I want to deal with this question of the development of the Bantu areas into self-governing Bantu states. Right at the commencement, before dealing with the matter from a South African point of view, may I say that in regard to what has been said from this side of the House and the propaganda which has been made about it overseas, I would like to quote from a book, “Races of Mankind”, written in America, which is rather interesting, because it quotes from the Digest of South African Affairs, at page 87, and it quotes our Prime Minister as saying this—

I have checked that; I have that Digest here, and I find that the quotation is not complete, because the Digest goes on to say, quoting the Prime Minister—

Hon. members opposite often ask what the view is of this side of the House, but here is a quotation in a book published in America dealing with race problems, and it quotes precisely what was said by the Prime Minister in a publication issued by our own Information Department.

What is the date of it?

It is the Digest of 18 March 1960. Sir, if that question involves a belief in the mind of the hon. the Minister of Transport that it is now out of date because it is two years old and the Prime Minister has changed his policy …

Not at all. I only asked the date.

Yes, but the only reason for the question, as far as I can see, is that the Minister assumes that this document is out of date. [Interjections.] The point is this, that the Government comes with a plan for creating these independent Bantu states where they will not allow the White man in, but the Prime Minister is being quoted in America as saying that the Bantu are not capable of managing their own state and the role of the White man is decisive in those states.

But let me move forward again, in regard to this concept of states. In January the Prime Minister told us that the Bantu in these states would acquire their own citizenship in these nebulous states which have never been defined, and I challenge the hon. the Minister to tell us again: Is he prepared to define the boundaries of these Bantustans? If the Minister says he cannot do it, then we have to visualize a sort of pie in the sky by and by for the Bantu. They will be living in a state which is not defined; no boundaries are known, and I want to come specifically to the Zulu Bantustans about which the Minister has been speaking elsewhere, when he said that the concept was that it may be divided into five, six or seven pieces for the purpose of administration by a Bantu Territorial Authority. Sir, such a concept has never been put into practice and carried out effectively, even in the most experienced European states. How does he expect the Bantu to carry out a concept of that kind and rule and govern under a system of autonomy for the Bantu states when they are broken up like that? The hon. the Prime Minister has referred to the question of Pakistan in the past when he has referred to this matter of subdivision of a single Bantu state, and he says that Pakistan is divided into two states. But, Sir, quite apart from anything else, the hon. the Prime Minister surely realizes that the two separate sections of Pakistan communicate with each other by sea. What is to be the communication between the various Bantu of Zulustan—one down on the Pondoland border, the other scattered across the Midlands and the other up in the north of Natal, the whole of Natal lying open there, divided up into these segments? This is the Theophilus Shepstone policy in reverse, Sir Theophilus Shepstone put in the gridiron system to cut up the Bantu states so as to have White sections in between to keep the Bantu separated from each other, but the hon. the Minister and the Prime Minister are reversing that to-day. They are creating a policy now of putting in Bantu states to keep the Whites cut up into separate pieces. This is the gridiron policy in reverse.

Imagination.

It is all very well for the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) to talk about imagination; he is nice and secure; he can rely on Natal to save his White skin for him when the time comes, and he knows that. Even his sheep are safe. They are not likely to be taken from over the Berg, as ours are. Sir, I say that the Prime Minister himself condemned this concept in March 1960. He said that these states cannot operate without the White influence there but the Government, in spite of what the Prime Minister said two years ago, still persist with this policy, and the hon. the Minister now goes even further and says, as he did this week, that we are going to have these states in pieces —no boundaries defined; nobody knows where those pieces will be. Sir, I want to ask the hon. the Minister and hon. members opposite in connection with the fundamental principles of getting the Bantu back into their own states, removing them out of our White areas: Do they envisage the day when there will be no Bantu in the White man’s areas? Do any of them envisage that day? Is there an hon. member opposite who envisages it; apparently it is accepted that they are going to stay there in their millions, and it is on that basis then that we have to view this separatism, this carving up of pieces of a Bantustan into six or seven pieces under one Territorial Authority. Sir, when the Minister of Bantu Administration comes to reply, I hope he will tell us in a little detail the form of administration which he believes can be effectively carried out by a Bantu Authority as an independent sovereign state administering seven separate pieces of a Bantustan, such as he envisages for Zululand at the present time. Does he really believe that the Zulus are going to put up with that nonsense? Does he honestly believe that they are going to accept that? Does he believe for one moment that the Zulu people are going to allow themselves to be separated on the gridiron system, with the White people now being carved up in thinly held White corridors between the Black states and that they will continue to exist under those circumstances, and for how long?

You are telling them what to do.

The hon. member does not give the Bantu credit for having the brains that they have. He must not judge others by himself, even by zulus.

I want to say this in regard to the statement made recently by the Prime Minister that we cannot all live in amity in one area. Sir, this is a grave reflection on the Bantu people of South Africa. Since 1906 when we had the last Zulu rebellion we have lived in peace and harmony with the Zulus in Natal. For over 50 years we have lived in harmony and peace and they have shown themselves to be a decent, law-abiding industrious people. Why should it be suggested now that we cannot continue to live in harmony with them? If there is any disharmony then it is because of the nonsense that is being preached by Ministers of this Government. I have a transcript of the speeches that were made at the Ministers’ gathering recently at Nangoma, and I am shocked to think that the Minister can go along and talk to those people in Zululand in that manner. Sir, in what position is he putting those Native chiefs who got together there? What hope are those people going to have of ever carrying any influence with their own folk? They are going to be in exactly the same position as Kaiser Matanzima in Pondoland. The hon. the Minister knows what is going to happen to Kaiser Matanzima. He knows that Sebata Dalinyebo is going to be the man who will lead the Pondo nation in their new development one of these days. [Interjection.] Yes, the chief of the Tembus. He is not the senior man, but the Minister knows perfectly well that he will come to the fore as the leader. He knows perfectly well that Botha Sicgau will not play any part in what is taking place there, and he knows the reason why he will not. He is a senior man but he will play no part. Kaiser Matanzima is not the man to take over there and the hon. the Minister knows it. The same applies in Zululand. [Time limit.]

I should like to reply briefly to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. I once again refer to the speech made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition at De Aar recently, and there he said this, inter alia, with reference to the “gridiron system” to which the hon. member has just referred. He said that his federation plan will consist of two elements: the first will be a territorial element. Each area will have an authority, but there will be certain federal elements on a territorial basis. However, there would also be federal elements on a racial basis. And then he also made this remark in that speech, that it will not be necessary to bring about a consolidation of territories such as this Government now wishes to establish. In other words, all this intermingling that is going on at the present time can just continue as at present. It will not be necessary to have consolidation, and so there will then also be a territorial element. In other words, as regards his territorial element, all those areas that are at the present time occupied by the Bantu will also be governed collectively as a non-White state or non-Whites states; all of us will then have a say in the federation, but he is not clear on that aspect. However, let us take Zululand as an example. I take it that for the purposes of the territorial basis he wishes to give his federation plan, he also wishes to combine all those various areas that are presently occupied by the Zulus into one Zulu state, in order to achieve that territorial basis in his federation. If that is not so, he is dishonest when he says there will be a territorial element. The Opposition have no right to come along here with these charges relative to a gridiron system. The hon. the Minister at the beginning of this year stated very clearly what these areas will look like; that there would have to be a degree of consolidation at the borders, but that there will also have to be a measure of exchange between the White authority on the one hand and the non-White authority on the other hand in order to bring about a degree of consolidation. The hon. member has only raised a spectre here; it has no substance.

But I should like to revert to this other allegation he made. He says we are unwilling to say whether it is our intention to remove all the Bantu from the White areas. We have never yet said that all the Bantu are going to be removed from the White areas. We say this: We say the Bantu is in the White area, but he is here as a labourer, and as a labourer here in the White area, our economy needs him, but it should never be forgotten that he equally needs us. In the same way that our economy needs him, so he also needs us; and that very extract the hon. member quoted from the Digest of South African Affairs emphasizes that “The Black man is not capable of maintaining himself in his own state. The role of the White man is decisive”. In other words, the Black man will need us and does need us, and our economy here needs him., His articles of export are not commodities; his article of export is his labour which he exports to the White state.

In this connection I should just like to dilate upon the matter I just began to raise last night. There are two institutions that have been created by the National Government, namely, the Bantu Identification Bureau and the Bantu Labour Bureau, two institutions that are absolutely essential for carrying out this policy of control of the Bantu in the White area; in order to control him as a citizen of another state here in our State. As I said last night, the Bantu Identification Bureau virtually gives every Bantu a passport. It identifies him as a citizen of another state here in the White State. Permit me just to say this here too: This identity book does not identify only our Bantu here in South Africa. For instance, it also identifies all the Bantu from foreign territories; it identifies the Bantu from Lourenço Marques, from Basutoland, from Swaziland, from Rhodesia and Nyasaland. It identifies all these Bantu as immigrants here in the White area, and in this manner control is exercised. There is no question of this identity book identifying the Bantu as a citizen of the White area. Identification is therefore essential for the carrying out of this policy.

But I come to the Bantu Labour Bureau. The Bantu Labour Bureau has to regulate this labour. Mr. Chairman, members of the Opposition surely are not unaware of the fact that for years it has been a regular practice that 300,000 to 400,000 Bantu come from territories outside South Africa to our gold mines under the system of migratory labour, and not only to our gold mines but also to our industries and even to our farms. All of them came under the system of migratory labour. But they have not been coming here from those territories only, but also from our own Bantu areas. That is a well-known institution. The Bantu has always come along to work for the White man under the system of migratory labour. Well now, once we accept that he is a citizen of another state, and that he comes here as a migratory labourer, we shall also have to provide housing for him here in the White State. Hon. members opposite must not come along with the hard luck stories we were listening to here last night. Last night the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) said: “What about all the houses that are being built for the Bantu?” Surely we have to provide housing for the labourers; we cannot leave them outside without a roof over their heads; we have to provide health services for them, for if they are not healthy our own health will also suffer. Surely that is obvious; surely that is elementary. Why does he assume that because we are providing housing and health services for the Bantu in the White areas, we should now also give him civil rights here while he is a citizen of another state? He is a citizen of another state, and we are providing these services for him only because he is a labourer in this White State. Those Bantu who come here, are living here only to provide their labour; they are here merely to offer their labour, and we are providing that housing for them only in order to obtain that labour, and not to make them citizens here in White South Africa.

I should also like to deal with another aspect of the same question and that is this question of borders. During the past two or three months we have discussed this matter here so frequently that it is not necessary for me to dwell upon it for long. Members of the Opposition simply will not recognize that at the moment there certainly are borders to the Bantu authorities. Every Bantu authority, whether it be a regional, tribal or territorial authority, has properly defined boundaries duly published in the Government Gazette. It does not follow that those boundaries will remain exactly the same until the end of time. Those boundaries may be extended by means of the system of exchange to which the hon. the Prime Minister referred, as well as by the purchase of additional land for the Bantu; that is so, but at the present time they have specified boundaries and those boundaries may be extended in the future. What is wrong with that entire system? To go on persistently claiming that there are really no boundaries, surely does not have regard to the realities of to-day, and it is time the Opposition should stop harping on the same string. This story of boundary lines is also a story that is being bandied about in order to scare the White citizens of South Africa. They want to use the question of boundaries to frighten the people to make them afraid of our policy of Bantu states, for they are trying to show that the boundary is here to-day, but that to-morrow it will have to be much further until the whole White area has been absorbed. That is really the idea behind it all; it is not that the question produces any substantial difficulty, but the object simply is to terrorize the Whites in South Africa; to make them scared of this policy we are now carrying out. [Time limit.]

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat, used some arguments I should like to reply to. For instance, he said here that the United Party says that vast numbers of Natives will always remain in the White areas, and then he says it is madness to make such a statement, because there will always be migratory labourers and there always have been such labourers, coming from other states to South Africa; that there are migratory labourers at the present time who come to the White areas of South Africa from the reserves. He says that it is clear therefore that there will always be migratory labourers, and he avers that the Natives need us as much as we need them. But the hon. member forgets something that is of very great importance, and that is that the majority of the people who are to-day living in the area called White South Africa by the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister, are not migratory labourers. He forgets that many of them have been born in the White areas, that their parents and grandparents have been born here. I cannot believe that the hon. member can be so ignorant. I should like to remind him of the position in the Witwatersrand complex; I should just like to remind him of the new housing schemes for the Bantu there, such as the Dubi Township for instance, where dwellings of £1,200 and £1,400 have been built by people who have been born and grown up there. Those people are settled in the Witwatersrand complex, and I should like to say here this afternoon that no Government will or can remove them from there. It is simply impossible. So it is ridiculous to talk about migratory labour in relation to these settled Bantu who are resident in the White areas.

The hon. member further referred to my hon. Leader’s speech at De Aar where he dealt with a territorial element and a racial basis of representation, and he says that in view of that speech we are not entitled to refer to a gridiron system that has been adopted in the past, and that therefore we are debarred from levelling criticism at the Government for not wishing to consolidate these Black reserves. He says our system is going to result in intermingling, in a mix-up. But Mr. Chairman, what we have today is a mix-up, and that is where we say that the policy of the National Party is such an impossible policy, for the Government says today that we cannot live together in peace and harmony in one country, and so the various Black states have to be created. But the fact remains that in White South Africa there are going to be so many more Whites, and the fact remains as the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) has said, that in Natal— where it is proposed to give the Zulus independence before the end of next year (or was it before the end of this year?)—the Zulu tribe will consist of a number of areas. That is why we say it is such an impossible proposal as regards racial peace and racial relations. In Natal there will be various Black areas which will then constitute portions of the Zulu state, and between the Black areas there will be White areas. The hon. the Prime Minister says that where people are living together in one country like this, there can be no racial peace. How then is that Zulustan in Natal going to be a success? I am now assuming that the Bantustan policy will not be opposed any longer; I am now assuming the most favourable circumstances.

Are you going to accept it?

No, we shall not accept it. I am merely making a point here. Let us assume that the Bantu are satisfied, and that they accept it, and that there will be no opposition to it in the world outside. Let us assume the Press is going to accept it as a fait accompli and let us then see what the position is. The hon. the Minister now tells us that this Zulustan will be created and that it will consist of the territorial authorities existing at the present time—and already ten of these territorial authorities have been established.

No, you are mistaken.

The hon. the Minister has said that ten of these territorial authorities have already been established in Natal.

No, regional authorities.

Well then, territorial authorities or regional authorities, it still remains the same thing. Alright then, to satisfy the hon. member, I shall call them regional authorities. The hon. the Minister has enumerated the places where the regional authorities have been established. They are at Nongoma, Eshowe, Mapumula, Pietermaritzburg, Port Shepstone, Umzinto, Mtinzini, Imgwavuma and Ubombo. But the ten that have been established are only in the south of Natal. The Natal midlands, north Natal, the part where there is a great congregation of Natives, the parts in the Drakensberg, have not been taken into account as yet. At the present time there are ten of these regional authorities. How many more will have to be established? There are 287 Native tribes in Natal. As I see it, it seems to me that 50 of these regional authorities will have to be established, and these regional authorities have to be based on the tribal authorities. These regional authorities are all situated in different parts of Natal, and if it is true then that we can have no peace with intermingling or mixed residence in one area, how is the hon. the Minister going to achieve racial peace and friendship between these different areas?

Mr. Chairman, I have not as yet taken into consideration the Black spots in Natal at all. There are 73 Black spots in Natal that will have to be cleared. In 1948, when this Government came into power, they said that the first thing they were going to do would be to eliminate the Black spots.

We have eliminated many.

When the hon. the Minister replies, I should like him to tell me how many of those 73 Black spots he has already eliminated. The biggest Black spot in the constituency of the hon. the Minister’s colleague sitting next to him, the hon. the Minister of Bantu Education, is still there today. The Black spot in Charleston is still there to-day, and so are all the Black spots. The hon. the Minister will know that I have on various occasions spoken to him about a Black spot near Estcourt, that is causing the White farmers much trouble, and that this has been left untouched.

The Tomlinson Commission greatly emphasized the consolidation of areas, and the hon. the Minister was one of the persons who signed the report. The Tomlinson Commission stated very clearly that unless you can consolidate those areas, racial peace cannot be achieved and no proper territorial authorities can be established, and that no Zulustan in particular could be established. [Time limit.]

The most damning disqualification I have heard in this Committee relative to a person’s qualification to speak to this matter, came from the mouth of the person herself, and that was the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk). I think the hon. member for Drakensberg should not dare to speak on these matters again unless she reads the laws relating to the matter. She referred to territorial authorities and regional authorities as alternative names for one and the same thing, whereas the two are quite distinct institutions. The hon. member ought to make herself better acquainted with the provisions of the laws before she talks about them. And speaking about her, I should just like to point out that she put her foot into something here when she as well as the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) referred to Natal, with reference to what the Minister said before in connection with the establishment of self-government systems there, if it could not be in one continuous block geographically. The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) has just referred to what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had to say about this, but I should like to quote what the great formulator of policy of the United Party —the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn)—had to say about this according to a report in the Cape Argus. I should like the hon. member for South Coast to listen to this, for it concerns Natal. It is a report from the Cape Argus of the second of this month on the speech of the hon. member for Vereeniging—

That is under their scheme now. And now he comes to Natal and he says:

You should not talk like that when you are a Deputy Minister.

Secondly—

Thirdly—

I do not know whether that is the policy of the hon. member’s party, but I am assuming that is his party’s policy. In any case, those are the three ways in which he proposes to group the areas in Natal (he says there are 80 of them). Now I should like to ask what are the boundaries of those three types? Which two is he going to group together under the first system, which three under the second, and which 70 under the third or whatever it may be? Which is he going to amalgamate? What are the boundaries—to come now to the gridiron picture of the hon. member for South Coast? Are there not going to be any White spots among those three groups and those 80? How is that Bantu Parliament of the Bantu in Natal going to work in practice under the racial federation scheme if there are White spots among them? How is it going to work? You see, Mr. Chairman, we should like to have clarity on those things also? The hon. member for South Coast and other members referred to these things and to other matters according to a pattern I should like to call quite a single line of thought. The hon. members are thinking along quite single track lines. I should like to mention only one example of that, and then I should like to revert to other points made by other members. The hon. member for South Coast has said here that members on this side do not credit the Bantu with sufficient brain-matter to realize how things will go wrong in Natal with the various spots, but I say that is a very one-sided approach to the matter. The hon. member does not credit the Bantu in South Africa nor the Bantu in Natal, whom he ought to know, with sufficient good faith, and he does not credit that Bantu with sufficient brains to be able to realize that system can work if it so happens that under the Bantu self-rule system that will be established in Natal, the areas do not all fall into one unbroken block. Nor does he credit the Bantu with enough brains to be able to see that it will work. Apparently he attributes to the Indians in India enough brains to be able to let a similar system work there in areas that are 800 miles apart, but in Natal he will not attribute enough brains to the Bantu to be able to do so where areas are separated by only a couple of miles. But he does credit them with sufficient brains under a racial federation system to let the 80 units work in three groups. How is one to argue with members who talk like this? I should then like to come to the hon. member for Transkeian Territories, who said last night that there has been no consultation and that this Parliament has not yet had an opportunity to discuss the proposed constitution for the Transkei. But surely the hon. member’s approach is quite wrong. It is quite a secondary approach. The hon. member should realize that the constitution of the Transkei has come about in a more democratic manner than the manner in which it was established in Kenya with threats and ultimatums. There it did not come about in a democratic manner. What is happening here? In the first instance the Bantu of the Transkei last year asked for greater self-government—and the hon. member ought to remember something about that—and the Bantu of the Transkei are now engaged among themselves—and it seems to me they have virtually completed their task— in devising a system which they will then submit in draft form to us as Parliament. It is not the Government in Pretoria that has drafted the constitution completely and then summoned people and told them: To-morrow, whether you are going to sleep or not, you have to have a coalition and you will have to come together and then I demand that you adopt this thing. Nothing of the sort. What a pity the hon. member could not have been present when at certain places no less a person than the hon. the Prime Minister himself was consulted by the Bantu. So in this respect I have an advantage over the hon. member, for I was present on such occasions, and I can tell the hon. member that the Bantu negotiators of the Transkei at no time during their consultations with the Prime Minister or the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, were given an ultimatum or threatened or vetoed, as was done to the people in Kenya. Nowhere. The hon. member should realize that the process was quite the converse here. The Bantu themselves among themselves are creating the draft, and then they will come along and submit it to this Parliament for discussion. And I expect it will be discussed very fully at the proper time. But we are not putting the cart before the horse.

The hon. member has referred to a multiracial constitution. Let me tell the hon. member now that the Bantu of the Transkei have never raised the question of a multi-racial constitution. Then the hon. member and a few other hon. members come along and talk about lack of consultation. Here also you are getting that kind of one track thinking. To-day again we have it from the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) who referred here to Sabata and Botha Sicgau, the two Paramount Chiefs of the Bantu. They are both there to represent their people according to the old-established traditions. Now the hon. member will not accept anything at all when Botha Sicgau talks or when Victor Potho talks or when one of the other headmen or lesser chiefs speaks, who also are traditional representatives. When those people who may support the Government’s policy, or who do not want a multiracial Parliament for the Transkei, are talking, they are not regarded by the hon. member as representative of their people. But when a Paramount chief who has achieved that position in the same manner, namely when Sabata talks, then he is a mighty representative of his mighty people. Sir, what two measures are being applied here? Is that political honesty? Why is Botha Sicgau not a speaker on behalf of his people, but Sabata who talks the next moment is according to that hon. member? Is that honest and right? Is it logical? I am telling you that the negotiations took place with the real representatives of the people of the Transkei. The recess committee also was representative of the Bantu in the Transkei just as the Territorial authority that dealt with this matter was. There was representative negotiation on behalf of the Bantu of the Transkei, and you cannot get better representation. And there was consultation on the highest level with the Government and with the Prime Minister and with the Minister concerned. [Time limit.]

I don’t propose to attempt to answer the hon. the Deputy Minister. The position is quite clear: What this House is discussing is the Budget which has been presented to it by the Nationalist Party. This is the occasion when we can discuss the policy of the Nationalist Party and it is for the Nationalist Party to defend their policy if it can.

Now, Sir, I wish to come back to a matter which I raised previously but which has not been adequately dealt with, namely the question of what the Government’s plans are in respect of the Transvaal. The Government has told us something of its plans in respect of the Transkei, but the Transvaal, which is the province which makes the biggest contribution to the national income, with the biggest European population is entitled to know from this Government what the plans of the Government are in respect of the Bantustan problem in relation to the Transvaal itself. All we know at this stage is that we have a Map No. 63 of the Tomlinson Commission, to which the hon. the Minister was a party and it shows a possible consolidation of the Native territories of the Transvaal. Now the hon. the Minister has made it clear that plan has been rejected by the Government. But that is practically all we know in detail of the Government’s plan. We know that the Government has rejected that plan because the Area No. 13 on Map No. 63, which is the Hammanskraal area, is not supposed to be in the consolidated area, and the Government has obviously now decided that area is to be a permanent Native area. And as we know it is to come within eight miles of Pretoria and the township of Roslin, six miles north of Pretoria, has been recognized by the Government as an area on the borders of what is to be a permanent Native area. But, Sir, the people in the Transvaal are entitled to know from this Government, because it affects vitally the future development of that province, what is the pattern of the Government’s plan. We have an extraordinary difficult position as the hon. Minister well knows. There is no consolidated area such as the Transkei. There are a large number of areas of which it can be said that seven are of very considerable size: The Blyde River area, 1.4 million morgen; Letaba, 1.3 million morgen; the Potgietersrust area, .8 million morgen; the Rustenburg-Pilansberg area, .7 million morgen: Lichtenburg and Mafeking, .5 million morgen; Hammanskraal area, .4 million morgen; and Premier Mine, .2 million morgen: a total of over 5,000,000 morgen, spread right through the centre of the Transvaal and occupying a substantial area in the north. Now it is absolutely essential that the Government should be frank and honest with the people of the Transvaal and to tell us what the plans are. We know that there is still talk of consolidation in certain areas, and I say to the hon. the Minister that we are entitled to know. This is the one aspect of the problem and I say to the hon. the Minister that the Transvaal is entitled to know what the Government’s plans are in respect of this area. At this stage, with the repudiation of the proposed consolidation under the Tomlinson Commission’s plan, we have no adequate information; we know that there have been certain Bantu authorities established in the western part of the Transvaal; we know that the Government has certain plans; but the question as to where the Government proposes to set the boundaries of its future Native Bantustans in the Transvaal is a matter of vital concern to the people in the Transvaal, and I think that this House should demand from the Government that it makes a forthright statement, stating what its plans are.

We know of course that there is another aspect to this matter, and that is the question of the Natives in the urban areas and that there the Transvaal has an enormous population, as the hon. the Minister knows. The hon. the Minister has said to this House again and again that those persons in those areas are entitled to vote in the areas from which they or their ancestors came. This is a matter of vital concern to us, too, because I think the hon. the Minister will concede that if you are conceding rights of representation, as the Government is doing, then those rights must be real rights. The Government cannot leave a section of the people in the position that they have no right of representation. Obviously that is a position which cannot last. Now the hon. the Minister has said again and again that all the Natives in the so-called White areas will be able to vote in one area or another, but when I quote to him what I am about to quote, I am sure the hon. the Minister will agree that he has misled this House in saying that what the Government is proposing in this regard is exactly what has been provided by Britain so far as Basutoland is concerned. I refer the hon. the Minister to Proclamation No. 53 of 1959, issued by the High Commissioner, promulgated on 4 September 1959, which deals with the question of the franchise for Basutoland, in a way which the hon. the Minister says is the same as what this Government is doing. The hon. the Minister has indicated that Basutos will be able to vote in Basutoland, but if he listens to the provisions of that proclamation, he will find that is only partly true. Section 5 of that proclamation says this—

It then goes on to provide an extension in a proviso which reads as follows—

It is perfectly clear from those provisions that the only persons who will vote in Basutoland are those who in fact have their permanent homes there, or under the qualification I have mentioned, those who have returned periodically to live there or have been there for 12 months during the preceding five years, or those who have continuously maintained a home in Basutoland for five years immediately preceding registration. It is quite clear that others, although they may be Basutos who do not have those qualifications, will not be able to vote in Basutoland. The hon. the Minister therefore is utterly wrong in saying that is a pattern in terms of which all the Natives in the White areas will get their voting rights in the areas from which they came. I raise this matter because apart from the rural question which I mentioned, and in respect of which I hope the hon. the Minister will reply in detail, it is my view that in respect of Natives in the urban areas, it is quite obvious that the Government must make provision for representation of some sort. The present suggestions of the Government in this regard are utterly inadequate and hopeless and cannot stand. [Time limit.]

I shall not reply to what the hon. member who has just resumed his seat said here, as he addressed the hon. the Minister and put questions to the Minister. But since yesterday an attack has been launched here against the Bantu homelands policy of the Government, both as regards its economic implications and possibilities as well as the political implications involved. The hon. the Deputy Minister has just replied as regards the political implications, but I feel I have to make some remarks on what was said here last night, particularly by the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) in relation to the economic implications of the establishment of separate Bantu territories. The hon. member for Durban (Point) launched an attack when he rose in connection with the possible compatibility of the Bantu in the Transkei. It was a ferocious attack. The hon. member adopted the viewpoint that the Transkei does not offer an opportunity for the development of technical knowledge, of economic progress for the Bantu there, and that for this reason the Transkei does not have the viability the Government hopes such a Bantu homeland will have. The hon. member went further and began to ridicule the border area development, and he said that if we continue with the policy of border area development, we would really be, as he put it, impairing the human dignity of the persons now living there. You will recall what the hon. member said: What does it look like now that he lives at one place and travels in the mornings to another place to go and work where he cannot vote, where he only has to earn money as an employee? I think it was an unfair attack, because the hon. member and other hon. members also have repeatedly heard from this side of the House what the policy is and what it has to lead to. Firstly, as regards the attack on the Transkei as an area that should be economically viable, I do not think that what the hon. member said is true. The impression he left that the Transkei will really be an area where there will be no prospects of any description, and where there will only be frustration, is not correct, and I think the hon. member knows when he tries to create such an impression, that he does not speak the truth either. The hon. the Prime Minister and members on this side of the House, have put it very clearly, in the first place, that the Transkei is assumed to be a primitive area, relatively speaking, and that it will take some time, as it will and must take some time in any part of the world, to guide a people in this state of development to a state where they are able to maintain themselves economically. That is the accepted point of view of the Government, and that is why the attitude of the Government in this respect is quite logical also in as much as the Government adopts the point of view that you cannot overnight create an area with an ultra-structure from an undeveloped area, a structure that may be compared with highly developed industrial countries of the world, and for this reason a start should be made from the known and the simple and that which fits into the national life itself, namely, an infra-structure. Now what is needed? In the first place it is necessary to put into order the lines of communication as envisaged by the Department. In the second place, as regards the life of the people themselves there—a pastoral people—it is necessary to bring about improvements in that respect and to afford an opportunity for linking up with labour intensive industries. No one will say that it can be done in a day or two. Everybody knows, and we too, that it will take some time. So I think that when the hon. member says that the Government wants to frustrate the Bantu of the Transkei, it is unfair and inequitable to this side of the House. But the hon. member goes further, and says that such a development in your border areas is really calculated to impair the human dignity. I cannot appreciate how it does not impair the human dignity when a Bantu lives in an urban area outside Pretoria and works in a factory in Pretoria, but that it does impair his dignity when he has to work in Pretoria North and lives eight miles from there in Hammanskraal, where he is with his family, where he may own property, and where he may also exercise every political and other right that he will be unable to exercise at this end. It surpasses my comprehension.

My time is short, and I should like to make a comment in this regard with reference to what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said at De Aar. He spoke in this same vein, and said that the reserves will have to be developed with the aid of European ingenuity and capital and enterprise in order to alleviate the poverty in those areas and that these Bantu should obtain an ever-growing share in local government. As regards the acquisition of a share in the local government, in their areas, hon. members surely know that it is now in the stage of evolution and that it is happening already. But when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition makes the point in general that there should be a great ultrastructure in the Bantu areas now, that a modern structure should come immediately, then I should like to say to him, in the first place, that it is not possible because it is not adapted to the capacity of the Bantu himself, unless it happens here (apparently the hon. member and his party are willing that it should happen in this manner) in such a way that the cardinal mistake that has been made in all the African states is made in the Transkei also. This cardinal mistake that has been made elsewhere is the creation of an economic colonialism, for in all the African states the colonial powers granted political powers while the local population were unable, and did not have the development and resources, to adjust the economic development to it. Thus it came about that the Europeans themselves had to bring about economic development on a massive scale, with the result that the European is now regarded as an economic colonialist that is there in order to exploit the people. That is why the policy of the development of border areas is natural and logical in these times. Then the necessary capital can be earned within the capabilities of the people themselves, and the technical knowledge can be borne out from here. The hon. member for South Coast need not laugh at this. He always wants to belittle. But he should remember that there will also be capital available from the Government’s side through the Bantu Development Corporation, within the capabilities of the people. I want to go further. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition at De Aar stated three tasks for his party, and he said that the third task is to obtain the approval and the support of responsible world opinion. And that must be obtained in connection with this very matter. Now I should like to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that he need not be afraid. The Government is already engaged in swaying the more responsible world opinion in favour of its point of view, and I should like to quote from a very authoritative source. In the first place I wish to quote from a paper of which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also takes notice. I should like to quote from one of the latest editions of the Economist, namely, that of 31 March 1962, on this whole matter The Economist first says this about the Protectorates—

Then he proceeds, and the hon. member should note this—

Then he continues—

I think the paper is slightly mistaken here in regard to the period, but that is of minor importance. And then the Economist continues—

[Time limit.]

I listened with great interest to some of the statements made by various members on the Government benches during this debate, and I am now very interested in a statement that was made by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) in which he posed a question to the Government, in which he asked them how many members on the Government side would suggest that the Natives should all leave the European areas. There was not a single individual on the benches opposite who said “Yes”. The hon. member for South Coast posed the question how many members opposite believe that all the Natives would leave the European areas.

That is a silly question. You know that nobody believes that.

Under the circumstances it may be a very silly question, but I want to ask how many years ago it is that the whole of that side was saying to South Africa that the Natives will have to leave the European areas.

That was never said.

That was enunciated from every platform in 1948.

Oh no, man.

I’ll come to that in a few minutes. The hon. member for Heilbron has now accepted that the Natives will be with us for all time in various numbers. We require them for our economy, as they require the European in their areas, whilst the European now has to get out. The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Sadie) told us exactly what the hon. member for Heilbron had said. Now I pose this question to the Government side: They were present when Dr. Malan said on the floor of this House in reply to an interjection from this side of the House “algehele apartheid is nie die beleid van die Nasionale Party niet”. But on the following day the present hon. Prime Minister, then Minister of Natives Affairs, said that political, territorial and economic segregation was the policy of the National Party. Is that not complete segregation? [Interjections.] Is that not “algehele skeiding”? Hon. members must not squeal now. That was preached by the Nationalist Party from every platform and it impressed the people of this country that the Nationalist Party intended to get rid of the Native and get him back to the reserves as soon as possible. It is no good denying that. The hon. the Minister of Native Affairs said so. May I remind the hon. the Minister that he made such a statement shortly after that period when he addressed the Synod in Bloemfontein. Does he remember what he said to them? “We want to remove all the Natives from the European areas.”

No.

Hon. members on that side were telling the country that our housewives would have to do without Native labour. They cannot deny it. That was the policy of the Nationalist Party and now they are swinging completely away from that. We are now to have the Natives with us always. We have 6,000 000 at the moment; there will be 7,000 000 at the turn of the century. Mr. Chairman, those are the truths. When the hon. the Minister took office he told us—and he staked his reputation on it—that the country would get Blacker and Blacker.

And it has.

Of course it has. But he has not been able to unscramble the egg.

All we have is a scramble with no egg.

Believe me, Sir, the country now knows where it stands. This Government is going on with the policy of establishing a Bantustan with an autonomous government. It is not looking back from that, it is going forward with it. When it comes to the question of the removal of the Blacks from the White areas, the Government now realizes that is an impossibility. They have sold the country a pup, Sir.

A Black pup.

Unfortunately it is a Black and White one! I now want to come to this question of these Bantustans which the hon. the Minister is going to establish. If the hon. the Minister thinks that he will be establishing those Bantustans with the unanimous approval of the Transkei, he is making a very big mistake. There is serious division in the Transkei over the establishment of these Bantustans, Sir. There are three or four groups.

You can keep them.

No, you are welcome to your own presents. There is the group who wants all or nothing. The hon. the Minister is going to find them very difficult to handle. There is the second group who say that the White man has let them down. I believe the White man has let them down. [Interjections.] I am making this speech, not you. This group. Sir, is the group who is respectful to the White man. They tell us to-day that they have been thrown to the wolves by the White man and I believe them. There is the third group, Sir, which consists of those who will render any service for a reward. They will accept any financial reward and they are going to push for all they can, for whatever they can, and for the type of government which they think they can accept at this stage. We assure the hon. the Minister that he can expect a packet of trouble from the Transkei before he has settled any of the issues there. What a shock this has all been to the White people of this country. They have been shocked to see—I am going to use the Afrikaans word, if you will excuse me, Mr. Chairman—the complete “bolmakiesie” of the Government on this question of the removal of the Black people from the White areas. They have turned a complete somersault and they cannot get away from it. Hon. members can laugh, Sir; I have listened to their speeches. Hansard reflects accurately what I have said here this afternoon. [Interjections.]

Order! Will hon. members please allow the hon. member to make his speech.

I want to warn the hon. the Minister of what is happening in the Transkei. There is danger there. The country must accept that the hon. the Prime Minister is going to force the issue and establish what is going to be a dangerous situation for the White man in South Africa, not only in the Transkei. Unfortunately for us, Sir, we have realized this too late.

It is my intention to go on with other items relating to that Border colony and the boundaries that are to be set up there. I understand a committee is investigating that matter, Sir. I want to ask the Minister, when he replies, to let me know who the members of that committee are. Because I understand that committee has people sitting on it representing the Border section, who know completely nothing about what is taking place on the Border and the feelings of the people there. I am going to suggest to the hon. the Minister that if he wants any co-operation from the Border he has to go about it in a very different manner from the one he is employing now. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) has made a remark which we cannot allow to pass without replying to it. He says that the National Party has always said that it will remove every Bantu from the White areas. It is most certainly true that we have always advocated a policy of separate development, but we have never said that we will remove every Bantu from the White area. On the contrary, we have always said that we will offer employment facilities to those non-Whites. I hope the hon. member is pleased that misunderstanding has been cleared up.

Various United Party speakers have mentioned the fact that it was the Government’s policy which was under discussion and that was all that could be criticized. It is noticeable that the United Party has remained as silent as the grave on their own policy during this debate.

Whose Vote is that?

Why do they not compare their policy with that of the Government and put their policy against the policy of the Government so that the electorate can see which matters should be rectified? They pose a host of questions which are of no value whatsoever.

Are you afraid to state your policy?

We are not afraid to state our policy nor are we afraid to answer those questions. The hon. member is very welcome to ask questions, as many as he wants to, but in that case he should at least also be prepared to state their policy. We have Black spots and White spots scattered over our country, and the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) foresees great difficulty in clearing up those spots. Our Government is engaged on that and has undertaken to rectify this position in due course. The United Party, apparently, prefers the easier way, in other words, simply to turn South Africa as a whole into a huge Bantustan. That is easier for them than to try to solve these problems.

Mr. Chairman, our racial problem is one of the most difficult problems which we have in this country. It is right that we should give a great deal of attention to it, as the Government is indeed doing. Our present Government has embarked on the traditional policy of separate development, a policy which is more than 300 years old. Obviously it was necessary from time to time to adapt it as demanded by the passage of time. The policy which we are advocating to-day, is in line with the policy which all the previous great leaders of this country have advocated. I refer to General Hertzog, General Smuts, Dr. Malan and the others. In this connection I wish to quote from the speeches of the hon. J. C, Smuts as published in a book published by the Legion of Truth organization.

They, of course, speak the truth.

As the hon. member says, what is stated in that book must be the truth because it was published by the legion of Truth organization. General Smuts said the following amongst others in a speech in London—

Instead of mixing White and Black in the old haphazard way, which instead of lifting up the Black degraded the White, we are now trying to lay down a policy of keeping them apart as much as possible in our institutions. In land ownership, settlement and forms of government we are trying to keep them apart and in that way laying down in outline a general policy which it may take 100 years to work out but which in the end may be the solution of our Native problem. Thus in South Africa you will have in the long run large areas cultivated by Blacks and governed by Blacks, where they will look after themselves in all their forms of living and development, while in the rest of the country you will have your White communities which will govern themselves separately according to the accepted European principles. The Natives will, of course be free to go and to work in the White areas, but as far as possible the administration of White and Black areas will be separated and such that each will be satisfied and developed according to its own proper lines. Mr. Chairman, it is very clear from the aforegoing that our policy of to-day coincides to a great extent with what General Smuts declared on behalf of this country at that time in London. It is very clear that he envisaged separate White and Black states, states that would be separated from one another. General Smuts also envisaged a position where the Bantu would be free to go to work in the White areas if they wished to do so. Nowhere is there mention of political rights that will be granted to them. The United Party is to-day devoting endless time to the position of the urban Bantu. If the urban Bantu were to listen to United Party speeches in this House, he would expect to be placed on the common voters’ roll to-morrow if the United Party came into power. We want to know what they intend doing with the urban Bantu; what is their policy in respect of them? Our policy is as enunciated by General Smuts at the time, namely to separate the areas in such a way that both will be satisfied and developed according to its own proper lines.

The United Party contends to-day that the Government is spending too little on the Bantu homelands. Why did they not spend more on the Bantu areas when they were in power? Why say that we are not spending enough to-day? Why did they not spend more? Is it not true. Sir, that the nation has rejected the United Party for the very reason that they have wandered away from the traditional policy of separate development in South Africa? Various hon. members have devoted a great deal of time to the Transkei. They actually want to have a repetition of the struggle which we had a few months ago when a vacancy incidentally occurred in Aliwal North and when the United Party suffered a severe defeat. The United Party has become a party of questions. As far as I am concerned, they are at liberty to continue asking those questions. Their policy must ultimately lead to the destruction of the White man and that is the reason why they are ashamed to state their policy. The electorate approves of the policy of the Government. [Time limit.]

Order! I just want to repeat in general, as I have already warned yesterday, that hon. members must not read their speeches. I will eventually no longer allow them to do so.

I should like to reply to some of the remarks made by the hon. the Deputy Minister. He made the statement that the constitution of the Transkei had come into being in a free and democratic manner. Quite clearly, Sir, the hon. the Deputy Minister’s meaning of the words “free and democratic manner” differs very considerably from mine. I want to ask the Deputy Minister whether he can honestly say that this constitution came into being in a free and democratic manner under the following circumstances. Reading the reports of what has been going on in the Transkei over the past week, everybody must surely have come to certain conclusions. The first was that all talks of any multi-racial constitutions were stifled at birth.

By whom?

The hon. member wants to know by whom? The Secretary for Bantu Administration made a statement at the outset that—

Nobody was under any illusion about the Government’s policy or that any alternative constitution would be allowed to be discussed. The second point is that there was obviously a misunderstanding on the part of the tribal chiefs of the whole procedure to be followed at that particular meeting. It is clear that those people were under the impression that they would be allowed at the end of the discussions to raise the whole question of multi-racial constitutions and objections to the Transkeian Constitution. That, in fact, was not done. This is made quite clear by the statement issued by Chief Sabata later. It is true, as the hon. the Deputy Minister says, that only one person issued such a statement. But Chief Sabata is a very important person, and he is the chief of the largest tribe in the area. Therefore, one cannot lightly disregard what he says. He has asked for talks with the Secretary of the Department which has been granted … [Interjections.] Most important of all, Sir, is the fact that the whole of these discussions, the preliminary talks, the canvassing of opinion, everything, as far as the constitution of the Transkei is concerned, have been done under the shadow of Proclamation 400 of 1960. That is a very important thing. How anybody can say that an area with Proclamation 400 still in force, is able to discuss things in a free and democratic way, is beyond me. Such a person can have no understanding whatsoever of democratic procedure or of free discussion.

The hon. the Minister said to me on 2 February that there was no state of emergency in Pondoland. All I can say, Sir, is that Proclamation 400 must be the nearest thing to a state of emergency without the actual declaration of a state of emergency that could possibly exist. This Proclamation has been described by Mr. Peter Charles, Q.C., who attended the Ganyile case in South Africa as an observer for the International Commission of Jurists, as one of the most remarkable laws in a civilized country. I think that I ought to remind the House of the contents of Proclamation 400, so that the House can judge for itself whether it is possible for an area with this Proclamation in force to have free and democratic discussion. Most important of all is that no meetings are allowed in the area of more than ten persons without specific permission being granted. Under it a man can be arrested without a warrant, he need never be brought to trial, he can be imprisoned without trial, he is not allowed redress, he is not allowed access to legal advisers. All this is contained in this notorious Proclamation 400. Persons may not enter or leave the area without specific permission. The chiefs themselves are given the widest possible powers of removal, of banishment under this Proclamation. Let me read Section 12 of Proclamation 400. It is headed Removal of Subjects by Chief—

1. (1) It shall be competent for any chief authorized thereto by the Minister either generally or in respect of a particular Native—
   1. (a) to order, without prior notice to any Native concerned, a Native to remove with the members of his household and any livestock and moveable property from a place within the area of jurisdiction of such chief to any other place specified by such chief within such area, either permanently or for such period as is specified by such chief;
2. (2) to cause the demolition of any hut or dwelling owned by and occupied by a Native referred to in paragraph (a) or members of his household, situate at the place from which he has been ordered to remove …

What is more, Sir, the only appeal which is allowed from such banishment, for that is what it is, is to the Chief Native Commissioner. So very wide powers indeed are given under this Proclamation to the chiefs, let alone to the Government. Most important of all, Sir, is the following—

Complete indemnity is given to the State, its officers and all chiefs acting under Proclamation 400. There is a prohibition of interdicts included in Proclamation 400—

So there is no right of appeal either, Sir. This must be one of the most authoritarian documents that has ever been issued by a State which professes to be a democratic State. This is an order which has been in force since the end of 1960 and which the Minister apparently has no intention of withdrawing.

The hon. the Minister, when he told me that there was no state of emergency, said that at the request of Bantu leaders in the Transkeian Territory the provisions of Proclamation 400 of 1960 would remain in force in those territories until the leaders themselves asked for the repeal of the Proclamation. I have seldom heard a more cynical statement than that, in view of what I have mentioned as the contents of this Proclamation. Vast powers are given to the chiefs under this Proclamation. Of course they are not going to ask for its withdrawal. The whole rule of law goes by the board when proclamations of this sort are in force. No man has any protection of the normal legal proceedings which exist in any democratic country. For the hon. Deputy Minister to have the impertinence to stand up in this House and to say that the Transkeian Constitution was accepted in a free and democratic way is, I think, to underestimate the intelligence of members on this side of the House.

I want to go on with the question of the banishment orders. I want the hon. the Minister to know, Sir, that as a result of the vast powers which he has given to the chiefs various actions are taken by the chiefs which have nothing to do with subversive actions or any political actions whatsoever. In cases of so-called civil disobedience to the chiefs those powers are used under this particular proclamation. I have details which I will be very pleased to show the hon. the Minister if he is not aware of these cases himself; cases of the chiefs themselves abusing their authority under this Proclamation to extract fines, to threaten tribesmen, generally to terrorize the people into complete acceptance of anything that the chief happens to want. The Proclamation is very wide indeed in its description of subversive statements. It actually includes not only subversive statements as far as political action is concerned, that is any statement, verbally or in writing, which interferes with the authority of the State, the Chief Native Commissioner, a Native Commissioner or any other officer in the employ of the State, or any chief or headman; it does not only include that, Sir, but it includes any person who—

And it includes any person who—

Sir, this is mediaeval. That is the only way I can describe it. This is a mediaeval regulation. [Time limit.]

Mr.Chairman, I can quite understand the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) being so acerbious in regard to this proclamation. I can well understand it, because by means of this proclamation I succeeded so effectively in keeping out quite a number of her good friends there. I want to mention the names of some of them. I want to mention the name of a friend, Mr. Aaronson.

I have never met him in my life.

I further want to mention Mr. Patrick Duncan, who just about lived there and slept there at night. I do not even want to mention the names of her non-White friends. But the Bantu of Pondoland pleaded with me and said: We just cannot tolerate it any more with White people and Yellow people, and some Black people from outside who come in here to incite the people; we cannot live any more; our people are being murdered. I asked what I should do, and I had a long consultation with the Bantu— my officials. They suggested what should be done. At their request I took those steps, and we saved Pondoland. I am sorry that it was not applied there earlier. We saved Pondoland from the further misery which was being enforced on them. After that we again met these people. We said: Things are quiet now, and will you allow us to withdraw this proclamation? They unanimously requested us, in the public interest, in the interests of the Bantu of Pondoland who are our responsibility, in heaven’s name keep this proclamation in force, particularly with a view to keeping out strangers from elsewhere.

Let me mention just one example. I was severely criticized by hon. members of the Opposition when I appointed these bodyguards for various chiefs. That gave them the power to deal with this type of person. Who were the people who objected to it? They were the same people who object to this proclamation. They then made a fuss, not about a principle. No, they had much to say about the so called scandalous blot which would now be put on South Africa, by a Bantu being allowed to arrest a White man. Just imagine that! That is actually what all the fuss was about. We therefore see the game these people are playing under the guise of democracy. They made use of democratic principles to commit their own unholy deeds. They should not think that they will catch out either me or South Africa by such means, in so far as it is in my power to stop it. I believe in democracy, but democracy in so far as it protects the public and promotes the public interest. Now I just want to say this. Any statement to the effect that this proclamation resulted in a single person in the Transkei or Pondoland not being able to express his opinion frankly in regard to this constitution, is not true. At many of these meetings there were people who incited the others and they said: First recall the proclamation and then we will talk. But the fact is that everybody who wanted to talk gave his opinion freely, and there is not the slightest evidence that they did not act democratically. Therefore any impression created that this proclamation stood in the way of democratic action is not only doing a disservice to South Africa but is a gross untruth published to the world, and I reject it with the greatest contempt.

I want to say immediately that in connection with the constitution of the Transkei, a very sinister role was played by certain elements. Originally they tried to discredit the Government by inciting certain people and telling them: Ask for you freedom, because the Government has said that when you are ready for it you may have it. That was done, and when the Government replied that it was prepared to keep its word and to grant self-government, what did they do then? Then they attacked from all sides. They sent propagandists there and they distributed pamphlets, and certain newspapers published articles saying: Ask for all the freedom you can get. That is the sort of propaganda campaign that was waged. I just want to refer to an article in the Daily Despatch, in which an appeal was made to those people not to accept this constitution, but a multi-racial constitution, but the people took no notice of that. I do not deny them the right to do so, but to create the impression that we supressed freedom, is wrong. Everybody knows that it is not so. I say a sinister game was played behind the scenes. There are certain persons who were repeatedly called out in certain circles and every means was applied to persuade them to vote against the constitution, or against the report of the Recess Committee. The public was told that originally a constitution was submitted which we refused to discuss, but not a single member of the Recess Committee knows about that. That is one of the untruths which was published. Later these sinister forces again got busy and they themselves drafted a constitution, of which I have a copy here, a multi-racial constitution, but it was never submitted there for discussion. Why do hon. members create the impression that there was no freedom granted to these people? They enjoyed the fullest freedom. But what is more, those members of the Recess Committee signed this constitution unanimously. They are not a lot of baboons. That one or two of them were tempted not to vote for it is the work of these sinister forces behind the scenes. But then they should not tell us that we threatened these people to do it, and that we tried to persuade them to do it. Just let me briefly sketch the facts in regard to this Committee.

The fact is that the accusation cannot be made against us that either the Prime Minister or I or my officials forced those people or in any way persuaded them to do what they did not want to do. We met these people in Pretoria. There were other matters which we had to discuss with them, and I asked the Prime Minister to address them briefly, and he did so. He referred to this constitution, but did not give a lead, and he clearly stated: This is your constitution and you must draft it. Then they went back. But then they themselves came along with a request that they were not au fait with the drafting of constitutions and that they did not have the necessary technical knowledge, and whether the Government would not make available the services of some of its officials to them. That request was complied with, but I said that it would be done on the express condition that the officials would help them in formulating it and in giving guidance wherever necessary, but that they would have no right to enforce anything on them, so that the impression could be created that it was not their own constitution. And the person who alleges the contrary is telling an absolute untruth. That Recess Committee met and drafted the basis of the constitution, and then they themselves asked whether they could not meet the Prime Minister and me again in order to discuss a few principles in regard to which they would like to have clarity and to ensure that they are on the right road. We met them, and one of the most important principles discussed has already been stated by the Prime Minister. Originally in regard to the constitution they said they did not want more than 30 elected representatives, and the rest should be chiefs. Then the Prime Minister told them he thought they were making a mistake and if he could give them advice it would be this: Give your people a larger number of elected representatives. Some of them were then opposed to it, but eventually they unanimously decided that it was a good suggestion, and they themselves resolved that the number which they would recommend would be 45 elected representatives, 15 more than they at first wanted, and 64 chiefs. That is an important principle. The Prime Minister told them, further: I want to see you drafting this constitution yourself. If you need technical advice, I am prepared to put my officials at your disposal, even law advisers: and that was done. I repeat that constitution was unanimously signed by every member of that Committee. Now I want to admit immediately that Sabata was not present. He sent a doctor’s certificate to say that he was ill and unable to attend, but he also sent a message that he would very much like to be there. He attended the meeting at Umtata. and the constitution was submitted to him and he was asked what he thought about it, and without hesitation he said that he would sign it, and he did so. Not a single official told him to sign, or that if he did not sign something would happen to him. He signed it of his own free will and without any hesitation. Why is the impression created that coercion was applied here? Let me say this. There were one or two chiefs who hinted indirectly for a multi-racial constituttion for the Transkei. My Secretary reacted to that and said: You must understand clearly that we will not agree to a multi-racial constitution. Our standpoint was clear right from the beginning that we would not agree to a multi-racial constitution for any of the Bantu States. But for the rest the Secretary did nothing to influence them in any way to do something which they did not want to do. I ask hon. members why they are trying to create the wrong impression. They raised the objection, and that is what the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) also referred to, that the correct procedure was not followed. Sabata said he thought that the constitution would again be discussed item by item at the end. But that is not correct. The fact is that Matanzima was the Chairman of the Recess Committee, and he is also the Chairman of the Territorial Authority, and then it was decided, according to the procedure which has always been followed first by the Bunga and then by the Territorial Authority, that the Deputy-Chairman should act as the Chairman of such a Committee, and the Deputy-Chairman, Monakala, acted as Chairman, and then it was decided that they would deal with the constitution item by item. Thereafter it was dealt with item by item, and the question was put who was in favour and who against, and they all said “Agreed They shouted it out. When they came to Item 23, Sabata got up, as well as another person, and said that they should again discuss it right from the beginning. The proposal was referred to a committee, and it was found that was not the correct procedure, but finally the whole constitution was submitted and everybody accepted it.

Just like a Nationalist Party caucus.

Yes, when people consider that a thing is good for them, they say “Agreed”. They are responsible people. Thereafter the whole constitution was submitted and there were a number of amendments. There was one amendment to the effect that only four chiefs would be members of the parliament, but all those amendments were withdrawn by the movers. When the question was asked whether they wanted to vote on it, they were withdrawn. Why do hon. members now want to create the impression that everything was not above board?

But, Sir, a very ugly thing in fact happened, and that is one of the things against which we warned so much. A White newspaper man also wanted to create that impression, and then those people told him: Unless your paper apologizes, you must get out. I say he deserved it. When such false impressions are created, it is a blot on the good name of South Africa, and I challenge any person to deny that what I say is true. I want to tell the hon. member for Transkeian Territories that neither he nor the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) can say that these people did not act in accordance with their convictions.

Now I want to go further. The Prime Minister gave them another bit of advice. He said they must consult their people, not only the people in the reserves but also those in the urban areas, but that it was their own affair and that he was not going to tell them how to do it. Most of the chiefs consulted their people, and every one of the chiefs who sat on the sub-committee which had to hear the urban Bantu invited a number of their people whom they regarded as leaders in the cities to come and give evidence. There were about 50 of them, and with the exception particularly of one—I am thinking here of Moses—they all agreed. Moses was opposed to it, but the others said that in principle they had nothing against it. They had certain doubts in regard to certain points, and those were discussed, but they accepted the constitution in principle. But it was found that one person had not consulted his people, Sabata. He held a meeting at a certain place where this thing was not accepted. There were only 400 people present, out of 250,000. Nobody knew about it. So the impression should not be created that the people of this chief are opposed to it. Botha Sicgau fully supported the constitution. Therefore I say in all seriousness that it is not fair towards South Africa and it is not according to the principles of honesty and truth to create the impression here that this constitution was not drafted on a basis of absolute frankness by the Bantu of the Transkei themselves.

Now I just want to say this. They will of course get the decision of the Territorial Authority, and just let me say that notes were taken of the resolution. There was a Hansard and everything was taken down in shorthand. I asked for a report in regard to this journalist who wanted to create the impression that the Chairman had not acted properly and accordingly to the rules. The minutes were studied and everybody agreed that the Chairman had never given such a ruling. The minutes of the Territorial Authority were studied, and no such ruling was given, because it was something he had just taken out of the air. I repeat that I want to appeal to hon. members that we should at least act according to the elementary principles of truth, and not try to create the impression that everything was not above board. What I am saying is the absolute truth, and all the minutes will prove it, that what was drafted there was their own creation. That draft constitution will now be submitted to the Government, and then we will start drafting a Bill which will be submitted to the Territorial Authority, and I hope to introduce this Bill next year, and it is my earnest hope that during the course of next year still the Bantu of the Transkei will be able to convene their representatives.

The hon. member for Transkeian Territories also raised a few other matters. He asked what had been done in regard to developing the Transkei during the past 14 years, and he said we could show nothing that we had done to make the Transkei economically independent. I frankly admit that much still has to be done and that it will still take some time before it has developed to such an extent that it will be economically independent, but I also want to state that in the past 14 years we have done more for the development of the Transkei than all the other Governments together in the 50 years since Union. I challenge that hon. member who now shakes his head, and I shall hit him hard in a moment. Who can deny that? Nobody. But I admit it is a very difficult task. I pointed out in the Other Place that we encountered a few serious difficulties. One was the fact that the Press sowed suspicion on a large scale, just as they have done now in regard to the constitution. They took great delight in sowing suspicion in regard to every developmental work we tackled, and then the wolves came along, the Arensons and such people, who wanted to make money out of it through litigation, etc. It was a difficult task, and there was also a second element of difficulty. There were certain Whites who carried on that campaign, in many cases persons who were rejected by their own communities and tried to find a certain status in the Bantu areas, and they bribed certain Natives to do that type of thing. At every place where we started to work, suspicion was sown. But we have made such progress that to-day there is hardly a single place in the Transkei where the Bantu are not prepared to co-operate with us. Take Pondoland, where two years ago in most places they refused to co-operate. To-day they come with requests that we should immediately apply the proclamation for the development of the territory, and they offer their assistance. I am sitting with my hand in my hair because I have not enough officials to do the work.

In your hair?

The co-operation is now there, but it was a very difficult task to create the climate for development, but now we are making progress. We have already tackled certain work and other big works will be tackled. The hon. member said that we had not even started planning the other big rivers, but he is mistaken. He does not know what is going on. Every official has instructions to be on the look-out for places where development can take place. There are many new schemes we want to tackle and which will be investigated immediately. We are continually busy, now that we have the co-operation of the Bantu, and now we can make progress. I just want to mention what Mr. Wisschoff said, the adviser to Mr. Hammarskjöld, and an expert of world repute on the development of undeveloped areas. He visited the Transkei a few years ago, I think it was in 1947, and in my presence he said that if he compared what the Transkei looked like in 1947 with what it looked like today, he could only say that the progress we have made there was fantastic and one of the most splendid examples he had ever seen in Africa. [Interjection.] This is what was said by an expert of world repute and who had visited every state in Africa. But I am convinced that we will carry on the development there at an ever-increasing tempo. There is no fear of contradiction in that regard. The hon. member also said: Now the White Government will have to contribute an extra R9,000,000 to the Transkei to enable it to govern itself, and where will they find the necessary officials? The fact is that we have Bantu officials in the Transkei who can do good work, but what is more, and this is what is so good about our policy, in the cities there are sons and daughters of the Transkei who are very anxious to obtain appointments in this area in order to work for their own people, and they have been properly trained and have a knowledge of administration. That is why I made the statement the other day that one of the great miracles performed by the policy of apartheid was to make the break-through in this respect that as the result of this policy, in the course of these 14 years, an infrastructure for the development of the Bantu has been established, something which has never before happened, because we set out from the principle that the Bantu themselves must be drawn into this development. I just want to give the assurance that I shall continually try to hasten the tempo.

The hon. member also attacked me for having devoted half this sum of R114,000,000 to townships, but that is one of the most important principles in our policy, viz. to develop Bantu townships near the border areas where the Bantu can have property rights and build up their own tertiary industries. Prof. Houghton expressed doubts in this regard and said that we were building so many townships for the Bantu, but that they would all be ghost towns. But he did not know what he was talking about. We chose the sites for those townships strategically, so that they would be points of development and not ghost towns, and so that the people there could be trained systematically and as fast as possible. Townships will also be established in the Transkei …

But they have no work. How are the people in the towns to live?

The hon. member talks like that professor; he has no knowledge of the matter. We particularly start building these important townships near the border areas so that we will have the assurance that they will find employment and build up their tertiary industries. Just show me one of these towns which has been completed and where the people have no work! Let the hon. member get up and show me one single town where they have no work.

I was referring to the Transkei. May I ask the hon. member a question? Where are the border towns which will provide labour for the people in the Transkei?

The hon. member was not discussing the Transkei; he was discussing the five-year plan. We have our plans in regard to the Transkei also. The necessary attention is also being devoted to that. I want to admit frankly that here we are not spending so much money on township development, because we believe that the development of townships near the White towns is the natural thing. What is Umtata doing? The hon. member will not be able to tell me that we must just do away with that Bantu township at Umtata and that we should site it in another place.

No, I did not say that.

Therefore we are continuing to develop it there, and that is why I introduced a Bill here the other day which makes it possible for Bantu to build houses, for example, in Umtata, by means of loans. That is one of the reasons. But the hon. member should not come along with the accusation that they have no work.

The hon. member put another question to me. He asked what the position was in regard to the Bantu Councils. The question was also put by the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross). I know he is interested in the matter. We passed that Act and up to now not a single one of these Bantu Councils has been established, because I promised the Municipal Associations that the regulations would be drafted in close co-operation with them. Unfortunately that takes time, but I must keep my word. Those regulations have now been drafted and will be published shortly, and thereafter those Bantu Councils will come into operation. The hon. member doubted my word when I said that I had consulted a large number of the urban Bantu. It is difficult for me to tell a man something if he does not want to accept it, but I can tell him that I did it. I discussed this matter with quite a number of urban Bantu. Some of their prominent leaders came to consult me in Cape Town, and I just want to say now that in general these Bantu urban councils are welcomed by the Bantu throughout South Africa.

And now I want to say this also. In this connection one of those mean things was again done, namely that a large-scale campaign was immediately waged amongst the Bantu not to accent these councils. If I tell you that 40,000, 50,000 and 100,000 pamphlets were distributed on various occasions, in which an appeal was made to the Bantu not to accept these councils because it would take them back to the bush, because it would take them back to the system of chiefs and that sort of thing, I am putting it at its lowest. Meetings were held and White people went around amongst the Bantu to incite them not to accent it. But in spite of this large-scale campaign, I can tell hon. members to-day that the great majority of people are anxious to accept these Bantu councils. In various cases they express their appreciation for the fact that there would now be this link with their own areas; they welcome it. There are urban areas which have already decided to accept these councils—they are just waiting for the regulations—and who have already invited me to come and open these councils. Why must hon. members now create the impression that no such councils have yet been established because the Bantu are opposed to them? No, that is an absolute untruth. Hon. members ought to know about these pamphlets, which were disseminated also in Benoni, and the hon. member for Benoni should have opposed this sort of thing.

He assisted it.

I would not be surprised if the hon. member encouraged it. I can only say that there is a good spirit and that within the near future we will establish these Bantu councils in the cities.

Various hon. members have come along with the old allegation that the urban Native must be treated on a different basis from the Bantu in their own areas. They said that this system would not work because the urban Bantu have already become uprooted and detribalized. The hon. member for Benoni asked me what I was going to do to stop the detribalization. Just imagine a Member of Parliament asking a question like that! Sir, how many times have we not said that not only would we not try to stop the development of the Bantu in any sphere, but that we would encourage it? But we have always maintained that when one still has a connection with one’s own people, that is not detribalization. Then the hon. member for Benoni must be a singularly undeveloped man, because I have never in my life come across a more ardent Englishman than he is. He must be a real detribalized person.

Jingo.

Red blanket, if his standpoint is correct. But I have found that some of the most highly developed people are proud of the link they have with their own people. I want to repeat the statement I have made so often already: The fact is that 80 per cent to 90 per cent of the urban Bantu are linked with their own areas in some way or other. Those people who allege that they are completely uprooted and separated from their own people and their own areas are making a big mistake. Just look at the investigations made in one of the oldest locations in South Africa, in East London, and that was not done by Nationalists. What did they find? Let hon. members read that book. I think hon. members opposite make one mistake, namely that they read too little. But that research was done there and the findings were that one finds hardly a single Bantu in the East London location who to-day no longer, after more than 100 years in that location, has links with his own people and with his own areas. Sir, to me this is a matter of principle. I challenge anybody to show me a nation in the world which is prepared to allow itself to be split into two or more parts. There is nothing in the world which causes as much racial hatred as that, and only a fool would propound a policy which would now bring about a split between the urban Bantu and the Bantu in the reserves. The Zulu wants to be and to remain a Zulu, wherever he might be. That is the latent desire deeply rooted in his heart and which he will never relinquish, and the more he develops, the more that spirit grows in him. We find it with the Tswana and with the Sotho and with all the others. Nobody can deny it. There are a few strays, but our own people also have strays, and in England there are also a few of them, and also in Germany, but are they to be regarded as the spokesmen for a nation? Yes, to the communist they are the spokesmen of the nation, because they serve the objects of Communism. In the same way these strays amongst the Bantu are regarded by the United Party as the spokesmen for their nation, because it serves their purpose. But that does not represent the true facts. In order to prevent racial hatred, the sound policy is to preserve and to encourage the essential basis of your national units. Then eventually one gets appreciation from that group. Nobody can deny that. I just want to mention one example which perhaps I have given here before. The mission churches made this mistake in the olden days. They did missionary work in the reserves. They bought large farms there on which the Christians lived. That was splitting up the nation. And what was the result? The result was that all went well until a certain day, and then the others attacked them and murder and killing took place on a large scale, and the reason given was this: “You White people come and steal our children away from us under the cloak of the Bible.” That caused a split in the community, and I want to make the statement that if that mistake had not been made, missionary work in South Africa would have progressed much further. But it is not only that; I can give examples in other parts of Africa. I should like the hon. member for South Coast to listen to me now. I want to say this, and I want to ask the hon. member for South Coast whether he will not subscribe to it, because I am convinced in my mind that peace and true development will not come about in the rest of Africa until Africa is again divided on a legitimate national basis. There is nothing which engenders so much hatred of the White man as the fact that he sat down with a map and just drew lines on it and cut national groups off from one another. That is one of the reasons for the hatred in the hearts of the Bantu right throughout Africa. There is no doubt about that. I just want to refer here to what scientists say about this matter. Scientists to-day support the proposition that one can only bring peace to Africa if one has that basic approach, and that is precisely what our basic approach is. The hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) has referred to the Sotho. I want to issue this challenge to him: Show me a South Sotho here in Cape Town who was born here and who will not tell you: “My home is in Basutoland.” I challenge him. They always have some kind of link, even though it is only an uncle or a second cousin, but he will always tell you that his home is still there.

The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) raised an objection in regard to one man, one vote. He says that this side of the House is in favour of it. I want to say immediately that our standpoint is that if the Bantu in their own areas want to adopt this one man, one vote system, they can have it. But we are also quite clear about another matter, in regard to which he dare not express an opinion, and that is that in the White areas one man, one vote will apply only to the Whites and not to the non-Whites.

Will the urban Bantu have the system of one man, one vote?

I explained a moment ago that the urban Bantu are linked with their own areas.

Where does he get his vote?

In his own area.

Let me put it this way: If the Xhosa decide that they want one man, one vote, then they can get it, and they can have it wherever that Xhosa lives, but he then votes for his representative in his own area. The hon. member expressed doubts about the speeches which will be made in the urban areas by these candidates. He spoke about “legalized agitators”, and saw all kinds of bogies. The fact is simply that these candidates will have the opportunity to state their case there, because we believe in democratic principles, but they will not be allowed to abuse that right to foster hatred between the Bantu and the Whites, and no responsible Bantu will do so. But here I just want to say this: I have already heard more irresponsible speeches on the platform from some hon. members opposite than I have heard from many of the people in the Transkei.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) came here with a slightly distorted picture. He mentioned the article written by Luthuli, and my hon. friend here replied to him very effectively. I therefore do not want to deal with it at length. But Luthuli’s article says what he will do when he is Prime Minister of South Africa, and not when he is Prime Minister of a Bantustan. [Interjection.] The hon. member came along with that little twist to it later, but originally he wanted to bring this Committee under the impression that Luthuli in that article explained what he would do if he were Prime Minister of the Zululand Bantustan. But I leave it there. I do not want to deal with it further. I just want to remind this Committee that it is that hon. member and his party who glorified Luthuli so much a few years ago when he came to Cape Town. They were then the champions of Luthuli. They gave the world the impression that Luthuli was such a reasonable person, such a model of a man who was treated so badly by the National Party that Sweden should grant him the Nobel Prize. I just want to say that the hon. member for Durban (Point), together with his party, had much to do with the Nobel Prize being granted to Luthuli. I just want to remind them again that a few years ago when Luthuli came to Cape Town, they glorified him as one of the heroes of South Africa.

The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) also raised the question of the urban Bantu. He also spoke about the borders of the Bantu areas and he also referred to the Italian workers. The fact is simply this: In regard to the Italian workers, the hon. member should really make a deeper study of the subject before mentioning it here as an example. The fact is that in Italy alone there are approximately 2,000,000 workers who go to work in France and other countries every year. But that is not only the position in Italy: it also applies to other countries. There we also have the system that workers go to work in other countries and often remain there for generations. But it is accepted by the Government concerned that they will not apply for citizenship in those countries: that they will claim no political rights, but that they will exercise their political rights in their own countries. That is an old and recognized system. The hon. member should not paint an imaginary picture here in regard to this matter.

The hon. member, as well as two other hon. members, raised the question of the borders of those areas. So many explanations have already been given on this subject that I do not think it is necessary to discuss it again to-day, except to say this: There is, e.g., in Natal a large number of Bantu areas—and here I am replying particularly to the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk). There are a large number of Bantu areas spread over the whole of Natal, and the best that can be done there is to consolidate them into a few blocks. I have always held the view that at the very least there could be three blocks, but it can be more, because that will be a very difficult task. Natal looks like Joseph’s coat, as the result of United Party policy, and to-day we have to consolidate those areas. It is a very difficult task, but we are making progress. She asked which black spots we have already cleared up. I just want to tell her this: We have not yet made much progress in Natal because until last year I could not get any co-operation from most of the White people there, and particularly not from the farmers. Until last year they did not want to hear anything about it. but last year the Agricultural Union of Natal voluntarily approached me and said that they were prepared to co-operate to consolidate these black spots. To-day we have splended co-operation and we are making progress. We have cleared up a few black spots there: they are perhaps very small, but we have cleared up a few. I just want to give the official figures to the Committee. Thus far in the Transvaal we have cleared up 22 black spots comprising more than 17,000 morgen. In the Cape Province we have cleared up 24 black spots, comprising 32,736 morgen. In Natal we have cleared up 22. I admit that this is very little, but I want to remind hon. members of how they opposed us when we started clearing up certain black spots. Let me just remind them of the battle they waged in regard to the Mamatholas. They published an unsavoury story to the world. Instead of co-operating they obstructed us and it took us months to clear up that little black spot. Hon. members can realize with what a tremendous task we were faced. Fortunately a change has now set in, and I know that in many places there are United Party members of Parliament who are co-operating to achieve the clearing up of these black spots. Now I just want to say this: Last year, to take just one year, we cleared up nine black spots in the Transvaal. An hon. member should not forget that it takes time to do so. because there have to be negotiations. We cleared up nine black spots in the Transvaal and consolidated 4,800 morgen. I just want to give the example of one case in the Transvaal, a black spot where the people refused to be moved. Eventually, after months of consultation, some of them decided to move. The other section, instigated by Whites, refused to go. We then sent lorries there and removed the one section which was willing to go. We took along the usual facilities for them. The next morning the other lot came and said: “We have slept on the matter during the night; please send the lorries this afternoon because we will also go to that place”. Then I want to take a case at Lydenburg, where it took us two years to remove a black spot. Those people simply refused to go, but those same people the other day held a feast to express their gratitude to the Government. The wives of the chiefs got up and read the chapter in the Bible of how the Israelites were led out of Egypt, and she said: “That was like our exodus from that black soot to this new farm, and look at our riches now”.

Are you now leading the Black man through the Red Sea?

Hon. members will see that we are setting to work in a very nice way. I admit that it is a lengthy process to clear up the black spots. It is a protracted process, but unfortunately that happens to be the method in which the Bantu must be approached. I want to tell hon. members that by the end of next year we will have cleared up 14 black spots in the Transvaal, comprising 23,000 morgen, 16 in the Cane Province comprising 22,000 morgen, and 6 in Natal comprising about 3,000 morgen. In that way these areas are being consolidated, and that is also the way in which we work in connection with the larger areas. We are making fast progress, particularly as the result of the establishment of Territorial Authorities.

But I just want to pause to deal with the hon. member for South Coast for a moment. The hon. member quoted here from a book as to what was said by the hon. the Prime Minister, but then he went further and said he wanted to take the matter a little further; it was not the full quotation and he wanted to read a little further. The quotation was this—

Then he went on and said—

That is all he read out. But now I want to read the whole thing. I blame the hon. member for South Coast very much for having made this sort of speech this afternoon. It does not behove him to do so as a leader and as a good South African. I have so often already pointed out that by doing this sort of thing hon. members are not rendering South Africa a service. In this struggle the South African should be above party politics, and that is what I expected of the hon. member, because I think he is a good South African and because I respect him. Mr. Chairman, I myself had this experience. At the time when General Smuts was humiliated at UN, I had a resolution adopted by a large meeting of about 1,000 people in my constituency to the effect that in regard to this matter, although politically we differed from each other, we should all stand behind the Prime Minister of South Africa, and I and all my people did that. Therefore I adopted that course several times in my life. Whenever it came to my notice that a newspaper had referred to South Africa in a derogatory way, I did not hesitate to write to them and to condemn it in the strongest language as an untruth, and I did so as an honest South African. That was my policy. One need not tell people this; one expects it of every South African. But that is what the hon. member did not do here this afternoon. On the contrary, he actually created the impression that the passage in that book is not quite correct, but still it is really correct. The hon. member knows it is not so; he has the article before him. What is the position? There was a debate on this subject in 1960, when the Estimates were debated, and there was the following headline in the Digest of South African Affairs, Vol. 7, of March 1960—

THE RIGHTS OF BLACKS COUNT: WHITES IGNORED

Then the Prime Minister says—

Then he continues—

Then he continues further—

I do not think one can find clearer language than that. And the hon. member knows it. He read it. But now I ask him whether, according to the elementary principles of justice and fairness, he considers that it was right to make the remark about the Prime Minister which he made. I think that in his own mind He will also tell himself that he did not do a very nice thing. He tried to create a false impression here.

I did not.

This distorted quotation was not fair. The Prime Minister clearly stated that the Black man would be given his rights in his own state …

Order! The hon. the Minister must withdraw the word “distorted”.

Then what must I say, Sir? I do not want to use a wrong word.

The hon. the Minister may not say it is a “distorted quotation”.

Then I will say “the quotation which does not sound the way it reads. [Laughter.] I do not think the hon. member put it farly.

I do not wish to detain the House too long. I think I have more or less covered all the points raised. There are a few matters which were raised by the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker), but perhaps I can deal with them on a later occasion.

May I ask for the second half-hour?

I think we have listened with great interest to the replies that the hon. the Minister gave to some of the questions put to him in the course of this debate, but I think having heard those replies, we are really not very much further than we began and tried to find out from him just how far he and his Department were progressing towards the achievement of the policy laid down by his Government and the time-table which it has set itself. The hon. gentleman has dealt with a number of points, the first of which concerns the proposed draft constitution for the Transkeian Territory. Having told us at great length that this was the conception of the people themselves and that there was no influence brought to bear upon them in drawing up that constitution, that only advice was given them when advice was asked by them, he did admit to us he had laid it down and his officials had laid it down, absolutely clearly, that they were not prepared to consider a constitution which was a multiracial constitution.

Quite correct.

How can the hon. the Minister say then that was a free choice? The hon. gentleman has made much play of the fact that they were advised by the hon. the Prime Minister and I believe by him himself, that they should have a greater percentage of elected members under the new constitution. I believe, and I speak under correction, that the present constitution has still fewer members elected than the old Hunga constitution had, that body which the hon. the Minister found it extremely difficult to work with and which ultimately—I feel I am correct in saying—he persuaded to dissolve itself, or to ask for its dissolution so that he could replace it with a series of nominated institutions throughout the Territory. Having found that an elected constitution was one with which he could not work in the past, how is he going to work with the present constitution if there is once again an elected element? He has had the courage to tell us that development to economic independence in the Native territories still requires a great deal of work and that he has enormous difficulties over which it was necessary to triumph. He has also told us that now he has the co-operation of the Bantu in the area and that now they are going to advance. What he has not told us and what we have been trying to find out since the beginning of this Session in various debates, is how many more people are being employed as a result of economic development in the Transkei and economic development in border industries. That is the question that we want answered.

I shall deal later with the information we have at our disposal to-day and indicate that the number of increased jobs being offered is so small that it is quite clear that what is being done is a flee-bite compared with what has got to be done if he is to maintain his time-table.

Then the hon. the Minister replied to the criticism that so much of the money which is to be voted is to be spent on the establishment of Native villages, by saying that it is necessary first of all to establish the villages before the industries are created. Well, Sir, looking through the list it seems that in a number of cases villages here are being built merely to house people already imperfectly housed and engaged in industry. It seems difficult for us to avoid the conclusion that the indications are that many of these so-called developments are merely the provision of housing for people who are already employed, and that they are not contributing at all to the increase in the number of jobs so necessary in the reserves.

The Minister dealt also with the question of consolidation and he is quite clearly following the hon. the Prime Minister in dodging away from the concept of complete consolidation. On the one hand he told us with pride of the number of black spots he has cleared up, some 23,000 morgen in the Transvaal and less in other areas. But the position is very clear that he is not going to have complete consolidation and that there is still going to be fragmentation of existing areas, and that when ultimately we are faced with Bantustans which are seeking independence, they may consist of a number of separate units. That raises a number of problems which I shall deal with in due course. One of them of course is the question of movement of a citizen of that foreign state from one part of his state to another. Is that to be done under the pass system; is it to be done under a passport system; how is he going to control their movements as foreigners in the White areas in which they will not enjoy citizenship? We want to know that so as to get some clear idea of what is being envisaged.

When the hon. the Minister took over this portfolio from the hon. the Prime Minister, so far as I know the Government was still pledged to a time-table, the objective of which was that roughly by the year 2000 there would be equal numbers of Whites and Bantu in the so-called White areas. That was the time-table they set themselves in 1955. That was the time-table from which they would never depart. In other words, what they are hoping to achieve by the year 2000 is the situation as it existed in 1928, when in the White areas there were roughly equal numbers of Bantu and Whites. By 1952 the position was that the number of Bantu outnumbered the number of Whites by 1.7:1. To-day I believe in the White areas they outnumber the Whites on the four big industrial complexes by 2:1. And if the present rate of development is maintained, then it seems perfectly clear that by the year 2000 the Bantu in the industrial complex of Johannesburg will outnumber the Whites by 7:1, and so far there has been no indication that tempo, that rate of increase has been slowed down as a result of the activities of the hon. the Minister.

When one goes into the figures in respect of the Transkei, it seems that an increasing number of Transkei Bantu, proportionately, are out of the reserves than was the position in the past. We have actually reached the position in the Cape Province now that there are fewer Bantu in the Transkei than there are Bantu out of the Transkei. The hon. Deputy Minister shakes his head. He is perhaps referring to the figures which the hon. the Minister gave, I think two days ago in Another Place, concerning the number of Transkeian Natives in the Transkei and out of the Transkei.

May I ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition a question? Does he include the Sotho and the Zulu and the Venda and all the others in respect of the Transkei, when he says that there are more Bantu outside the Transkei?

That is a fair question. I count as Bantu in the Cape Province the members of all Bantu tribes, no matter where they come from, whether they are Zulus, Vendas—they are working in the Cape Province. They are physically here, and let me tell the hon. the Minister that he will find that in every single province of the Republic at the present time there are more Blacks than there are Whites in the so-called White areas of South Africa.

The hon. the Minister was moving in the direction then of trying to achieve equality in those numbers by the year 2000. What has he achieved? The Tomlinson Commission made it very clear indeed that if he was to move in that direction, one of his first steps was to take 2,000,000 people of the land in the reserves. The hon. the Minister signed the report. 2,000,000 people were to be taken off the land in the reserves and other occupations were to be found for them as a group, which, according to the commission, involved finding work annually in the Native areas for 50,000 people per year. What we want to find out is how many people have been taken off the land in the reserves. What progress has been made in the rehabilitation of the land in the reserves as a result of taking people off the land, leading to better systems of farming and rehabilitation? We know that only 26 per cent of the reserves were unaffected by erosion. All the rest was heavily eroded and in a bad position, and if we are to judge by the report made by the Committee of Sabra (of which the hon. the Minister was a member at one time), the result is most disappointing (according to their finding). They feel that there is virtually no change in the position in the reserves as far as the last five or ten years are concerned. In the face of that criticism what can the hon. gentleman tell us as to what he is doing and what his plans are. Because we see no sign of real improvement in that regard.

There is one other point which arises from this which is most important. Under the proposed constitution for the Transkeian Territory it is provided that the portfolios of land and agriculture should fall to the Bantu. There is one clause, Clause 51, which provides that, in respect of departments falling within the functions of the Transkeian Government, it is recommended that certain aspects thereof which are of general national importance, should be retained by the Central Government, and forestry is mentioned particularly. Is soil conservation going to be retained, or is it not? What are the proposals of the Government in that regard? Because, Sir, you see the whole question of development of these areas depends on what you do in respect of land tenure and the improvement of the soil in the reserves, and if this is to be handed over and not excluded under Clause 51 of the draft constitution, then it is quite clear that the Government of the Republic loses control over the tempo of development in the reserves. And you see one is faced with this difficulty that the Tomlinson Commission itself said: “It must be emphasized that the agricultural stabilization and reclamation of the Bantu areas do not suffer for lack of the necessary technical knowledge; nor are the shortages in technical personnel and the funds unsurmountable. The real limiting factor is the Bantu himself.” It goes on to illustrate by telling the story of the sacred cows in India, which actually consume in one year as much food as the United States supply to India each year from its surplus stocks. In that case economics was defeated by theology. The question here is whether agricultural economics is going to be allowed to be defeated by Bantu custom or whether it is not. The responsibility is going to lie on this Government and this Minister, because that is going to determine to a very large extent the tempo of development in the reserves. I said that the hon. the Minister himself admits that economic development has been slow up to now, far slower than envisaged by the Tomlinson Commission. The Tomlinson Commission envisaged that there would be 50,000 new jobs a year for Bantu in the reserves, of which 20,000 (I thought, though I see Dr. Viljoen, the economist, says 28,000) should be in secondary industry, provided annually, and that jobs should be found in border industries for over 300,000.

Let us deal first just with the 20,000 a year which the Tomlinson Commission felt should find work in secondary industry in the reserves. The Minister and this Government have been on the job for seven years since Tomlinson reported. How many new secondary industries have been established and how much work are they providing? That is what we want to know. Before we vote this money, we want to know from this Minister how many new jobs is he providing. Because it seems to us that progress is so small that the whole thing is becoming something of a joke. You see, Sir, Tomlinson estimated that it would be necessary to spend £30,000,000 (R60,000,000) on this job. Experience has shown us that to create a new job in secondary industry requires an outlay of capital of approximately R2,000 per job. That was the experience under the Vinoni scheme, that was the experience in respect of Zwelitsha. In Swaziland the experience has not been quite as happy. There I think they have spent £18,000,000 over a period of years and only provided jobs for 15,000 males. But what do we know now about the position in the reserves? We know that so far from an expenditure which could be led to expect to supply that number of jobs, there has been spent over the last six years, excluding last year, roughly R5,250,000 on reserve development. Between 1952 and 1959 there were 22 Bantu employed in a small factory, and a few more in three sawmills: we know that 1,174 were set up as general dealers, and there were 223 in independent commercial activities in that period. But we are looking for 20,000 jobs a year. What is happening? The situation is that we are not keeping pace even with the natural growth of the population, and the whole system either has never got under way or seems to be breaking down. What are the figures in respect of the Bantu Investment Corporation? In 1961 we heard that they had lent R283,000. The hon. the Minister said a day or two ago that figure has been stepped up now, and they have loaned R420,000; that is to say, they have loaned approximately R140,000 in the last year. At R2,000 a job, it means 70 jobs. But the hon. gentleman is looking for 20,000 jobs a year. That is what the economist, Viljoen, said, in the reserves 20,000 jobs a year. What is the Minister doing to supply those jobs? I think we are entitled to ask once again of this Minister, on this Vote, more information on this subject. Because all we get is airy-fairy talking from the hon. gentleman, more encouragement from the hon. the Deputy Minister, but when we come down to the facts of the situation. this is all we have been able to find so far. I may be wrong. I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to get up and reveal that he is providing jobs for many tens of thousands more in secondary industry—not in other non-agricultural employment, in secondary industry. I think we are entitled to know what the position is. We have always said that we will never achieve anything like this timetable without the use of private White capital in the reserves. Dr. Rupert has said the same. Tomlinson said the same. The hon. the Minister agreed with that proposal when he was a member of the Tomlinson Commission; he signed the report. Now he has departed from that policy, and the results are there for all to see: He is unable to achieve his objectives. Not only can he not achieve the objectives laid down by the Tomlinson Commission, but it is quite clear that the flow of Natives out of the reserves is not only as great as it was in the past, but it is possibly greater than it ever was before.

Now let us have a look at the question of border industries, in respect of which the hon. the Minister has got to find work for 300,000 Natives according to his own figures drawn up by the Tomlinson Commission. I have no doubt the figure would be higher to-day. Now let me say at once that we on this side of the House are not against decentralization of industries. But as an incentive, as a means of achieving independent Bantustans, we don’t think the establishment of border industries helps at all. We don’t think it helps at all, because, in our opinion, it is merely a repetition of the so-called evils of integration in another place, or alternatively is enlarging the reserves in each case all around their perimeter by approximately 30 miles. But let us assume for a moment that the hon. the Minister could persuade us, let us assume that he could make out the case that border industries would help in the establishment of independent Bantustans. What has he done to date? The Economic Advisory Council reported last year in September. They have dealt with 54 applications; 22 were not supported; ten were approved in principle; six were being investigated; three were being assisted. Well, those three, according to the figures I have been able to get, involved an expenditure of R1,800,000 and would provide work, apart from Europeans, for 880 Bantu. The ten approved in principle were going to involve a capital outlay of R5,000,000, and, apart from Coloureds and Whites, would provide work for 1,550 Bantu. But the Minister is looking for 300,000 jobs in border industries. Is that all we have got after seven years? Remember Zwelitsha is employing well over 2,000 Bantu. We realized at the time what it meant. It seems that in seven years the Minister has found employment for just over 2,400 Bantu in border industries. Once again I hope my figures are incomplete. Once again I hope the hon. gentleman is able to come forward and say to us that he has established border industries which have found work for many thousands. But how long will it be before he has found work for those 300,000?

If that is the situation, then I think we are entitled to know whether his Government still stands by the time-table they laid down in 1955. In 1955 they laid down a time-table in the hone that by the turn of the century there would be equal numbers of Whites and Bantu in the European area. It seems to me he is falling further and further behind and the position is becoming ever more serious. Quite clearly the Government is falling behind for two very good reasons. The first is that, in order to achieve that time-table, the Minister knows that he is going to have to ask the European population in South Africa to make vast sacrifices, and up to now he has not had the courage to ask them to make those sacrifices. Because if those vast sums are to be spent in the reserves and on the borders of the reserves, what is going to be left of our total capital formation annually to be spent in the White areas and maintain the standard of living of the European population? That is the point one is up against. Our total capital formation annually is of the order of R600,000,000. If the Native birthrate is 150,000 annually, then approximately two-thirds of that is to be spent on the borders of the reserves and inside the reserves in order to maintain the present population ratio. Where is that money? Where is the indication that money is being spent? Where is the indication that the hon. the Minister, or his supporters are prepared to make that sacrifice? Instead of which what do we find? Here after seven years, we find the Minister sliding away from his policy of consolidation, not yet able to give us clearly the boundaries of any single future Bantustan, not even able to tell us how many parts of it there will be in many cases. The result: Uncertainty in the case of all border farmers, the development of their farms being slowed up or neglected, and because of the uncertainty many of them being prepared to sell at good prices (one admits “good prices”) to the Minister who thereby is able to extend those areas. To carry out this policy the whole economic development of the country is going to have to be undermined. And when it is all finished, Sir, what do we get? We get a position more dangerous for the Republic than the present position because of the policy which the hon. gentleman is going to apply. Look at the situation, Sir. Whereas we in the United Party want to retain South Africa as one integral whole, governed by a Government in which, so far as we can see into the future, White leadership will be retained, this hon. Minister and his Government want to dismember South Africa and divide it up into seven or eight independent Black states, some of which scattered about inside our own territory. Is it worth while making those sacrifices for that sort of thing? The objectives for which we stand are far wider than those of the Nationalist Party. All they seem to stand for is baasskap and the maintenance of the White race as an end in itself. Will they achieve it under this policy? Look at the dangers they are going to create. How will they be situated in the event of those independent states being hostile towards the Republic?

Do you want another election?

The hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop) asks if we want another election. I am not saying it was he, Sir, but there was a large number of hon. members on his side in the last election who refused ever to admit that it was the Prime Minister’s policy to give the Bantustans independence. On every possible occasion they ran away from their policy. There is not the slightest doubt that one one could hardly hold a meeting in a Nationalist area without getting the suggestion put to you at question time that you were misrepresenting Nationalist Party policy if you suggested to them that the Nationalist Party stood for the independence of the Bantustans. You talk about the safety of the White race in South Africa; you talk about its future. Our objective is a much wider one than that. But assume that our objective was the same as that of the Nationalist Party, surely, Sir, our policy is much more likely to achieve that objective than that of the Nationalist Party. Surely by retaining South Africa as one integral whole your defence problems are very much relieved; surely you are in a very much stronger position if you do not have foreign communities dotted about your State and instead you have an entire population, citizens of one State, with one common loyalty and one common patriotism and one Government. Let us go a little further. We of the United Party want to develop the reserves. The Government wants to develop the reserves. Both of us realize it is important. We are prepared to use White skills. White capital and White initiative for it. The Government dare not do it, because they know they are going to give those areas independence one day when they will probably lose their capital. They dare not do it. And the result is that their programme is falling ever behind-hand. Let us take another one. The path they are following may easily lead to the position where you will get a stage of development where we may find ourselves entwined with Article 73 of the Charter of the United Nations. It may happen and happen very easily. The policy of the United Party holds no dangers of that kind. Think of what a development such as that could mean to South Africa. [Time limit.]

On a point of explanation …

The hon. member cannot rise on a point of explanation. I take it that he wishes to raise a point of order.

Then I want to rise on a point of order and point out to you, Mr. Chairman, that you told me that I must not sit and read in this Committee. I take it that you called me to order under Rule 61.

Under 61 (2).

I just want to say that the book I was reading deals with the debate and that hon. members who have taken part in the debate have quoted from it.

The hon. member may read it if he is satisfied that is the position.

Mr. Chairman, I did not want to take part in the debate at this stage again, but I think it is only courtesy that I should reply at once to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He has touched upon a few points here with which I want to deal in the first place, and then I also want to deal for a moment with his policy to which he referred at the end of his speech, but which he did not see fit to enlarge upon. The hon. member immediately posed this question: “Are you still prepared to tackle the programme that you announced and on terms of which about half the Bantu will be out of the White areas by the year 2000?” For my part I want to say this very clearly to the hon. member that the Tomlinson Commission estimated that as from 1970 the process of development…

1978.

By that time we will find that the efflux from the White areas will begin. I myself suggested that the turning point would be reached in 1980. Well, those dates are so close to each other that we need not argue about the difference. As far as this matter is concerned, I want to say to the hon. member very definitely that not only do we say this but there is no doubt that by that time this process will have been completed. We have no doubt in that regard. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that we will not succeed in doing so, in the first place because there are many more Bantu in the cities to-day than there were formerly. I must say at once that I am rather surprised at some of the statements made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. In the first place some of those statements testified to a certain amount of irresponsibility, and in the second place to a certain amount of ignorance, and I say that with all respect. We have always adopted the attitude that as the pattern that existed in the past in connection with the development of the cities is carried further, there will be an increase in the numbers of Bantu in the White cities.

Blacker and blacker.

We have the four big industrial centres: Durban-Pinetown, Uitenhage-Port Elizabeth, the Western Cape and Johannesburg-Vereeniging.

What about Wonder-boom?

Wonderboom is coming! Wonderboom will solve this problem. The Tomlinson Commission set out the position very clearly. According to that pattern, by the year 2000, 6,000,000, 7,000,000 or 8,000,000 Bantu will be housed just in these four industrial centres, as against a little more than 2,000,000 Whites. The question was then posed: What hope would the White man, what hope would the White worker have in such a pattern? It was strongly recommended therefore—as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also said here yesterday—that a start should be made with the decentralization of industry. That is why the policy has been followed of giving special attention to the development of industries in the border areas, particularly industries which are based preponderantly on Bantu labour. As hon. members are aware themselves, this is not an easy matter; it is a process which requires time, and that is the position not only in South Africa. We find that this same policy of decentralization of industry, of bringing the workers to the industry, is being followed today in England. The time is past when all the workers are taken to the industries, because that creates social conditions which simply cannot be controlled. We have the example of America. I want to say here this afternoon without fear of contradiction that in the territories of the Red Indians America is following our policy to-day. She is following the policy of border area development in the Red Indian territories.

On the borders?

On the borders. That is how they describe it themselves. I wish I could show the hon. member a few excellent reports dealing with this subject. I say that in the Red Indian territories America is following this pattern to-day. [Interjection.] Sir, the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) always tries to ridicule one by adopting a sneering attitude. I think one should adopt a more decent attitude towards others. After all, hon. members opposite cannot say that what I am saying here is an untruth. I certainly would not come here and tell the House a pack of untruths. Surely it is unreasonable to create the impression here that America is not engaged in border area development in the Red Indian territories. I am prepared to give hon. members literature dealing with this subject. I think the hon. member ought to follow the elementary principles of courtesy. I have no objection to being attacked here by hon. members opposite.

I do not know what the hon. the Minister’s complaint is. Why is he using such language towards me? I have not said a single word.

Quite correct, Sir, there are other ways of doing it without necessarily saying “You are lying”. He is trying to play the same game that he played with the Prime Minister. It does not behove hon. members in this House to behave in that way towards one another. I say that America is following this same pattern, a pattern which is recognized to-day throughout the world. The basic principle, as stated here by the hon. Leader of the Opposition, is to try to achieve a decentralization of industry. I say again that it is recognized throughout the world that the planning of this takes time, but if hon. members go into the facts, they will admit that we have made very fine progress. The area between King William’s Town and East London has already been planned, and I am able to announce here to-day that there are various industralists who are very interested in investing large sums of money in East London. We are doing everything in our power at the moment to develop one of the towns there for the Bantu. I shall come back to this in a moment. The area at Wonderboom, in Pretoria (North), has been planned down to the last detail. There are various industrialists who are interested and the first industry will be established there next year. Large numbers of houses have already been built in the Bantu township. The industrialists are interested also in the area at Pinetown. There are various other areas where we are busy with planning. This is an important step and one which takes time, because the first thing to do is to get the industrialists interested. I can only say that the first time we discussed this matter with our own industrialists a few years ago, and when we told them where we proposed to start with our plans, the Chairman stood up and said, “We were under the impression that you wanted to establish these industries in the bundu; we did not think that it was going to be at East London; we did not think that it was going to be in Pretoria (North); we did not think that it was going to be at Pietermaritzburg; we did not think that it was going to be near Pinetown”. That is the impression that was created at the time, and it took time to establish the right climate. Hon. members should have taken the trouble to look at the report of the board which has control over this matte. If they had got in touch with the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, they could have got all these facts from him and then they would have seen what progress we have made in that respect. Numbers of industries have already been established which are employing many Bantu. I am thinking of one industry in Natal which has employed more than 2,000 Bantu.

In a border area

Yes, it is a border area. Go and look at the fine town that we are establishing there. Let me come now to the other noint. Hon. members want to know what we have done to create avenues area? of employment for the Bantu. Here again I want to contradict the erroneous statement made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He has said again that only £5,500,000 has been spent in recent years on the development of the Bantu.

Excluding last year.

Excluding last year. I have often stated here that since the appearance of the Tomlinson Report there has not been a single year in which we have spent less than £5,500,000 in the Bantu areas—more than R10,000,000. I published the official figures; I held a Press conference where I submitted all the documents to the Press representatives so that they could publish this information. And yet the hon. the Leader of the Opposition again comes along and says to the world, “During all this time they spent only R5,500,000.” Is that fair? Hon. members opposite must also bear in mind what I have often stated here, and that is that in the White areas we were charged with an onerous task because of the legacy that was left to us by our predecessors. It has cost us more than R200,000,000 to provide the necessary amenities in the White areas. We have done that work, and in addition to that we have spent a minimum of £5,500,000 or R11,000,000 every year on the development of the Bantu areas. Hon. members opposite cannot say therefore that we have been idle. But let me go further. We have been accelerating the pace every year. I told hon. members at the beginning with what difficulties we were faced. There are still many difficulties at certain places. We do not want to force this developmental work upon the Bantu, who is conservative by nature. The moment you try to force it upon him, you make an enemy of him. If you lead him, you make a friend of him and he himself helps to bring about the development. That is why we are not making such rapid progress as we could otherwise have had. But here I want to add that in terms of the sums of money which the Tomlinson Commission mentioned in its report, the expenditure per person, we have achieved wonderful results. I have often said before that to-day we are doing that same work at half the cost estimated by the Tomlinson Commission. The hon. member over there even went so far as to accuse me here of wishing to turn community labour into slave labour. He made that accusation simply because he does not understand the position. The fact of the matter is that by making use of the services of the community we are carrying out those same works at half the cost estimated by the Tomlinson Commission. I just want to repeat the example which I have mentioned so often in the past. Before this Government came into power it used to cost £15,000 to construct a dam. To-day we are building that dam at a cost of £800 or £1,000. These are absolute facts.

I wish you would come and build dams for me.

No, there is just this difference. The community itself builds the dam. That is one of the great principles which even UNO has laid down as one of the cornerstones for the development of Africa. An enormous saving is being effected, therefore, but not at the expense of the Bantu. I want to make sure at all costs that the hon. member over there does not come along to-morrow or the following day and accuse me and the Government of wasting this country’s money and thus lowering the standard of living of the Whites. That I want to obviate at all costs. We are tackling this matter scientifically. Since the hon. member is not aware of the facts that we publish from time to time, I want to invite him to accompany me personally to these places and to see what work is being done there. Then he can convince himself. What he is doing is to rely on a Sabra report of I do not know how many years ago.

Of last year.

Yes, but when were they there? They were not there last year. I suppose they were there about three or four years ago.

It was probably Prof. Olivier who wrote that report.

They were there 18 months ago.

Possibly they only visited one or two places. I can only say to the hon. member that his friend, Prof. Olivier, probably wrote this report. Now we know what the truth of the matter is. I have often asked the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) to go and have a look himself. He also wrote to me and asked me whether he could go and my reply was that he was free to go at once. I want to invite the hon. the Leader of the Opposition now, and I think he owes it to South Africa, to pay a visit to this area and to see what we are actually doing there. Let me say this immediately. We do not claim that we have employed an enormous number of Bantu. But we do claim that we have employed thousands of Bantu. I want to mention just a few examples. Go to Zwelitsha, for example. I had visited Zwelitsha previously and what I saw there was that a White contractor was working with a few Bantu and for the rest White workers were building those houses. To-day we find that those houses are being built by Bantu contractors with Bantu workers. We have our officials there who see to it that the work is done properly and I am proud of the work which the Bantu are doing there. These are people who would otherwise not have been in employment at all. To-day there are hundreds of them in employment and they are doing good work. If the hon. member comes to Wonderboom he will see that houses are being built there in the same way. Moreover, take the brickworks at that scheme. There is one Bantu making bricks and he is employing more than a hundred Bantu. But if the hon. member goes to Umlazi he will find that the Town Council there is acting as our agent but subject to the condition that it must employ Bantu labour. Unless I am mistaken there are about 1,000 Bantu employed at Umlazi, if not more. Come and look at our developmental works, and you will see that those works are being carried out not by Whites but by Bantu. Take the construction of roads and of dams. Wherever these schemes have been launched amongst the various ethnic groups we insist that they be carried out under White supervision, but we employ Bantu labour. Wherever possible, we make use of Bantu foremen. By following this method we have succeeded in employing Bantu on a scale on which no previous Government has ever done so, and I challenge any person to deny that. We cannot take any notice of the figures that the Tomlinson Commission mentioned. It is ridiculous …

But you signed the report.

We made estimates, and since the Leader of the Opposition has used those estimates as his yardstick, he owes a duty to this House to say what else he would have done to place 300,000 Bantu in employment. The Bantu everywhere admit to-day that but for the steps taken by this Government there would have been large-scale unemployment amongst them.

Mr. Chairman, I have been asked what progress we have made in connection with agricultural planning. The Progress that we have made in every sphere has been such that it can only be admired. That applies even to Zululand. Go and look at Nongoma. The hon. member for South Coast knows what the position was there, but let him come and look to-day. There has been proper planning and the area has been divided into residential zones, arable and pasture land. We have people there who have set up butcheries and others who have established shops. That is the position not only at Nongoma but at various other places in Zululand. But let me take hon. members to the Northern Transvaal. Throughout the years the position there was, as the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. Van der Byl) will know, that the Bantu were driven more and more into the mountains in search for water sponges and the area looked like a series of raw sores later on. The Bantu have now been properly established in their own townships. They have started erecting their churches and their shops and all that sort of thing. They are going in for crops; they have increased the carrying capacity of their land a great deal. Go and look at those beautiful hills at the other side of Pietersburg. That place used to look like a desert. The Chief himself, under our guidance, laid out a township with the help of his own people. He even went so far as to set aside their own residential area for those persons who are primarily in employment so that they could all be together. Even though there is still a great deal of work to be done, we have considerably increased the carrying capacity of the Bantu areas by means of this planning. There is no doubt about that. By making use of Bantu initiative and labour we are beginning to succeed in solving the very problem which was perhaps our greatest problem. The hon. the Leader of he Opposition cannot accuse us therefore of having done nothing over the past 14 years.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has once again referred sneeringly to the consolidation of those areas. But he himself and his lieutenant next to him talked about the consolidation of those areas. I wonder how they would set about it? The fact of the matter is that experience throughout Africa has taught us that the way in which we are tackling this matter is the only way in which it can be done, that is to say, it must be done in co-operation with the Bantu. I can also tell hon. members that in Natal we have excellent co-operation from the Bantu in consolidating those areas. There is also this basic fact that those Bantu areas cannot be developed unless they are properly consolidated. It is a pipe-dream to think that one can develop these Bantu areas without consolidating them. Those areas can only be developed once they have been properly consolidated. I say again that once the Territorial Authorities have been established there is no doubt that it will be possible to accelerate the entire tempo of consolidation. Surely to talk at this stage about how the lines will be drawn is, to say the least of it, childish. After all, this is a process which is being worked out in co-operation with the Bantu in the area concerned. We have no difficulty. In some places we naturally have misgivings because of the type of propaganda that is being made by hon. members on the other side. I am thinking, for example, of these maps that they published. [Interjections.] The hon. member over there published a map of all the protectorates in South Africa and on that map there was not a single White man to be seen—only Black people. The caption read: “This is the map of the Nationalist Party.” Then he published a different map of all these areas showing White people only and no Blacks. That is the sort of thing that we have to contend with. And then hon. members opposite come along and make this sort of statement.

When we introduced the Bantu Development Corporation legislation we said that this would be an attempt to assist the Bantu, particularly in industry and in commerce. The hon. member ridiculed it. I said that one of the main objects of our policy was to mobilize Bantu capital. Hon. members of the Opposition laughed at me. The hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) ridiculed it. I do not even want to talk about what the newspapers had to say about it. They said that we would never get that money. Mr. Chairman, it takes time to bring home this idea to the Bantu. But within the short space of the past year—not two years—but within the past year the Bantu have invested no less than R420,000 of their own money in that Corporation. Hon. members opposite laughed at me on one occasion when I told them about the Bantu in the Transkei who took £500 in notes out of his pocket. One of the encouraging things is what happened in the case of an old illiterate tribalized Bantu woman. She came to the Corporation and said, “I hear that the Government is going to use this money for the development of my own people. I have had this money buried underground all these years; I was afraid it would be stolen. Here is R600 that I want to invest. Now I shall be able to sleep safely at night. I am handing this money over to the Government and I know it will be safe in the Government’s hands.” This is only one of many examples, Mr. Chairman. [Laughter.] Hon. members opposite want to ridicule this. I mention this as a basic example of the state of affairs that we have amongst the Bantu. There are thousands of Bantu who had considerable cash sums and who refused to invest that money in the bank but who are now prepared to invest it with the Bantu Corporation. What I prophesied has been realized. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition now comes along and says, “If you provide employment at that rate, you will be providing employment to only 80 workers per annum.” But that was not the only purpose. The object of the Bantu Investment Corporation is that money should be invested in it from time to time, as the Government is doing. This is one of the facets where White capital is being taken and invested in the Bantu areas.

How much has been lent by the Corporation?

About £500,000 has already been lent. It so happens that the chairman of the Corporation came to see me only this morning. But there are two things which hon. members must not forget and that is that these applications have to be sifted very thoroughly because there are Whites, including attorneys, who induce the Bantu to apply for loans. But the fact of the matter is that to-day there is a large number of Bantu who are running very good businesses as the result of this assistance that has been given to them. At Zwelitsha I can show hon. members one of the most prosperous shops belonging to a person who was assisted by this Corporation. I think he has already repaid all his loans and to-day he is a prosperous person. Hon. members have no right to make these accusations. I challenge them to show me another place in Africa where this thing is being done with so much success. [Interjections.] Did the hon. member mention Ghana? I cannot buy golden beds for them. The fact of the matter is that we have started this process. I admit that it will take some time, but we are on the right road. I say that we have done enough to prove that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has no justification for the statement that he made here. The Bantu openly admit that there has never been a Government in South Africa which has done as much for their development as this Government. If there are people who expect us to lend large sums in order to put up white elephants, then they will be disappointed. We cannot ignore the lessons of other parts of Africa. Hon. members opposite say that we are afraid to ask our people to make sacrifices. I want to tell the Leader of the Opposition that I am not one of those prophets of doom who continually go about telling people what enormous sacrifices this policy will entail. That is ridiculous. When the Tomlinson Commission produced its report, it was the Opposition who said: “Look what it is going to cost this country; we cannot afford it.” The hon. member talked about £8,000,000,000. That is how they try to frighten the people. If we had told the people that it would cost more than £200,000,000 to clear up the slums in the cities, what would have happened? But to-day they do not regard it as a sacrifice. They have been prepared to make this contribution. As a matter of fact, this whole policy is based on the development of all the areas of South Africa. I want to say again that many members of the Opposition, who accuse me of doing too much for the Bantu, have an idea that the development of the Bantu areas is going to jeopardize the position of the White man, but that is an anachronism. The interesting lesson to be learned from the development of the under-developed countries is that it has benefited the Western nations; it has been proved that development stimulates development. Every development that takes place in the Bantu areas is also in the interests of the Whites. The Leader of the Opposition says that if large sums of money are spent to develop the Bantu areas, it will be such a blow to our economy that the standards of living of the Whites will necessarily be lowered. That is an anachronism. That is no longer admitted in the world to-day. I want to assure the hon. member that these things are being tackled carefully, with the assistance of the best brains that we have in South Africa, and that they are not prejudicing the White economy. We have one economic structure, like an umbrella, in South Africa, and that process of development is to the advantage of every part of this country. There is no gainsaying the fact that where we have set in motion a process of development, even the Whites in the area have derived great benefits from it.

I want to pause for a moment to deal with this attitude of the Leader of the Opposition. He says that they have the recipe; that all you have to do is to send White initiative there, as the Tomlinson Commission recommended, and then the whole problem will be solved. Sir, I have this difficulty with the Leader of the Opposition that he has great difficulty in grasping things. I have very often quoted from the Tomlinson Commission’s report to show that where it recommended that White initiative should be used, it qualified it by certain conditions. The fact of the matter is simply that one cannot find an industrialist anywhere who is prepared to assist with the development of the Bantu areas under those conditions because after a few years he has to hand over to the Bantu. Let the Leader of the Opposition mention the name of one industrialist who is prepared to do so. Nowhere in the whole of Africa have I come across an industrialist who has established his industry on this continent out of love for the White man; he establishes his industry with the sole purpose of making profits, and that is where the great difference lies. I wish the Leader of the Opposition would also read these books dealing with Africa. Great concern is being expressed to-day by the experts with regard to this development in Africa. They say that we must think seriously of warning White enterprise which has invested capital in Africa to plough back into those areas a much bigger percentage of their profits, otherwise there will be serious repercussions. They say that there is nothing which sows as much racial hatred as the feeling that your own territory’s natural resources are gradually being tapped by people of another race for their own benefit. We know what happened in Ghana. We know that Dr. Nkomo said the other day in Rhodesia that, if he were in power there, he would nationalize the big industries. There we are playing into the hands of the communist. That is why our approach is that, while we want to give White initiative an opportunity amongst the Bantu, the farthest that we can go is up to the border of the Bantu area, because in that way we give the Bantu the benefit of being able to develop within his own town and to develop his own tertiary industries, because the capital that he earns in the White area can then be used by him for further development. But the moment we allow private White capital to do the developmental work and to skim off the cream for itself, it must inevitably lead to clashes. But hon. members opposite refuse to understand that. I can understand why many White industrialists feel so strongly about this matter; it is because they know what huge profits are to be made there, but in that way we will render South Africa no service. We cannot follow a policy which sets in motion a process of integration. What was our reason for preserving the Bantu areas with their riches for the Bantu all these years? There is a very important idea underlying this historic process.

But I want to come back again for a moment to the Leader of the Opposition. I am sorry that he did not avail himself this afternoon of the opportunity to give use a clear picture of his policy. We had looked forward to it very keenly. It would have been a very good thing if we could have stated policy against policy. He might have been able to convert us but he has so little faith in his own policy that he said: “Let us rather keep away from this.” I want to deal with the few matters of principle which the hon. member mentioned, and here I want to refer to his speech at De Aar. I regard that speech as one of the most dangerous speeches that the Leader of a responsible party has ever made in South Africa. The principles which he enunciated there go much deeper and their scope is much greater than many people realize. I want to deal with just a few of them, because this is all we have to work on; I want to add that what he said was very vague and weak. He stated that one of the principles of his party was that in the future Coloureds would be represented in this House and in the Other Place by Coloureds.

But I said the same thing here last year, and then you almost agreed with me.

No, I do not agree with that. He says that Coloureds will be represented here by Coloureds. [Interjection.] The hon. member says that we must talk about Natives and not about Coloureds now; he is becoming afraid. I am talking about the principles that he laid down in his speech. The second statement that he made —and he made it there for the first time— was that the Coloureds must gradually be accepted as part of the Western group.

I said that two years ago already.

No, it was never put that way. The implication is that they must gradually be accepted as part of the Western group and that can only mean that we must start with a gradual process of integration. [Interjections.] That is why he says that the group areas must be abolished. And then he goes even further. He has already said that the Indian must also be given representation in this House, but in that respect his plan is not very clear. We can only assume that the Indians are to be given representation on more or less the same basis as the Coloureds. Or does the hon. member want to give them representation on some other basis? We do not know, but in 1946 General Smuts gave them the franchise and representation in this Parliament, and the Indians rejected it. Then he goes on to say that initially the Bantu will be given eight representatives in this House, White representatives, and six in the Other Place, but he says that nobody can say that they will always be satisfied with that, and that eventually they will have to be represented here by their own people. [Interjections.] I am quoting from the Cape Argus and the Cape Times. If the hon. member does not agree with the Cape Times and the Cape Argus, he should have put them in their place. That is what I would have done. Then he makes another important statement; he says that all races will be allowed to participate in the executive as well as the administrative functions of this country, but the most serious of all, if words have any meaning, is his statement that they will be allowed to participate in the whole administrative and executive machinery of the Government. In other words, they will have to be represented in the Cabinet, otherwise what functions would they have? They will have to be absorbed into the Public Service, otherwise what functions would they have? They will also have to be absorbed into the army. Here we have it in black and white. That is why I say it is one of the most dangerous statements that has ever been made by any leader. What basic difference is there between the United Party and the Liberal Party? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says he now has to fight on two fronts, against the Progressive Party and against the National Party. I ask in principle, what difference is there between them? It is simply a question of time and nothing else. It is not a matter of principle. In other words, he is fighting with the Progressive Party against the National Party. I want to come now to the implications of that—and here we find the most serious implications for this country. The Leader of the Opposition says that he wants to establish a federation in which all the tensions of the world will suddenly be removed and where you will get everybody to live in peace and love as citizens of the same State and where there will be no vestige of discrimination. He says that if he comes into power to-day, he will immediately repeal a whole series of laws enacted by us, and then he mentions the Bantu Universities Act, the Immorality Act, etc. But the dangerous thing is that he wants to repeal all discriminatory legislation, and that is precisely what the old Natives’ Representative Council asked for at the time, a request with which even Mr. Hofmeyr could not agree. What are the implications? The hon. member will put the Coloureds back on to the common roll, and in doing so he will be handing the Cape Province over to them. But he also recognizes them as part of the Western group. Does the hon. member want to tell me that the Indians would be satisfied with that—the Indians who adopt the attitude that they are more civilized than the Coloureds?

On a point of order, is all this relevant?

Order! The hon. the Minister must not go too deeply into the question of the Indians and the Coloureds.

I shall not go into it very deeply. The Leader of the Opposition talked about his policy. I am simply pointing out that his policy of race federation will not bring peace, and my question to him is whether the Indians would be satisfied if he gave all those rights to the Coloureds but not to them?

The hon. the Minister has asked his question now and he must leave it at that.

Surely we can reply to it?

I bow to your ruling, Sir, but his solution of our racial problem is the federation plan, and I must deal with that federation plan in all its facets. I want to come to the Bantu, but I am in this difficulty now that I cannot deal with what the Bantu’s reaction will be to this. [Interjections.] I can understand why the hon. member for Transkeian Territories is so concerned.

The hon. the Minister may deal with the Bantu’s reaction, but he must not go too deeply into the position of the Coloureds and the Indians.

The Indians claim that they are more civilized than the Coloureds. They want the same rights as the Coloureds. All that you achieve here therefore is that not only do you not resolve the racial issues as between the Indians and the Coloureds but you create a new issue as far as they are concerned and you also create new problems for the Whites. [Interjections.] Our policy has nothing to do with a race federation. In a race federation it is assumed that full rights will be given to each national group, and I am pointing out that not only will it create tension between them, but that it will also create tension between them and the White man because they will say, “What sort of White man is governing in South Africa who gives one thing to one group and another thing to another group, now that all discriminatory laws have been repealed?” That is one thing which all Coloured races have in common. They expect the White man to carry out his word of honour, and they regard any plan which does not deal with them honestly as a breach of the word of honour of the White man. That is why so many of the Africa leaders, including leaders in Rhodesia, do not hesitate to defend the policy of apartheid because they say that it is at least an honest policy.

But it is not only the Indian who is going to feel this way. How are my Bantu people going to feel about it? If greater rights are given to the Coloureds and the Indians than to the Zulus, do they think that the Zulus would be satisfied with it? If they do, then they do not know the Zulus. You will then be creating a greater evil than ever before and you will be creating hatred not only against the Indian and the Coloured but also against the White man, because then the Zulus will say, “You have betrayed us; here we have a race federation which removes all discrimination, and look how we are being discriminated against.” How would the rest of the Bantu population feel about it? They are a proud people. There is one thing for which this Government will still be praised, and that is the fact that in their own areas the Bantu will be able to rise to the same heights as the White man or the Coloured or the Indian. Therein lies the strength of our policy, but with this policy of the United Party you will be creating racial hatred, which is one of the most dangerous things for South Africa.

But I want to deal briefly with one further point. The hon. the Leader says, “Here we have the fine example of Cyprus.” He had to go to Cyprus to seek inspiration for his federation plan. I must say that was a terrible expedition, because nowhere in the whole of Africa do we find that a race federation plan is able to work on that basis. We do not find it in Asia or in South America; we find it nowhere. But he goes to Cyprus for his plan. It is an old plan which was put into operation just recently and it only affects the Cypriots and the Turks. But it must not be forgotten that, as far as civilization is concerned, they are more or less at the same level. The position there cannot be compared with that in South Africa. I repeat, therefore, that here we have the tragic phenomenon that a leader of a big political party, instead of seeking inspiration for the future of his party from the historic processes of his own nation, which is able to boast of 300 years of experience, rejects that and goes to Cyprus for inspiration. I must say in all honesty that I have come across tragic happenings for a political party, but this is the most tragic in the history of the constitutional development of the world. The question was posed to one of the leaders on the other side: “How can you lay down those principles?” And do you know what the reply was? The reply was that only certain broad principles were being laid down and that it was being left to the best constitutional lawyers to work out the details. Sir, imagine a party having so little faith in its own case and in the principles for which it stands that it has to get advocates to solve its problems for it! And the result will be that they will make the same mess of it that these so-called great advocates made of the constitutions in other parts of Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on stating categorically and accepting in this House the undertaking that we have been trying for so long to get from the Government. That is, his clear undertaking that he believes he will fulfil his objective—it is still his party’s policy to achieve that objective —of getting equal numbers of Whites and Bantu in the White area by the year 2000. I want to congratulate him on having the courage to come out frankly with that when the hon. the Prime Minister earlier this Session. possibly with greater wisdom, left the matter open. I want to thank the Minister for that. May I point out to him, now that he has given this undertaking, that not only are all the indications in the opposite direction but he will know that the number of Bantu in our big industrial complexes, away from the borders of the reserves, has increased by over 1,000,000 during the last 11 years. He will also know that those permanently settled in those areas were estimated at 1,250,000 in about 1953 by the Tomlinson Commission. I believe I am correct in saying that figure has to-day considerably increased. The hon. the Minister also knows that his expenditure on development in the reserves is well below the minimum recommended by the Tomlinson Commission, recommended in that report which he himself signed. I believe, and I think all of us this side of the House believe that he has lost that sense of urgency with which the report was imbued and with which it hoped its recommendations would be carried out. The Tomlinson Commission recommended the expenditure of £10,000,000 per year for ten years on the development of the reserves. I think they recommended that as a minimum. I want to apologize to the hon. the Minister for a wrong figure I gave. I have made an error; I was thinking of something else. I believe that the correct figure is that in no year prior to the last Budget year—not this one but the last Budget year—was more than £5,250,000 spent on the development of the reserves in one year. I said “over all I meant to say in one year.

To test the hon. Minister’s progress I have asked him about the number of jobs created inside the reserves as a result of the carrying out of his policy and the number of jobs created in border industries as a result of the application of his policy. What did we have from the hon. gentleman? A few vague examples. He said that I would be surprised if I could see what was happening here or there or the other place. He invited me to travel round the border industries with him. But no where did he give me the numbers. What is the position, Sir? Doesn’t he know what those figures are or is he ashamed to tell us? It must be one or the other. Surely he knows. Why is it that he won’t tell us? We have been asking for these figures since the beginning of the Session and we never got them at any time. I can see what is happening: He is trying to hide behind the difficulties with which, he says, the Government has had to contend when it came into power. Sir, that is 14 years ago. How long is it going to take them to get over those difficulties? How long do they want? Does he want another 14 years to get over those difficulties?

Two years.

In 1955 the hon. the Minister said: “Give me two years and I will show you a new South Africa.” Ah, Sir, but he said the Press and the Opposition must leave him alone! I wonder how much longer we must give him now, because we can see very, very little change. He talks about the new types of jobs the Bantu are doing. It will be a terrible thing if he has not taught them anything new in 14 years, Sir. I do not see that shows any wonderful development.

I want the hon. the Minister to know that we are not satisfied. We want the country to know that we are not satisfied. We do not believe that this development is going according to plan. We do not believe that it has any hope whatever of being achieved in the time-table set down by the Government. We believe that the difficulties are such that unless there are enormous sacrifices there will never be an achievement of this sort of thing. It is noticeable, Sir, that the hon. gentleman is now making excuses in the financial sphere. I know that is the one thing that really worries these hon. members; they are worried about the financial implications. He is making excuses for not having used private White capital. He says private capital would not have accepted the terms laid down by the Tomlinson Commission. Has he ever tried, Sir? Ever since that commission reported we were told: No private White capital. Until this Session when the hon. the Prime Minister said he would accept it under certain terms. Has the Minister tried? How can he say that? Is he not prepared to accept it on the basis suggested by Dr. Anton Rupert? Or has he not tried that either? He says the Bantu Development Corporation has invested more than £500,000 but he does not say how many jobs it has created. Once again we are in the dark. In one breath he tells us that he is not going to consolidate; in the next breath he says you cannot develop without consolidation. What is he doing, Sir? I believe what he is really doing is he is removing a few Black spots. I believe he is going to extend the reserves and I believe he is not prepared to tell us where the boundaries are to be until he knows what Black spots he can remove. I believe that he is still feeling his way and that he cannot as yet tell us where the boundaries of those Bantustans are going to be. What does he do? He turns round and says: “You would have to consolidate if you were in power.” Of course, Sir, he knows that we would not. The whole advantage of the race federation scheme is that we would not have to consolidate. We would avoid the dangers of not consolidating. We have never spoken of consolidation that I know of. We would avoid those dangers, because under our scheme the Bantu will remain citizens of the Republic of South Africa. We are not going to dismember the country. They are not going to be foreigners, they will not belong to foreign states. They will not be working in different areas and moving from one area to the other in the manner in which the hon. gentleman has not yet told us how it will be achieved. The hon. gentleman is still running away from the Tomlinson maps which he signed, but he still cannot indicate the boundaries to us. How is it that he knew so much about them then and he cannot tell us now where those boundaries are going to be? Now he is trying to draw a red herring across the trail by referring to the maps used by this Party in elections showing the Protectorates as White. But, of course, Sir, that is one of the fundamental differences between his policy and ours. We want to see the Protectorates incorporated in Southern Africa. And we can do it under our race federation scheme. Under his policy he has had to abandon the idea. He knows they are going to remain black-controlled areas and that is why he is so sensitive about it. They do not want them, Sir. That is the truth of the matter and he does not like our mentioning it. Then we had this plaintive cry: Where else in Africa has there been more development than in South Africa? Sir, that is not his fault. That is the fault of private enterprise in South Africa. That is due to the fact that our population is so constituted that We have by far the highest ratio between Black and White on the Continent of Africa. Here it is 1 to 4. In the Federation it is 1 to 26; in Kenya it is 1 to 94; in the Congo it is 1 to 124; in Tanganyika it 1 to 409; in Ghana, which my hon. friend opposite is always mentioning, it is 1 to 1,000. That means that the leadership of the White man to advance that development is not present to the same extent as in South Africa. [Time limit.]

What I have found peculiar in the debate so far is the fact that hon. members opposite are so impatient to know everything that is going to happen in such a short time. When the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Niemand) spoke this afternoon he quoted what a former Leader of the United Party had said.

Out of context.

What I find peculiar is that so far not a single member has reacted to what the hon. member has said. I expected the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to get up and to reply and to tell us why he has changed his policy the way he has. The hon. Leader of the Opposition did not say a word about that, however. I got into trouble with the Chairman this afternoon because I had a book in my hand. Unfortunately I am now going to quote from that book. It deals with the debate which we are having at the moment. I, too, wish to quote what a certain person said about the development and the past of the Afrikaner nation and about the Bantu policy. The writer says that our forefathers possibly did not see the difference between White and non-White, between Bantu and White, as we see it to-day. He says it has become traditional amongst the White people in South Africa to make a big difference between White and non-White. He says there should not be a mixing of blood between the two races. The writer then goes on and says this—

He goes on and says that, as far as the Transkeian territory is concerned, an appendix was added to the South Africa Act which had to be carried out at a later stage. He says that—

He goes on and he says this—

I want to tell you who the person was who said that, Mr. Chairman. I have been quoting from a book by the late Gen. Smuts, Plans for a Better World. He goes on and says this—

Gen. Smuts also said this—

It is not the National Party who is talking here. Sir; it is the Leader of the United Party, who occupied the bench which my hon. friend over there is occupying to-night. I quote further—

That is what Gen. Smuts says, but the Leader of the Opposition wants the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration to give him all the details this evening—

It is not I who is saying that, Sir, it is the deceased Leader of the United Party when they were still a party and a united party at that. He goes on to say—

If you did not know that it was Gen. Smuts who said this, Mr. Chairman, you would have thought it was the Prime Minister with his iniquitous Bantu policy! You will remember, Mr. Chairman, that we have already been blamed in this House of using 3,000,000 White people in this country for military purposes, and that we did not want to use the non-Whites, the Bantu, for military service. I just want to read what Gen. Smuts said in that connection—

Mr. Chairman, that was what Gen. Smuts said, the then Leader of the United Party. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Order! If the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) wishes to put a question, he should do so in the customary manner.

Mr. Chairman, I was reading from the book Plans for a Better World, which comprises of speeches by Gen. Smuts. The passage I have just read is from a speech which he made on the occasion of a dinner in honour of Lord Selborne in the Savoy Hotel on 22 May 1917. Mr. Chairman, can you believe it that we have reached a stage where the United Party laugh at the foolishness of their former Leader? [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I must congratulate the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop) that in the year 1962 he has reached the point which the late General Smuts reached in 1917. But I do not believe he was supporting General Smuts in 1917. I believe he opposed him even then. In return I would like to read to the hon. member what General Smuts wrote in 1929 when he delivered the Oxford lectures. This was what he said—

Now, Sir, when the hon. gentleman has read these lectures I have no doubt whatsoever that he will come over to this side of the House.

I was dealing, Sir, with the hon. the Minister. I had reached the stage of his comparison with the rest of Africa. In defence of a policy which he has not carried out and which I do not believe he is going to find it easy to carry out, he says “development in the reserves will not endanger the Whites.” Sir, if he means economic development I agree with him completely. But what will endanger the Whites, what will undermine the whole of Western civilization as we know it here in South Africa, is the political development of the reserves which he and his party envisage. There is not the slightest doubt about that. I believe it will lead to the undermining of Western civilization in this country. I stated earlier some of those reasons and indicated that it would lead to the dismemberment of South Africa into a number of states which might be hostile to each other; I made some mention of the defence problems, of the possibility that those independent states might enter into treaties of friendship, treaties hostile to the remainder of South Africa, with states inimical to us. I pointed to some of the anomalies. There are a few more. Both that side and this side of the House realize the danger of creating full registered Native trade unions with the right to strike. Under the policy of this hon. gentleman what is going to happen when there is self administration in the reserves? What is going to happen to the border industries when those reserves get their independence and decide for themselves whether they will have trade unions and whether they will have the right to strike or not? The hon. the Minister and that side of the House and we ourselves have seen the danger of arming Natives in our army. Yet they are prepared to create from these reserves independent Native states where their own Minister of Defence says they will be able to have their own independent Native army. I go further, they have found it impossible to remain a member of a Commonwealth where the White states were in the majority. Yet they envisage now a commonwealth in which there will be seven or eight Black states and one mixed State. How long will they remain a member of that commonwealth? For how long will they be able to rely on membership of that commonwealth for their defence? It is quite clear, Sir, that the step which they have taken in respect of the Transkei, the steps they envisage, have done nothing to bring them friends in the outside world, have done nothing to change world opinion of this Government and the policy of apartheid. Whereas by contrast, Sir, even the small changes which we envisage as indicative of a change of direction, we are satisfied will lead to a different approach to South Africa. They have done something else, Sir. They have embarked on a path where they cannot turn back. They have made promises to the Africans and they are not a people to whom you can go on making promises and then break them. How can they turn back when the time comes when they find that they are on a dangerous road? What hope have they of retaining Western civilization here when the very bastion from which they should defend that civilization is going to be endangered by the results of their policy, when the largest part of our labour force will consist of citizens of foreign states, where they could be a fifth column in South Africa, where a labour dispute could lead to an international incident? What do they think is going to happen, Sir, when the Natives living in our area are going to be called upon to vote for a Government, shall we say, in the Transkei or in some other Native area? Will they not vote for a government which they believe will press their claims to further rights here in the Republic as we know it. I go further, Sir. Will they not seek the friendship of Black states in other parts of Africa that will sponsor the cause of the ruthless proletariat here in the mixed State? When they say that this is a policy which is justified because it will preserve the White race here, which is their objective—it is only part of our objective— I think that what they are doing is not to preserve the White race, they are preparing a sepulchre for the White race. I am not surprised, Sir, that the hon. the Minister tried to draw a red herring across the trail by referring to my speech at De Aar. That is no wonder. But what is most significant is that what he objects to most in that policy seem to be the plans in respect of the Indians and the Coloureds. in fact, Sir, he does not really seem to mind the plans for the Natives very much, except that they should have representation here and the remote possibility that they might sit here themselves. It almost seemed to me, in his criticism, that he liked some of my plans. Let me deal with the Indians and the Coloureds and what I said at De Aar. You know, Sir, I have great respect for this Minister.

We are dealing with Bantu affairs.

But when the Minister comes and says that I said these things for the first time at De Aar, he reminds me of Rip van Winkle. I think he has been reading too much. He must have fallen asleep for at least 18 months. What I said about Indians and Coloureds is exactly what I said 18 months ago when I outlined the policy of ordered advance.

Ordered advance.

Quite right, ordered advance. The hon. member has just woken up and discovered that, isn’t it extraordinary! As to both the Coloureds and the Indians the policy was defended in this House in debate with the hon. the Prime Minister last year. Here is what I said about the Coloureds, if you will allow me to read it, Sir. I will not take it too far. There is just one passage which I think I should read—

I told the Prime Minister that—

I said, Sir, that if they were that good and they could get elected here on a common roll of Europeans and Coloureds then I saw no reason why they should not be allowed to represent the people who elected them in this House. But the hon. gentleman knows very well that the Burger, his own political party organ in Cape Town, expressed strong views in favour of a policy of allowing Coloureds to sit in this House.

Order! I have allowed the hon. the Leader of the Opposition a great deal of latitude, but I think he should now return to the Vote.

Very well, Sir. In accordance with your ruling, Sir, I pass at once to the Indians. The hon. the Minister said how dangerous this policy would be as far as the Indians were concerned, they regarded themselves as more civilized than the Coloureds, they would demand more. [Time limit.]

I am not going to say anything about the speech of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition with reference to the Coloureds. I should like, in the first place, to come to the map referred to here by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. If there is one person who should not dare to refer to the maps that have been used and exhibited in South Africa during an election time, it is the Leader of the Opposition himself, and the United Party, for they went forth and tried to scare the voters with a falsified map.

It is the Minister’s map.

I am putting it very clearly, Mr. Chairman. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition came to Piet Retief with a map in which Piet Retief was shown as being within a Black state. They wished to create a wrong impression in South Africa by means of that map, pretending that this policy of separate development was going to make South Africa Black, and their map would make South Africa White. According to their map, the non-Whites would have disappeared completely into thin air. Mr. Chairman, a Party that flaunted a map in this manner, should not come to this House of Assembly and refer to maps.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition persistently fired questions at the hon. Minister in connection with development in the Bantu homelands. He took the Tomlinson Report as his norm on which he based his questions. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the United Party surely know that the Government tabled a White Paper Report in which the Government announced what portion of the Tomlinson Report they were going to give effect to, and how they were going to give effect to it. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants to approach this matter in the proper perspective, he should not use the Tomlinson Report as his criterion, but he should use that White Paper as his criterion. He should use that White Paper Report that is based on the Tomlinson Report as his criterion.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) ought to know that the Government does not adopt all reports just as they are. Many reports are tabled. The Government then announces which portions of that Report it is going to apply, and which it is not going to apply. The Government announces what is not practicable and what cannot be carried out in that report. Therefore the hon. member should realize that if he wishes to see the matter in the proper perspective, he should read the contents of that White Paper report for in that White Paper the Government announced to which recommendation of the Tomlinson Report it proposes to give effect, and which not. In the White Paper the Government announced that it was not going to spend so much per annum as the Tomlinson Report recommended. In the White Paper the Government announced that it was not going to permit private White or foreign capital and initiative for development in the Bantu homelands. So where the leader of his party put questions that were based solely on the Tomlinson Report, the leader of his Party was misleading him also with the information.

Those are the facts he quoted.

I should like first to put this matter very clearly, that the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development during the recent short time succeeded in rendering South Africa a serise that cannot be measured, the serice of creating trust in the various Bantu ethnic groups, a service in which he brought about the proper human relations between those Bantu ethnic groups and White South Africa. I should like to illustrate that, and I should like the hon. members Opposite to try to analyse with me this manner in which the Bantu himself puts it, and see what that analysis reveals. I was fortunate enough to be present when the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development established the Bantu Territorial Authority at Ngomo, and there Cyprian presented him with a tiger skin kaross, and when that kaross was presented, he said this to the Minister: This kaross carries a message, arid I should like you to carry this message throughout South Africa. He pointed to the kaross and in the pure Bantu traditional manner, in elegant metaphor in which they can say a thing, he said—

[Laughter.] The hon. members are laughing now, but it is the hollow laugh of the ignorant, for then he said this—

And then he said this—

The message he wished to impart on behalf of the Zulu nation by means of this thought of his, was this, that he as a Bantu wants to believe that we in this country will have peace, and that we shall have harmony when the Goverment with its parallel development and separate development policy looks after both racial groups simultaneously without mixing them in a federation hotchpotch. For says he, once he is mixed into the federation hotchpotch, he becomes a hyena or a wolf, and then he is a monstrosity that is scorned. I should like to put it very plainly: This federation plan of the United Party is to extinguish those colour spots, the white and the black spots, and to make a wolf or a hyena of him, a stinking animal that lives only on carrion. I go further and I want the United Party to realize that each of these Bantu ethnic groups still has its own pride, their own sense of independence and their own sense of being human, and they do not wish to be artificial Whites they do not wish to be artificial Occidentals …

White kaffirs.

They do not wish to be White kaffirs, as someone says here. They wish to be respected in their own separateness and in their minds they are satisfied and content, and we have to thank this Minister that they have been satisfied in South Africa, that they are being looked after as the Whites are being looked after, without hybridization or intermingling. [Time limit.]

I was dealing with the hon. Minister’s statements in respect of the Indian Community that they would be dissatisfied because the Coloureds would get more than they would. Now. Sir, does it lie in his mouth to make that comparison? Is he not giving the Coloureds more to-day than the Indians? Is his party not doing that? Has he not told us “elke volksgroep sal sv volle regte kry in sy eie volkskring” and he denies the Indians and the Coloureds the right of selfdetermination, but he gives it to the Bantu. It does not lie in his mouth. Sir. to make comparisons or criticisms of that kind.

Then the hon. gentleman goes on and be complains because I should have suggested that the non-Europeans should participate in the administrative and executive functions of government and that thereby I am selling down the river 300 years of tradition and history in South Africa. Sir, what did I say exactly— Here it is—

Is the hon. the Minister himself not giving non-europeans in South Africa the opportunity to participate in the administrative functions of the various departments? Is he not using non-Europeans in his own department in certain capacities? Is there not a Cape Coloured Advisory Council, a council for Coloured Affairs to which the hon. the Prime Minister is going to give executive powers? Has he not promised them a prime minister and a cabinet? Has he not said the same thing about the Indians? Sir, his party is departing from 300 years of tradition in South Africa! Whoever heard more ridiculous criticism from a responsible Minister? Then the hon. gentleman goes on and complains because I had said, according to him, that the Natives would be represented to begin with by Europeans and later by Africans. May I read to him exactly what I said—

This hon. gentleman is prepared to be a member of a commonwealth in which there is going to be consulation of the closest kind, with the seven or eight Black prime ministers and the Prime Minister of the Republic as he will exist then. He hopes that he will retain their friendship. He knows very well that once they are independent states, he will have to have Black ambassadors here to represent them in the White states. And he knows that he will have to have White ambassadors there to represent South Africa. If he is prepared to meet them on that level, what objection has he to their representing their own people in this Parliament should the time arrive, and he and his party have gone so far along that road that it is not possible to do otherwise, and if it carries with it the support of the population.

But then the hon. gentleman makes a further statement. He says that we on this side stand for the removal of all discrimination. Now I want to read just one passage—

How dare the hon. gentleman come along and suggest that we on this side of the house are determined to remove all discriminatory laws forthwith and have complete equality?

The hon. gentleman has also complained about the vagueness of the race federation policy. Again I ask, does it lie in his mouth to complain about vagueness? Is it not he and his party who tried to get the Coloureds off the Common Roll without a two-thirds majority? Is it not he and his party who created the High Court of Parliament without ever consulting the electorate about it? Is it not he and his party who went to the country in 1953 and asked for a blank cheque to remove the Coloureds from the Common Roll and never said a word about the enlarged Senate at any time? How dare they come and talk to us about vagueness? The fundamental provisions remain, Sir, as I have outlined them before in this House: (1) Willingness to share the fruits of civilization we created here with those non-Europeans who have shown the capacity to take joint responsibility with us for the future development of South Africa. But that does not mean that we are prepared to hand over to a primitive proletariat. In fact so far from that are we that we stand for the maintenance of White leadership in the sense of White political influence for the foreseeable future in South Africa. We differ from that hon. gentleman and his party because we stand to increase and strengthen the White population of South Africa. For years we have been struggling to try and get them to follow in our footsteps. At long last we have got a Minister of Immigration appointed. Thirdly we believe in the principle of consultation at all levels. Fourthly, we have made it perfectly clear that you cannot get the co-operation of people unless you respect their dignity as human beings. I believe that hon. members on the other side are beginning to appreciate that as well, judging by some of the instructions they have given to their police and members of the Railway staff and others. Then I have said that the main principles of a race federation are that each group shall have a determined share in Parliament, and that by the introduction of federal elements into the Constitution there would be a safeguarding of the rights of individuals, of groups and geographical units, and lastly that you could group areas essentially Black with areas essentially Black and White with White for administrative purposes as political units.

What is worrying the hon. Minister about that? We still stand on the fundamental principles on which we always stood, one of which is the maintenance of White leadership.

Mr. Chairman, White leadership in the mouth of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition sounds more like scorn than as political goodwill. For the policy he is advocating carries in it the germ of the destruction of the object he purports to seek to achieve. The hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) last night said that the policy of the National Party was not the same in the past as the policy we are now advocating. Other members opposite supplemented it further and the hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) went so far as to say that we have completely changed our front as regards our colour policy. Well, General Smuts was quoted to-day by the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop) and a short while later the hon. the Leader of the Opposition quoted an entirely different point of view again. It merely shows that the United Party’s policy has always been uncertain. They have never adopted a direct responsible point of view in respect of colour policy, but always an opportunistic standpoint. They say they have never changed their policy. Let me ask the hon. member this: If then they have never changed their policy, how is it then that when they moved to the left they lost their conservative element, which is sitting on this side of the House today. If their policy had remained the same, surely these people would still have been with them. And when they moved to the right, when they moved too far to the right, their former political comrades in arms, the Progressive Party, left, and now we have sitting over there the most attractive member with the most repulsive policy to-day, the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman). I was under the impression that during the last election the Leader of the Opposition gave his party a beautiful instruction, namely to destroy the leftists, including the hon. member for Houghton, but I am unable to congratulate them for that hon. member is still there. What do we find to-day? To-day they are standing on the same level. The hon. member for Houghton says we used force when we granted the constitution to the Natives in the Transkei, and she advocates a multi-racial constitution. But that is the same note we had from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He is also a protagonist of a multiracial constitution, isn’t he? Let us be very clear to-night, please, that this movement to the left and to the right of the United Party, first losing its left wing and then its right wing, weakened them completely, but in reality it was apartheid that clipped their wings in this manner. They are unable to rise in politics any longer, and that is why they fall so flat as they did to-night. They say we have turned a somersault. With them it is left and right, they have been completely flabbergasted by the policy of apartheid. No wonder they no longer have a sober and clear policy, but such a rotten thing as the one announced at De Aar. What we have experienced here during the last few days amounts only to this: As in 1948, when we came into power, the United Party, the Liberals, the leftists who now also have the Progressive Party over there, as well as the communists in our country, launched persistent and embittered attacks on the traditional policy of the Whites in our country. But what do we find now, and that is why they are so embittered. Why is it now that the Leader of the Opposition has to participate in this debate more than ever before? Because after 14 years of National Party government, notwithstanding all the, shall I say, reckless fighting tactics and sowing of suspicion against the traditional policy of South Africa, of the White man in regard to colour policy, there are unmistakable indications that the policy of apartheid is irresistibly on the way to giving the ideal and final solution to our complicated colour problem in this country. That is the reason why the members are making such a hullabaloo. They talk about new policies. No, it is the same responsible Government and it is the same rotten Opposition. It is the same policy of apartheid and it is the same old policy of integration we are dealing with to-night. The conflict in this Parliament is nothing else than a conflict between irreconcilable, conflicting and inconsistent policies in the country during recent years. But it has one good side. It has put the colour problem in the forefront of political interest. We have a 14-year-old battle, an exchange of thoughts between the two policies of integration and apartheid, but what has crystallized out of it? The fact that the right state of mind has arisen among the Whites, and that state of mind exists among the Whites, promotes apartheid, the traditional policy of the White man in our country. Apartheid has gripped the imagination of the White voters …

Slowly!

It has gripped the imagination of the White man in our country except that of the ignorant and stupid member who just interrupted me now.

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

I withdraw. The hon. member is not stupid, but precisely because he is intelligent, I am disappointed that he comes forward with such a stupid policy. I should like to put it very plainly to-night that the vast majority of the Whites in our country do not want a hotch potch community: they do not want a multi-racial state, and still less do they want a multi-racial Parliament. They do not want a state of affairs where eventually you are going to have a kind of equality between White and non-White. Nor do they desire a state of affairs that is going to lead to hybridization in this country. But the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has announced here that he is going to repeal the Immorality Act.

No.

But surely then it is a good law we have placed on the Statute Book and that is now being supported by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The vast majority of the Whites do not want a mixed community where you will have hybridization later that must inevitably lead to the supremacy of the Black man. And for the very reason that this side of the House takes this state of mind into consideration, that we are now able to develop our policy of apartheid so easily and carry it out so easily. The Leader of the Opposition comes along and says that he stands for White leadership. That is what he says, but he adopts virtually the same point of view that was adopted by the then crown prince of the United Party in the by-election in Hottentots Holland, Mr. Hofmeyr, when he appeared on the same platform with the hon. member and dramatically proclaimed that it was his personal view that Coloureds should be represented in Parliament by Coloureds and Asiatics by Asiatics, and Natives by Natives. The policy of the United Party will eventually have the same result. At the moment it is only a suit of clothes they are putting on in order to disguise their diabolical work of equality and the supremacy of the Black man. It is interesting to see where the gravity falls in this debate. Since 1948 the Opposition has begun to adopt entirely different tactics. At that time the gravamen of their charge was concentrated on our policy. They then said that the policy of apartheid is a purely negative policy.

What is “apartheid”?

Mr. Chairman, the most damning condemnation of the opprobrious methods of which the United Party has made use since 1948, was that they labelled the policy of apartheid, the traditional policy of the White man in our country, as purely negative. They busied themselves day after day at the time during such debates as this, by saying that apartheid was only taking away rights but gave nothing in return. Their entire tactics were concentrated upon the charge that it had degenerated into overemphasis on the negative and that the positive idea of apartheid was completely absent. To-night, after all these years, they no longer say it is negative, but now they are fighting tooth and nail to bring into disrepute the positive character of our policy of apartheid. [Time limit.]

I wish to express my appreciation to the hon. the Chief Whip of the Nationalist Party for having taken part in this debate. To-night we have seen in him the old Nationalist Party which we have known for years, the old Nationalist Party who came into power on account of its cold blooded exploitation of the racial prejudice and fear which certain White people harbour. There is no better exponent of that point of view in this House than the hon. member for Brits (Mr. J. E. Potgieter). What a contrast between the hon. member and the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration! The hon. the Minister comes here with all his charm and sincerity and does everything in his power to try to hide the real basis of his party’s policy a basis which remains fear and prejudice, but the Chief Whip enters the debate and he restores the perspective as far as the political division in South Africa is concerned. With much ado the hon. member for Brits declared that the policy of the Nationalist Party had not changed. Everyone of us who has been sitting here since that party came into power can testify to the radical change which that policy has undergone. Mr. Chairman, both you and I remember how the late Dr. Malan declared most emphatically in this House that total territorial separation between the Natives and the Whites was an impractical ideal and that no party worth its salt would strive to attain such an impractical ideal. We had to wait for the present Prime Minister to come into power to realize that it was possible to strive for such an impractical ideal and to put into effect. Then we had the late Mr. Strydom as Prime Minister, a man who acted in a straightforward and direct manner. He did not beat about the bush. He regarded apartheid simply as a policy of domination, without any qualifications. The only thing which is left to-day, of course, as far as domination is concerned is that there will still be a small measure of domination in the rest of the Republic after the hon. the Prime Minister and the Minister of Bantu Administration have finished breaking it up. But domination over a large portion of South Africa, over a large area of South Africa, is something of the past.

The hon. member for Brits also said that the fact that certain, what he called conservative members who formerly belonged to the United Party, were to-day sitting on the other side of the House, proved that we had changed our policy. I see the hon. the Minister of Information is in his seat. I believe he is one of those. I should like to know this from the hon. member for Brits: Does the fact that the hon. consistent and principled Minister of Information has now joined the Nationalist Party, mean that he had changed his policy in order to land in the Nationalist Party and that he is consequently not consistent and principled, or does it mean that he has not changed his policy but that the Nationalist Party has changed its policy in such a way as to bring them together? One of the two must be correct. I am sorry that I have to refer to that, but the hon. the member for Brits has made a mistake in giving that example.

As far as I am concerned, to judge from the contributions to this debate by hon. members opposite, not one of them realize what the cardinal problem is in South Africa when it comes to the question of our Native population. True, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, emphasized it but not one hon. member opposite has tackled the problem and dealt with it thoroughly, and that is that the cardinal problem which confronts us when it comes to our Natives, is the problem of poverty. It is simply a problem of poverty. The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) realizes that. I do not think he knows that he realizes it but he emphatically stated to-day that the only thing which the Transkei exported was “labour”. Mr. Chairman, when a country or an area gets into a position where its only export is the labour of its people, then it belongs to the poorest of the poor in the world. Mr. Chairman until such time as all of us in this House acknowledge the cardinal fact that it is really a problem of poverty with which we are confronted, we will make no progress in our attempts to find a solution to this problem. That is why it is such pity and so deplorable that when the hon. the Minister entered the debate on various occasions he could not reply to the question which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had asked him as to what progress had been made with creating working facilities to that minimum number of 20,000 in the native areas, a requirement which the Tomlinson Commission, whose report he himself signed, brought so pertinently to our notice. The hon. the Minister has given us examples of what has happened at Zwelitsha and of what has happened at other places but I think it only took him two minutes to give us all the examples which he could What we would like to have is the total figure. We have not had that as yet. How near that ideal number of 20,000 working facilities per annum has the present policy of the Government taken them? What progress has actually been made? I do not want to know what has been achieved at one factory which the United Party established. We want proper statistics in order to see what progress the Government has made in uplifting the Natives in South Africa and in rehabilitating the Native areas. We have waited for that in vain.

Something else which has struck me forcibly is the fact that even while advocating the policy of “apartheid” as hon. members on the Government side call it, they time and again have to admit the inter-dependence of the Native and the Whites in the Republic of South Africa. The only commodity the Native can export is “labour”. Mr. Chairman, is there a keener importer of that commodity that the Republic of South Africa? A former member of this House, who is no longer a member to-day, said something very true one day, and I hope I am not letting a military secret out of the bag in saving this. If the Natives of South Africa were to believe the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister and were to say: “Look, we are going to move out of the White areas, we are going to move out of your four big industrial complexes, to which the Minister has referred; we believe what the Minister says, we are all returning to the Transkei and to Vendaland and to South Sotholand and to Zululand”, the entire additional amount of R126,000,000 which we have allocated to defence will be spent this year on our fleet and on our army and on our air force in order to force them in heaven’s name to remain in the White areas. We cannot do without them. But this Government does not want to admit that and that is our criticism of the policy of the Government. It is that fact which makes the undoubted sincerity of this Minister so pathetic, the fact that they want to carry out a policy in South Africa which is based on the most fictitious idea which anybody has ever had, the idea that it is possible for us in South Africa to make a real economic living separate from the non-Whites and yet maintain the standard of living and other standards which we have attained in this country. That is the greatest absurdity that you can think of, Sir, and that is not the only sense in which the policy of this Government is impossible. I am afraid the Government will try to carry it out and the consequences will be disastrous to everybody in the Republic of South Africa. But it is also impossible in this sense that they cannot carry it out and at the same time preserve for our children and grandchildren what our fathers have built up.

I listened attentively to the hon. member who has just sat down. He is a famous or notorious speaker, but the United Party has always reduced its majority in the various constituencies where he has addressed meetings. He is known to make election speeches which are in favour of the National Party. I wish to react to a few points which he raised when he spoke about the poverty amongst the natives and when he said that the Government had done so little to relieve the poverty amongst the Native in the Republic of South Africa.

In the Native areas.

Yes, everywhere. Some 15 or 20 years ago I had the privilege of making a fairly extensive tour through the native areas and I saw the conditions which prevailed there. Last year I went on the same tour and I was surprised to see the progress which had been made.

What progress did you see?

Under the United Party they ploughed their lands straight down against the slopes of the hills, but to-day they plough more wisely, they construct contour walls [Laughter.] I know the hon. member for Transkeian Territories knows absolutely nothing about soil conservation. Will the hon. member just give me a chance to say what I want to say. The hon. member has in any case already talked such a great deal that people no longer want to listen to him. The position of the Native in the Republic of South Africa has improved at least 100 per cent. If the hon. member knew anything at all about the Republic and if he knew what the position of the Native was 20 and 25 years ago and he compared that position with the present-day position, he would realize that there was a tremendous difference. Whereas in years gone by they lived in little stone huts with straw roofs, proper houses have been built for them to-day. To-day proper housing is provided for every Native on every farm in the Republic of South Africa. If you knew what the conditions were in the Native residential areas in Port Elizabeth, Sir, and you compared those with the improvements which have since been effected, you would not believe your eyes. But that did not come about under the government of that side of the House, but under the government of this side of the House.

That is not ture. It started long before that time.

The Leader of the Opposition—I am sorry that he left the Chamber so hurriedly—made a speech at De Aar a few days ago. I am very grateful to him for that, because every time he makes a speech at De Aar my majority increases. On this occasion he said a number of things which cannot properly be discussed here to-day. I should prefer to do so from the same platform from which he did it, namely De Aar. I will indeed do so during the recess.

You will not attract more than 20 people.

I know certain Parties are used to attracting as few people as that, but my Party is not one of them. The Leader of the Opposition and other members on the other side of the House tried to allege that we were trying to remove all the Natives from the urban areas. It is not correct to allege that. I am not saying that it is false, but it is in any case not correct. That has never been the object of the National Party; it has never been the object of the National Party to attain total apartheid. [Interjections.] Why are hon. member so surprised? The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) showed me a number of cuttings today of what Dr. Malan is alleged to have said. It has always been the policy of the National Party, wherever Native or Coloured labour was required, to make such labour available. It is a lengthy process and if is it does ever happen that the Coloureds can take over the work which is to-day being done by the Natives in the Western Cape, that may happen. As long as we require the labour of the Native here, however, he will remain here.

Economic integration!

The object of this policy of self-government for the Bantu areas is not at all to jeopardize our economic structure. Wherever Native labour is required it will be made available, whether it be a factory, the building industry or wherever it may be. It was only the other day that I spoke to the hon. the Minister about Native sheep shearers from Basutoland. The hon. the Minister said that if they were required sheep shearers would be brought from Basutoland to come and shear the sheep in the Karoo. They are, therefore, not being kept away. They are anxious to get the work and they must get it.

We are thus dependent on one another.

To that extent, yes. Does that hon. member perhaps think that he is not dependent? What I do not want, however, is that the Native, when he has finished the shearing, should sleep in my house; he must return to the place where he belongs. That he should sleep in my house is apparently what those hon. members would like to see. [Interjections.] The object of the policy of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development is to protect your own White skin. It is much better and more in our interest that we spend millions of rand to-day on developing the Bantu so that they can have self-government, as ultimately to lose our authority completely in this country. With a view to this I strongly support the hon. the Minister. At the same time I wish to make an appeal to hon. members opposite to stop making those irresponsible speeches. These speeches are immediately transmitted to the Natives. Take the speech of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) for example. It was absolute nonsense. I want to make an appeal to hon. members. Surely they are responsible people, or ought to be. They must realize that what is said in this House must influence the mental state of the Native. The Press will see to it that speeches such as those are transmitted to the Native. That is why it is important that we are moderate in what we say here and that is why we should see to it that we do not say anything which we may regret later on.

What did your Chief Whip say?

Hon. members opposite are very fidgety because they have made statements insinuating that the Native is not being treated reasonably in the Republic. We know the facts, we have the figures and we have proof that houses have been constructed for the Natives in the Republi— I can almost say millions of them. When the United Party was in power they could not do so because they did not have confidence in the economy of South Africa, nor did they have the money to do so. That is why I want to encourage the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development to continue along the road which he is travelling to-day. If the United Party alleges that we want to prejudice the economic structure of the country, they allege something which is devoid of any truth. [Time limit.]

I think the hon. member who has just sat down made a very unfortunate remark. That hon. member and I have known each other for a good many years. When referring to shearers from Basutoland, the hon. member insinuated that it was the policy of the United Party that those shearers, when they finish the shearing here, should not return to their own area to go to sleep there. I want the hon. member to remember that he has many good United Party friends in the Karoo where he lives, just as he has in the commercial world in which he moves. I wish to tell the hon. member that the remark of his to which I have already referred, is a scandalous remark.

Are you alleging that I said that the shearers who come from Basutoland to shear sheep for the farmers, will not be able to return when they have finished the shearing.

What I object to is the impression which the hon. member tried to create namely that those shearers did not sleep separately at night. It is a scandalous remark to make about any farmer in South Africa who uses Native labour. However, I have finished with the hon. member; I respect him greatly and I am afraid I may perhaps go too far in my criticism of that insinuation of his. I want to deal with something else, Sir. If there is one person for whom I feel very sorry to-night, it is the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, because the hon. the Minister, just like the electorate, is completely in the dark as far as the policy which he has to apply, is concerned. Apart from that I think it is correct to say that the hon. the Minister does not even agree with this policy. I do not believe that the hon. the Minister agrees with his Party’s policy of separate Bantu states in South Africa. I will tell you why I say this, Sir. A few years ago this House had the opportunity of discussing the Tomlinson report. In the course of that debate the hon. member for Constantia said that the policy of the Government would ultimately mean that the Bantu states in South Africa would become independent. What was the reply of the present Minister of Bantu Administration and Development? According to Hansard of 14 May 1956, that is the date when the report was discussed, he said this—

Referring to the deduction made by the hon. member for Constantia, namely, that the policy of the Government would lead to independent Bantu states in South Africa, the hon. the Minister continued to say this—

Where are those states?

I can also refer to them and I want to do so by referring to what the hon. the Prime Minister said in this House on 23 January this year—

And now? What about it?

The hon. the Minister asks “What about it?” whereas five minutes ago he asked me “Where are those states?” I have a great deal of sympathy for the hon. the Minister. He is a very good old gentleman and I have a great deal of sympathy for him. But the hon. the Minister is not the only person who is in difficulty in this respect but he should be consoled by the fact that the whole of South Africa is in the same position to-day. The people of South Africa are also in the dark as far as this development is concerned. The hon. the Minister should, therefore, not feel too unhappy. He is not alone. The people of South Africa have not been warned either that the Prime Minister would announce on 23 January that there would be independent Bantu states in South Africa. In this connection I want to refer to what the hon. the Prime Minister said last year when he announced that there would be an election. The Burger published a lengthy statement of his as to why it was necessary to hold an election in South Africa two years before it was due. Not a word was said in that statement about the fact that in 1962 we would start the preliminary work of ultimately establishing independent Bantu states in South Africa. [Time limit.]

I do want to react to what the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) has said. I know he is one of the members who fled from the platteland to the city because he no longer felt at home on the platteland. Fortunately, or unfortunately, this hon. member is one of the members who walked about in Aliwal North during the last election. There you see one of the members who has moved the boundaries, Sir. The Bible says that towards the end there will be wars and rumours of war. Similarly the borders of my constituency are continually being moved. The constituency of Aliwal is very closely linked with the Transkei. As a matter of fact the constituency borders for a long distance on to the Transkei. In respect of one election the borders are moved right up to the mountains; in respect of another election right on top of the mountains; and in respect of yet another election as far as the Kraai River. What does the scandalmongering which has been going on in the constituency of Aliwal, and which is still going on to-day, imply? Take the district of Matatiele for instance. Recently, after the statement by the Prime Minister in respect of the Transkei, the hon. member for South Coast issued a statement and said that Matatiele would become black. When I questioned the relevant reporter he confirmed that the hon. member for South Coast had definitely said that district would become Black. What right did the hon. member have to make such a statement? What does such a statement imply? Three-fifths of the district Matatiele is White and two-fifths Black. I want the Opposition to understand this clearly: Those three-fifths of Matatiele will remain White, and the two-fifths will remain Black. [Interjections.] Give me a chance—I know the truth hurts. As far as the districts of Maclear, Elliot, Ugie and others are concerned, the Opposition went so far that the Territorial Authority of the Transkei applied for the incorporation of those areas with the Transkei. That will never happen.

And if they demand it?

Hon. members talk about the borders of the Transkei and allege that we do not know where those borders are. Those borders are determined in the schedules to the Acts of 1913 and 1936. Why do they not read them? If they do they will know exactly where the borders of the Transkei are. as well as those of the other homelands. Apart from that, the Government is daily purchasing farms from the White farmers. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories will agree with me when I say that there are still White farms at Umtata which have to be purchased.

They have all been purchased already.

But there are still some in the district of Kentane. It is the policy of the Government in any case to buy White farms there. The borders are determined in accordance with the topography, the object being that a piece of White land should not overlap the border and vice versa. The Cape Times of 19 April said the following about the measures relating to self-government of the Transkei—

What is wrong with that?

There is a great deal wrong with that. What is the population of the Transkei? At the moment it is approximately 1,380,000. Somebody asked earlier how long we would still have Natives in the Republic and whether we would still have Natives here in the year 2,000. How can we say that by the year 2,000 there will be no more Italians in France? Surely it amounts to the same thing. But I want to go still further. About 300,000 and 600,000 migrant labourers move between the Republic and the Transkei. It should be remembered, however, that the Transkeian Bantu who works in the Republic has the right to vote in the Transkei. Basutoland has a population of 600,000. How many Basutos work in the Republic? Seven hundred thousand, and everyone of them—even though they have been living in the Republic for generations—has the vote in Basutoland. But they have no separate representation as will be the case in respect of the Xhosas who work and live outside the Transkei. Those Xhosas will, therefore, enjoy considerably more benefits than the Basutos enjoy at the moment. The economy of the Transkei has improved considerably over the last few years. Even the hon. member for Transkeian Territories will agree with me in this regard.

Give us an example of that.

The standard of living of the people in the Transkei is very much higher than it was a couple of years ago, in the case of both the Whites and the Bantu. I think the attorneys can testify to that. The United Party wants us to develop the Bantu homelands with the assistance of White capital. To demonstrate the consequences of such a policy I can think of no better example than that of Swaziland. As a result of the fact that Swaziland was developed with the assistance of White capital, 43 per cent of that country belongs to Whites. If we were to apply the same policy to our Bantu homelands the same thing will happen there. What have we actually done? We have purchased additional land for the Bantu; we have extended their rights.

What point do you want to demonstrate with Swaziland?

The point is this that as a result of the fact that Swaziland was developed with the assistance of White capital, 43 per cent of the land belongs to White today, whereas it really belongs to the people of Swaziland. If we apply the same policy here the same thing will happen. If we were to do that, the hon. member for Transkeian Territories, for instance, will buy as much land in the Transkei as he possibly can. We cannot allow that to happen, however. The problem which really faces us is that this House is divided into two: On the one side you have the Afrikaans-speaking members who represent Afrikaans-speaking constituencies and on the other side you have the English-speaking members who represent the English-speaking constituencies. [Time limit.]

I would have liked to reply to the hon. member who has just sat down, but I do not think he said anything to which it is necessary for me to reply. I want to continue with the point, therefore, which I was making when my time expired. I was pointing out that the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development was not the only person who had been kept in the dark as far as the establishment of independent Bantu states were concerned, but that the entire electorate had also been kept in the dark. In support of my allegation I referred to the statement made by the hon. the Prime Minister at the time of the election last year and pointed out that in that statement no mention was made as to his plans in this connection. The only thing which he said in his speech, Sir, which could give you reason to believe that he intended carrying out one policy or another within the next five years as the following—

The hon. the Prime Minister was talking about national unity. He went on to say this—

I would have thought that the most revolutionary policy which has ever been applied in South Africa would have been made known to the electorate of the country on that occasion.

May I ask a question?

No, it is not necessary. As a matter of fact, I am on the point of saying something about the hon. member for Vereeniging. In order to illustrate how this policy has caught the nation on the wrong foot, as well as the hon. member for Vereeniging, I wish to quote what that hon. member said in this House in 1956, namely—

He was referring to what the hon. member for Wonderboom, the present Minister of Bantu Administration and Development had said with regard to the impossibility of there ever being separate states in South Africa. The hon. member for Vereeniging continued—

The hon. member for Vereeniging must not come and tell me that he was not caught on the wrong foot as far as the development which has taken place since then is concerned. What has happened that has caused the Native to develope so quickly since 1956 that we can to-day place them on the road to an independent state of their own?

What has happened that made you decide to follow a federal policy?

The federal policy of the United Party is a continuation of the traditional policy of this country. The policy which can be described as revolutionary is the policy of separation. For years the Bantu have been represented in this House and the Coloureds have been on the Common Roll. But the hon. member for Vereeniging went even further in what he had to say. Last year he addressed the Luncheon Club of Vereeniging.

There is no such Club.

It was the Young Executives Luncheon Club. His speech was reported in the newspapers, not only in the English newspapers but in the Afrikaans ones as well.

Which Afrikaans newspapers.

Here I have the Evening Post of 7 September 1961, and according to the report of his speech which appears in it, he said this—

The hon. member for Vereeniging must have had a good lunch. Just to show that you could accept that the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) said that, Sir, I want to tell you what he said at Swellendam when he was still a member of the Conservative Party. According to the Burger he said that although they had left the United Party it was no good the Nationalists flirting with them (i.e. he and the hon. member for Fort Beaufort), because they were still carrying the principles of the United Party in their hearts. What the hon. member for Vereeniging said when he addressed the Young Executives Club at Vereeniging shows that he did not expect the Government to come with this policy of independent states this year. In other words, he thought we would continue and reach a stage where we ought to give the Natives in the White areas representation in this Parliament. That is the whole difficulty, and the fundamental point on which this House has to decide is whether we wish to travel in this revolutionary direction of the Nationalist Party or whether we wish to travel in the traditional direction of South Africa? Hon. members opposite say their policy is not to get rid of the Bantu in the White areas. They say they have never said that. What an untruth! Last year already, before he came to Parliament, the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. P. S. Marais) made a number of maiden speeches outside this House and he and the hon. member for Parow and the hon. member for Malmesbury were the people who said that the time had arrived when the Bantu should be removed from the Western Province. The hon. member for De Aar-Colesberg also denied it and said that was not their policy. [Time limit.]

I do not intend pursuing what the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Mr. Streicher) has said, because he has simply strengthened the impression which I have, namely, that having listened to the debate—I do not say with any satisfaction—for so many hours, I have become convinced that the Opposition is really confused and certainly do not understand their own colour policy. The hon. member for Transkeian ’territories (Mr. Hughes) started off by saying he would explain the policy of the United Party to us, but he did not say a word about it. However, I do not blame him, because I said a moment ago that it was very clear that they did not understand their own policy. As far as that is concerned I heard two United Party members argue yesterday about the federation scheme and the one asked the other whether he understood it and he admitted that he did not. His friend then said they should ask the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) and the other one replied: No, that won’t help; I have already asked him and he said that of all the things he has ever had to sell for the United Party that was the most difficult. They continued to argue as to where they could get that information and they decided to drop the matter, because, as the one said, he had come to the conclusion that the only person who understood Graaff’s federation plan and its implications was Dr. Verwoerd. [Laughter.] Having listened to the debate I have come to realize that the old saying “many a truth is said in jest” remains true. That is why we have had such ludicrous speeches and inexlicable allegations from hon. members. A short while ago we heard from the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) that it was the policy of the National Party and that Dr. Malan had emphasized it, that the Party could never stand for complete territorial apartheid. This afternoon the theme which ran through the entire speech of the hon. member for Kingwilliamstown (Mr. Warren) was that it was our policy to chase every Native from the White area. They are both front-benchers, but the one alleges the exact opposite to the other. The object of all these stories is to distract attention from the fact that they do not understand their own policy. The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) is unfortunately not here, but he told us that he very suddenly regarded Luthuli as a dangerous person to South Africa. He frightened us with that person but that was the person who they lauded sky high two years ago and who they represented as the ideal and who they said would make an outstanding Prime Minister, and no one can deny it. [Interjections.] They lauded Luthuli to such an extent that when the Minister of Justice replied he said that the United Party had a new song “Die Wapad is my Woning en Luthuli is my Koning”.

You know it is not true.

On a point of order, the hon. member says “You know it is not true”, and that is unparliamentary.

Then I withdraw it, but I ask the hon. member to accept my word.

On a point of order, the hon. member said he withdrew it but the hon. member must accept his word. That is not a withdrawal.

Order! The hon. member may continue.

Last night the same hon. member suddenly adopted a different attitude and represented Luthuli as a very dangerous person and said that he stood for the “redistribution of land. But that is not Luthuli’s idea at all; that is the federation plan. I said a moment ago that they did not understand their own policy, because they were satisfied that the Bantu should enter the White areas in their thousands and that they should ask to be given property rights there. Is that not a “redistribution of land”? It has never been the policy of the White man to give the Bantu property rights in the White man’s area. But that is their federation plan. I say they do not understand it. We heard the same sort of nonsense from the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant). He ridiculed the idea that the urban Bantu would have the right to vote for representatives in the Transkei and he alleged that such voting would be accompanied by rioting and that it would create big problems in the urban areas. The Leader of the Opposition also hinted at that to-night. He alleged that if they voted they would vote for the person in the Bantu area who would always demand more and more in the Republic. Apparently none of them has thought about it that under their federation plan these Bantu dwellers will also have the right to vote and will that not give rise to problems and will they not in that case also vote for those people who promise them most? Or do they really think that if you simply shout “federation” those people will say quite willingly: “Yes, thank you, master”, and that they will then vote the way you want them to? That is unthinkable and it is nonsense to suggest that there will be trouble under the Government system when voting takes place in the urban areas but that everything will go off smoothly under their federation plan.

The Leader of the Opposition wanted to know what was going to happen when these Areas became independent. He said it would give rise to serious defence problems, because you would have a number of Bantu soldiers and what problems would that not create? I cannot understand why people always look for the extremes and visualize a strong armed Bantu force on our borders, because he insinuated that they would be hostile. I want to ask whetber it will not be more dangerous if we have a Bantu Minister of Defence in the Cabinet under his federation plan—what will the position then be? That is not impossible. Will he be Minister and not arm the Bantu? [Time limit.]

I hope the hon. member who has just sat down will not mind if I only deal with him briefly. He tried his best but achieved very little.

However, I have a bone to pick with the hon. the Chief Whip. When he spoke the Chief Whip told us that the Nationalist Party had on no occasion changed its policy, they were still on the right path. I happen to have a pamphlet here in which it is clearly stated what the Native policy of the National Party was just before they came into power. I want to read a few extracts from it, just to show the House What was in their mind at that time. It reads—

[Interjections.] Look at the fuss they made about those few bulls, Sir—

I will not read the whole pamphlet, Sir, but I would like to read a few more extracts—

Here comes the best part—

[Interjections.] This pamphlet was issued by one M. D. C. de Wet Nel Secretary of the Nationalist Party, and the date is 12 April 1944, not ten years ago! [Laughter.] I am sorry, not 20 years ago.

And now the Chief Whip tells us that they are still following the right course.

The same person who issued that pamphlet tells us to-day how proud he is of this Government and what it is doing for the Bantu. My leader said that we are not dissatisfied because that was being done, but because not enough was being done, and not quickly enough. I quoted from that pamphlet to illustrate how they had swung around. The Minister who has been keeping course, has now changed his course. To-day he is the big liberal of the Nationalist Party and if the Chief Whip does not stop him, he will be sitting with Helen before we know what has happened. [Laughter.]

It is this type of propaganda, Sir, together with that cartoon of the late Mr. Hofmeyr and the little piccanins which have placed that party in power; either the Chief Whip or the Minister is the father of that cartoon. To-day, however, they tell us that they have not changed course.

The Minister and the Deputy Minister made great play of it and said that the negotiations in connection with the Transkeian constitution were conducted on such democratic lies. The Minister said that was the banner of democracy. The Deputy Minister said that the constitution was framed in a democratic manner. I wonder what would have happened, Sir, had the 1909 National Convention been held in a state of emergency with policemen wherever you looked. They would still have cried about it 36 years later. But they say it is democracy.

Are you not ashamed of yourself? [Interjections.]

Order!

I want to take the opportunity of withdrawing what I said … [Interjections.]

Order! According to the Rules of the House, a member must accept the word of another member. You need not repeat it. The hon. member may continue.

The object of this Bantustan policy is to safeguard Western civilization and our way of life in this country. What I cannot understand is the fact that there are people on that side who are so gullible as to believe that story. How can you safeguard the position of the White man if you cut up South Africa into 12 or 15 or 20 Bantustans. [Interjections.] I am not prepared to answer any questions. [Time limit.]

The Junior Whip of the Opposition, a former brigadier in the army, asks us: “Where are we going?” I want to ask him where he was going when he said in a speech some time ago that they as Opposition saw no hope of ever coming into power again on constitutional lines. He also said he was waiting for a shock from outside to bring White civilization to its knees so that the United Party could come into power.

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

I do not want to deal with the hon. member very long, Sir, because he is the most monotonous subject in the whole House. The hon. member said we objected and said they were spending huge sums of money. Of course, we objected, we objected because their policy was not a policy of developing the non-Whites so that they could develop to their full potential under their own steam. Their Government converted this Vote to a sort of charitable institution, and the Minister of Finance handed out money with a lavish hand and in a fatherly spirit he said that it was more blessed to give than to receive. That was the alms policy of the United Party which imprinted the mark of degeneracy on the non-White races. It is because there is such a difference between the approach of the National Party and that of the United Party that we are in power to-day. We are not afraid to spend money to-day because our policy is a positive policy. We keep count of the fact that there is a vast difference between the stages of development of the White and that of the non-White and that is why we have come forward with our policy of apartheid, which is positive in character. Our entire policy is inherently positive and productive and that is why, when we spend money to-day, we are making the most productive capital investment that we can make. That is the big difference. For the very reason that ours is a positive policy, the Whites in this country, as the Christian guardians, have developed a positive spiritual approach. It is not necessary for the Leader of the Opposition or for the Junior Whip to frighten us by saying we are spending too much money. We are living in a different era. Ours is the right policy. We will make big material sacrifices but it is a means towards an end. What does it avail you, Sir, to be stingy and not to spend money and you lose South Africa, your fatherland, and all that wealth is of no value to you? No, we are spending the money. We are making the biggest sacrifices. Cost what it may, this policy will be carried out. I told those hon. members the other day that the nation no longer listened to them. At one election after the other a damning judgment has been given over their policy. We already have a positive policy and the nation has developed a positive approach so that material considerations no longer carry any weight with them. Because they know that if our policy is not carried out the price they will have to pay will be much higher because that price will be South Africa herself.

I feel very honoured that the Chief Whip had to get up to reply to the Junior Whip.

But he did not reply.

No matter what he does, he cannot get away from this policy of his.

Will you give that document to me?

At the time of the referendum I held a meeting in the constituency of that hon. member. He made things difficult for me and he promised to go and to hold a meeting in my constituency, but so far he has not had the courage to do so. His eloquence does not help him at all. [Interjections.]

The continued existence of any country depends on its internal security and that is why that is the objective of the defence policy of any country, in the first place. We support the Government when it strengthens its defence force, because we realize only too well how necessary that is in this dangerous world. I want to point out one thing, however, and it is this. It is illegal to-day for the Bantu in the Bantu areas to possess firearms. A strong police force is operating in the various Reserves at the moment to trace firearms. What will be the position when those states become independent? Who will trace the firearms there? Because once those people are independent they will get all the weapons they want from our enemies. What is the difference? In present-day circumstances it will be difficult to defend our country, more difficult than previously, because we are no longer sure of the loyalty of a very large section of our population in South Africa.

Where do you come from?

What will the position be when we have established all these Bantustans and when they can conclude treaties with whomsoever they wish? I know hon. members will ask me why I am worried about our own Bantustans if the Protectorates are independent. Very well, that is bad enough, but why should we worsen that problem? Apart from that there is also this: Not one of those areas borders on the sea so that they are in a position to get reinforcements from abroad. What is the position in the Transkei, however? As soon as the Transkei becomes independent this Government cannot stop them from joining Basutoland and what is going to prevent them from getting Port St. Johns? To say that Port St. Johns will remain White is only a story. No nation in the world has succeeded in retaining such a small area. We know what the results of the last war have been.

With foreign assistance in the military field this one Bantustan, the Transkei alone, can place South Africa in an untenable position. That was why my leader pointed out to-day how vulnerable our country’s economy was when we employed labour from other states and we all know that when the economy of a country comes to a standstill, it loses its ability to conduct a war and to defend itself. If these Bantustans were to remain neutral in the case of war, just imagine how difficult that will make our position, Sir. During the last war we had one neutral neighbour, and what did that not cost South Africa? But we are now creating neutral countries within our own area. No, this policy will not safeguard the position of the White man, but undermine and destroy it. We will be left with a Republic consisting of Coloured spots and strips of land between Black Bantustans.

And yours will be completely Black.

If the establishment of those Bantustans meant that it would solve our problems, we could still have tried it, but as has been said so often in this House, we will then have much worse problems. Of what use are these steps? You ask yourself this question, Sir: Why do people accept this policy? It is very clear that they accept it because they are afraid of the future. They grasp at this Bantustan idea because they try to find an easier way out. Somebody else can make the sacrifices, the people in the Transkei and in Zululand, as long as we do not have to make them. Surely we must realize that the whole of South Africa, every person, White or Black, will be sacrificed for this impossible policy. It will not safeguard the White man’s position, but it will destroy his position all the sooner.