this whole Film Board and its organization, together with the particular services that it renders to other departments. It has not yet been decided whether it should remain under Education, but after this Session the Government will devote attention to it, and then we will consider all the matters raised by the hon. member, together with our own ideas.

Does that also include children’s films?

Everything, including educational and other films. Our film service is extremely decentralized, and the question has often arisen as to whether our capital expenditure is not increased unnecessarily as the result. There is great capital expenditure connected with the duplication of the activities.

The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) raised two questions. The first was in respect of the shortage of medical officers. I am sorry that it is the hon. member who has raised this: I would have preferred to reply to a man. But I feel that if the hon. member could devise a method whereby human material will be increased considerably in a short time, it will be possible for me to solve this problem of the shortage of doctors. The training facilities are adequate…

They are not.

No, the hon. member should not say that. The training facilities are adequate. As a matter of fact, there are vacancies in certain universities. There has been no application from any university to extend these facilities. The training facilities are adequate but the difficulty is the inadequacy of the number of persons to be trained. That is our difficulty.

May I ask a question? Is it not a fact that at the Medical School of the Witwatersrand far more students apply for admission than are taken and that the reason is the shortage of accommodation?

There is a possibility of increasing those facilities. If they cannot be trained at the University of the Witwatersrand they can be trained at other centres. That is the position, I can assure the hon. member.

In connection with the second question which the hon. member raised, in respect of the archaelogical survey, I want to assure the hon. member, that the Government will, of course, never withdraw its support. But as far as the finances are concerned, the University of the Witwatersrand took it over holus bolus. We are very interested. The reason for handing it over to the Witwatersrand University was not to get rid of it. We thought that the Witwatersrand University could do it much better than if it remained a Government institution.

The hon. member for Albany asked me a host of questions in respect of the University Colleges such as Fort Hare, and the one at Bellville and the Indian college at Durban. The first two do not fall under my Department, as the hon. member knows. I am therefore not answerable for them. It is of course impossible for me to have available at any-particular time details such as required by the hon. member, of the more than 100 institutions which fall under my Department. I am naturally prepared to give him all the information he desires if he would hand me his questions in writing. It need not be in the customary way; a private letter will do. Suffice it for me to say that the Indian College is progressing satisfactorily as far as the number of students, the staff and the teaching facilities are concerned. The hon. member is welcome at any time to visit that university college personally. But it is impossible in a short space of time to answer all the questions in detail which the hon. member has asked me.

The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) queried the amount of R38,000. He thought it was not sufficient for bursaries. I do not think the hon. member knows what is happening in practice. In practice the position is this—and this has also been our experience—that approximately R10,000 per annum is not taken up. It would therefore merely inflate the Estimates if the amount were to be increased. That is the practical position.

*Then, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Hospital did something to-day which in my opinion he should not have done. He was invited to and Administrators’ Conference, together with other interested persons, to form a Regional Council, in connection with which he read out a long list of names of the people who were present. He said that I had nominated all these members and that body would do certain things, and then he said that I am now saying that no resolution has yet been taken. [Interjection.] The hon. member must first listen now. It was an Administrators’ Conference to which certain people were invited, and the conference decided to advise me to act in the way stated here by the hon. member. That was confidential. The hon. member had that confidential information, but he revealed it in this Committee today. I received it; I have it in my possession, but I cannot reveal this information which I received and in regard to which I have not yet come to a decision. That is the truth. I have not decided on it yet. Not a single thing has been decided yet in regard to what amount will be given to whom and when. In fact, we are still busy in this Committee Stage voting that money. But that does not prevent us from doing the preliminary work. But the work still has to be done, and I have the information available now. Mr. Odendaal, the Administrator of the Transvaal, as Chairman, told me what their feelings were at the various meetings they held. I do not think it is correct for the hon. member to use information available to him, and which is not public property, in this way in this Committee. I just want to tell him that I was not vague in my reply to him. I gave him a perfectly correct reply to his question, and I could not give any different reply until such time as the final decision had been taken. I hope the hon. member is satisfied with that.

The hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) asked many questions about the universities. I think some of them were very sharp, judging by certain statements made by the hon. member. Of course, one does not feel very happy about many of the products of our universities. I have seen that myself already. I am sure one sometimes feels concerned. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mrs. Weiss) also asked me a number of questions to which in fact I could not reply properly, in regard to all the failures at the universities, because I have not the necessary information available. I have instructed my Department in future to keep proper data and statistics. I think the hon. member for Pinetown is correct in saying that it is a large sum and that we are dealing with a large sum of money here, but I just want to give the other side of the figures. I am very proud of the results—and I think he is just as proud as I am—which this young country and its clever young men have achieved, and of the progress we have made, so that our country is actually second on the list, in so far as the White population is concerned, in regard to the university population. It is only the U.S.A. which is ahead of us. Here .99 per 100 of the White population attend our universities. This is a very important figure. It is only America which has a higher percentage. It costs a lot of money therefore when we pay approximately 73 per cent of the running costs of the universities. In regard to the products turned out, one should not only look at the failures. We should also look at the successes, and the educated young men turned out by our universities in the various spheres. That is something we can be proud of. I took the hon. member’s criticism in the right spirit. He considers that it is necessary for us, seeing that R11,000,000 has to be voted, to know more next year about what is happening at the university. I think we should do so and then discuss it in greater detail in this Committee, and that both the Department and the universities should be prepared to do so. It is not that we want to criticize them unfairly, but we as the people who have to vote for funds would like to know what is wrong and where the fault lies. I think it is quite correct that we should take notice of it. but on the other hand we should not cause chaos. I just want to express these appreciative words, which I know the hon. member for Pinetown will subscribe to, on the positive side, viz. that we are proud of our university. We know that they worked under difficult circumstances and although they have now received a few nice buildings, it must be remembered that the majority of them had to put up for years with inferior accommodation.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 25.—”Schools of Industries and Reform Schools,” R1,964,000.

Mr. Chairman, this particular Vote is one which attempts the reeducation of a number of maladjusted children. Although the authority for the establishment of reform schools and industrial schools is, in terms of the Children’s Act of 1960, falls under another Minister, the task of the re-education of these children falls on the shoulders of this Minister. Therefore, Sir, I think before passing this Vote we should have some further information in regard to the amount of money to be voted, particularly in connection with reform schools. An amount of R265,000 is provided for in the Estimates for reform schools. In view of a survey which was carried out by the Bureau of Educational and Social Research as to the degree of rehabilitation and the success of that rehabilitation at the Constantia Reformatory, I think the time has come for the hon. the Minister to give some indication as to whether he has had an opportunity of studying this very important report and if so, whether any steps are to be taken either to revise the system of re-education at this reformatory or not. If I may just refer to this report: They give the percentages in regard to the rehabilitation of 544 former pupils of the Constantia Reformatory taken over a period of five years after leaving that institution. It was found that only 26.3 per cent proved to have been successfully rehabilitated. As many as 60.1 per cent were found guilty of further convictions and came into conflict with the law. Another 10.1 per cent also came into conflict with either the law or probation officers, making a total of 70.2 per cent that could be deemed as not having been successfully rehabilitated. The remainder, 3.5 per cent, was found to be unclassifiable by this survey which was undertaken. The whole question of the success of rehabilitation at these reformatories is one of vital concern, particularly to welfare organizations which are endeavouring to reduce the incidence of juvenile crime and offences by juveniles. That is why I should like the hon. the Minister to give some indication to the Committee to-day as to whether any further steps are to be taken in regard to a revision of the system which is presently being implemented at the Constantia Reformatory. I personally have had occasion to visit this reformatory and have been impressed by the work which is undertaken by a dedicated staff. However, the methods of rehabilitation are forever changing. New modern methods are being devised in other countries. In regard to the success of rehabilitation I recently read a report on the Borstal system which is carried out in Great Britain. They are achieving a far higher degree of success in the reeducation of those maladjusted children. The latest figures appear in a book written by a Mr. Fox on the Borstal system. Those figures show that 3,714 pupils were discharged and a survey was made over a period of seven years following discharge. Of those 1,875 were not reconvicted. In other words, a 50 per cent success in their rehabilitation taken over that period of seven years: 25.5 per cent were convicted once and 24.5 per cent reconvicted twice or more. These are very important factors in the re-education of these juveniles. I do hope that the hon. the Minister will give his attention to a revision of the system to see what improvements can be made in the light of the new modern methods which have been devised for the rehabilitation of these people. For instance, in the United States of America, although I have not been able to ascertain their follow-up in regard to their inmates from reformatories, it is found that their institutions are kept on a small basis, so that extensive individual therapy can be applied in the re-education of those persons.

The other important portion of this Vote, dealing with industrial schools where an amount of R1,700,000 is required, is another matter where I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether developments have taken place in regard to the establishment of further industrial schools. Almost every year in the report of the Secretary for Education, Arts and Science, we find reference made to the inadequacy of accommodation at the various industrial schools. This seriously affects other institutions, such as places of safety and detention where young people are invariably kept for periods of two or three months awaiting vacancies at industrial schools. During that period of time these persons are not attending school. They are completely idle. I believe and many people dealing with the re-education of these people, believe that it is not in the interests of these young persons to remain idle for such a long period of time and that the system of reeducating and readjusting some of those who are going to industrial schools should be applied with the least possible delay. The extension of industrial schools will limit the delay at places of safety and detention and will contribute to the successful re-education of these persons.

This brings me to the question of the grading of industrial schools. In a number of instances, children who are committed to these industrial schools from children’s homes often associate with the other persons who have been committed there on the ground of uncontrollability or truancy and develop delinquent tendencies, although they have not as yet committed any offence and are not juvenile offenders. Let us hope, Sir, that in the grading of these industrial schools the number will be kept to a minimum so as to obtain the greatest degree of success in the attention that they should receive at these industrial schools. I hope that attention will be given to the grading of such schools which is also in the interests of the pupils.

Seeing that an interesting survey has been submitted by the Bureau of Educational and Social Research in regard to the after-care and the careers of the former pupils of the Constantia Reformatory, I want to know whether the hon. the Minister will give some attention or give his blessing to a similar survey being carried out in regard to our industrial schools. Some of these young children who have attended industrial schools, sometimes after a period of only six months, have deteriorated considerably as far as their behaviour is concerned. I know some of these are perhaps exceptions because there are also cases where a great degree of success is attained at these industrial schools. However, Sir, it has been found that a number of these children who are committed to these institutions not on grounds of any behaviour problems, have become behaviour problem children after a period of only six months at an industrial school. I shall be glad if the hon. the Minister could give us some indication as to whether or not there is to be any revision in regard to our system at the reformatories and also whether a careful watch will be kept on the position in regard to industrial schools with a view to an extension, an extension which will be in the interests of the pupils.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say briefly that I have listened with great interest to the remarks of the hon. member about all the important indications in regard to reformatories and industrial schools. I want to say that this investigation instituted by the Bureau is a very important one and that its report is very important, and that my Department is already implementing it. For example, even yesterday a submission was made to me that those children, regarded from the social angle, where they get everything free and have to beg to be admitted to some or other special function, should also be given a certain sum, 5s. a month, as pocket money. I mention it because that is only one idea. I think that the whole approach in regard to reformatories should be that the emphasis should be placed on rehabilitation. In view of the fact that this report is a very important one, I should like to assure the hon. member that wherever this report can be implemented that will be done.

In regard to the industrial schools, there has now been the extension in Schoemansdal, in the beginning of this year. Schoemansdal is near Louis Trichardt. There we have established an industrial school for girls. There is room for 150, and there are plans for a new school at Utrecht and one at Wolmaransstad.

For boys or girls?

In the case of Utrecht and Wolmaransstad I cannot say. The one at Schoemansdal is for girls. I cannot now reply to the question put by the hon. member, that we should subject the industrial schools to a thorough investigation, as was done in regard to the reformatories. I cannot give a reply yet. The hon. member must forgive me for not having had the opportunity yet to go into the question of the industrial schools, for the simple reason that I took over this portfolio only at the end of last year. But I will devote attention to it, and I will discuss it with my Department to see to what extent an investigation is necessary and whether we should give the same instructions that were given with regard to the reformatories, and whether the terms of reference should perhaps be wider or narrower, and then we will see next year how far we have progressed.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 26.—”Bantu Administration and Development”, R26,385,000.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask for the privilege of the half hour? The relations between the African section of the population and the other groups of the South African population, and the place of the Africans in our community, is a matter which is causing grave concern. As Africans are found throughout South Africa, in every corner, any policy which is accepted by the Government must affect every individual in the country. We have noticed in discussions in this House on Committee of Supply the relationship between the African group and the other groups comes up under every Vote. It is only right that this Minister should be present—as he is—in this House when other matters are discussed. It is also only right that we spent some time on this matter when the Prime Minister’s Vote was discussed, as the hon. the Prime Minister is the architect of the policy which is to-day being carried out by the Government. As the head of the Cabinet, he is the man we hold responsible for this policy. This Minister is the Minister who has been appointed to administer the Department and of course to accept responsibility for the affects of the policy.

Now, Sir, we have had frequent statements of policy from the hon. the Prime Minister not only outside but also in this House. I have noticed that whenever the Prime Minister speaks on Native policy, his speeches are listened to as attentively by Government members as they are by members on this side of the House, for the simple reason that Government members are also trying to find out what it is all about and what the policy will be for this Session at any rate. Had this policy of the Government’s been the traditional policy of this country, had it been cut and dried and had it been understood as explained, there would have been no necessity for these frequent discourses by the hon. the Prime Minister, and it would not have been necessary for us to put as many questions to him as we do. I submit that the Government supporters in this House and outside are as confused as the opponents of apartheid are as to what is meant and as to what the consequences of this policy are going to be.

Sir, the two major parties in this country have much in common in their policies. For example, there is the traditional belief in separate residential areas and in social separation, albeit we differ fundamentally on the application. We agree, too, that for the foreseeable future at any rate, the reserves should be set aside for African occupation. But again we differ basically as to how and why. The Government’s policy is to have them as homelands for the Africans with a promise of eventual complete independence, whereas the policy of the United party is to regard them as necessary protective areas for a section of the community which at its present stage of development, is in need of protection against the economically stronger European group. While the United Party advocates political development in the reserves, it is determined to keep them in the Republic under the jurisdiction of the Central Government. There are many other examples of similarity, yet there are different approaches and differences of opinion as to the solution of the problems. Of course, we differ radically on certain major issues. The chief of these is in regard to the political rights of the Africans. The political rights of the Africans on the continent is the question which gives most concern to-day. Largely because of world events since the last war when the democracies found themselves in a desperate struggle for survival against totalitarianism. As I have said. Sir, it is here that we differ basically from the Government and have no common ground. There is no question of compromise. It is simply this: Are the Bantu to be represented along with the other groups in the Legislature and governing bodies of the land, yes or no? The Government says no, not in the Central or Provincial bodies, and until last year, not in any body at all outside the reserves. The United Party, on the other hand, insists that it is right that all groups should be represented in the political life of a democracy, although we recognize the fact that where the groups differ, as they do here, in their stages of development, there must of necessity be different forms of representation to ensure that the government remains in the hands of the most civilized and most highly developed group. Now the protagonists of total apartheid or separate development admit freely that there are dangers in their policy and that there are many problems facing them, and it would be idle of me to contend that there are no problems attached to our policy. But what we do justly claim is this, that while there are problems to be met, in our solution we are certain that with goodwill and a sincere desire by all groups to face the facts and the realities of the position in this country, we can work out a plan which will respect the dignity of each individual and give him a stake in the country, so that they will not regard themselves as foreigners but know that they will share in the prosperity of the country and be allowed to take part in the government.

The Nationalist Party recognizes that it is amoral and unjust to deny any group of citizens political rights for all time. So it avoids the issue by promising the larger group separate states where its members can exercise their political rights to the full. It is quite simple, as the Prime Minister puts it. The White men living in the Bantustans retain their civil and political rights and will not fall under the jurisdiction of the Bantu Parliament, and the Africans will enjoy their civic rights there. There is this difference, of course, that the Africans living in the White areas, although they will not enjoy any civic rights there, will still come under the jurisdiction of the Central Government. The Prime Minister said—

Now the dangers of a multi-racial state, according to the Prime Minister, is that the opportunity to live in peace simply does not exist in a common fatherland where there are continual conflicts, and he gave us the simile of members of a step-family living in the same house. I have no doubt that this found favour with a large section of the voters who want as little interference and change in their lives as possible, but also at the same time want their consciences salved. Provided they do not have to live in the proposed Bantustans and their property rights are not affected, they are probably quite prepared, although they will not admit it, to see some other section of the population sacrificed in order to save themselves; and they are quite right in believing that if all race groups could be completely separated, so that they never came into contact with each other and there was no friction, that would be the ideal solution. But that is only an ideal. As Dr. Malan said, that is the ideal, but it is not practical. The Prime Minister and the Nationalist Government also know it is impractical and every year we see more and more money being spent on housing and transport to provide for a permanent Bantu population living in the White areas, outside the reserves. As the Minister put it in the Other Place—

It is time that the public of this country realizes that there is absolutely no possibility of accommodating and maintaining the African population inside the reserves. It should be made quite clear to them that the Government members, and especially this Minister, appointed a committee of experts to go into this question and it reported that with the greatest possible development of the Bantu areas there would always be at least 6,000,000 Bantu living in the White areas. But I go further. That commission of experts found that if you did not develop the reserves on the scale that they recommended, and at the speed they recommended, by the turn of the century, there would not be 6,000,000 Africans living in the White areas but 17,000,000. We must remember that this commission reported eight years ago and the position has wornsened in these eight years, because the excess Bantu population which has been compelled to find its home inside the White areas is increasing all the time and this Government has done nothing to develop the reserves in terms of the recommendations of this commission. In fact, the commission recommended that the problem should be tackled speedily and energetically, and they said it was the only solution. Now eight years have elapsed since that commission reported and the position has got worse. Therefore, in weighing up the pros and cons of the two policies it is essential that we realize that as far as we can see ahead the Bantu will form the major portion of the population in the White areas, living outside the reserves, and in any event they will be to a greater or lesser extent always part of the population living outside the reserves, unless we radically alter the boundaries of the reserves. If the Prime Minister’s prognosis of the conditions to be expected in a multi-racial state is correct, then his plan to establish separate states will provide no solution to the problem at all. The Prime Minister said that if they are here they are a problem. Sir, they are here and they are always going to be here, and the sooner the public of South Africa realizes that the better for them. Too many people are sitting back thinking that this policy of separate states will solve the problem, and if you have tile Africans apart from the White man you will have no more trouble. Sir, no one, not even the Prime Minister, and no Nationalist supporter can give the country any assurance that there will come a time when we will have no Africans in the White areas. What has been done to take them out? The commission of which this Minister was a member advocated that speedy action be taken. Nothing was done. The Government has appointed another commission and they now have a five-year plan which came into effect last year, and it is appointing more commissions to go into the question of establishing industries on the borders of the reserves—more and more commissions to speed up the development of the reserves. But the tempo of development must be retarded becasue of the Prime Minister’s refusal to allow White entrepreneurs and capital to play their part in developing the reserves. Here I do not blame the Minister. The Minister himself, as a member of that commission, found that it was essential that the White man should play his part, but unfortunately he has capitulated to the Prime Minister. There is not an economist in the land who supports the Prime Minister’s policy of the exclusion of White initiative and capital from the reserves, yet he persists in it because he is not statesmanlike enough to admit that he was wrong, or to change that policy.

The Prime Minister has burnt his boats in regard to the White man playing his part in the reserves. He cannot go back on it. The only way the Government can change its policy is by changing its Prime Minister, and unless there is a change in policy there is no hope of this policy of separate states ever being a success. The Tomlinson Commission found—I come back to this Commission because we must keep on reminding the public of what happened, and because a great fuss was made of the appointment of this Commission and of its report. We are led to believe that this was the solution to the implementation of the apartheid policy. The Minister will remember that on page 194 of the report it said—

Of course it is the germinal point, because unless you can get the Bantu out of the urban areas, the policy must fail. But eight years have passed, and the five-year plan which the Government is carrying out now envisages spending only R114,000,000 in five years, of which R75,000,000. or more than half, will be spent on establishing villages and building houses. The Tomlinson Commission recommended that an amount of R208,000,000. or almost double this amount, be spent in the ten years from the time when they reported. As I say, eight years have passed. They should have spent at least R20,000,000 a year, but that has not been done. I have addressed this House several times on this point, on the lack of development. Members on this side have pointed out that large sums would be required to develop the reserves sufficiently to maintain their population. We have quoted figures and we have quoted economists, but no notice was taken. The public does not even take notice of it. They believe, because they want to believe, that they will get a solution without making any sacrifices. They want to believe that this problem will pass them by and on to someone else who will bear the brunt of it. The point is this, that the Minister and no Government member has been able to prove to us that any development has taken place on any worthwhile scale. I challenge the Minister. I ask him to tell us now. Instead of getting up and replying on ideals and ideologies, I want him to get down to facts and tell us how many more Bantu in the Transkei have received work there because of the policy of development carried out by the Government. We know they have a furniture factory. We know that the Minister will tell us how many furrows he has ploughed, and how many dams he has made, and how many boreholes he has sunk. He is building a small irrigation scheme there now, but he is leaving the rest of the rivers of the Transkei uncared for. He has not even made a survey of what can be done with them. In the 14 years the Nationalist Party has been in power, I ask the Minister to tell us what has been done to make the reserves viable. Not only has the Prime Minister made it clear that White initative and capital will not be encouraged, but he has made it just as clear that the Whites living there must go, so that those people will lose the initiative of the Whites living there. He says he will not force them out, but they will go gradually and the villages will slowly become Black. Chief Kaiser Matanzima made a similar statement to the Press in an interview. The next day it was denied by the Chief Native Commissioner over the radio. Why he denied it I do not know because Chief Matanzima was just saying exactly what the Prime Minister had said. Subsequently I saw in a report that the Chief Native Commissioner said that Chief Matanzima only objected to the headline and not to the substance of the report. The Chief Magistrate, also in an effort to console the White people, referred to Chief Sebata and said that he also wanted the White people to remain there. We know that. We know that Chief Sebata has taken a different line against the Government on the question of the development of the reserves. We know that his policy is one of multiracialism, so I am not surprised that he did not associate himself with the other statement. But I want to ask the Minister what is going to happen to the Whites who have initiated industries there, and in particular, what will happen to a big mining group which has started prospecting near Mount Ayliff. They have geologists there and a team of about eight specialists who have been staying at Mount Ayliff for some time now prospecting in the nickel mine. Have they been given any special consideration? How will they be allowed to develop that mine? I think it is time the Minister tells the House whether this particular group has been given special consideration, because to get people, mining groups and others, to develop industries in the reserves there must be inducements. The Prime Minister said he would allow them in provided they do not get any investors’ rights and their profits are kept down. I want to point out that when the Zwelitsha factory was established near King William’s Town, costing R6,000,000. it operated for over ten years at a loss, and it can be expected that any other large undertaking like that, starting in the reserves, will suffer the same fate. How does the Prime Minister expect Whites to take part in the development if they know that they will lose on the deal for ten years and then not be allowed to reap large profits? Not only must the Transkei become viable to be able to accommodate its citizens, but unless we want continual trouble with our poor relations, it must become viable enough to maintain its administration. It is unable to do so at present. In the constitution which was published it was made quite clear that at present, on the revenue they can expect, they will be short of R9,000,000 a year, and this Government will have to make that up to enable them to carry on. Are they always to come begging to us? And if we refuse to help them what will happen? It is in our own interest if they are to become separate states, to see that they become viable, and if we do not help them they will go elsewhere. They cannot do it themselves. According to the Tomlinson Report, the average income of the African in the reserves is R84 a year in cash, and with food and free quarters, etc. it comes up to R194 a year. How can people earning R84 a year in cash, with a family of six, possibly contribute to the cost of running the State? It must also be remembered that they will have to import at least half their food. The Government expects the Bantu living outside the reserves to accept the policy of having civic rights only in the reserves, and the Prime Minister says we can expect them to be well disposed and appreciative because they should be grateful for the right to be in the White areas and to make a living. Before he said that he pointed out that they could go to their own areas and by virtue of the skills they had acquired here they could climb to the highest positions, and if they are here to make a living merely because they wish to be here, they should be grateful. Then he went on to tell us the old story about the Italians and asked whether we did not think they were grateful to the French and the Germans for allowing them to work in those countries. How often is it necessary for us to point out to the Prime Minister that there is no similarity at all between the Italians working in France and Germany and the reserve Bantu living and working permanently in his own homeland? The Italians may be satisfied, but were the Germans satisfied to work in the Sudetenland and elsewhere? Why did Hitler start the war? His excuse was that he was looking after his minority groups. He did not expect the Germans to be satisfied in foreign countries. The Prime Minister’s arguments may be valid in regard to foreign applicants who come here to seek work from outside, but our Africans have no other homeland. They have enjoyed political rights in this country, in our Legislature, and they have fought for this country. [Interjections.] Even if the Transkei gets self-government next year as the first step towards complete independence, the Bantu living outside the Transkei would never find accommodation and a livelihood there. They are grateful, says the Prime Minister, for being allowed to live here. They have nowhere else to live. What more interest has a detribalized Xhosa in the Transkei than he has in Zululand? His parents left the area and he was born outside the area. Why should he be interested in getting back to the Transkei?

What about the Basutos?

As far as the Basutos are concerned, the Prime Minister’s arguments may be correct. I am talking about our people. I am not interested in what the British Government is doing in Basutoland. I have never justified the constitution of Basutoland. Why must hon. members always quote Basutoland to us? The Bantu living outside the reserve has not been consulted with regard to his future. The Minister does not know what his desires are. When I asked the Prime Minister which Africans other than the Recess Committee had been consulted about the Transkei Plan, he said it was not his responsibility. He said—

He went on to say that as far as his knowledge went “it had announced its intention of consulting the Bantu in its own area as well as the Bantu in the White area, whether it be in Umtata or Port Elizabeth or Cape Town”, i.e. the Recess Committee. Does the Minister share the Prime Minister’s point of view that the views of the Xhosa living outside the reserves are of no concern to him? If we must go by Press reports, we see that Africans living in Port Elizabeth and Cape Town were invited by the Recess Committee to go to the Transkei. They were invited in such a hurry that they had no time to consult anybody and they were not representative of the people whom they were asked to come and represent. They did not even know what they were going there for. There has been no proof yet that the urban Native supports the Government’s plan. Last year we passed a Bill giving the urban African much more say in local affairs in his townships than his reserve brothers had in administering the affairs of the reserves, and we gave them the right to elect councillors. We supported that Act, but it contained the provision also that councillors could be nominated, and not only elected, and provision was also made for the establishment of tribal courts, and we pointed out at the time that the Africans in the towns would not accept those two provisions. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) has launched a wide frontal attack on the Government’s policy in respect of the Bantu population, and although it would have been a great privilege to have been able to reply to him in half an hour, I have to touch upon just a few points in the ten minutes at my disposal.

The first is the statement made by him that it is allegedly the ideal of the policy of the Government, and a ground on which the policy is supported, that we want to push the Bantu out of the White areas to such an extent that the remaining Bantu will constitute an unimportant or non-existent section of the population. It has never been stated at any time that it is the aim of this Government, in the present generation or in the next generation up to the year 2000, to reduce the Bantu in the White areas to insignificant numbers. What has been our policy, is to check the abnormal efflux of the Bantu from his traditional areas and, secondly, to limit the increase in the numbers of Bantu in the White urban areas on the one hand by means of measures to control the influx of Bantu to these areas and even to reduce it by legal steps, and on the other hand to increase the Bantu’s opportunities of making a living in his own area.

The hon. member has referred to the Tomlinson Report, which stated that if we carried out what they envisaged, there would be 6,000,000 Bantu in the White areas at the end of the century. In the first place I just want to say this in that regard. The Tomlinson Report forms no part of the policy of the National Party in the sense that it sets out either the ultimate goal of our ambitions or the minimum limits of our ambitions. The report is a well-studied document which sets out an aim which any rational Government would try to achieve, and our aim might very well surpass what the Tomlinson Report envisaged or it may fall slightly short of that aim, but that report merely indicates a guiding line; it does not lay down absolute aims.

The hon. member went on to quote, out of its proper context, the statement in the Tomlinson Report to the effect that if the recommendations contained in the report are not carried out, there will be 17,000,000 Bantu in the White areas in the year 2000. What the report says is that if the tendency for the Bantu to flock to the urban areas is not checked at all, that is what will happen; in other words, if the United Party had been in power since 1950, for example, and had remained in power for half a century then, according to the report, there would have been 17,000,000 Bantu in the White areas, and any improvement that we bring about to reduce that fantastic figure, will in any case be an improvement on the potential of the Opposition as a possible Government. But as far as the influx of the Bantu is concerned, I want to make this submission that the Government has brought about a highly significant diminution in the influx of the Bantu. We must not forget that we have witnessed a period of industrial revolution over the past 12 years, an industrial revolution in which, since 1936, there has been an urbanization of approximately 150 per cent in respect of the White population.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, I was dealing with the allegation that this Government has not succeeded in implementing its conception of apartheid, and I was saying that we had a phase of fantastic urbanization in this country, in which the numbers of Whites in the cities increased by 150 per cent in the previous two decades, that is to say, up to 1951, while the numbers of Bantu increased by 264 per cent over the same period. In actual fact the gross increase in the numbers of Bantu in the two decades up to 1951 was approximately 1,500,000. while the increase in the numbers of Whites was 750,000. The point is simply this: As the result of economic conditions there has been an enormous influx. There has been an increase of 117 per cent in the numbers of industrial workers during this decade. When we look at the future we find that there is the same tendency statistically, as Professor Schoeman has indicated, and that is that in the next 20 years, from 1961 to 1981, there will be 340,000 White work-seekers as against 1,750,000 to 2,000,000 Bantu work-seekers. How has this Government’s policy succeeded or failed in the light of this tremendous increase in urban residents and urban-workers? In 1949/50 our industrial manpower was 30 per cent White, 53 per cent Bantu and 17 per cent other races. In 1956-7 the position deteriorated. This process was not checked during the first period of National Party rule. The White percentage dropped to 26 per cent and the Bantu percentage increased to 57 per cent. But by 1960 we had already turned the tide. The percentage of White workers in industry increased to 30 per cent and the percentage of Bantu workers in industry dropped to 50.8 per cent. During this past period therefore, in which it has been possible for this Party’s policy to make its effect felt, the tide has been turned, and that has happened significantly enough in a period, from 1957-8, during which the gross contribution of industry to our national income has increased from £966,000,000 to £1,034,000,000 Furthermore, we have this phenomenon that during this very period in respect of which I have mentioned the percentage decrease, there was an 11,000 absolute decrease in the numbers of Bantu industrial workers in South Africa. I refer to the period from 1957 to 1960. These are highly significant figures, Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that this country, like the rest of Africa, has been experiencing what might be described as a spring tide of Bantu urbanization. I believe that another conference is being held in Abyssinia this evening with regard to this urbanization problem.

The hon. member went on to quote the Tomlinson Report as his authority. The Tomlinson Report itself took the year 1970 as the turning point in the growth of the Bantu population in the White cities. No, Mr. Chairman, far from deserving the reproach that we have not carried out this difficult process of separation of the races, we should be congratulated on the fact that in the face of this spring tide of urbanization we have been able to check the stream. It must also be borne in mind that in order to reduce the number of Bantu employees we need the closest co-operation of commerce and industry, unless we want to complicate the position by means of meddling decrees, delicate economic processes. In the main it is the supporters of those hon. members who are the traders and the industrialists. It is because of the encouragement of their supporters in industry and commerce and the encouragement of the English-language Press, that the co-operation of commerce and industry in South Africa has been lacking in this national effort to implement a separation of the races.

They come along and reproach us! We have been working on the implementation of our policy; we had great hopes in this direction, and we shall carry out this policy in the future. But what are they going to do if in the next 20 years they are faced with another spring tide in the shape of an additional 2,000, 000 Bantu work-seekers? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has announced that their policy will be to apply the pass laws and influx control in such a way that employment will be provided, and that the Bantu women are also to be exempted from these control measures. They are going to provide employment to those 2,000,000 throughout the White areas of the Republic, including the Western Cape, which represents 40 per cent of the Republic’s territory and where there is still a White majority of more than two-to-one as against the Bantu. Under their policy those 2,000,000 Bantu workers will be absorbed here. They will absorb them here by holding out the inducement of property rights; they will absorb them by holding out the inducement of a breaking down of the principles of job reservation and the colour bar; they will absorb them by holding out the inducement of parliamentary representation in addition to powers of local government; they will entice them to come here by holding out the prospect of an undefined autonomy within their own circle, which they have never dared to define. No, Mr. Chairman, at a time when this Government is engaged in a tremendous struggle—a sociological and economic phenomenon—that party’s policy is designed to capitulate in all haste to this ever-increasing pressure. Instead of those hon. members, in gratitude… [Time limit.]

I am not going to deal with the population increase in the different towns. Other members will deal with that. I have not the time to deal with that. All I want to say to the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) is that the fact remains that the Bantu population in our urban areas and White areas is still increasing every year.

As Tomlinson prophesied.

That was what Tomlinson prophesied. And that is why I am trying to remind hon. members opposite and the country of what Tomlinson prophesied. Tomlinson prophesied this, that with the greatest development in the reserves you would still have 6,000,000 Africans living in the urban areas. Not the Minister or the hon. member for Kempton Park or any Nationalist member can get away from that fact. The fact remains that we will still have 6,000,000 Africans at least in the so-called White areas.

The point I was making before business was suspended was this, that as long as you have Africans living in the urban areas or the so-called White areas, as long as that position obtains, you will have all the troubles which the Prime Minister said we would have. Unless you get rid of all the Africans you are going to suffer from all the difficulties which the hon. the Prime Minister said we would have to meet. Under our policy…

Which policy?

The Chief Whip has read all our pamphlets. It is no good his trying to put me off. I am attacking the Government. It is no good trying to pull a red herring across the floor of the House. Other hon. members on this side will deal with our policy; I am attacking the policy of this Government. Our policy takes cognisance of the fact that we will always have Africans living in the White urban areas.

Mr. Chairman, before the dinner break I was dealing with the question of consultation. I pointed out that this hon. Minister had said in Another Place that the overwhelming majority of the Africans had accepted the policy of this Government. I asked what consultation he had had with the Africans. The Prime Minister admittedly—and this Minister—consulted with the Recess Committee. I pointed out that they had had no other consultations. When I tackled the hon. the Prime Minister on this point he said that it was not his responsibility to consult, it was the responsibility of the Recess Committee of the Transkei to consult. He said that he understood that they were going to invite Africans from Port Elizabeth and Cape Town to Umtata to discuss the matter with them. I referred to the Urban Bantu Council Bill which was passed in this House last year and I asked this Minister whether he had consulted any of those councils. I pointed out that when we passed that Bill, although the United Party supported it, we had pointed out at the time that because of the attempt to introduce tribalism into the Bantu Urban councils, they would fail. I pointed out that the Bantu would not accept nominated councillors and that they would not accept the tribal courts. I want to ask the Minister how many councils have been established? As far as I know only one. It is useless the Minister telling us that it is for the Bantu to ask for these councils, or that it is for the municipalities to apply to establish these councils. In terms of that Act, Sir, the Minister himself can take steps to establish those councils, after consultation with the Bantu. Has the Minister had any requests from any Africans to establish these councils? I want the hon. the Minister to tell us that. He must also tell us what consultation he has had with the Africans living anywhere in the country, except for the Recess Committee? I submit that the question of consultation is a most important one. If the policy is to succeed at all it is essential that the Africans living outside the reserves, should accept that policy. A phase of our policy is to consult all Africans, not just the chiefs and headmen. Our policy is to consult all Africans. When I asked the hon. the Prime Minister whether he was prepared to accept the constitution which was presented by the Recess Committee to the Territorial Authority of the Transkei, he said that it was not for him at that stage to say whether he would accept it or not. This was what he said—

That was the Prime Minister’s reply to me, Sir. This Recess Committee placed its constitution before the Territorial Authority.

There have been reports from Government officials and from tribal chiefs that the newspaper reports as to what happened at Umtata were not correct. I want to read a few of the reports as to what happened there when this constitution was submitted to the Territorial Authority. I will read the Cape Times first and then the Burger, just to warn hon. members opposite before they start shouting. The one report was that the Secretary of Bantu Administration and Development, Mr. Young, had warned the members of the Territorial Authority that this was the constitution they were to discuss. The report goes on to say, he said this—

Here is another statement to the delegates to the Territorial Authority meeting—

I now want to read from the Burger. This is also what the Secretary of Bantu Administration had said—

Hear, hear!

Hear, hear, quite right. The Government will decide and not the delegates to the Territorial Authority meeting.

Quite right; they cannot dictate to us.

The Minister of Bantu Administration remarked upon the fact that the constitution had been accepted by the Territorial Authority and that this was an example to Britain how quickly things were arranged in this country, whereas Britain takes years to work out a solution for its African territories. We do it at once. But what is the position, Mr. Chairman? This Recess Committee met. It did not frame its own constitution and then face the Territorial Authority with that. No; they were brought to Pretoria and there they met the Prime Minister—not only the Minister of Bantu Administration—who had a long conference with them. He advised them and then the constitution was presented to the Territorial Authority. [Time limit.]

I should like to reply just briefly to the last accusation made by the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) in which he said that the Prime Minister had allegedly dictated to the Recess Committee of the Territorial Authority in connection with their constitution. I deny that. The hon. the Prime Minister and this House realize exactly what happened. The Prime Minister stated that they went to Pretoria for advice and that he merely gave them advice. They were there for one day. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, hon. members of the Opposition usually chatter so much that one is unable to speak. That is the only thing that they can do properly. The Prime Minister told them that they could take this advice and that they could draft their own constitution. That is what happened. They drafted their own constitution and they then submitted it to the Territorial Authority. Now we come to the Territorial Authority. What is the correct position as far as Mr. Young’s speech is concerned? The hon. member for Transkeian Territories read out two newspaper reports from an envelope. I do not know since when those newspapers have been printing their reports on envelopes. However, I leave it at that. According to the report Mr. Young said the following—

Why?

Surely it is generally known that is the policy in South Africa. Surely everybody knows that this Government is not going to establish a multi-racial state in the Transkei when it is not even prepared to tolerate a multi-racial state in the White areas. Hon. members opposite are disappointed that there is not going to be a multiracial state there, a multi-racial state which they cannot get here in the White areas. We are now told, because the Prime Minister said that, that he dictated to the Recess Committee. The Secretary for Bantu Administration went on to say, “This White Parliament has the final say”. This White Government sitting here has the final say. That is perfectly correct; that is so. The constitution of which they approved still has to be submitted to the hon. the Minister. A measure still has to be piloted through this Parliament and approved by this Parliament. Surely then Mr. Young was perfectly correct in saying that the final say rests with this Parliament and with this Government. Yes, as my hon. friend here says, just as in the case of England and Basutoland. After all, the final say rests with the parent state that grants the constitution to the other state.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Transkeian Territories made a three-pronged attack. His first point was that there would always be Bantu in the White areas. Very well, let us assume that there will be Bantu in the White areas for all time to come; there is still this difference then between that side of the House and this side: We say that there may always be Bantu in the White areas, but that they will be here as temporary labourers. They will be here as immigrants who comes here to seek employment, and to seek employment only. The justification for their presence here will be employment and employment only. They will be migrant labourers. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories and his side of the House, however, emphasize the fact that “they will be living here”. We say that they are employed here; they are not living here; they will remain here as long as they have employment, but when they no longer have employment here they will have to return to their homelands. That is where they live and that is where they can have their permanent homes. That is the great difference between one’s home and the place where one works. I do not know whether the hon. member for Transkeian Territories regards this Parliament as his home because he works here.

He will remain in the Opposition so long that he will have to regard it as his home.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, he may have to regard it as his home for that reason perhaps.

May I put a question to the hon. member?

I have no time for questions, Mr. Chairman. I only have ten minutes at my disposal. In this connection I want to read out a very interesting report from the London Times, which is certainly the supreme example of Britain’s eminence and superiority. The Times justifies the “White Australian policy” which is being applied in Australia at present. It writes as follows—

In other words, the Times rejects a multiracial state for Australia. It says that in Australia, because of the inability of Whites and non-Whites to fuse into a harmonious community, the policy must be one of a White Australia. In other words, for good reasons there must be apartheid in Australia because they cannot accept a multi-racial state there. I am pleased to see that the London Times has become converted to some extent. I hope that will penetrate through to hon. members opposite. What the Times advocates for Australia, we also advocate for South Africa because of the same inability of Whites and non-Whites to live together and to fuse into a harmonious community. That is why we say that there must be apartheid and separate states in South Africa.

And Canada too.

They also mentioned Canada, amongst others. As far as Canada is concerned this paper says—

“At least on paper”, Mr. Chairman! I predict that it will always remain their policy on paper only. What did they do with their Red Indians in Canada? This will remain their policy on paper only. If the Times rejects a multi-racial state for Australia I take it that we also have the right to reject it here in South Africa. What do hon. members on the other side advocate? They want a multiracial state. Let me ask them this: The hon. member for Transkeian Territories has said on their behalf that there will always be Bantu in the White area. In other words, he visualizes a multi-racial state in the White area. I want to ask them this: What is their intention then in wanting to develop the Bantu areas? Why do they want a federation in South Africa then? Why then do they want a federal state? Do they want a multi-racial state, with a White area, as they visualize it, and four or five other Bantu states? Is that the federation that they envisage? That is the only inference that one can draw from the speech made by the hon. member for Transkeian Territories. That is all it can mean, because he says that there will be Bantu in the White area for all time to come and that we will have a multi-racial state here. On the other hand they want to develop the Bantu homelands as Bantu states, I take it, because that is what the Leader of the Opposition said in this House. They then want to establish a federation between these Bantu states on the one hand and on the other this multi-racial state, which we call the White area in South Africa. I say that there is no sense in it. It is not necessary to establish a federation for that purpose because this multiracial state that we will have, in which the non-Whites will be for all time to come, according to the hon. member for Transkeian Territories, and where, according to him, they are going to be in the majority, will in due course become just as Black as all the other Black areas. [Time limit.]

I want to remind the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) that these Bantu states are going to be independent, and when they are independent they will be able to do as they like.

I want to deal with the question of the Africans around our cities. Last year during the debate on the Bantu Advisory Council Bill, the Minister told us amongst other things firstly that he was taking power to force the local authorities to form urban Bantu councils and that he hopes municipalities would realize their responsibilities in that regard. Secondly he told us that in many areas he had consulted the Africans and that they had approved of the idea of these councils. He said that in recent times he had consulted people in areas such as Johannesburg, Pretoria and elsewhere. These councils with their chiefs’ representatives, were obviously to be the links with the new homelands. Then in regard to ethnic grouping he said—

Now, Mr. Chairman, what is the position in regard to these Bantu urban councils? In reply to a question put by the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) the hon. Minister said that no Bantu councils had been formed as yet. I know that in my own constituency such a council is being formed and that it will be the only one in the Republic in view of the Minister’s reply to the hon. member for Houghton. I also know that the other Native townships to the West of Benoni have refused categorically to have anything to do with the Bantu urban councils. I know further that councils have been refused in Johannesburg and in view of the Minister’s reply, apparently everywhere else in the country. In these circumstances, Mr. Chairman, how could the Minister possibly have told the Committee that he had consulted the Africans and that they had welcomed the scheme. The Municipalities have not refused to help. It is the Africans who have refused to accept these councils. The hon. the Minister admitted last year that he had not consulted local authorities and now it is proved by his statement that he had not consulted the Africans either. When he told us that they had accepted his proposal, that was not correct. In fact, Sir, the whole matter proves our contention that this Government has broken down all the bridges with the urban African, all the bridges that ever existed. There is no one representing the views of the Bantu with whom the hon. the Minister can consult. In Johannesburg these new Bantu council schemes were rejected by the advisory boards, as they regarded them as a subterfuge to distract attention from bigger demands. The minority were in favour of the councils but the overwhelming majority rejected them. They said it was a bluff purporting to give them something but in fact nothing. I told the House about my fears in this regard last year. I feared that this would happen. I said it to the Minister. My fears have now proved to be true.

I want to determine the real position in regard to these concentrations of Africans in the country’s industrial areas. Firstly, let me deal with the people themselves. There is an extremely wide variation in education, culture, income and in background. In education this variation ranges from complete illiteracy to university graduates with advanced degrees. But, Mr. Chairman—and this is the essence of our problem—the completely detribalized Native represents a substantial, ever-increasing, element amongst these people. Nothing can stop this process of detribalization. There are hundreds and thousands of Africans living in the same townships, playing in the same fields, going to the same schools and suffering under the same unjust laws. How on earth are you going to stop them from fusing, Sir? Ethnic grouping! The one group on the one side of the road and another group on the other! The longer they stay there, Mr. Chairman, the more they desire to reach the White man’s standard of live. If members on that side do not believe me I suggest they must go and look at these townships and see what those Africans have already achieved. In every township there is a growing number of modern European-type houses for prosperous Africans. All shops are run by Africans…

What is wrong with that?

The clinics are run by Natives, most of the office work is done by Natives; hospitals, social centres, etc., are run almost completely by Natives, sometimes under White direction. All these activities come from the White civilization which we have brought to these people. Do you really think, Mr. Chairman, that after being a part of all this they will return to the tribe? Absolute nonsense. They are here permanently; these men, women and children, for good or for evil are in these towns forever. Detribalization, notwithstanding the Minister’s policy of ethnic grouping, is continuing all the time. The population in these areas is growing, as he knows, at a very fast rate. In Johannesburg on 30 June 1957 the population was 670,021; on 30 June 1961 it was 721,106, an increase in four years of over 51,000. And the rate in this increase will grow, Mr. Chairman, and detribalization with it. The hon. the Minister tells us that his policy is that these people will be for ever foreigners and subjects of other states. Fifth columnists they may be one day. Mr. Chairman, how far can one delude oneself? How long can one toy with the future? I would like the hon. the Minister please to tell us tonight or whenever he speaks, how he proposes to check this process of detribalization? He must agree that once a man is detribalized, there can be no ethnic grouping for him. The hon. the Minister said that ethnic grouping is the basis of Nationalist Party policy. Right. Will the hon. the Minister explain to us how he proposes to bring these completely detribalized Natives to accept that they are foreigners in their own land? The representatives which the ethnic groups were to have in the so-called White areas, as the hon. the Minister will have to admit, have been refused, the link with the homelands has been refused. The link that was to let these people know that politically they are members of foreign states, has been refused by the people of whom he told us that they would accept this with open arms. The Minister knows that ethnic grouping has broken down, and it must break down as detribalization advances. The number of Africans in the towns is growing rapidly and in fact the whole policy has been exposed in the last 12 months finally for what it is, and I do hope the hon. the Minister will tell us what his next manoeuvre is going to be.

When we heard the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) this evening, we thought that at last we would get some clarity in connection with the policy of the United Party so that we could weigh up the two different policies of the National Party and the United Party. But all we got from the hon. member was that he tried at the beginning to state the points of agreement. It looks as though we have been making a little headway recently as far as the United Party is concerned. The hon. member says, “We are agreed as far as residential areas are concerned.” But when one looks for a moment at the attitude adopted by the United Party with regard to group areas and the various steps taken by the Government to bring about residential separation and to separate the Bantu from the White and to take them out of the White areas, we find that we had nothing but opposition from the other side. Furthermore, when we think of the steps taken by this Government in connection with the so-called locations in the sky, we know how we had to fight to bring about this separation in hotels where locations had come into being on the rooftops within the White area. We know how we had to fight to prevent this. This evening we expected to get some clarity, particularly since the United Party came forward in 1961 with a Federation plan, but we got nothing. We did expect to get some clarity in connection with the federation plan. As the hon. member who has just sat down has said, it is becoming clear now that the United Party, in the first instance, wants to reserve the Native reserves, the Bantu areas, exclusively for the Bantu. I take it that it is correct that the policy of the United Party is that the Bantu areas will remain Bantu areas. But according to their policy the White area is now to be thrown open also to an influx of Natives. It is perfectly clear, particularly alter the speech of the hon. member, that the Bantu areas will remain exclusive Bantu areas, but that the White area is to be thrown open to an influx of Natives. The hon. member says that nothing can be done about it; that we cannot even distinguish between the ethnic groups. But let us take a closer look at the federation plan. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories tells us that we know what that plan is. Here I have Die Weekblad, the official newspaper of the Opposition, of the United Party, and on 18 August 1961 the United Party’s policy was allegedly set out in that paper. It says here, “Graaff offers an immediate solution to South Africa. Sets out plans for a race federation.” But when one reads this, what does one find? In the first place the Leader of the Opposition says—

He does not want to go into detail; he does not want to become bogged down in general principles. We are still waiting to hear the principles underlying his federation plan. We would like to have the two policies clearly stated so that we can weigh them up. The hon. member says that the difference between the two plans is unbridgeable. Let us accept that it is unbridgeable, but surely we in this Parliament and the public outside must be given details of their federation plan. Just a few things are mentioned here which are to take place almost immediately; the explanation then goes on and from that explanation it appears in the first place that this is not to be a territorial federation as in Rhodesia, for example, but that it is to be a population federation; that the various population groups are to be thrown together in a federation. He then divides the groups into four. The first group is the White group, but according to this plan it is clear that the White man is not to be given full control alone. He is to be given that control together with the Coloureds. The Coloureds and the Whites together will form the first group. The second group consists of the Bantu. He divides the Bantu into two groups, each of whom is to be given its own representatives. We do not know how many; that is not stated in this plan. But the first group consists of the Bantu in the Bantu areas; they are to be given one full share. The second group consists of the Bantu who are at present living in the White area and who are also to be given a say. In other words, the Bantu are to be given two shares, while the Whites together with the Coloureds will receive one share. The next group is the Asiatic group. All that his federation plan says in regard to the Asiatics is that they are to be consulted.

But we would like to have the details as to how that federation plan is to be developed. In the first instance we should like to know this: Is the federation to consist of the provinces and separate Bantu areas? Will the federation develop as a whole, or will it develop according to a provincial system? Surely it is accepted that there will be certain local authorities, such as the Bantu have always had in their area. How far is he going to develop that system? Is he going to give them provincial powers? What powers of government is he going to give them in their own areas? These are the details that we would like to have in connection with the federation plan of the Leader of the Opposition. We only know that it is a federation plan, but beyond that we have no details. We should like to know how many representatives are to be given to the Bantu who are within the White area. We should like to know how the four groups which are to form the race federation are to be divided, how many members they will send to Parliament and what weight they will carry. Surely before the public can accept and express an opinion on such a plan, it must be given some details. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition surely cannot expect this country to take a leap in the dark and to accept an unknown federation plan. It does not help us if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition simply says that he does not want to become bogged down in details. It is high time, after all the planning on the part of the Opposition, that we were given full details of this federation plan; only then shall we be able to judge.

We also want to know, if he is going to have consultations, how he proposes to do so. Because if there are to be consultations, surely it means that two parties will be involved. Who is going to make the decision? Will it be by way of agreement? Will the agreement be observed, and who will have the greatest say in connection with the planning? If you consult two parties, it is assumed that you will respect the opinion of both. But how will that agreement be arrived at; what will the representation be in this Parliament? These are details that we should like to have, and I hope that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will be good enough in the course of this debate to give us and the country the details. We expected to be given these details in this debate, because when the hon. member for Transkeian Territories sat down he said that other members would go into this matter. Where are the details? We are all waiting anxiously and I think the country is waiting anxiously for that explanation, and I hope that we will get it on this occasion.

Listening to the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel) and other hon. members who are asking what our policy is, one would really imagine that it was the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s Vote that was being discussed to-night. The hon. member for Christiana dealt only with that and therefore I do not propose to deal with what he said.

But I do want to deal with what the hon. member for Heilbron said. He told the hon. member for Transkeian Territories that the Bantu were just working in the urban areas, they were not living there. I wonder if the hon. member for Heilbron appreciates that in the urban areas, in Durban and in Cape Town and in Johannesburg, there are people of the second and third generation, who have lived always in these urban areas. I wonder if the hon. member has had a look at the housing schemes, about which he never fails to tell this House, and whether he appreciates that in these housing schemes, the overwhelming majority of the hóuses that are being built are built for families? The number of single quarters by comparison are very, very small.

So what?

Does that not indicate that these people who have their families there and who live in their house, which in certain areas they can buy, where their children stay with them and go to schools in these townships, will remain there? The little capital they have, all their assets, they have invested in the towns. Mr. Chairman, how long do the hon. gentlemen on the other side think they really have to deal with the problem of the urban Bantu? If the urban Bantu must get their opportunities in the Bantustans to relieve the pressure upon them …

Tell us about the pressure?

Do hon. members think that the problem is going to be solved by these people having the right to vote in the Bantustans which are going to be established? Will it be solved by them having all the opportunities in the world in the Bantustans, but nowhere else? How long do hon. members think they have in which to do that? How long is it going to be before even a substantial portion of these people are going to be able to learn a trade, are going to be able to learn how to earn a living at any trade? How are they going to do that? They can’t do it in the Bantu areas, because this Government won’t develop them properly, won’t develop them fast enough, don’t do what we say they must do, namely to develop those areas with White skill and capital. So for how long are they going to have to wait before they are able to earn a living in those trades? They are not allowed to earn them in the urban areas, and they never will be able to earn them in the urban areas, so long as this Government is here. One wonders just how these Bantu areas are going to be built up. With what sort of skill are they going to be built up? Yet these people are now going to be denied the opportunity in the towns to earn a living and to learn a trade.

What do you mean by “learn a trade”?

What I mean is that the ordinary urban Bantu will have the opportunity to become a bricklayer, to become a carpenter, to earn his living in a hundred-and-one ways …

Order! Hon. members can ask all those questions in ten minute speeches. It is not necessary for them to interrrupt the speaker now.

The interesting thing about the five year plan for the Bantustans announced by this hon. Minister is that of the R114,000,000 which is going to be spent over the five years on this Bantustan development plan, R50,000,000, which is very nearly half of it, is going to be spent on the housing schemes in White areas. How can this be called part of the Bantustan development programme? The hon. the Minister has given the answer. I quote now from the Natal Mercury, where the hon. the Minister asked to comment upon this, firmly denied that the housing for urban workers could not fairly be described as Bantustan development, since all the proposed new townships would actually be on the edge of the reserves. Sir, if there is anything more immoral than that to put these people on the edges of the reserves, in the White areas, so that they can work in the White areas for the White industries, deny them the opportunity properly to develop themselves, and properly to earn their living in those White areas, and then pretend that they will become a market for the Bantustans, next to which they are going to be created, then I should like to know what is.

I wonder when one hears flung across the floor of this House allegations that what we say does South Africa a lot of harm overseas, I wonder whether the hon. gentleman had ever appreciated how much criticism there was of the rural Bantu and how much there was of the urban Bantu? I wonder whether they appreciate that all the criticism, all the legitimate criticism of South Africa has been on the treatment of this Government of the urban Bantu, not of the rural Bantu. The rural Bantu is not a problem so far as human beings are concerned, so far as their traditional way of life in the reserves is concerned. They have always lived like that. There is no problem there so far as human dignity is concerned. The problem of human dignity is in the towns, in the urban areas.

What do you mean by “dignity”?

Order! The hon. member for Ventersdorp must please now stop asking questions.

For the reason that the Government won’t accept the fact, the fact being that they are a permanent part of the towns and because as a result of that they allow the urban Bantu no private lives whatever—they are continually subjected to all the extraordinary laws which apply to them because they are not regarded as being permanent. Those people who are in fact permanently there are not allowed to earn a living at what they are capable of earning a living at. Job reservation is applied to those people in the way it is applied. The result is that there can be no bettering of any individual or any individual family. And that is where you have your real problem, that is what the world complains of. That is the problem of South Africa to-day, the real problem to find a way in which the urban Bantu can develop themselves where they are, where they are needed, where each individual man will be able to develop himself to reach a decent and orderly life, living like the other human beings in that particular area. That is the problem of South Africa. The problem is not whether you are going to create some state in which the Bantu can have independence if they want to go there, when you know that those Bantu in the towns will never go there. The hon. the Minister knows that they are never going to go there. That is why he said what he said, as reported in the Natal Mercury. He went on to say that they would provide (that is these urban townships) a stimulus for the agricultural economy of the Bantustans by providing markets for farm produce, and the Africans living there would start their own tertiary and secondary industries. But he admitted that many of the inhabitants will always be dependent on the White towns. [Time limit.]

It is generally known that for our peaceful co-existence and survival in this country it is necessary that there should be sound race relations and that in regard to the race relations in our country we should have sympathetic understanding on the part of the outside world. That being so, it is clear that although often in this House we become a little superficial and sometimes flippant, South Africa cannot afford our not discussing this Vote Bantu Administration and Development with the greatest seriousness, because on such occasions the attention of the whole world and of the Press, both those who are well disposed as well as those who are inimical towards us, are concentrated on what takes place here when we discuss race relations. Therefore it is important during this debate for us to be quite clear in our minds when we continually discuss subjects such as the restoration of the autonomy of the universities, the restoration of Bantu representation in this House, the condemning of separate development, condemning job reservation and condemning the policy of Bantu homelands, all with the object of pacifying world opinion. That reminds us very much of those religious fanatics who throw their children to the crocodiles in order to pacify the gods. What sacrifice are we expected to make to pacify the god of world opinion? Must we, for the sake of that god, throw South Africa to the wolves? No, our racial policy is something vital to us. We do research, we gain experience and we shape our policy according to the needs of all colour groups which belong historically in this country, and with a clear view to the future, and then we tell the world: This is our policy.

Mr. Chairman, one can sometimes learn from people from whom one perhaps never expects to learn anything. There are some of our people who could go and learn something from Oliver Tambo, the deputy leader of the banned A.N.C. At a Press conference in London he said this—

Cannot we as Whites learn that lesson and in our turn say: Our salvation does not depend on forces from outside; we have the unconquerable power to preserve White civilization in South Africa? But there are a few other lessons we can learn. The Digest of South African Affairs of 6 January tells us the following—

And Mr. Robert Annam said this—

Why should we not have confidence in our own country, despite the fact that we have these difficulties to cope with? He said, further—

I say this only with reference to the fact that attempts are always being made to sow suspicion in the minds of people abroad and investors and to destroy their confidence in the Republic of South Africa, in spite of the imagined unstable conditions with regard to our racial policy.

We do not want to claim that we have the alpha and the omega for the solution of this problem, which is unique in the whole wide world. And everybody is watching us to get an example, because to-morrow it will be their turn, but to-day it is ours. There is the inimical Press which sows unrest in our souls.

Order! The hon. member must come nearer to the Vote.

Thank you, Sir. There are the White and the non-White agitators in regard to our racial policy, and there is the unwillingness of the position to understand clearly the policy we are following here in regard to Bantu administration and the development of the Bantu homelands. Furthermore, there is the lack of concerted action by the Whites in the Union, and there is also the wooing of world opinion in regard to the racial policy our Government has to follow in this country. The Opposition and the English Press in South Africa have always told the non-Whites here and overseas that the policy of separate development to completely self-governing independence for the various ethnic groups was misleading, just a sop to lull the people, a bluff to keep the non-Whites in a continual state of subordination within the Republic. But now that the Prime Minister has made a statement on 23 January 1962 in regard to granting self-rule to the Transkei, those same people try to shake the confidence of the people and to embarrass the Government. They try to do so by inciting the non-Whites in the Transkei to ask for more than the Government originally offered, and inter alia, to demand full control over defence and foreign affairs, and by pointing out the danger which exists of agreements possibly being entered into with foreign communist powers, resulting in the infiltration of Communism in the Bantu states, which is bound to have its effect on the Republic also. But still, in the same breath, the non-Whites are encouraged to ask for full control over the very matters which will stimulate the above-mentioned dangers.

We would like to ask the Opposition and the inimical Press in this country what ideology they then regard as dangerous to the Republic, apart from the genuine South African policy applied by the Government. I ask that question with reference to the fact that the Opposition and the British Press are on very good terms with the outspoken enemies of South Africa and therefore find themselves in the camp of the aggressor in this cold war waged against their own country, because those enemies simply will not and cannot accept our policy of apartheid.

I pose this question: If South Africa were to do what those countries demand, which stigmatizes our policy of separate development as monstrous, and apply a policy of one man, one vote, and if South Africa, again following the example of those immoral preachers, were to put Opposition members in prison without trial and annexe adjoining territories, would we then be left in peace? I am only putting this question because matters are going so well in this country in regard to our racial policy that I can read to hon. members the following extract from the Transvaler of Friday 4 May—

But he said, further—

I don’t propose following the hon. member who has just sat down in his remarks inter alia against the English press, because I don’t believe that to fulminate against anybody’s opinion, without reference to the facts, is of any assistance in the solving of this problem.

I should like for a moment to dwell upon the analogy of the hon. the Prime Minister and that, to a certain extent of the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman), of the Italian workmen who go to work in France. I think it is quite easy to demonstrate in a few short sentences that is no analogy at all, if one has any regard to the fact of the matter. The Italians that are referred to are born in Italy; they go to work in France as seasonal labour and then return to Italy. They are a small, insignificant minority of the population of France, the country in which they seek this work. They have every economic and personal and civic right in France, which a Frenchman has, save that of the exercise of the franchise, and they can acquire that right as well if they wish it by taking out French nationality. That is the situation in so far as the Italian workman in France are concerned. One has only for a moment to compare those facts with the facts which apply to the non-Europeans living in the Republic, that is the White Republic to show that any suggestion of an analogy between them is nonsense. I ask this hon. House to compare with those facts the facts relating to the Bantu here. They are in a great numerical majority. We have some 6,000,000 of them of whom the greater number are born in the White Republic; they are not born in a foreign country; some of them, as has already been pointed out, are here in the second or third generation. They have virtually no civic rights in the Republic of South Africa and they will never in terms of the policy of the hon. the Minister be able to acquire any such civic rights. They suffer under certain absolute economic bars so far as the exercise of a calling or the getting of a job is concerned. These bars are, moreover, on the increase, the so-called job reservation Act is there specifically for that purpose and one can see from its history that it is a measure which is widening in its scope. It does not end there. They can never acquire any civic status within the White Republic and they can certainly never at any time either now or in the future acquire any form of political rights at all. They can certainly not be naturalized once the independent Bantu states have been created. To suggest comparing those two sets of fact, that there is a useful analogy between the Italian workmen working in France and the Bantu, whether they come from the Transkei or whether they were born here, is simply to fly in the face of facts and is of no assistance to anybody at all.

What about the Bantu coming from Basutoland?

To suggest that there is an analogy between those two situations is to suggest that there is an analogy between a sparrow and an ostrich merely because they both have wings. The hon. member for Heilbron, in trying to make a point out of this alleged analogy, by suggesting that they are merely people who work here and that they do not live here, is again to fly in the face of facts. It is of no use to anybody and certainly no credit to the hon. member for Heilbron. I should like to concentrate for a moment, not on the Bantu states, but on the Republic of South Africa. Let us concentrate for a moment, Sir, on this country where we are; not the Transkei or any other Bantu state which may be created. Let us look to the situation here. May I suggest, Sir, that it is useful to look at the situation here in, say, a generation’s time when all the Bantu states have been created. We will have more Black people here than we have at the present time. We will have a greater disparity in numbers between Black and White. Industries will have increased and there will have been an inflow of non-Europeans as a result. That has already happened and it will happen in the future. Further generations of Bantu will have been born here. These people will have become more advanced; they will be more irritated by the petty restrictions which we presently have and which will necessarily have been increased as they advance, if one is to keep them out of any participation in the affairs of the White Republic. There will be, as I say, not only the restrictions which beset them at the present time but more of those restrictions reacting on a more advanced and a more politically conscious Black population all in the White Republic. At that stage, Sir, they will have economic barriers operating against them; they will have no civic rights here and they will have no political rights here. But, as I have said, they will have a more acute political and civic sense. At that stage, Sir. the Bantu states have become independent; they have gone their own way. And I ask this House to imagine for a moment that they have disappeared, that those Black states have disappeared. What are we left with in the White Republic? With exactly the same situation which the hon. the Minister is faced with at the present time, only more acute because the situation will have developed in the ensuing generation. As I have said, the Bantu people will have become more conscious of these things and there will necessarily be more restrictions because of that advance.

Mr. Chairman, we can so easily be embarrassed by all this. The hon. the Minister himself has pointed out the acute political sense which the leaders in the Transkei have at the present time. It is the easiest thing in the world, Sir, for them to put us back into an absolutely impossible situation. And it can be done like this: The power in the Transkei will be in the hands of the Chiefs, not the elected people from the towns but the Royal authority, the tribal authorities. They Sir, are not going to take kindly to any political prodding in the self-development of the community; they are not going to take kindly to political prodding from the expatriate Bantu living in the big White urban areas. What is to stop them, Sir? They are independent now, utterly independent of the hon. the Minister. What is to stop the conservative government in the Transkei saying: “I am going to disenfranchise all those ex-patriate Bantu in the White Republic of South Africa; I do not want to be embarrassed by those rather advanced people. I am going to disenfranchise them and the only people who will exercise the vote in the Transkei are the people who are domiciled in the Transkei.”

Just like the Nationalists.

Exactly; just like the Nationalists. And where do we come to? We come back to exactly the situation in which we are to-day, with 6,000,000 Bantu (or 7,000,000 as they will then be). None of them are going to vote in the Transkei or any of the Bantu states. They will be living here. They will be more advanced. They will be living under all the difficulties which irritate them at the present time. They will have no political rights anywhere and the hon. the Minister and the hon. members opposite will be faced with exactly the same problems which beset them now. Nothing will have been solved; not one thing will have been solved, but we will have an advanced population here, more restricted than they are at the present time and seven or eight independent states created, under-developed, with alliances all round the world if they want it. In other words we will have created seven or eight additional dangers which we do not suffer under at the present time. Yet things in the White Republic—and that is the part I am concerned with—will be exactly the same as they are at the present moment.

They will be worse. [Time limit.]

If there is one danger against which this side of the House is continually warning in regard to the policy of the Opposition, it is the danger which has now been demonstrated so clearly again in the speech of the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman). He advanced the argument here that the Bantu of the Transkei will not want to accept the Bantu in the White areas because the former are too conservative to include the latter in their ranks. Then he said, by implication, that if the United Party comes into power they will take up these Bantu who will not be accepted by the Bantu in the Transkei in the White community and eventually give them political rights. He thereby clearly demonstrated the deadly danger contained in the policy of the Opposition for the continued existence of the White man in South Africa. The hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) and others concentrated on the urban Bantu, and in the process they went out of their way to prove how the urban Bantu is developing and becoming civilized and adopting the standards of the White man. The hon. member for Durban (North) also stated that the criticism from abroad is particularly based on our treatment of the urban Bantu.

What is the solution offered by that side of the House in the light of this statement by the hon. member? What will they do to combat the criticism in this respect? They say that the number of developed Bantu will determine the number of representatives they will have in this White Parliament. At the same time they argue that thousands of urban Bantu are busy developing. They say that these urban Bantu will be represented in this House by eight representatives, who will be Whites. But do they really think that a measure like that will stop the criticism from abroad? Do they forget the speech which was made a few years ago in this same building by one of the Western leaders, the Prime Minister of Britain? Do they forget that on that occasion he said that he could no longer support us because they adopted only one standpoint, the standpoint based on merit and merit alone? That, he said, was the only standpoint which would satisfy them. It is therefore, not simply a matter of having a separate voters’ roll on the basis of which the Bantu will be given a few White representatives in this House! But still those hon. members think that the solution they suggest will stop the criticism we get from the outside world. I think they are adopting a ridiculous attitude. The fact is that they themselves do not really believe that it will be the solution. They know very well that they will not simply be able to stop at a system according to which the urban Bantu are given eight White representatives. In fact, they realize that even as a beginning it will satisfy neither the urban Bantu nor the outside world. The urban Bantu will immediately set afoot an agitation for greater representation. Indeed, an hon. member with great influence in that party, the hon. member for Yeoville, himself said that there was a large section of his party which was in favour of the Bantu being represented in this Parliament by their own people, and that this number would depend on the number of civilized Bantu. Therefore they are already rejecting the proposals on which they relied to obtain the support of the White voters. It was a great disappointment to that side of the House that the Transkeian Territorial Authority unanimously accepted the draft constitution in spite of all the agitation, and also that the Bantu of the Transkei thereby intimated that they were finally accepting apartheid. By accepting the draft constitution they also proved that they were prepared to accept the hand of friendship the White man was extending to them, and from their side also to give their friendly co-operation.

But what about the urban Natives? Do they accept it?

We on this side of the House hold the view that the urban Native is definitely not a detribalized person—except, of course, for the little group of political agitators which that side of the House intends giving political representation in this House. In order to combat criticism from abroad, that party opposite envisages a multi-racial Parliament. In other words, they want to adopt a policy of partnership. On the one hand, they want to give the Bantu political rights in this House, whilst they, on the other hand, are continually sowing suspicion against the non-White and frightening the Whites. They are continually trying to frighten the Whites with the non-Whites. They pretend that these non-Whites are still too undeveloped to be given self-government and that they will not be able to maintain it. At the same time, however, they propose to grant political representation in this House to the urban Bantu. It is clear that the United Party is trying to put the non-Whites up in arms against the Whites. They are continually saying that more immigrants should be brought into the country as a bulwark against the Black danger. On the one hand, therefore, we have the scaremongering and on the other hand we have the granting of political rights to the non-Whites in terms of the policy of partnership. But what will be the result of their race federation and their policy of partnership? The result will simply be that there will be a continual struggle on the part of the non-Whites to obtain increased powers. To the extent that these Bantu develop, they will insist on more rights, and the White man will continually have to fight to retain his power. [Time limit.]

It is clear from the speech of the hon. member who has just resumed his seat and also from the speeches of hon. members on the other side during this debate, that they have a firm belief in the principle of “one man. one vote”, and that they accept that as fundamental.

That is the liberals’ standpoint and you know that.

I am surprised to hear an interjection like that from the bench of the Chief Whip of the Government! Does he mean by that observation that all we have so far heard from the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development as well as from the Prime Minister in this respect was nothing but a bluff? [Interjections.] I do not understand, Sir, why ail these protests should now be heard from members opposite. This is a most amazing exhibition which we have to witness now. Surely if you are going to establish a free and Independent Transkeian State there by giving the people the right to elect their own legislature, the principle of one man one vote will be a fundamental principle to them. Surely, that will be the position in the Transkei where there will be equality? Or are there going to be different levels for the people of the Transkei under this new freedom which they are being offered? The principle of “one man, one vote” has been advocated all along by members opposite for the Bantu once he has his own independent State. [Interjections.] The Prime Minister has been at pains in all his speeches made in this House as well as outside, to emphasize that the urban Bantu will be allowed to exercise his political rights free, unfettered according to the principle of “one man, one vote” in the area from which he came.

Where did he say that?

If the hon. member for Vereeniging does not know the policy of his own Party at this stage, he should be banned from the Party or raise the matter in his caucus.

If they are independent, cannot they themselves decide how they will vote?

Sir, this is a most extraordinary position which we have in this House to-night. Let us assume that the hon. member for Vereeniging is qualified to represent the Bantu in the Transkei in their own Parliament. We have been told that there will be a number of elected members in the envisaged legislative assembly, a certain number of which are to represent the urban Bantu. The hon. the Minister has made that quite clear and said that was the way in which democracy was to operate in the Transkei. To illustrate my point graphically, let us imagine that the hon. member for Vereeniging is Mr. Jim Mofumohali a candidate for the seat Qumbu in the forthcoming Transkeian election as representative of a nationalist party of the Transkei. Let us, furthermore, assume that the hon. member for Heilbron is a Mr. Solomon Nojiama also contesting a seat as a Liberal candidate. Now, if the new state is going to be a free democracy, these two gentlemen will be allowed to conduct campaigns unhindered. If they wish to represent the urban Bantu, i.e. those living in Langa, the Western Townships of Johannesburg, etc., they should be permitted to canvass freely for votes and to address meetings; and if they are going to be restricted in that regard, it will not be contrary to democratic practice. But I do not think it is the hon. the Minister’s intention at present to restrict them in that way. Now, let us imagine Mr. Jim Mofumohali rising to address a meeting in one of the Western Bantu townships of Johannesburg. What is his plea, as representative of the nationalist party of the Transkei, going to be to the Bantu living in that township? Incidentally, I may say that the name “Mofumohali” is an appropriate one for such a politician because in Xhosa, I believe, it means “a gift from heaven”—not that one can describe the hon. member for Vereeniging as such, however! In any event, I should like to put this to the hon. the Minister: Should Mr. Jim Mofumohali, representing the nationalist party of the Transkei, stand up at a meeting and say that he regards the territory of the Transkeian State as being too small, or that there is not enough independence as the White Republic still has too great a say and control over their destiny, what is going to happen? What is the hon. the Minister’s attitude going to be if this man says that he will see to it, if he is elected, that the territory of the Transkeian State is enlarged and that a greater degree of freedom will prevail? And now the representative of the Liberal Party, Mr. Solomon Nojijama, gets up and says to the same Bantu voters that they should rather progress in small stages, which of these two candidates will get the votes? Is Mr. Jim Mofumohali going to win the election because he preaches freedom in the language of Mr. Nkrumah and others in Africa? Or is the more reasonable man, Mr. Solomon Nojijama, going to get the votes? I have no doubts as to which candidate will. The same pattern, Sir, will be repeated from Native township to Native township throughout the Republic, because we cannot get away from the fact that from 300,000 to 400,000 voters of the Transkei will be residing beyond the borders of the Transkei, i.e. in the White man’s areas under the proposed constitution. Is the hon. the Minister going to ask the hon. the Minister of Justice to ban these candidates who in his opinion are making these extreme statements but who nevertheless, have been democratically nominated to contest the seat? How is the hon. the Minister going to control them? How is he going to control them in the light of the fact that this is a free and democratic state which is to be set up in the Transkei? This is a pertiment question because in the minds of Nationalist members you are going to have legalized agitators going round the Bantu townships and fulminating against the White man’s position in this country. This is, moreover, made possible by this Government under this wild scheme of theirs. There will be no leadership, no control, no restriction. You cannot say you are creating a free democracy if, at the same time, you put chains round the necks of those who want to campaign amongst the urban Bantu, and any such restriction will be an infringement of democracy. It must be remembered that such candidates will not be citizens of this country, but citizens of a free and independent Transkei. You see, Sir, that when you start to relate this policy to actual practice or to the possible effects which might flow from it, you will see that this will be a means whereby the veld fire of freedom will be spread throughout all Bantu townships in the White areas and that by Bantu propagandists over whom the hon. the Minister will have no control whatsoever. [Time limit.]

I listened with the greatest attention to what was said by hon. members opposite, and I have come to the conclusion that they are not even able to convince themselves. That is also the position in the case of the last speaker, and I would like to prove it. He intimated that a candidate for the Transkeian Parliament could come into the White areas where there are Bantu townships and incite the Bantu as much as he liked. But the hon. member still does not know us, if that is what he thinks. Has he not seen what happened to such people? They will not be able to come to and agitate here, because we will send them back to their own area. Their own member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) said that we are now depriving the Bantu in the urban areas of all their rights, of all their opportunities to find employment, and of all their opportunities to form a nation, etc. I listened to him very attentively. In the same breath, however, he asked what would happen if the Transkeian Authorities no longer wanted to recognize these urban Bantu because they were too far developed. His argument reminds me of the words of one of our great men, namely Dr. Erlank, when he said that the hardest person to convince was a stupid, educated man. When someone is so highly educated that he cannot even convince himself, he will not be able to convince me either. Hon. members opposite are educated, but they are still trying to delude us by telling us something which they themselves cannot see but still believe in. The urban Bantu so they say, is oppressed by us to such an extent that he will never be able to develop, but in the same breath they say that he will make so much progress that the Transkei will not want him. Sir, I simply do not understand that. I have not yet progressed so far as to be able to understand it. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories has one vocation, and that is to plead for the poor Bantu every time he gets up here. The poor Bantu is all he can think of, and every so-called injustice which the Government is supposed to do to the poor Bantu is divulged. But has he not listened to what his own people say, that these Bantu can develop to such an extent that their own people will not want to accept them?

Order! The hon. member must please address the Chair.

I should like to do so, Sir, but it is very difficult for me to do so when one has to put up with so much from hon. members opposite. Nevertheless, I shall try to obey your ruling. What surprises me even more, Sir, is the hon. member for Houghton. That hon. member reminds me of a driver in the days when we still had teams of oxen. He boasted of the fact that he used words very sparingly. Therefore when he addressed his oxen he only said, “Rooiland and all you other eleven lazy ones.” This hon. member again says, “My party and I, and the other eleven who were there.” In that way the people opposite are dwindling, and those who are left contradict each other so much that I would like to give some advice to the Leader of the Opposition. If one has to drive such a team, then the top part of the whip-stick should not be flexible because then one always ends up by striking oneself. And that is so. Hon. members lash themselves in every speech they make. But let them now tell us what they want to do with the urban Bantu. What does the hon. member for Zululand want to do with them? He cannot cut their throats, and therefore they must remain there. Is he going to use them against me, or against himself? Why do they not reveal their plan for these Bantus? The hon. member for Turffontein pretends that we stand for the principle of one man, one vote. Just see what direction he follows. He does it because he has nothing else to say. The principle of one man, one vote is the lifeblood of the U.P. They can no longer oppose the National Party by means of their own inherent power, but they are now seeking help from without. As long as they seek help outside, they will contradict each other as they are doing now, until the Leader of the Opposition gets a whip-stick which is firm enough at the top to be able to hit straight. How long must we sit in this House and listen to pleas for the poor Bantu in the locations? That hon. member with the nice white head cannot say a word without spitting fire. The hon. member was an educationist in his day, but now he is just utterly confused. When will we we be able to find one another? When will hon. members opposite and hon. members on this side be able to find one another? The way we are carrying on now we will never find each other, and what will happen then? The hon. members say we must get in immigrants to strengthen the Whites in the country, but they are White people and they fight with us every day. I also think we should get in immigrants, but we should rather export that party, because they do much more harm than any immigrant we can import. [Time limit.]

After the light relief to which we have just listened, I would like to come back to the serious issue of this Vote and to draw attention to one of the most significant aspects of this debate this evening. Earlier this year the Prime Minister announced the plan for the independence of the Transkei as the prototype for the creation of independent Bantu states in South Africa. This debate has now been going on since this afternoon and we are still waiting to hear about this from the Government. Despite the fact that a constitution has already been drawn up, debated and voted upon by the Transkeian Authority, we have not had that constitution laid before us in this House. This Parliament is expected to discuss the future of South Africa and policy which will determine the security or the downfall of every White man in this country. I want to say that this policy will lead to the total destruction of civilized standards, not only in the Bantu states but throughout South Africa; and yet, when the instrument of that destruction of Western standards is at this moment being forged by the Government, it is not laid before this House for debate. It is done quietly, with the Press under control, and whenever a statement is made it is contradicted a day or two later. Instead, all we get is the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) attacking the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) for saying that there will still be Bantu in the White areas of South Africa at the end of the century. That sort of red herring is being drawn across the trail. I want to ask that Commissioner—the ordinary commissioner, as opposed to the Commissioner-General—if under their plan there will be no Bantu in the rest of South Africa by then? Will they get rid of all the Bantu? Are the houses which they are building prefabricated, or are they built of brick and stone? Are the railway lines they are building real railway lines or narrow guage? Yet the real issue, of Bantu independent states, is not dealt with by any of the hon. members here. Why? They are afraid to deal with it because they know what it means. I want to tell the Minister what it means. He is talking about the Transkei where he has Chief Kaiser Matanzima to deal with, but he has promised Zululand independence, and Zululand will elect its own Prime Minister. [Interjections.] Perhaps they will even elect the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee).

What are your chances?

The hon. member for Vereeniging has now become the symbol of the Nationalist Party. I have here a pamphlet in regard to a meeting he addressed, ostensibly on Bantustans, which says: “Blaar, Blaar, Blaar, Blaar”—nineteen times in all. That is about the measure of that hon. member when he talks about Bantustans at Durban—just Blaar. Sir, the Zulus of Zulustan will elect their own Prime Minister, and the man who has aspirations for that position has written an article, “My Plans”, by A. J. Luthuli. This is a responsible document. In addition to the leading article, it has the photograph of a member of Parliament to give it real class. The sub-title is, “Sweet Helen of Houghton. No. 1 political pin-up girl.” This journal contains the plans of the Patron Saint of the Party, as explained by Luthuli, and this is what his plan is for the country he is going to govern. He deals with the allocation of land and says—

He makes it quite clear that he intends to appropriate land and share it equally amongst the Bantu peasants who work on it. He goes on to deal with private enterprise and says—

He goes on to deal with the right to strike and then says there will be equal voting rights, one man, one vote, for every person of all races. This is the man who is now saying what he will do if he becomes Prime Minister of Zulustan, and this Minister is making it possible to introduce socialist- near communist-policies into part of South Africa and ultimately to allow them to be spread over the whole of South Africa. This Minister’s policy is making it possible for this policy I have quoted to be applied throughout South Africa, in the Zulustan and from there to spread throughout South Africa. And what do those members say? Not a word to defend their policy. They challenge us on our policy, but why do they not tell us what they are going to do about the type of government they are deliberately creating as a weapon to destroy Western standards, weapons which will introduce the principles of communist government in terms of the forecast of this Prime Minister to be. But hon. members opposite will not answer. The hon. member for Rustenburg says it reminds him of the ox-wagon age. He is still living in the ox-wagon age himself. Why do those hon. members not tell us of the international implications, the incidents which will happen when, as the hon. member for Rustenburg says, the candidate for Qumbu comes to speak in the Rustenburg location to the Xhosas who work in the mines there, and he arrests that candidate for the Transkeian Parliament, and it creates an international incident. What will happen then? That man is the candidate for Parliament in the Transkei. He is entitled to canvass the votes of the citizens of the Transkei wherever they may be, and when he comes to Rustenburg and that member deals with it as he said he would, what is going to happen to the relations between this Government and the Transkeian Government? What is going to happen in regard to boundary disputes in Natal, where there will be six or seven Zulustans with independent government? Are the citizens of those areas to get a passport from the White Government of South Africa if they want to pass from the one area into the other, and are White citizens of South Africa to get a passport from the Black Government every time they go from Eshowe or Empangeni to Durban? How on earth are we to avoid the friction and the inevitable disruption which must be created through border incidents, passport incidents, labour incidents and political incidents between the citizens of the so-called White South Africa and the Bantu states? Because every time there is a labour dispute in a factory, as we have warned in this House, it becomes an international incident between the Governments. The Transkeian Territorial Authority has already warned the White people of South Africa—and I have the resolution here—that they are contemplating a levy on all Transkeian labour in the mines and that they will demand minimum wage standards for all their citizens. Who is going to determine the wage? This Minister, or the Minister of Labour, or Prime Minister Matanzima, whose people are the workers who demand those wages? [Interjections.] Now they are squealing because these are the real hard facts, and they are running away from them. They have had a vision waved in front of their eyes and they are prepared to swallow it without working the consequences of the practical application of that policy. [Time limit.]

We often say that the policy of the United Party is to make the whole of South Africa a Bantustan, that is the result their policy will lead to. The quotation read by the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw), or rather, the statement he made with reference to that quotation he read from “Drum”, precisely demonstrates that. I challenge the hon. member for Durban (Point) to get up and to say that in that article Luthuli says that he hopes to become Prime Minister of a Zulustan.

Of South Africa.

That merely illustrates my point. Luthuli does not talk about Zulustan. Luthuli states in that article what he will do if should he become Prime Minister of South Africa. But when he talks about South Africa, then it means Zulustan to the hon. member for Durban (Point). [Interjections.] That is the United Party’s South Africa, particularly the U.P. in Natal. It seems to me they want to equate Bantustan with South Africa, and South Africa with Zulustan. [Interjections.] I do not want to continue on these lines. We know that hon. member as the U.P.’s chief creator of bogies.

The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) is a new member and we still do not know what talents he has in conjuring up bogies, but he gave us an indication to-night. He told us that if the policy of independent Bantu areas of the National Party is implemented, a stage may be reached where they will refuse to take back into their area the Bantu who belong there. But the U.P. envisages a race federation. If they establish a race federation, as they hope to do, and any of those Bantu areas are to say that they demand the right to leave that federation, are they going to keep that Bantu area inside the Republic by force? Will they shoot? [Interjections.] How else can they do it? If they are going to apply force, how can they do it without shooting? Why does the hon. member for Zululand paint this nonsensical picture when he knows that his own policy which he propounds, in addition to all its other defects, has the same weaknesses which he says ours has? Does he think he can make an impression on this side of the House and on the country with that sort of thing?

I want to come back to the hon. member for Durban (Point) who quoted from that article written by Luthuli here, in which he said that if he were to be Prime Minister of South Africa …

Under the U.P. policy.

Yes, that is the point. Everybody knows, from the youngest White person in South Africa to the biggest braggart in UN, that in terms of the policy of the National Party it will be impossible for Luthuli ever to become Prime Minister of South Africa.

But of Zululand.

Everybody on that side also knows that in terms of the policy of that party Luthuli can become the Prime Minister of South Africa. [Interjections.] The speech made by the Leader of the Opposition at De Aar last week-end emphasized that the policy of the U.P. is to ensure that the political control remains in the hands of the Whites “for the foreseeable future”; They say they will not discriminate between the Bantu in regard to their franchise. [Interjections.] For a start they will just limit the number of their representatives. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) also said that. It is quite clear, and I have said it in this House before, and there was not a single hon. member opposite who was prepared to deny it, that in terms of the policy of the U.P. it is quite clear that the U.P. will give increasing representation to the Bantu in this House. It foresees the stage where the Bantu will have the majority in this House, and I challenge anybody to deny that.

Absolutely untrue!

The hon. member says it is not true. Here I have a newspaper, “Election News”, and it has a sub-title, “The Truth and Nothing But the Truth”, issued by the U.P. Information Office, which says—

Now I want to know from the hon. member for Durban (Point) in terms of their race federation, who is the electorate? When once their federation has been established, it means that the Bantu will have the right to elect their own representatives, and the urban Bantu will have the right to elect certain representatives, and the Indians will elect theirs. Does he deny that everybody who has the vote then will not be the “electorate” of S.A.? [Interjections.] If that is not so, then I want the vociferous member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) to talk sense for once and tell us what the “pledge” means. Who will be excluded from that “electorate”? [Interjection.]

Order! The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) should not interject so often.

Is that what the hon. member for Turffontein says about their own propaganda publication, that it is not a newspaper? Is what is printed here not the truth? The hon. member for Turffontein should rather try to come to his senses and tell me whether he agrees with my interpretation of “electorate”, or whether there is another interpretation. No other interpretation is possible. In terms of the race federation of the U.P., the Bantu will comprise the majority of the electorate, and they want to give that Bantu majority the right to decide at a referendum whether they want to constitute the majority in this House, and in that way the Bantu will take over the Government, and Luthuli can become the Prime Minister of South Africa in terms of the U.P. policy. Every few years the U.P. has a new name for their policy, to disguise what that policy really is. A few years ago it was integration, and when integration had served its purpose they called it “White leadership with justice”; but after a few years their policy was re-named “Ordered advance”, and that did not last long either, because it sounded too much like the march to the precipice, and then they added another bit to it and now it is called “ordered advance to race federation”. What does this “race federation” mean? It is only the old U.P. policy adapted to the liberalist demands of the people who were in that party, plus a bit of the National Party policy which it has taken over, viz. the National Party policy in regard to the Bantu homelands. That is what the race federation policy is. Whereas formerly we had three Natives’ Representatives in this House. John Cope said in 1959 that it should be extended to eight, and to-day the U.P. also say so; and the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Yeoville and all the other U.P. spokesmen say their plan is now to let the Natives be represented by Whites, but eventually the Bantu themselves must decide whether they want to be represented here by Bantu, and that is the very standpoint the liberalists in the U.P. caucus have been adopting ever since 1959. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Innesdale (Mr. J. A. Marais) said that this party had changed its policy on the contrary, this party has developed its policy most steadily … [Laughter.] It has interested me a great deal to hear from the Government side that their policy is a steady evolution from this policy of Gen. Botha and Gen. Smuts. But I yet have to hear from them the answer, if that is so, how it is that their policy always was that the Protectorates should be incorporated in the Union. If the idea was to incorporate the Protectorates, it is clearly because the intention was to have a greater South Africa, and not a smaller one. I would be very glad to hear from hon. members what their reply is to that. Let them rather honestly say that they have come forward with a revolutionary policy which they believe, genuinely, to be the answer to our problems, and then we will regard their honest attempt on its merits. But let them not tell us that this is merely the development of the old policies of South Africa, because I would remind hon. members that it was their party which in 1936 agreed with this party that the Native people of this country should have three representatives in this Parliament. After that, how can they tell me that this has always been their policy. [Interjections.]

A further thing that we have against this policy of hon. members opposite is that they are now in this tremendous gamble giving to the most backward Bantu people of our country the most tremendous political rights and complete independence, and doing it most suddenly. Those are not the people whose political rights should perhaps have been developed slightly more. They will have complete independence, and at the same time there will be no political say for the urban Native, save any influence they can exert on the Bantu authorities in the reserves. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) has pointed out that once those Bantu states get their independence, there is nothing whatsoever to prevent their saying that from then on the Bantu in the urban areas shall have no vote in their affairs any more. They could do so with great justification. They could say that these people do not live in their country, their interests are not primarily there but where they are working, and they live where they have grown up. I think that if one thing is absolutely agreed between us and hon. members opposite, it is this, that do what we may, there will always be more Blacks in the so-called White parts of S.A. than Whites. Certainly it will be so under the policy of hon. members opposite, because they are not determined to have a great immigration policy such as we have, our intention being to attempt to reduce the fears of the Whites should they give limited rights to the Blacks. If that is so, and if there will always be more Blacks in the White areas than Whites, then what is to be achieved by cutting off these territories? They will still outnumber us, and then there are the Indians and the Coloured people. Hon. Government members always say that they wish to deny to no section of our population the things that they ask for themselves. Fair enough—and they are showing what they mean by this in the Bantustans by giving them complete independence, where they may vote as they like. But what is their oner to the Coloureds, the Indians and the Bantu in the so-called White areas? In what way do they carry out that very fair and generous sentiment for them? And if they have no answer there, why must we create for ourselves this tremendous danger which these new states represent? Hon. members opposite will have studied history and will know how many of the wars of the last 100 years have been due to the sort of situation which they are creating: an independent state on the one hand and another on the other hand, filled with citizens of that first state. That is the classic situation of danger. When it is borne in mind that it is known to this entire House that the Afro-Asian countries and some others wish to see, as they call it, the whole of Africa “free”—in that situation, what does it profit us to embark upon this immense gamble which everybody will concede must injure us economically and in many other ways?

What other solution have you got?

Our solution was recently stated by my hon. leader at De Aar.

Is that the recent one? I thought the recent one was dated 1959.

Our policy has not been unaltered, certainly, since this party came into being. It has developed, but it has developed in an orderly evolutionary way.

In a progressive way.

Hon. members opposite have taken a great gamble. Let us give them credit for it, that they have not hesitated to depart from the traditional policies of South Africa. They have had the courage to do it. We believe it is most unwise.

I again ask hon. members opposite in what way they are going to carry out their great intention to give to all the races in this country what they ask for themselves. If they ask for themselves one man, one vote, amongst the Whites, what do they say to the Indians and the Coloured and the urban Blacks? [Time limit.]

I do not wish to reply to the speech which has just been made, but I want to direct my thoughts to the statement which was made that there is no analogy between the Italians in Germany and the Bantu in South Africa. Of course it is no analogy as far as their colour is concerned: the first are White and the others are Black. There is no analogy in regard to irrelevant points, but there is an analogy in regard to relevant matters, and the great point of similarity is that both are in a country which is not their homeland, simply to sell their labour there. In that respect, on the most important point, there is an analogy. We do not seek an analogy on irrelevant points.

In regard to the Bantu in the White area, I want to stress that I see in this scheme two things established by the National Party, which form practically the foundation stone of the whole building, viz. the establishment of the Bantu Identity Bureau. That Bureau issues a passport of every Native, an identity book which identifies him, which says where his homeland is, and identifies him as a Zulu or a Xhosa or a Tswana or a Venda. He is identified and that is his link with his homeland. Now it is said that if he gets the vote in the Transkei, if he is a Xhosa, what prevents the Transkeian Parliament from saying: We will disfranchise all of you because you are in the White area? Sir, they are voters of that body, and as such that body cannot disfranchise them, because if it does so it will be fatal for itself. Just imagine we Whites disfranchising half the Whites in South Africa. What would then happen to us in this House? We would no longer be able to sit here, because the voters would settle accounts with us. But through the identity system they are identified as citizens of that country, and as such that country cannot disown them. If they are sent back from the White area to that country, the latter cannot say that it does not want them, because they are its citizens. Take the example of Southern Rhodesia. When we have identified a Rhodesian Native and want to send him back over the border, Rhodesia cannot refuse to accept him. As long as they are identified as citizens of that country, that country must take them back.