Sir, we witnessed a remarkable scene here yesterday afternoon and yesterday evening, i.e. that whereas relevant questions had been put by this side of the House to hon. members opposite about South Africa’s most important question, to wit, the relations politics, and whereas hon. members on this side had accused the Opposition of being ambiguous, of being unreliable and untrustworthy, hon. members on that side simply evaded these questions although they had more than four hours’ time to reply to those very relevant questions. For example, we still do not know whether the hon. member for South Coast accepts the report of the Tomlinson Commission with all its implications, as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout does. [Interjection.] The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said he accepted the Tomlinson Report, and the principle contained therein, as you know, Sir, is full development for the homelands to the end of the road, to wit, independence.

Where do they say that?

Has the hon. member not read the Report? Up to now we have not yet heard from the hon. member for South Coast whether he wants to undo what was done in establishing the Territorial Authority in Zululand or whether he thinks that we have gone too far in connection with the establishment of a territorial authority for Zululand. Up to now we have not yet heard from the hon. member for South Coast whether he accepts multi-nationalism as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout does.

Then it must be defined.

We find this ambiguity on the side of the Opposition. While the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that the development as well as the eventual independence of the Bantu homelands is a complete impossibility, a task which cannot be fulfilled, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout blames us, so to speak, tor those homelands not yet having become independent. [Interjection.] It is quite true, the hon. member can go and read the speech again; I have a copy of it here. As far as this ambiguity on that side of the House is concerned, we get no reply from hon. members on that side. Hon. members on that side should not accuse the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in their caucus of having caused the discord, because he was not the one who did so; it was the hon. member for South Coast who, in the very first debate of this session, the debate on the motion of censure, put relevant questions to the hon. the Minister in which he very clearly, at least y strong implication, suggested that things had gone too far in connection with the establishment of a territorial authority in Zululand. Sir we shall not allow that hon. gentleman to get away; he will be obliged to give replies to these questions, and then, in replying to these questions, he will accentuate the discord which exists in the United Party even more Sir in order to illustrate to you the fact that discord exists in the United Party, that they are untrustworthy and that their policy is ambiguous, I want to quote to you from the speech which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout made the other evening in which he said—

Listen to what he says then—

I should like to know who that “we” is—

Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition accept it, because he says that we comprise one nation of 20 million people?

Where did the Leader of the Opposition say that?

Let the hon. the Leader of the Opposition tell him that. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout says: “We fully accept the fact.” They must now explain to us who that “we” of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is. But, Sir, I want to quote something else. What did the hon. member for East London (City) say here on 23rd July, 1970 (Hansard, Col. 268)? You must remember, Sir, that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said: “We fully accept the fact that South Africa is a multi-national country.” But the hon. member for East London (City) said We …

Again I want to know who his “we” is—

How many people does the hon. member for East London (City) include when he refers to “we”—I am not talking about pineapples and tourism now; we are talking about the relations question which affects every White and every Bantu in this country most intimately. He said: “We do not want to accept that South Africa is a multi-national country.” These statements were separated by a week. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said they fully accepted the fact that South Africa was a multi-national country. Therefore I say that this ambiguity of the United Party and how devoid they are, in fact, of a policy, are borne out even further by what the hon. member for East London (City) said here last night by way of an interjection to the hon. the Minister, i.e. that the Bantu in South Africa could only be one people. In other words, if he were the policy-maker of the United Party, one would have two peoples in South Africa, the white people and then all the Bantu who would form a single people. How can the Opposition be surprised if the electorate of this country does not take any notice of them as regards these questions? I want to repeat the question to the hon. member for South Coast. On 18th March, 1964, he said to this Minister (Hansard, Col. 3207)—

That was when he was still Deputy Minister––

This Native male and the Native female who comes in (to white South Africa) and marries him are his (the Deputy Minister s) co-citizens.

Does he still stand by that? Are that Bantu male and Bantu female still the Minister’s “cocitizens”? Are they the hon. member for Bezuidenhout’s “co-citizens”? I accept that they are the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s “co-citizens”. Does he still stand by that? [Interjections.] You see, Sir, here we have an Opposition that is completely without policy.

May I reply to you?

The hon. member did not want to reply yesterday. I put the same question to him then. He can reply just now. This ambiguity is very simple to explain. [Interjections.]

Order! I appeal to the hon. member for South Coast. I have called or order.

The hon. the Minister asked me a question and I endeavoured to say that I would reply to it. [Interjection.] I do not want the hon. the Minister to shout at me.

I do not want any questions asked across the floor of the House. Hon. members should know the rules and should obey them. The hon. the Deputy Minister may proceed.

Sir, what we have witnessed here, is typical of the United Party. If you tell them the truth, the things we witnessed this afternoon happen. Surely they can reply to me by way of answers to simple questions and by way of stating their policy, and then they need not start this sort of thing It is indeed childish. But the whole difficulty arises from their premise, i.e. that the South African people consists of 20 million souls. And there is obviously an argument going on in their ranks, because we have seen it several times in this debate and in the course of this Session, i.e. the implications arising out of that statement for the United Party. When we want to know who the hon. member for Bezuidenhout includes in his “we” he becomes uneasy.

With regard to the question of labour they say that one finds a layer of Whites at the top, and when you ask them what is going to become of the Bantu who in terms of their crash training programme are going to move up, their reply is that a Bantu cannot be placed in a position of control over a White When we ask where the self-realization and the self-determination of a Bantu come in they find themselves in difficulties. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout must be suffering terrible twinges of conscience in his party, as well as some of the other members with him This much as regards the labour policy.

When one comes to defence, all of us here have heard the United Party saying that there are 20 million people in the country, and their leader says one can build up an enormous defence force with 20 million people. But when we ask them whether those Bantu can become officers, then they say no, they are to remain in the auxiliary services. There is no break-through for the Bantu. There is a layer of Whites at the top with a mass of Bantu underneath and there is no break-through or right of self-determination and no self-realization for the Bantu. No wonder the hon. member and other hon. members over there suffer from twinges of conscience.

When one comes to citizenship, which, as a basic right, every one should be able to exercise, one finds the same thing. They fought that tooth and nail, and voted against it at every stage. When we come to the most important aspect, the political aspect of our relations question, what is the United Party’s policy? For 17 million non-Whites as against hardly four million Whites, it is the United Party s policy to give them 16 representatives in this House of Assembly, and what is more, of whom all must be Whites, with a few Coloureds if the Coloureds elect them. In this regard we have the same position again. I ask the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who at least is honest and sincere, what chance does a Bantu have of self-realization or of exercising the right of self-determination under the United Party’s policy. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, may I ask for the privilege of the second half hour? The hon. the Deputy Minister seems to have forgotten what is the aim and the objective of the Committee Stage of the Budget. The object is not to cross-examine the Opposition on its policy. The object of Committee of Supply, where each Ministerial Vote is under examination by this House, is that the Opposition should have the opportunity of questioning Ministers and Departments on their sins of omission and commission. They do quite a good deal of it, but the point is that the hon. the Minister yesterday spoke for over an hour …

It is my own time.

Yes, it is his time and nobody has got anything against it. The hon. the Minister gave us a long and very detailed expose of the Government’s policy. However, he also spent a good deal of his time in trying to inquire what the policy of the Official Opposition is. I think he has many other opportunities if he wants to do that. This Committee is basically intended for the Government to come before the Opposition and to be questioned upon its actions during the previous year.

The hon. the Minister told us a lot about the morality of his policy. He said that there was a legal aspect and that there was a moral aspect. As far as I understood him as far as the legal aspect is concerned, the sovereignty of Parliament remains although naturally once independence has been granted it would be very difficult for any parliament in this country to have any say whatsoever over an independent country. He said in any case that the legal issue was a side issue. Therefore, the important aspect was the moral aspect. The moral aspect is that the white man cannot go back on what he had given to the African. I can think of many examples in our history where the white man has gone back on what he has given to the non-white. Of course there is the Coloured vote, which immediately comes to mind.

Name them.

The hon. member for Brakpan says that I must name them. When the white man took away the common roll rights of the African, he gave them three representatives in this House and four in the Other Place. That franchise has been taken away. I can think of those two major examples where the white man gave and then took back and the moral implications did not seem to worry anybody at all. Then there are other minor examples which I could suggest.

Is that not what the United Party is doing?

I am dealing with the hon. the Minister’s assumption that these moral implications are going to be more important than the legal issues. Then there are other things which come to mind. I think of land which has been given to people, land which Coloured people have been occupying for a hundred years and more and which has been taken away from them under the Group Areas Act. I think of the land that Indians occupied for decades which is now being taken away from them under the Group Areas Act. There are many examples in our history where the moral aspect has been completely forgotten and superseded by the legal aspect. Everything has been done legally, everything has been done constitutionally, but the legal aspects far outweigh any moral implications of the policy which is being followed in this country.

I want to come back to the hon. the Minister to whom we have listened with much attention yesterday. Listening to him yesterday, it seemed to me that if he had to define what happiness is, it would be an all-white South Africa which is surrounded by eight independent Bantustans. That is his vision and that is his happiness. Reality, however, is something very different; it is a multi-racial South Africa with 20 million inhabitants. Well, the hon. the Deputy Minister throws up his hands. We are right now busy assessing the statistics of a census which has been taken. As far as I know, the census covers everybody who lives in South Africa. When the final results are published, they will include the total population of South Africa. It will be broken down into four main population groups, namely White, African, Coloured and Indian. We will all talk about the total population of South Africa, made up of different races. As long as the situation obtains, until the eight independent Bantustans have actually been excised from the body politic and the geographic structure of South Africa, as far as I for one am concerned, South Africa will remain a multi-racial country with presently at least 20 million inhabitants of different races. The reality is poverty stricken reserves and not these independent presumably viable in the future Bantustans, although the hon. the Minister made a great point about economic viability not being necessary before political independence can be granted. He made a comparison with the ex-High Commission Territories of Botswana, Swaziland and Lesotho. I do not know where he gets his figures from. I cannot say that I can talk with any great authority, but I would be very surprised indeed to find that the gross national product of the Transkei is higher than that of Swaziland. I do not know where he gets those figures from. He did include Swaziland. He included all of the High Commission Territories. In fact, he went further. He said that he thought that the national income of Tswanaland was probably higher than that of Swaziland as well. He seems to have forgotten that Swaziland has some very important minerals. The Transkei does not have any important minerals. The only conclusion I can reach is that the hon. the Minister is doing one of his interesting little sleights of mind and is including what the hon. the Deputy Minister last year so coyly called, the de jure de facto population” of the Transkei. In other words, the hon. the Minister must have been including the income of everybody living in white South Africa who has the most tenuous ties with the Transkei and counting that in as part of the national income of the Transkei. Otherwise I fail to see how he can get this extraordinary comparison between the national income of Swaziland and that of a poverty-stricken area like the Transkei which has to import even its own foodstuffs. It is not even independent as far as its staple crop, maize, is concerned. It has to import maize.

The reality therefore is poverty-stricken reserves in which I might add only one-third of the population lives. The other two-thirds live either on white farms or in the white cities. The people who remain are not even able to subsist off the reserves. They are almost entirely dependent on the earnings of migratory workers who come out to work in so-called white South Africa. I might say there is the reality of the resettlement areas which are full of idle people who have no work for there is no work for them. They are full of women and children and old men. Reality is a modern industrial South Africa that is dependent on the labour of the non-white people to sustain its standards. I might say a modern industrial economy, but right now it is being strangled by bottlenecks caused by labour shortages manufactured artificially by Government policy. And reality is our jails which are groaning with pass offenders. Half a million a year of them are going to jail for statutory offences and staying in jail for short periods. Reality is the Bantu schools which are packed to the rafters. 59 children to one teacher and 70 per cent of the children who leave school by the time they reach Standard 2.

These are the realities of the situation and not the visions that we listened to yesterday painted in glowing terms by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. I might say that reality is our urban areas too where a large percentage live below the poverty datum line. It is a great pity that these two Ministers do not devote their not inconsiderable talents, for they are energetic men, to dealing with the realities of the situation rather than fixing on some distant future goal of independent Bantustans which I do not believe any one of us in this House—I am not so young, but there are many young members in this House—will live to see come to fruition. It is a pity, for instance, that they do not take notice of what is happening to the population over whom they rule almost with the absolute despotism of Eastern potentates, that they do not take some care to examine what is happening to those people and what is building up by way of grievances among those people. There was a very significant article in the newspaper to-day about an interview with Prof. Olivier of RAU. His diagnosis was very good. He stated that the conception that urban Africans were satisfied and never again would be dissatisfied and thus that another Sharpeville will never again occur, was a dangerous concept, especially for Nationalists. Of course he then went on to prescribe a remedy which I do not believe is possible of achievement, namely the return of large numbers of urban Africans to the homelands. I say it is not possible of achievement, because the homelands are not supplying alternative means of employment. I also say that to send thousands of people back to the homelands, where there are no opportunities for employment, and to believe that the grievances are then going to melt into the rural air, is another misconception. So these hon. Ministers should be coping with the urban situation as it is, not as they hope it will be years hence when their policy has been implemented. The hon. the Deputy Minister made a statement on the 17th February, of this year, when he was addressing the three day meeting of the United Municipal Executive of South Africa. He said inter alia:

It is current policy to freeze the expansion of African townships as far as practicable, and to limit new accommodation to hostels …

He went on to say:

Now, Sir, if one takes these two statements and translates them into reality, they mean a deliberate policy which I believe is going to have appalling repercussions on the socioeconomic life of Africans in the urban areas. I want to say why I believe this.

The Government has always boasted, and it is one of the things that one gives them credit for, that they cleared up an appalling backlog in housing that developed immediately after World War II, a backlog which developed as a result of two factors. Both are important, although there is always a tendency to stress only one. That is that there was a great influx of Africans into Johannesburg and other cities in order to cope with the demands of the war effort. At the same time, and this is just as important a factor, no housing was erected whatsoever for the Africans during that time.

It was during the war time.

Yes, there was a war, but in fact the situation lasted well after the war years until the Government came into power. There is credit due to them for this. They did get cracking and they built houses. The result was that after a number of years, by means of variius additional financial measures that were adopted, the Government eventually, together with the housing authorities, the city council, managed to clear up the slums.

It was not the city council.

Yes, the city council had to be responsible eventually for the handling of the loans which were raised, but it was the Government that initiated the building scheme.

It was the Resettlement Board.

Yes, the Government initiated it. I am giving them all credit for that. Nevertheless, this housing backlog was cleared up.

Now, however, I want to point out that, due to Government policy, the same conditions of overcrowding and squatter camps are beginning to arise again in and around Johannesburg. The Minister and the Deputy Minister refuse to accept the fact that the urban population is there to stay. So they do not want to build more houses on a family basis in the urban areas. There has been strict limitation of the funds which have been made available to the local authority for the building of houses in Johannesburg. They do not want to waste money on family housing, which they believe is not going to be required, because they hope to diminish the urban population. I might say that they do not go in for luxuries. That we know as well. I want to point out that already, in Johannesburg alone, over 11½ thousand families are on the waiting list for housing. This is increasing by 2,000 families per year. These are people who are legitimately in the area and who are legitimately employed there. I am not talking about the illegals. Heaven only knows how many of those there are. Everybody thinks that the situation is being controlled by the pass laws, but in fact people are coming in, irrespective of the pass laws. There are 18,000 so-called bachelors. I say “so-called” because many of these bachelors are married men. They have not, however, been allowed to bring their wives with them, so according to our strange terminology they are “bachelors”. There are 18,000 of them who are legitimately employed in Johannesburg and who are on the waiting list for hostel accommodation.

Do you know at what rate we are building hostels there?

Yes, but not enough houses are being built. The City Council wanted to borrow much more money and the Housing Commission was not allowed to give it to them. There are thousands of other people living and working legally in Johannesburg who are crammed in as lodgers in other people’s houses. They do not appear on any waiting list at all. Then there are the women. Because of the strange ideas of the Government no woman may be the head of a household, even if she is in fact the sole supporter of a family. These women may therefore not legitimately occupy houses as tenants. There are therefore thousands of people in employment in Johannesburg who do not appear on any waiting list.

Despire the fact that all these bachelors I mentioned were on the waiting list for hostel accommodation, we had an extraordinary effort on the part of the Government earlier this year. I am speaking of the so-called Diepkloof removal scheme. The City Council rather feebly allowed itself to be pushed by the Government into deciding that the Diepkloof Hostel, which was then ready and could accommodate a few thousand African males, should immediately be filled with African domestic servants, already housed on the premises of their employers in a certain area north of the Houghton ridge. In fact, the area in question was south of the Houghton ridge, but never mind about that. I can only say that a deep-throated roar of protest came from the citizens of Johannesburg who were to be affected by this scheme. They were simply not going to sit by and see their domestic servants, many of whom had been with families for many years, subjected to all the indignities of having to live in hostels where in most cases the accommodation was infinitely inferior to the accommodation that they had been occupying. Neither did they want to subject them to the additional expense of travelling ten or 11 miles from Diepkloof into town and then by bus out to the suburbs. Apart from the expense, such an arrangement would have meant many additional hours spent in travelling on the grossly inadequate public transport available to them. After this roar of protest the scheme was temporarily shelved, but only temporarily. In the meantime other people who do not have the protection of domestic employers are being winkled out from the buildings they are occupying, either from the premises of hotels or sporting clubs, and are being put into Diepkloof. The scheme will, however, once more be extended to domestic servants, because right now huge hostels are being built at Alexandra Township, Orlando and elsewhere, because of the Minister’s idea of freezing the number of houses for families and limiting any further accommodation to hostel accommodation. I want to suggest that when the Government gets going it should choose a suburb which is well-known for its Nationalist supporters. I can think of many such suburbs. There is Randburg, Westdene and Mayfair. I can think of many suburbs packed to the gills with Nationalist supporters who, I am sure, are dying to do their bit for the cause of apartheid. Let the Government take their domestic servants and shift them to the hostels before they start with people who are not at all interested in assisting the Government in carrying out this part of its policy. I want to know whether the Minister and his Deputies have bothered to visit the Diepkloof hostel.

Yes, I have.

Did you think it was ideal?

In many respects it is a very good hostel.

In many respects? There is lots of fresh air, for instance? As far as fresh air is concerned, I could not fault it. There is plenty of fresh air around, until everybody starts lighting their little fires and the smog comes up. Of course, there is no electricity in many of the houses in the township. There is also hot water over the weekends.

It is not only available over weekends.

No, the position has just been improved, since everybody kicked up a fuss. The original idea was that hot water would be available on weekends only. The cost of the busfare is 9 cents each way, not to mention the busfare at the other end once one has reached the city. The rent is R2.25 per month. Sir, I want to give you some idea of the type of accommodation offered, not to temporary migrants, very primitive people who may come in on a temporary basis to do rough work and then go home again, but to domestic servants who have been trained to maintain certain standards of hygiene and who in many cases have lived under comfortable conditions with their own rooms, electricity, heaters, and hot water. And of course they live on the premises of their employers as well. That is very important indeed. In Diepkloof these people have to sleep on what I can only describe as brick coffins with a wooden lid. Inside they are meant to keep all their possessions. There is a padlock on the lid. There is no hanging space and there is no closet space. There is a small locker where a Primus stove may be kept and there are no cooking facilities except each person’s own Primus stove. There is a tiny little stove for heating but no space for keeping coal. The ablution block is really something to be seen. There is no idea of privacy at all. There are 28 toilets in cosy sets of seven and 24 showers in three groups of eight.

Do you want a luxury hotel there?

I would like to see something there Which pertains to civilized living. Moreover, I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister to leave people who are already decently accommodated, alone, the more so when he has 18,000 bachelors on the waiting list for accommodation. Why does he have to winkle people out who are already decently accommodated?

Even when one person has 30 servants living in his backyard?

Well, how many persons can the hon. the Deputy Minister produce who have 30 servants living in their backyards? What a ludicrous example! We are not talking about extreme cases but about the average. On the average the people of Johannesburg do not have 30 servants living in and those they do have are fairly decently accommodated. I want to know why the hon. the Minister does not get his priorities right. Of course, I disagree with this whole system of hostel accommodation but if the Minister has to do it, why then does he not first accommodate the 18,000 he has on the waiting list? But they cannot stand the sight of that hostel—that is why. Something like 5,000 people have to live in this block eventually while the showers, etc., I have mentioned are to take care of something like 588 of them. There are four troughs for everybody to wash their dishes in and eight troughs where they can wash their clothes. Needless to say, they have to pay more for everything. There are no proper shops. But the most interesting thing I discovered was that there is no ethnic grouping there. Imagine this Government setting up hostels without ethnic grouping! They are going to allow Tswana, Xhosa, Zulu all to live together.

But you are in favour of it.

I am dead against ethnic grouping, as the hon. the Minister knows; I am dead against any effort to turn urbanized people who have completely intermarried back into their ethnic groups on the basis of the old policy of divide and rule—this old British colonial theme which this Government is now adopting. In any event, as I was saying, these are quarters for people who have been living in reasonably comfortable quarters, although not all of them I admit. If these domestic servants are going to be moved to family units, one would not have so much to say. One would have to admit that they would then go and live a decent family life and that the hon. the Minister was concerned about seeing that when they were off. they would spend the time with their families. But no, they are going to live in these hostels— no family ties, no homes at all. I like the hon. the Minister talking glibly about how cruel people were to want to keep people on domestic servants’ premises because he said these people wanted to enjoy their recreation among their own people. I want to know how much time there is going to be left for recreation when somebody has to travel from the northern suburbs of Johannesburg on an inadequate bus service and then have to wait two or three hours before he can get onto one of the overcrowded trains of the hon. the Minister of Transport.

What recreation will these people have in backyards?

Well, they do not have an awful lot of recreation but they have leisure periods and they would have their own friends in the neighbourhood if the Minister of Police does not keep on raiding for trespassing. But I say, give them the choice. If they want to go and live in these hostels fine: nobody will stop them. But do these eastern potentates give these people a choice? On the contrary, they lay down the rules and everybody else has to jump to it. But for once, thank goodness, the citizens of Johannesburg jump the other way. Let me warn the hon. Ministers that they are in for an awful lot of trouble if they expect the citizens of Johannesburg to knuckle down to having their servants being shunted off to these miserable hostels of 30,000 people at Alexandra Township. Have they never considered the dangers and the sociological consequences of herding people together in these numbers in these dormitories? Have they thought of the conditions this can give rise to—the psychological effects, and sociological effects, homosexuality, immorality? Do they know that the illegitimacy rate already in Orlando is as high as 50 per cent of live births? And now, what sort of conditions are these hon. Ministers deliberately creating for people who are under their control?

Is immorality less in the backyards?

Yes, I think there is a good deal less immorality there. I can give hon. members a lengthy review of expert opinions of psychiatrists, of doctors discussing the medical conditions and the likelihood of disease and epidemics among people herded together in these conditions. But I will leave that to the imagination of the hon. the Minister, and who has a more vivid imagination than he has? We saw it illustrated yesterday.

Now I should like to ask the hon. the Minister what he is going to do about the removal of the Edenvale Hospital, because he is apparently responsible for it. I would have raised it under the Vote of the Minister of Health if it was a health matter, but this whole scheme apparently emanates from the Minister of Bantu Administration. In July I asked him a question about whether his Department had made any representations to the Transvaal Provincial Administration in regard to the Edenvale Hospital and, if so, what the nature of the representations were. His reply was “Yes” in favour of the erection of a regional hospital for Bantu at Tembisa to serve Edenvale, Daveyton, Southern Pretoria and the northern suburbs of Johannesburg.

Imagine, a hospital has to serve both the southern area of Pretoria and the northern area of Johannesburg. Randburg and Alexandria! I want to tell the hon. the Minister something about this Edenvale Hospital; maybe he will change his mind. I know ideology is a very important thing and that it has become a sort of second religion in this country. When the Government says something is government policy, then all of us simply have to bow down to it. But may I point out that Baragwanath Hospital is already hopelessly overcrowded. The non-European section of the Johannesburg General Hospital is already dealing with something like 90,000 cases per annum. The Edenvale non-European Hospital deals with 30,000 out-patients per annum,

12,0 admissions and 3,800 operations; it deals with from three to ten emergency cases every day, mainly accident cases. There are two surgical wards with 44 beds in each which always have about 60 patients in each ward—you know, under the bed, over the bed and two in the bed. I want to know why the hon. the Minister under these conditions of terrible overcrowding is closing down this hospital and is building a new one 17 miles out of town. What does he think is going to happen when there is an accident, when there is an emergency? Does he think people are going to dash 17 miles with the non-European casualty section right in the centre of the town? And they are not going to be turned away because no doctor will turn away a person who is bleeding to death. It is absurd. Build this hospital, by all means, but do not close the old one. There are other cases where non-European hospitals have been allowed in white areas. There is one for tuberculotics slap in the middle of a white area, and that does not worry the hon. the Minister. Why then now close the Edenvale Hospital? It is a scandalous thing to do, and I hope the hon. the Minister is going to think twice about it, also about this other policy decision about not allowing Bantu doctors to get consulting rooms in the townships. They are not even allowed to serve their own people in the townships; they have to go to the homelands. Imagine telling all the white doctors who qualify that they have to go and work in the rural areas. I have never heard of anything like that in my life. He says because the townships are in white residential areas …

I said he could remain in Soweto.

Did you? I have a cutting here which says exactly the opposite.

I have got nothing to do with a cutting; I am relying on my memory.

No, it is not a cutting; it is a circular from the Department of Bantu Administration.

I have already reacted to that and have explained it.

And changed your mind about it?

No. I have explained it correctly.

Well, whether you have explained it or not. to the best of my knowledge … [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Houghton asked here for the privilege of the half-hour. She asked the hon. the Minister many questions to which I am convinced she will receive very thorough replies. But there is one statement which the hon. member made, which I cannot allow to pass, and that is her accusation that the white man “has gone back on his word”. Sir, I want to say that the white man and the National Party have never broken their word. They have always kept to their word. Every action of the National Party has always been a positive one, and the National Party’s policy has always clearly been that this Parliament is the white man’s Parliament and will remain so. I said that the National Party has always taken positive action. When the National Party removed the Bantu representatives in this Parliament, we created their own Parliament for them in their homelands. When the Coloured representatives were removed from this Parliament, we took positive action and created their own Parliament for them. We also went further; we gave the Coloureds, the Indians and the Bantu their own universities. Are hon. members on that side opposed to that? Is the hon. member for East London (City) opposed to that?

I want to touch upon another matter here. This morning in the local Press we read that Prof. Olivier had made a speech before the Nasionale Jeugbond van Transvaal. I think the hon. member for Houghton also referred to this, but I could not follow her very well. We have the highest respect and regard for Prof. Olivier s knowledge, and for his contribution to the development of South Africa, but when a person such as Prof. Olivier delivers an address before young fellows and makes the statement that the number of Bantu in the white areas will possibly create more Sharpevilles and Paarls, I want to tell him— acknowledging that the newspapers have once more given free rein to the speech he made —that it is altogether wrong to speak of Sharpevilles and Paarls, linking them up with numbers, because Sharpeville and Paarl have nothing to do with numbers. What happened at Sharpeville and Paarl took place because agitators in the Republic incited the people to burn their reference books. That was the cause of what happened at Sharpeville and Paarl; numbers had nothing to do with it; these things happened because certain agitators and elements in the Republic revolted against certain laws which were passed by this Parliament for the proper implementation of influx control, so that non-Whites cannot stream into the white areas in an uncontrolled manner. Sir, we have great regard and respect for learned people like Prof. Olivier, but I want to appeal to them not to refer to Sharpevilles and Paarls when delivering addresses.

Sir, I should like to come back to the hon. members for Zululand and South Coast. When this Session began, these two members thought they could place their hopes on one thing, i.e. that the Zulu people would not accept the policy of this Government; they believed that the Zulu people would never let a territorial authority be established. When the territorial authority of the Zulu people was established on 11th June, 1970, the whole house of cards of the United Party collapsed, because they had placed their hopes on the supposition that the Zulu people would be the one people not prepared to accept the policy of the Government. But we have found that since the National Party came into power the United Party has opposed us at every step. They opposed us when we wanted to remove the Bantu in Johannesburg and all the large cities, when we brought about separation between Whites and the non-Whites. They opposed us when we wanted to clear away the black spots in the country districts, and last year we had a tremendous debate here about Limehill and Morsgat. This year they do not speak about Limehill and Morsgat, because everyone realized what a fiasco the United Party had made of that, and that the conditions did not exist. These people were shifted to places with better facilities. But this year the hon. member for South Coast came along and tried to ask the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration what had actually happened in Zululand. And do you know what he is feeling unhappy about? He is unhappy because Zululand has also decided to travel this road towards independence; because the Zulu people have now decided to follow the policy of the National Party. But the United Party is jealous because they do not have a share in this political development of the Bantu homelands of the Republic of South Africa. When, in this Parliament in 1951, we passed the Act about the Bantu authorities, the United Party opposed us on that issue. They opposed us at every stage, but they even sowed suspicion among the Bantu in their own areas. Dr. Verwoerd had to go along and address the various chieftains and plead for the acceptance of the Bantu authorities in their own areas. The United Party, with its agitators and the English Press which supported them, opposed it all.

On a point of order, Sir, may the hon. member refer to the United Party and a certain section of the Press as agitators?

The hon. member may proceed.

I hope you will grant me injury time, Sir.

On a point of order, Sir, is it acceptable now to refer to the United Party as “agitators”?

What did the hon. member say precisely?

Sir, if I said it, I withdraw it.

On a point of order, Sir, have you given a ruling that that expression may be used in regard to members of this House? [Interjections.]

The hon. member has just withdrawn those words.

If we look at the tremendous development that has taken place in the past few years, since the Government came along with the political development of these Bantu homelands, do those hon. members realize what it entails to bring a Bantu homeland to its present-day political position? Do these hon. members realize where the Minister had to begin? He first had to begin with the tribal authority, and do they realize that to-day in the Republic of South Africa there are no fewer than 611 tribal authorities? Do they realize that there are no fewer than 71 territorial and regional authorities? And do they realize that every homeland to-day has either its territorial authority or a legislative assembly? The Transkei is the one that has made the greatest progress; it has a legislative assembly. You need not hold your ear like that; it is stupidity you are evidencing. Do you not realize what this Minister and his Department have done? This Minister and his Department taught these homelands what action to take. The Minister brought these homelands from a tribal authority position to a territorial authority position, and then to that of a legislative assembly. Hon. members must realize that they can go and take a lesson from those territorial authorities about how to conduct themselves in Parliament. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to react along the same lines adopted by the United Party in this debate. I only have 10 minutes in which to speak, and I therefore want to dispose of this business quickly. I first want to stress two matters. The first is that the National Party has already passed two turning points. The first turning point which the National Party passed, or rather the first milestone it has reached, is that, contrary to what history has taught us, it is going to give independence to the various black Bantu homelands without the intrusion of violence. We have passed that stage.

In the future we therefore no longer need to have fears of violence on the part of the Bantu. They will obtain their independence if they ask for it; when they ask for it, it can be given consideration, but violence will not be necessary. The second milestone is that the legislative programme, which was laid down by the National Party, itself embodied the implication that the presence of a Bantu labourer in a white area need not necessarily mean integration. This legislative programme, which was laid down through the years, against the violent opposition of the United Party, implies four factors.

Firstly it implies that in the white area the Bantu does not have the right to vote, and that he cannot exercise political rights. Secondly it implies that in the white area the Bantu cannot acquire proprietary rights. Thirdly it implies that in the white area the Bantu cannot obtain investment rights, and, fourthly, that in the white area the Bantu cannot exercise citizenship rights. The withholding of these rights from the Bantu in the white area is not a deprivement of his rights. The rights are being granted to the Bantu within his own area. Since the Opposition has said that we have deprived the Bantu of rights, I want to state that it was not a deprivement which took place, but a transferring of rights for the sake of stability, order and the elimination of chaos in the future. When a person does not have these four basic rights in another person’s country, his presence in the other person’s country—in this case the presence of the Bantu in the white area—is not on an integrational basis; he is then present here as an economically active person. In consequence the National Party has already progressed very far along the road towards the possible practicability of our policy. The legislative programme has been laid down, and no United Party member in South Africa will be able to repeal those laws. We have passed that turning point. Integration is not coupled with the physical presence of a labourer in another man’s country, if that labourer does not have the four basic rights.

Why do you apply this to the Coloureds?

We are not speaking about Coloureds now. We are not engaged in a Coloured debate. We are engaged in a Bantu debate. On this basis our policy can succeed, because what we propose doing there in the future we shall in any case have to do here. I want to remind the United Party that we, as National Party, are faced with a challenge. I do not deny this. Our challenge comprises the following: (1) If we do not want the number of Bantu in the white area to increase, we shall have to make provision for 90,000 jobs a year in respect of the whole area, i.e. white and black; (2) If we want to absorb the natural increase of labourers within the Bantu area, we shall have to make provision for about 40,000 posts; (3) We shall have to make provision for the labourers from the Transkei and from Zululand, labourers who constitute about 70 per cent of the numbers we shall have to absorb annually. What we shall have to do to make provision for that, we shall in any case have to do here in the white area.

All we now want to do is to do it there. We want to do it in the border areas, and we want to do it within the Bantu areas. No-one can deny those figures. We shall have to do it here in the white area in order to accommodate those labourers. We want to do it on the borders and within the Bantu areas, with the following advantages: (a) We could do it on a much cheaper basis; (b) If we were to do it here as the United Party wants to co it, we shall have to do it on a very expensive framework. It will cost approximately R500 to R600 per labourer for every additional labourer one would have to accept in the white area and in our metropolitan areas. If we must do it, then I say we want to do it there at a reduced capital cost. [Interjection.] Now what do you want to do it here for? Let us transfer it to the border areas, with the concomitant political and social benefits.

On the borders?

On the borders as well, and within the Bantu areas. We have succeeded in bringing home to everyone in South Africa, including the Opposition, the concept that the economic reconstruction of the Bantu areas is an absolute necessity. You also advocate it. We have brought it home to you. Because the National Party does not think in terms of a short-term policy, or in terms of an annual profit or loss, and because we think in terms of a long-term policy, we can also link up our economic reconstruction of the Bantu homelands to concomitant political and social benefits. The hon. member for Houghton will have to make provision for 90,000, in respect of the whole of South Africa, in other words the Bantu within the white area and in the Bantu areas. That hon. member will have to make provision annually for 40,000 within the Bantu area. We must do so: we cannot get away from that. Neither the United Party nor the National Party can escape that challenge. And that is why we have to do it there. If we do it there we obviate certain bottlenecks that might develop in future For example, we eliminate the possibility of friction. We eliminate what we are learning about daily from America, i.e. friction and arson. Whether we want to acknowledge it or not, wherever colour groups find themselves in contact throughout the world, there is friction and trouble. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Carletonville started off by painting this wonderful picture of what the Nationalist Party intend to do to provide work for 40,000 people in the Bantu areas and 90,000 peonie in the white areas. Our complaint has been consistently throughout the whole period of office of this Nationalist Party Government that they have been talking about one thing and doing precisely the opposite. The very point which my hon. leader made at the beginning of this session was to say to this Nationalist Party: “Let us go to the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council. Let us consult the people that the Prime Minister himself chooses to advise him on economic ground”. Let them tell us how we can remain strong enough in our metropolitan urban industrial areas, and how we can generate there the wealth which is going to make it possible for us to go into the Bantu areas to do this sort of thing about which the hon. member for Carletonville has been talking. We have not had one answer from any single member on the other side. Not one of them has told us how it can be done. If we are going to sit here and debate something which is nothing more than a sterile political theory, we are wasting the time of South Africa. What we are doing, is that we, as a white minority, are generating the growth. We are providing employment. We are providing a future for 17 million black people. But what is happening? We are in danger today, all of us, of being sucked into this vortex of the Bantu population, this growing population explosion.

We are not in the minority.

Of course we are a minority. What is the hon. member talking about? Where has he been all the time? They spend R60 million to get him, and he is no good to them. Let us put it as a practical proposition. What has happened is that this Nationalist Party has made apartheid into a holy cow. We have a holy cow which is white, with 22 black calves. One of them is a little Bushman calf, Mr. Chairman, if you remember the story of the hon. the Minister that there has been appointed now a commissioner-general for the Bushmen people. This is what we have been reduced to by this Government. I want to ask the hon. the Minister: Show us that this development in the Bantu areas can be done. If he can show us, then we can debate the policy of the Nationalist Party. If it is an impossible policy that cannot be carried out, why are we wasting our time talking about it?

There are certain steps which have to be taken. One of the first steps that have to be taken in the Bantu areas, is to improve the food supply. I challenge any member on the other side to tell me in which Bantu area to-day there is a rising level of food production. The first thing that happens in any emergent society is that there is a greater demand for food. Because the people are economically better off, they want more food.

What about the droughts?

One member says they are talking about long term planning, and this hon. member talks about “droogtes” which happen from year to year. I am challenging that hon. member to tell me in what Bantu area is anything being done to improve the long term food supply for the people. Otherwise, those areas are going to become food importing areas. Any improvement in the economic position that they may make will be swallowed up by the demand for food. So, the first step they will have to take is to improve the food supply. The second step is capital generation. In what area in the Bantu areas to-day is there capital being built up by the local Bantu population? Can the hon. the Minister tell us of one area? After 22 years of this Government in power, where is there to-day in any single Bantu area something which is being done to build up capital on the part of the local indigenous Bantu population, the de jure population of those areas? There is not one. Where is there any kind of training being done? What we have in this country, is a tissue of laws, a paper tiger. This apartheid which this Government talks about, simply wipes out 600,000 people in Soweto by passing a law and making them all citizens of somewhere else, without moving a single one of them.

Let me take you in a lorry to some of these homelands so that you can see for yourself.

I am pleased the hon. the Deputy Minister says that. Will he tell me now that the Bantu population in any single one of these homelands is generating capital on its own with which to develop its own area? And which one?

It is such a silly question that it is not worth replying to.

If that is so, why is the Government going out of its way to accept the policy of the United Party, which is aimed at using the white man’s capital and his skill inside the Bantu areas to develop them? Why is it necessary to do so if it is true that the capital is being generated there?

Because there is not enough capital in those areas.

Exactly. What do they have for their own future? They are dependent 100 per cent upon the effort which is made by White South Africa to develop those areas.

That is not true and you know it.

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister must withdraw those words.

But, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member said that those areas are 100 per cent dependent and that is not correct.

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister must withdraw those words.

I withdraw them.

Mr. Chairman, let me put it to the hon. the Deputy Minister that he must come to my area. I have a very pertinent case in point. I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister to visit my area, which includes Mpumuza, Sweet Waters, the whole of the location of Edendale, from Pietermaritzburg up to Elandskop. Let the Deputy Minister show me in that area where any kind of productive effort has been generated by the Bantu populations themselves. They are living right on the borders of Pietermaritzburg. They have been productively employed there for years and years. I ask the Minister or the Deputy Minister to tell me where in that area any single source of employment has been generated by the Bantu for themselves. I believe that there are something like 340,000 people who are resident in that area and they are entirely dependent upon the white people round about them. Now the Minister and his Department have decided to establish a Bantu township there to house some 20,000 people, upon whom the whole development of my area is dependent. We have had no development whatsoever. A few houses were built for old people.

Where?

I am talking about Montrose Township near Howick.

I suppose that is not development at all?

Of course there is development, but this Government is always talking about it. The words in their mouths and the action in their hands are, however, two very different things. We asked the Government what the problem was and why these places are not being developed. There is a shortage of water for the development of the Montrose Township and it is within a mile and a half of the Midmar Dam. Every single thing to do with development there, such as the clearing out of the Indian areas, the absorption of that area into the local authority of Howick, and the development of the industrial area, is tied up in this Department, and then they theorize. They talk the whole time without getting down to the practical development of the area. Sir, this is something which the hon. the Minister controls. If he is serious, he can allow the White man’s capital and the White man’s skill to be used in that area. He has, however, imposed a limit by saying that such help must be given on the agency basis. I ask him again: On what basis is this “agency” going to work? He sat here the other day and refused to tell us. There was a petulant outburst on his part. He would not tell us what this basis was going to be. The whole future of South Africa, in the minds of members of the Nationalist Party, is dependent upon that basis. If it is such a big secret, how are the industrialists, who are concerned with this basis, supposed to know what to plan for? How are they supposed to plan without a detailed statement from this Minister as to how he is going to make his policy work? Let me say right now that until there is satisfactory economic development in those Bantu areas, all this sham of a political system which has been built up by the Nationalist Party is meaningless. Until the people have full stomachs they do not have time to think about the niceties of political manoeuvres and machinations. They want food and employment and they want the white man to help them to obtain it.

You are becoming unnecessarily dramatic.

Sir, the future of my country is at stake and then the hon. member says that I am becoming dramatic. What has the Government been doing for 22 years? What are they talking about? What progress have they made? Can the hon. member for Potchefstroom tell me in which area in the Bantu homelands any kind of capital development is taking place to-day?

I shall give you the particulars.

Sir, the hon. member cannot tell me, and nobody else knows anything about it at all. If the Bantu are going to be satisfied with independence, why does the Government not give them independence now? If it is going to be the solution to our problem why are they not given independence now?

We are not like you.

Sir, surely to goodness we have a policy which is designed to solve the problem. That hon. member for Pietersburg was the one who spoke in another debate about the fact that each of these countries is going to have its own little growth rate. [Time expired.]

I am rising to my feet to reply at this stage, to a number of the questions which have been put to me from the opposite side since yesterday. Since the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is present, and I accept that he was unable to be present yesterday, I hope that he will be able to remain for a while so that I can also to put to him personally now the questions I was unable to put in his absence yesterday. First of all now I am going to furnish a few replies to a number of points, and perhaps later this afternoon to other points.

The hon. member for Transkei, who must please listen, put questions, to certain of which I now want to reply. The hon. member referred to certain mining developments and asked what the situation was in regard to that and whether the mining companies were being afforded an opportunity to make offers, to send in tenders for similar propositions. I had thought that the hon. member, after so many years, would by now have been aware of how the position in regard to mining developments in the Bantu homelands has been functioning all these years. It is not given out on tender. I think that this is a simple explanation, which the hon. member could himself have offered, of this matter, because nobody knows where a mine is before prospecting has been done and before it has been established that it is there. All these years it has been functioning in this way, that if a mining company or individuals, whatever the nature of the undertaking is, are interested in developing certain areas within the Bantu homelands, this is of course usually preceded by prospecting. The people apply to us for prospecting rights and if the results are positive, the next step is mine leasing. In these matters our Department is very closely advised by the Department of Mines. If there are various companies which apply for such prospecting opportunities then the applications are considered on merit and the necessary investigation of those companies is instituted. Advice is obtained from the Department of Mines and if it is deemed desirable, the area is divided among them. If it is not deemed desirable, then the concession is made to what is deemed to be the best company in the light of the various relevant considerations. The company then pays a fixed tariff for those prospecting opportunities. The next step after that is a mining lease, if the results of the prospecting in that specific case were positive. In connection with mining development the hon. member also mentioned certain regions. It seems to me there is a confusion between names in the Transkei and those in the Transvaal. The hon. member spoke here about the Baca area.

No, the Bapo area.

Bapo? Yesterday the hon. member said Baca.

No, I said Bapo.

But here is the hon. member’s unrevised Hansard. I went through it again this morning. There it says Baca.

I did not say it.

Well, here it stands in typewritten form.

(Inaudible.]

Very well, I am not arguing about that. I do say however that there has been confusion with the names. Let me now inform the hon. member what concessions have recently been made in the Transkei.

I did not refer to the Transkei.

Very well, I shall deal with the Transvaal as well. I shall leave out the Transkei, since the hon. member did not talk about it.

No, I want to hear about that as well.

I made inquiries about that specific area only, where it appeared that there had been a misunderstanding. Certain prospecting rights have been granted in the Umzimvubu reserve in the Transkei and also in the Mdakeni location where monthly prospecting fees to an amount of R30 in the one case and R40 in the other are being paid. Subsequently, if the results are positive, the next step will be mine leasing and in regard to that the conditions are subsequently laid down. As far as the case in the Transvaal is concerned, the hon. member mentioned certain figures. The Impala mine is situated in the area of the Bafokeng tribal area, near Rustenburg. If that was what the hon. member was alluding to, the position is that, as in the other case which I have just explained in principle, the application of that particular mine was considered in closest consultation with the Department of Mines. On the advice of that Department it was decided that prospecting facilities could be granted to the company. Usually of course surface rental is paid. This is a fluctuating amount and I do not know what it is in this case. Once the mine is operating, a further amount in respect of the proceeds is paid. In the case of the Impala mine the figure is not 10 per cent but, according to my information, 13 per cent of the profits after deduction of taxes. This is in terms of the mining lease agreement negotiated with them. I do not have more particulars about this, but I think I have supplied the information the hon. member wanted.

I was referring to the report in the Star …

I looked at the Star, but could not find that particular report. I must say, however, that some rapscallion or other tore a piece out of that particular copy of the Star in the reading room. I do not know whether it is in fact that report which was torn out. I wanted to react to the report in the Star of 1st September. In regard to mines, the hon. member asked me what the position was in regard to Bantu persons in mines in Bantu homelands, in other words what work they are going to do there. Inter alia, mention was also made of applications from certain mining companies which are allegedly under consideration at present. I stated the position in this regard in reply to a question the other day, but let me do so again. Mining companies do not address their requests in regard to the grading of work to me because it is not a matter which falls under me; it falls under the Department of Mines. As I said the other day, I was consulted in regard to such matters by a certain mining entrepreneur. I could just state the principle to this committee now in unequivocal terms. Apart from the principle there is the consideration of specific cases of specific mines. This falls under the Department of Mines. As far as the Government’s approach to the principle—and not only my approach—in regard to Bantu workers in the mines in the Bantu homelands is concerned, the position is precisely the same as it is in the Public Service and any otherkind of work within the Bantu homelands. In other words, there are no restrictions and in principle no ceiling for those people in their avenues of employment. But this must be understood very well—as in all the other avenues of employment, such as the universities and the Bantu Public Service, such as in commerce and in other matters, we believe that there should be an organic growth on the part of the Bantu in those occupations from the bottom to the top. We do not believe that Bantu should merely be crammed from the top into occupations which are not based on Bantu from the bottom upwards. That is why we say that in these undertakings—whether they are mines, or universities or industries or whether it is the Public Service—they must be incorporated from the bottom upwards and there is no restriction on them. As regards the mines, there is still one additional consideration, which is very important, a consideration with which I admittedly have nothing to do, but for which I nevertheless have much appreciation. This relates to the safety aspect. We know what mining work entails, particularly underground. For safety purposes, there are certain laws which are administered by my colleague, the Minister of Mines. As far as the safety aspect is concerned therefore, the necessary attention must be given to this when these people, White or non-White, are admitted to these avenues of employment. My reply is very clear therefore: In principle there are no restrictions on them, but Bantu must enter those avenues of employment from below, taking into account the particular nature of each one, and taking into account the safety aspect. In that regard the hon. member must discuss this matter further with my colleague, the Minister of Mines. I think I have replied at quite some length to the hon. member’s point. In any case, there is nothing further I can add to that. As far as the specific cases which are now receiving attention, I may just add the following. The hon. member tried to make fun of this, that certain applications were submitted and that it was said that they were under consideration. As far as I know, some of those applications were withdrawn, even before final consideration could be given to them. That is nothing unusual. I cannot say anything about specific cases of specific entrepreneurs, because this does not fall under me. In any case the hon. member will perhaps quite soon, be afforded the opportunity in this House to take this matter further with my colleague. As far as the principle is concerned, there is no doubt on the part of the Government, nor may there now be any doubt on the part of the Opposition.

I asked whether the Lonhro Falconridge group was the same as the Impala group.

This morning I had inquiries made in Pretoria, but this name could not be traced. The hon. member for Transkei also put certain questions to me in regard to the agency system, as we call it. He referred again to the questions which were formally put to me earlier in this Session. I want to explain it very carefully again to the hon. member, and at the same time to everyone in this Committee. There were two sets of questions: One from the hon. member for Houghton and the other from the hon. member for Transkei.

I also asked a few questions.

I beg your pardon then. In my replies to those questions I furnished the names of those entrepreneurs with whom we have already concluded agreements and who are now able to commence operations. This is general knowledge, and that is why I supplied it. But I refused to give the names of those entrepreneurs who were still negotiating with us and I will most certainly never disclose their names—quite simply, for business reasons. It would not be right to do so. We are continually being taught lessons on ethics by the opposite side. I maintain it is unethical, when negotiations with those people are still in progress, to broadcast their names. I shall not do so. That is not the way in which we will stir up interest in the work in the homelands. That is why I did not announce them. This is not done in any business circles, and I do not know why I should do so. Secondly, the hon. member also asked me yesterday for more details about the business, the basis of the agreement, each specific subdivision of the agreement: how much they are paying; how much capital they are investing there; how much capital we are investing, and apparently, what their salaries are. Now I must reveal and disclose everything. Sir, I shall not do so. Nor is it business practice to do so. I know very well, and so do another hon. members that an old established semi-State institution such as the Industrial Development Corporation has also concluded many agreements with Whites; that it has also lent money to them; that it also takes shares from them; that it also makes advances to them, etc., etc., not only in border industries but also in large metropolitan complexes such as Cape Town, Johannesburg, and throughout the country. Sir, that information is not disclosed. It is also in a certain sense public money which is being made available for those people. It is not business ethics to disclose the particulars, nor shall I do so in this case. I repeat what I said before to the hon. member, i.e. that there is a standard form of agreement and that that standard form is departed from as circumstances differ from one undertaking to another. The hon. member can have that standard form of agreement. I do not have it here on me in Cape Town. The hon. member said yesterday that he asked for it and that he had not yet been able to get it. I am sorry that he has not yet been able to get it, and I shall see to it that he does.

Sir, as far as the agency system is concerned, I can give the hon. member a few general items of information about it. I have already referred to the standard agreement. In that agreement conditions for the leasing of buildings, if any, are then imposed on the entrepreneurs. Not all the entrepreneurs inevitably need buildings. Some entrepreneurs could perhaps construct their own buildings, but for most of them we must construct the buildings. Those people are then charged a rental. Provisions in regard to the maintenance and insurance of the property are also included, and it is provided in all cases that no entrepreneur shall obtain land-tenure rights. This is a fixed rule which is applied in all cases. The entrepreneurs do not obtain land-tenure rights, but only rights of occupation, for which they have to pay a certain amount; in addition the amount varies; it is not one and the same for all for circumstances vary from one industry to another and from one undertaking to another. Then, too, conditions are laid down in regard to the expiry of the term of lease. The term of lease of one undertaking is perhaps 10 years with an option to extend the term of lease; the term of lease of another undertaking is perhaps 15 years, and in the case of another 25. The term varies from one undertaking to another, depending on the particular circumstances of that industry—the nature of its product, its turnover, its marketing, the demand for the product, etc.

It is even stipulated what will happen when that industry in due course passes—it is one of our requirements that the industry should in due course do so—into the hands of the Bantu, either to the Corporation or to the Bantu individuals. All these points are covered by the agreement. It is also provided that when the value of that property has to be determined one day, a valuator from their side and a valuator from our side will be appointed to submit valuations according to which a settlement can then be reached. A provision is also inserted to the effect that maximum use should be made of Bantu labour and that they must be trained to occupy increasingly higher posts. These are the kind of provisions contained in those contracts, and I really cannot tell the hon. member any more than that.

The hon. member also discussed interest. The rentals we charge for the buildings are calculated on an interest basis, and this also varies. Let us not conceal these things from one another. I take pride in this—we should very much like to attract such people to those areas. If we rather badly want to attract a certain firm to those areas and we realize that it may perhaps experience certain difficulties there in regard to its activities, we accommodate it in respect of the assets which we have to rent to that firm. That is why there is a fluctuating rental tariff which goes up to a maximum of 6 per cent. Up to the present rentals have in most cases been calculated on an average basis of approximately 4 per cent, but it varies, depending upon the undertaking in question. And we are doing this to encourage these people, particularly because—hon. members must realize this— those people cannot, inter alia, build up fixed capital assets there since they are not granted land tenure rights, and that is why we must compensate them for this in some other way. That is why we must accommodate them with this rental basis, for example.

What is the normal term of the lease?

There are completely different terms. There is one of 10 years, with an option to extend it, and I do not know of any which is longer than 25 years, but there are a few of 25 years. It varies, depending on the industry. Sir, I have now replied in full to this matter. Now there are only a few isolated points left.

I come to the hon. member for Zululand, and here the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also enters the picture. The hon. member for Zululand chopped and changed left right and centre here yesterday evening when I asked the hon. member opposite whether the hon. member for Bezuidenhout was correct when he said that the Opposition accepted all the important principles and recommendations —these were his words—of the Tomlinson Report.

The general principles.

The general principles and the recommendations. I then repeated that the most general, more comprehensive and most important principle was the development of the homelands, and I asked whether they were in agreement with that. Then the hon. member for Zululand tried to waltz out of that predicament by saying that the Tomlinson Commission was merely concerned with factual analyses. But it was not merely concerned with factual analyses. The Tomlinson Commission did contain many factual analyses, and it stated specific principles and made specific recommendations. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout did not discuss the factual analyses; he discussed the principles and the recommendations and he said that these were accepted by the United Party. I want to know from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether it is correct that the United Party accepts these? The hon. member did not tell me whether he accepted them. Will he tell me now whether he does?

I dealt with it.

Will the hon. member now, while his Leader is present, tell me whether he accepts the recommendations and the principles of the Tomlinson Report? Now they have been “zipped”. I now want to ask the Leader of the Opposition that one question, and he must give me a reply this afternoon, because there is sufficient time, and there will still be other debates as well. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Zululand does not want to say anything, nor does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Once again, I take my hat off to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. At least he is a man who states his policy openly.

The official party statement is contained in Hansard.

That is his policy, but I want to know whether it is his party’s policy. The hon. member for Zululand also discussed the Zululand Territorial Authority again. I want to repeat here as well what the hon. member did not furnish me with a reply to. The hon. member for Zululand said that they would abolish anything which was fundamentally inconsistent with South Africa’s being a unity. But that was not my question. My question was clear, and I am repeating it now to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. My question is that in view of the fact that the hon. member for South Coast protested so vehemently here in the first debate this year against the establishment of the Zululand Territorial Authority. will the Opposition abolish that territorial authority, yes or no?

I dealt with that also.

I am getting no reply. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that they would ultimately go further than provincial status and to maximum political development within the homelands.

We all say the same.

Yes, but the hon. member for South Coast wants to abolish the Zululand Territorial Authority, and I want to know whether it is correct that this is the policy of the United Party?

Where did he say that?

I have more points like this of which I shall remind the Leader of the Opposition. I shall return in a moment to the other points. [Interjections.] Sir, this old, crusty hon. member for South Coast must stop berating people as soon as he no longer has any further arguments. The hon. member for Zululand wanted to know whether we would give the Zulu people in Natal even more land. The hon. member for Zululand ought to know that the position of land in all the provinces has been determined in terms of the Act. What must still be added, will be added and it will be added mainly in two ways: Firstly, it will comprise State-owned land which must be transferred, and secondly, it comprises private land which must be purchased. It could be that State-owned land could in turn be transferred to private individuals, because certain private land is needed, inter alia, to help further consolidation.

Now I want to ask the hon. member whether he will be of assistance to us with consolidation work on this basis in Natal. We cannot purchase more than has been laid down by the Act and we must come to Parliament if we do want more. The hon. member knows what we have to do. One must either declare a piece of Bantu land to be white land and exchange this for a piece of white land so that the two more or less balance out, or you must obtain additional land from the State or from the Whites. But this is controlled by the quota figures of this Act. I now want to ask the hon. member directly whether he will assist us in this work?

I will not help you with anything …

There the hon. members have the answer. He will not help us with anything, and this is how it has been placed on record.

That is not what I said.

Now the hon. member is making haste to qualify what he said. He probably said “towards independent Bantustants”.

That is what I said now.

Yes, that is their old story and that is the restraint under which we must work with a place such as Zululand. Notwithstanding the restraint …

I will not have my words twisted.

Mr. Chairman, may the hon. member say that I twisted his words?

Order! Is the hon. member implying that the hon. the Minister is twisting his words?

Mr. Chairman, that is the impression I got from what the hon. the Minister has said.

The hon. member must withdraw it.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw that and I ask the hon. the Minister to accept my words as I have spoken them.

The hon. member said that he would not help us because it would lead to independent Bantustans, and whatever else he said. That is their old story.

I did not say that.

What did the hon. member say then, if he did not say that?

I said that I will not help you with land towards the creation of an independent Bantustan.

My goodness, but that is what I said the hon. member had said. It seems to me hearing and eyesight are deteriorating among the United Party there on the opposite side. Arising out of what the hon. member for Zululand said, I just want to raise one more point in respect of the land question. A moment ago the hon. member for Zululand again dragged Chief Gatsha Buthelezi into the matter here, as the hon. member for South Coast was fond of doing in the past. I have a good relationship with that chief, and he with me. I know him and he knows me. There are probably more people who know him. but I want to say here, and I want hon. members on the opposite side to understand me very clearly, that not one single member of the Opposition in the House of Assembly, nor any member on this side of the House, has any formal duties and relationship towards Gatsha Buthelezi or any other chief in South Africa. I shall most strongly condemn any intervention on the part of the hon. member for Zululand or the hon. member for South Coast or of any hon. member on that side in the Zululand Territorial Authority and in any other Bantu territorial authority in South Africa. This Government is the government of the country and I with my two Departments are those who have been appointed by the Act to maintain the relationships with the Bantu, and it is our duty to liaise with them. They know how to reach us. I now want to tell those hon. members that if they want to interfere, they will have to prepare themselves for the possible reproach that they want to mar white politics by bringing those people into our politics or vice versa. The hon. members must remember that now. This is not a warning I have now addressed to them; I have merely given them a very good tip and they must please take note of it. I am asking the members to realize that they have no official relationships with the Native chiefs.

You want to plot and scheme in the dark.

Nowhere am I plotting and scheming in the dark. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the hon. member for South Coast that he is just as furious at me again now as he was yesterday. If his eyes could spew fire, I would have already been alight. But it has no effect on me. I think nothing of that venomous look in his eye. He can become just as angry at me as he wants to. It is I and my Department who have a duty towards these Bantu authorities, and not he and his colleagues.

You have a lot to thank me for. Why do you not do it?

I have nothing to thank that hon. member for. The hon. member for South Coast tried yesterday to react to my speech. It was a plaintive egg dance. What did the hon. member do yesterday? He tried to allege that what I said here yesterday in regard to the abolition of the Zululand territorial authority conflicted with what I said earlier in the House. He paged through columns and columns of Hansard and quoted paragraphs and paragraphs here to kill time because he had nothing to say. What I said yesterday is in no single respect in conflict with what I said previously. Previously I did not speak standing. The hon. member for Transkei reproached me for not having spoken, but I was unable to do so because I spoke before the hon. member in the previous debates. I could not speak twice in one debate, nor can I speak while sitting. Yesterday I set the matter out in full, and it does not conflict in any respect with what I said previously. I stated previously that this Parliament was sovereign. I said it again yesterday, and I am saying it now. This Parliament is sovereign. But I also said that apart from the legal position that Parliament has the sovereignty to undo everything, there are also ethical or moral aspects which prevent certain matters from being undone because it is in conflict with the ethical considerations. I said that the ethical considerations were paramount and that is why the sovereignty of Parliament is affected by the fact that it cannot be done because we do not want to do them that injustice. It was very apparent from the debate that there was still a third consideration which I only thought of to-day. That is the practical consideration.

What about the …

That hon. member must keep quiet, because I am talking. But as I said, there is even a practical consideration. This Parliament, after all, has the right to make an Act in terms of which it will be able to return to the pre-1961 monarchy or to any other monarchy. Will we do so? No, we will not do so. All those people who voted no in 1960 will not do so either, for practical reasons, for moral reasons, or for whatever other reasons there are. The sovereignty of Parliament is not such an absolute matter. That hon. member must know this. He is the old fellow (ou) who wanted to march to the Union Buildings.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, may the hon. the Minister refer to the hon. member for South Coast as the “old fellow”?

Is the hon. member not an old member?

Order! The hon. the Minister must use the customary terms.

I cannot refer to the hon. member as the hon. young member.

He is a senior member.

Very well. The hon. senior member was so opposed to the Republic that he even ran to the Union Buildings and asked Nationalist Ministers what he should do to get out of his promise to march. That hon. member will not want to see us returning to a monarchy.

What rubbish!

Must I divulge the names to that hon. member?

Before I resume my seat, I should just like to refer to the speech made by the hon. member for Pinetown, the one he made yesterday evening. I shall reply later to the other hon. members’ speeches. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased if you could point out the speaker. Mr. Chairman, I have something further to say to the hon. member for Pinelands, and then I have a last question for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, since he is fortunately here. On the point mentioned last night by the hon. member for Pinelands I have only one reply. It was of course an extremely vulnerable speech which the hon. friend of mine made again yesterday evening. But now I would at least like to set him right a little. The hon. member said there was no basis for the Bantu in the white areas to link up with those in the homelands. Good heavens, Sir, imagine a lawyer, an old member of this House, an office-bearer of the U.P. study group on Bantu Affairs, being able to say things like that!

I did not say that.

Now he did not say it. What does one do now? The hon. member must know that a tremendous amount has been done for the Bantu in white areas as a basis for liaison. Let us take the Transkei as an example. The constitution of the Transkei makes provision for the registration of voters. Does the hon. member know that there have already been two major general registrations for the Transkei, one in 1963, when 258,000 Transkeian citizens were registered here in the white areas? They came voluntarily to register. Does the hon. member know that with the second general registration in 1968, a further almost 250,000 were registered? Does the hon. member know that large numbers of these people in the white areas also voted on both those occasions? Is that not a basis for the Bantu in the white areas to link up with their homelands? I just want to remind hon. members of this, and also to the great regret of the two members for Natal, the hon. members for South Coast and Zululand, that Chief Gatsha Bethelezi of Zululand pointed out to that same territorial authority—I can quote it from his speech for hon. members—that the acting paramount chief, Chief Israel, and he himself, insisted that we ensure that the Zulu in the white areas were politically connected to their territorial authority in Zululand. That Native is asking from us the quintessence of political development of the Bantu. Now this hon. member is laughing like a sadist who has to laugh at his own death. That is why the hon. member is laughing there now. The same has already happened in respect of the North Sotho. They also asked us for this The same applied to the Tswana. They asked us, and we are now working on that scheme to give them at an early stage, even before they have reached the Transkei stage, such a system through which they can link their people in the white areas politically to those in the homeland. Then the hon. member tells us that there is no basis. That, of course, is apart from the fact that in the Bantu Self-Government Act provision is being made for the councils which can be constituted around the appointed representatives of the territorial authorities in the white areas. These are not the urban Bantu councils; these are the other councils, established in terms of the 1959 Act. A few of these are already in operation. Earlier this year we introduced amending legislation in regard to this matter to organize matters better for ourselves. Then the hon. member says that there is no basis. Sir, there are even more examples. I am not going to elaborate on this. It is not necessary.

I now want to conclude by saying to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that we, too, had a very serious argument in his absence. Now that the hon. the Leader is present, I am deeply grateful to him because he is here and I want to ask him to clear up this little matter for us. It concerns the unity and nationhood or otherwise of the people in South Africa. In our minds there is no confusion whatsoever on this matter. We state very clearly, one nation or one people the inhabitants of South Africa are not. We say that the Whites have developed as one nation. In addition to that we say that there are all the other different non-white nations. I shall confine myself to the sphere of my work, and I shall refer to the various Bantu nations which there are, i.e. the Zulus, the Vendas, the Shangaans, the Hereros, etc. I need not mention all. But in the debates we had here, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that he, as well as his party, acknowledged the multi-nationality in South Africa. A few weeks ago the hon. member for East London (City) said that there was no such thing as multi-nationality in South Africa. Yesterday evening he stated the Bantu to be one people and acknowledged the Whites as another. Now I want to remind the hon. the Leader of the Opposition of what he himself said in this connection. I just want to repeat that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that he and the United Party acknowledged multi-nationality in South Africa, and that all the Bantu nations were separate from the Whites. On 8th June, 1961, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said the following in this House (Hansard, 1961, column 7559)—

In other words, the Leader of the Opposition said in 1961 that, regardless of race, all people in South Africa should have one unity and nationhood. Now the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is adopting a different standpoint. Now I want to know from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: Who is correct— the member for Bezuidenhout of to-day or the Leader of the Opposition—the same person, Sir De Villiers Graaff—of 1961? We shall not take it amiss of the Leader of the Opposition. We shall laud him for it and praise him if he, as in the case of republicanism, will admit that they now accept our standpoint that there are many nations in South Africa. I should like to have that reply.

Mr. Chairman, we have once more listened at length to the hon. the Minister. Unfortunately I only have ten minutes in which to reply, so I cannot possibly deal with everything raised by the Minister. I wish to thank him for the detailed reply he gave me in regard to the question of the mines. The Minister surprised me towards the end of his address, when he warned members of the Opposition that they had no official relationship with the chiefs and the Bantu authorities. I understood him to say that we were not to liase and that if we did, he would view it as mixing in the politics of the Bantu. I want to say that this will not frighten us off. If I wish to have conversations, as I do, with Bantu chiefs and politicians, I shall continue to do so. I do so on a friendly basis. I hear their points of view and they hear ours. How else can we represent them in this Parliament unless we …

You do not represent them.

We do. Sir. Somebody has to represent them in this Parliament. Their future is decided in this Parliament. Their whole lives are affected by what happens in this Parliament. It is as much our duty to look after the interests of the Africans as it is our duty to look after the interests of the Nationalists or the Coloured people or the Indians in our constituencies. It should be just as much the duty of Nationalist members of Parliament to look after the interests of those people. If it is not our duty, why do we discuss the Bantu Affairs Vote here? What is the object of discussing this Bantu Affairs Vote if that is not our duty? I think it is a shocking thing for this Minister to say. Because of our experience of this Government we in the United Party now make it part of our policy, as far as the communal councils are concerned, that Parliament should have a direct link with them through a Select Committee, so that United Party and Nationalist Members of Parliament will be able to meet with representatives of those communal councils. We shall then all be able to know what they are thinking and we shall no longer have to rely on the Minister alone or his Department to tell us what they are thinking.

The Minister and his Deputy again came back to the question of “vele rasse” and “vele volke”. I am surprised at them and I am surprised at what they have done to this House. I refer specially the hon. the Deputy Minister. The hon. the Minister also did it yesterday. In referring to a speech made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, they quoted from what he said as follows—

They quoted that at length. But what they omitted to do was to quote his qualifying remarks before he said that. It appeared in the very line just above that. And what did he say? I quote—

He explained that when he spoke he referred to multi-national and multi-racial as meaning the same thing. He made it quite clear. I am surprised that these two hon. Ministers did not quote the whole of his Hansard.

The hon. the Deputy Minister attacked the hon. member for South Coast because he had said that the Africans or Bantu were co-citizens. But who made them co-citizens with the white man? Who passed the South African Citizenship Act? It was the Nationalist Party who made the Indians, Coloureds and the Bantu South African citizens. When they passed the Transkei Constitution Act and the recent Citizenship Act for the Africans a definite provision was made in the Act whereby these people will retain their South African citizenship. They remain South African citizens. Who are they now to come and attack us for making the Africans citizens?

The hon. member for Brakpan also referred to the report of a meeting which was addressed by Professor M. J. Olivier. This address is of course very embarrassing to the Nationalists. Die Burger referred to this man as a “deskundige”, an expert. He is a “kenner”. He knows what he is talking about. He was a Commissioner-General. They appointed him Commissioner-General in South-West Africa. This was a most important post because they were trying to impress the world with what they were doing there. And what does he say in this article? He warns about the numbers. The Government is now trying to pretend that numbers do not count. The very basis of their policy was their fear of numbers. Now, however, they are trying to pretend that numbers do not count. Die Beeld some time ago—and I have quoted this before—pointed out that it was no good having a policy of separation and then to say that separation does not count. If you have a policy of separation the races must be kept separate. Prof. Olivier warned the Government as to what would happen on account of the fact that it was not carrying out its policy. I am sorry that the hon. member for Brakpan did not quote the professor at length. Prof. Olivier further said—

We did not hear much about this consolidation from hon. members in this debate. The report goes on to say—

What better condemnation could we have of the Government? These are the very points that we have been making. And now their own expert has come out in support of that.

In the few minutes left I wish to deal with a matter I raised last night. I was then dealing with the development in the reserves and in the Transkei and I referred to the report of the Xhosa Development Corporation. I deplored the paucity of information. The Daily Despatch issued a supplement in which they dealt with the achievements of the corporation. It is a lengthy document and worthwhile reading. It is quite clear from that that the corporation has many people dedicated to its service and that they are achieving something. It is also clear that there are people working for it who are not so dedicated and not fit for the jobs they are holding. But in an organization of this nature, while we are experiencing a shortage of manpower, it is impossible to get an entirely efficient staff. This organization is now competing also with private enterprise. I have written to the Minister and he has undertaken to go into the question. I have not yet had a further reply from him about the taking away of employees from private organizations …

Is that in regard to Coloureds? Then my letter is on its way to you.

I just want to say in regard to that that the corporation is starting its own building concern but it does not only build for itself, but also competes with private industry. In the Minister’s reply to questions I put to him the other day, I find that it employs 11 white bricklayers and plasterers and 21 Coloured bricklayers and plasterers and 45 Bantu. I submit that more Bantu should be employed and my information is that there are Bantu who can be employed. However, it seems that the corporation is going for the Whites and Coloureds because they are more efficient. The corporation then pays them higher salaries than private builders do. The corporation is paying a higher wage than that which is paid in East London. I submit it is not proper for this organization to go into competition on these terms against private businessmen. [Time expired].

The hon. member for Transkei must excuse me if I do not deal with the matter which he raised, because there are a few other matters I want to deal with. I want to come back to the Opposition’s basic problem, that the Leader of the Opposition is sitting between two of his members …

Oh, no!

The hon. member for Zululand must please give me an opportunity to state my case. We are heading for a provincial election, and they must not start running away now; they must not now begin running away from the politics of the hon. member for Zululand and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. In between them sits the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, not knowing what to do with these two poles in his party. Then the hon. member for Hillbrow also comes along on the other side. I just want to reply to a few challenges which the hon. member for Mooi River cheerfully scattered about here this afternoon. The hon. member ought to know better. He asked us to show that any development was possible in the Bantu areas.

Established by the Bantu themselves.

I shall give the hon. member an example. He asked us to show him an example of capital growth from the Bantu themselves in the Bantu areas. I shall now give the hon. member the necessary information. A scientific investigation was conducted recently in respect of Zululand, the northern and western areas, by Dr. J. H. Grobler of Potchefstroom. It was a very broad investigation by a very competent scientists.

And Professor Olivier?

Professor Olivier is himself a competent scientist. This is what Professor Grobler said (translation)—

As far as the provision of food is concerned, he allocates to Natal 3,582 million morgen at 2.1 persons per morgen. This gives one 7.5 million people. The Northern areas: 4,343 million morgen at 2.5 persons per morgen; i.e. 10.9 million people. I am giving the hon. member these statistics because they are rather important. The western areas: 3,578 million morgen at 2 persons per morgen; i.e. 6.2 million people. Therefore, those three northern areas of the Bantu areas in South Africa can alone produce food for 24.6 million people, more than double the total there. Unfortunately I cannot elaborate on this; I am just mentioning the basic potential of their soil. These figures do not even include irrigation; they relate to dry land only. There is consequently the potential.

The hon. member also asked about the possibilities for development there. I acknowledge that agriculture can be improved, but I want to mention one capital growth point in the areas. This is at Taungs in the western Tswanaland areas; on a co-operative basis a capital of more than R300,000 has already been built up; this has been done in that area by the Bantu themselves. [Interjections.] Sir, I know what the facts are. Those things have already been in progress for more than 20 years. There is, therefore, capital growth by the Bantu themselves under the guidance of the white officials. I shall now mention another capital growth point. In 1939 livestock auction sales by the Bantu Trust amounted to R66,000 in round figures; in 1967 that figure was already more than R3,300,000. That is capital growth of the Bantu themselves. In a previous short speech I made here, I gave examples of capital improvement by the Bantu themselves, for example in respect of the quality of their livestock. I cannot go into detail about that again. [Interjection.] The hon. member must just give me a chance; he asked me to give him particulars.

That is not what I asked.

That is what the hon. member asked. He said: Show us that in those areas the Bantu themselves can develop capital. I am now showing the hon. member that in his own area the Bantu himself can develop capital, and that is what he is doing. But let us just take a further look at what the State has done in aiding the development of capital in the Bantu areas. I just want to give the hon. member a few figures in that connection. The Tomlinson Commission, as the hon.

member knows, recommended that in the first ten-year period a certain amount should be spent, i.e. R208 million. In the year 1968-’69 alone almost R58 million was spent there, and that in respect of Bantu Trust expenditure alone; I am not even going into all the other aspects. In 1947-’48 only about R2 million was spent, and 20 years later it was R58 million. It was expected that only R6 million would have to be spent on irrigation. In point of fact, more than R13 million has been spent by the Government. It was recommended that R24 million should be spent on urban development, i.e. Bantu townships, etc.; R91 million has been spent. But I want to mention another important factor to the hon. member.

Why does Sabra not believe those figures?

No, these figures I have mentioned here are also accepted by Sabra. The hon. member asked that we should indicate that there is capital growth in the Bantu areas. I want to mention another important factor to him. Dr. Piet Rieckert indicated in a recent paper that the growth rate in the Bantu areas since the fifties has increased from 2.5 per cent to 5.14 per cent, and that growth rate is also growing as a result of the development of capital. Sir, unfortunately I cannot spend more time on this, but the hon. member must not so lavishly scatter challenges around in the House, and then expect to stampede us in this way. The hon. member must just do a little reading; I shall make all the particulars available to him, but I do not have the time to go into further particulars now. If I had more time I would have replied to him at length.

Sir, I should just like to come back to the aspect that I wanted to mention here a moment ago, and that is: I should have liked to reply to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in greater detail, or let me rather say that I should have liked to debate with the hon. member, but then that hon. member intervened. I shall leave it at that for the moment. I now want to reply to the question the hon. member asked here yesterday afternoon in connection with the right to self-determination. He asked when those peoples would obtain the right to self-determination, and if they did, in fact, obtain the right to self-determination, how this would be exercised; by themselves; by their Parliament or by this Parliament? Those are the questions the hon. member for Bezuidenhout put here. I cannot tell the hon. member when that right will be exercised; he will realize this himself.

But how?

In this connection specific lines cannot be drawn either. But the hon. member knows enough of Constitutional Law to be able to realize that that “how” grows out of that people itself; that “how” is encouraged by the authority of that people; that “how” is developed by the authority of that people. The authority of that people stimulates that urge to self-determination. That is what will happen to the Bantu peoples. When that Bantu people one day approaches this Government through that authority, no matter what kind of Government or authority it may have, self-government or territorial authority, this Government will decide, together with the Bantu people’s authority, when the time is ripe for that people to exercise its self-determination. When that self-determination will be exercised I cannot say at the moment, but at the time that people’s voters will vote for or against it. You will agree with me that this is, after all, the procedure that will be followed in eventually letting that people exercise its self-determination.

Will the people as a whole have a say?

I could debate that point if I had the time; unfortunately I do not, but you may be assured that this Government is orientated towards that independence, which that people or peoples will obtain, being a happy independence, and not an unhappy one. But what do we find in the United Party, in contrast with this policy? That is what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout must discuss with his colleagues. They do not have this kind of viewpoint in respect of the Bantu. Yesterday the hon. member for Transkei spoke disparagingly of the “reserves”. What is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition offering the Bantu by mentioning in his speeches this year that they will not be of the same class in the decades to come, that an elite could possibly develop among them with whom contact could be made. Then he comes along and in New Nation of April, 1970, speaks further of a “Central Parliament controlled by the enlightened, civilized white section of the community will retain control of the country”. Are the Bantu not also becoming “enlightened” and “civilized”? You see, Sir, that is the kind of thing that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout must take up with the other members of his side of the House. [Time expired.]

Firstly, I should just like to reply to the hon. member for Transkei in connection with the Coloureds there, and then I want to reply to the hon. member for Houghton. As I have said, the position in connection with the hon. member for Transkei is that the letter has been posted to him, but I just want to say this generally. The hon. member drew my attention to particular circumstances in connection with the use of Coloureds by the Xhosa Development Corporation. They were alleged to have been taken away from other contractors, but this is not quite correct. In fact, the contractor concerned, about whom the hon. member wrote to me, has far more than 100 Coloureds in his service, and since the hon. member for Transkei lected me this afternoon that Coloureds should not be employed in the Transkei in terms of our policy, I want to say to him that it is not necessary for him to lecture me; he must go and lecture that contractor.

My complaint is that they take away the workmen.

That is correct, that was the complaint, but then the hon. member took the opportunity to lecture to me in regard to our policy. We realize full well that the Xhosa Development Corporation should not keep those Coloureds in their service permanently, and they also realize what the policy is. They did this, although they should not have done it, just to bridge a temporary difficulty. But they do not have many Coloureds in their service. [Interjection.] My information is that they have fewer than that, and that only five left the other person. But the hon. member will receive full statistics from me in the letter. [Interjections.] I am referring only to that one firm. One becomes impatient when people will not understand. Now I just want to tell the hon. member that the Xhosa Development Corporation has a few Coloureds in its service, and they should not continue with that. We realize this very well. The hon. member will also find full details about that case in the letter.

†The hon. member for Houghton had much to say in connection with housing conditions in Johannesburg. She had also very much to say about the application of our policy in regard to Bantu living in backyards.

White by night.

The hon. member wishes to call it “White by night”. The hon. member must remember that this matter concerns only the excess Natives in the backyards, that is. the second and the third ones. This scheme with which the hon. the Deputy Minister is busy, does not apply to the first one. In regard to her statements about the hostels, I must say that she is exaggerating. I asked the hon. the Deputy Minister to pay a visit to that area and to inspect those hostels. He was there, he reported and we discussed the matter and at the moment we are perfectly satisfied that the conditions as they were stated by the hon. member were largely exaggerated by her and by other persons. If she likes to do so, she will continue to do so. In regard to the hospital at Edendale …

I did not raise the matter of Edendale.

No, that is just the point. It was not that hon. member but the hon. member for Houghton who has asked me the question about Edendale. I am now replying to the hon. member for Houghton. The hon. member for Rosettenville was fast asleep in regard to this matter. He did not ask me that question.

Are you talking about Edendale or Edenvale?

About Edendale, with a “d” for “devil”.

Then you are speaking of the wrong place altogether.

No, I am replying to a question which was put this afternoon by the hon. member for Houghton in regard to a hospital at Edenvale. I know that hon. member is speaking of Edendale near Pietermaritzburg, but I am talking of Edenvale.

That is not what you said in the beginning.

I meant the hospital at Edenvale, which that hon. member has on his brain, although he did not ask me a question with regard to that. He left it to the hon. member for Houghton. That is a fact.

That is not a fact.

What is the fact then? The hon. member for Houghton says that I am closing the hospital. That is not actually correct, because it is the province of Transvaal which is doing that.

That is Government policy.

It is the province of Transvaal which is doing that. However, I am not hiding behind the Transvaal Provincial Administration. They drew up a hospital scheme for Bantu for the whole of the Witwatersrand. I had to do with it as a Deputy Minister and I still have to do with it. I approved of a scheme in 1967 already that better provision should be made in the whole of Witwatersrand by means of more beds and hospitals. It is not a single hospital that should be taken into consideration, namely the hospital at Edenvale, but the whole system. The provision which they planned will supply the Witwatersrand with extra hospitals at the following centres: In the East Rand at Kwa Tema in Springs, one at Daveyton, which can take many of the patients who would have gone to Edenvale, a further new hospital at Tembisa, which is a new residential area near Olifantsfontein, another new hospital on the West Rand area, a new hospital in Soweto and some other hospitals further afield. Then, of course, there is still Natalspruit near Germiston, and a few other hospitals. Natalspruit, Tembisa and Daveyton will be mainly the hospitals serving the central Witwatersrand area or, in other words, Germiston, Bedford-view, Edenvale, etc. According to the figures it is quite clear that there will be more beds available. The only thing hon. members opposite can make a fuss about is that the distance in some cases will be longer. It is obvious that we cannot have a hospital for Bantu in every suburb, nor for whites. It is impossible. Hospitals must be erected accoring to the new scheme of the hospital authorities, and regional hospitals must be properly equipped in every respect. Under the new scheme such hospitals will be provided. I am not going to do anything to undo the planning done by the Transvaal Provincial Administration.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? I wonder if the hon. the Minister would tell me how casualties and emergencies are going to be dealth with if the nearest hospital is going to be some 17 miles away.

In the same manner as is done to-day if a Bantu should be injured in Kensington for instance. There is no hospital in Kensington and he will have to be taken a number of miles to the nearest hospital, either Edenvale or Natalspruit. It is the same thing.

They go to Edenvale.

They still have to travel there. There is no hospital in Kensington. It is not necessary to have a hospital for Whites or for non-Whites in every suburb.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 28.—“Bantu Education: Special Education and Educational Services: Eastern Caprivi Zipfel Area”, R572,000, Bantu Education Account, R44,682,000, and S.W.A. Vote No. 13.—“Bantu Education”, R2,560,000:

Mr. Chairman, I may just mention that the hon. the Deputy Minister will handle this Vote.

Mr. Chairman, anyone who has listened to the previous debate will, I think, readily agree that Bantu Education cannot be considered in isolation or in vacuo, because it affects the whole implementation of Nationalist Bantu policy. The whole concept of independent black states, is dependent on adequate education. Only then will the policy be meaningful.

I wish to refer to the latest report of the Department of Bantu Education where the following is said:

I now want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister if he really believes this? How many white schools have double sessions? How many white schools have a teacher-pupil ratio of one to fifty? I propose to quote figures and facts but the one thing I believe should be borne in mind when considering these figures and facts is that Bantu Education is the only education system in the Republic which is largely dependent on direct taxation of the race concerned. I want to make clear that any criticism that I might make will be levelled at the hon. the Minister and not at the officials of the Department of Bantu Education or the teachers in the department.

First of all, I want to deal with the question of taxation. Earlier this session the hon. the Minister of Police in reply to a question advised me that in the two years from 1967 to 1969 over 423,000 Bantu were brought to trial for tax infringements. I now want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister how much of that amount has been collected and how much has been debited to the Bantu Education Account. When I asked the hon. the Minister of Police this question, he said that a record was not kept.

I wonder whether the hon. the Minister can tell me how much in fact has been lost to Bantu Education. I also ask the hon. the Minister if this position is in line with the hon. the Minister’s remarks yesterday, when he said “ons doen elke dag, elke moment, alles wat prakties en menslik moontlik is”. Is this in line with that policy?

Then, in regard to taxation, let me refer to the latest report, which deals with the period before the purchase tax became law. This is what the report says: “The purchase tax will be of great advantage to the Bantu Education Account”. My question to the Minister is how is it possible to introduce apartheid into moneys accruing from the purchase tax? I believe it is only possible on a basis of guestimation.

Then we have a further matter which is causing doubt in the minds of this hon. Committee, I am sure. I want to go back to the hon. the Deputy Minister’s predecessor, Deputy Minister Blaar Coetzee. when he dealt with this Vote in 1968. This is what he said:

But, Sir, what are the facts? In that particular year, 1967-’68, the amount estimated to be collected for Bantu Education, from Bantu Taxation was R12,400,000. Three years later, in these Estimates, it was only R11 million.

In 1969 they collected only R9 million.

Yes, these are their estimates. No one can refer to the finance connected with Bantu Education, without looking back to 1954, when the late Dr. Verwoerd mesmerized his Cabinet colleagues into agreeing to the principle of pegging the statutory subsidy for Bantu Education to R13 million per annum.

Why “mesmerized”?

They would have seen the light long before if they had not been mesmerized. This position has applied for the last 16 years. With the decreasing value of money I believe that the amount is now completely inadequate. May I remind the hon. the Deputy Minister that, if he refers to South African Statistics, 1968, he will see that adjustments in terms of the consumer price index on figures supplied by the South African Reserve Bank, will indicate that this statutory amount of R13 million is to-day probably worth half the original amount. So it has become necessary for various expedients to be adopted to keep Bantu Education on some sort of basis. We find that there are suggestions that there should be more taxation, as well as a statement that loans are to be granted. Well, Sir, the report to which I have already referred, makes this quite clear. It says:

Sir, I am told on very good authority that at the present stage R60 million has come from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to boost the waning finances of Bantu education. So the whole exercise is a massive operation cover-up. I want to remind the hon. the Minister of what he said some yeears ago—I paraphrase his words, but I think I am right —when he was dilating on this Government’s policy on Bantu administration and Bantu homelands. He said “No matter what it costs, I am goingahead”.

Now I said that I would quote some figgures. I want to make it quite clear in the initial stages that there is a ratio which has particular bearing on these figures. It is that for every one Indian pupil there are four Coloured pupils and 13 Bantu pupils. This Government has boasted time and again that the position of Bantu Education in South Africa has always been much more favourable than in any other state in Africa. Sir, I begin to think that this is a hollow boast. I do not have to go far to prove my case. If one looks at Rhodesia, the latest figures in regard to their expenditure indicate that 36 million Rhodesian dollars has been allocated to education this year. Of that 36 million dollars 18 million dollars has been allocated to African education. I have studied the enrolment figures and I am quite satisfied that their ratio of expenditure to enrolment surpasses that of South Africa. Can one wonder that the United Party urges this Government to introduce some form of crash training programme, when their own training programme has already crashed? Can one accept the position that Bantu children can be educated in primary schools at the minimal sum of R14 per annum, and in secondary schools for R80 per annum, when we know the decrease in the value of money?

I want to come to the question of school books. We know that school books and writing materials are supplied free to the White, the Coloured and the Indian pupils, but not to Bantu pupils. As a result of a question I asked, I was informed by the hon. the Minister that this could not be done because of, and I quote: “limited funds at the disposal of the Department”. Then the answer elaborated saying: “Bantu parents are expected to supply the major portion of school books and writing materials”. The answer very significantly said: “Alternatively there might have to be a tax increase”. What is the comparative position as it exists to-day? We find on per capita expenditure on school books, that the European school children receive books to the value of R8.3 per year. The Coloureds receive books to the value of R2.4 per year, the Indians to the value of R2.6 per year while the Bantu receive books to the value of less than half a rand per year. They receive books to the value of 46 cents per year, Sir! [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Berea has really presented to us a very gloomy picture of Bantu Education. When one listens to what the hon. member has to say, one would think that nothing is really being done as far as Bantu Education is concerned. At the beginning of his speech the hon. member used the following words: “I would like to quote figures and facts”. I want to tell the hon. member that he will get “figures and facts” about the progress of Bantu Education if only he would study the Bantu Education journal, which is sent to him as well, and if only he would look at the progress that is being made from year to year in the various divisions of Bantu Education—from the primary school right through to the universities.

Bantu Education is based on the preparation of the Bantu youth for service in their own, various communities. In the past the fact has constantly been emphasized that the development of the Bantu and the homelands must be firmly rooted in their own cultural institutions, with due regard to their right to full self-determination. Further to what I have said in this regard, I want to quote a few paragraphs which appeared in the Annual Report of the Department of Bantu Education for 1965, where the following was stated—

This is the standpoint of the Government in respect of Bantu education, a standpoint which has been attacked in this House through the years in the various debates on legislation dealing with Bantu Education. The standpoint of the Government and the implementation of its policy regarding Bantu Education have also been attacked in a report by UNESCO published in 1967. In that report the South African Government was accused by UNESCO of trying to isolate the Bantu from the rest of South Africa and from the rest of the world in adapting education to the cultural needs of the Bantu. As regards the use of the Bantu language as a medium of instruction it is stated that the Bantu language is used—and I quote—“ in order to reinforce the linguistic, social and cultural isolation of the African population within the country as well as from the world at large”. Many more accusations are made in that report, accusations which we have heard in this House from the United Party and from the Progressive Party and their satellites outside as well. This committee of UNESCO which drew up the report approached the matter in the same way as it is being approached by the Opposition and those people who think as they do also by the hon. member for Houghton, i.e. from a political point of view and not from an educational point of view. The differences in culture, background and socioeconomic development have never been recognized. It is generally accepted that the educational system of a country should fit in with the cultural background of the poeple of that country. If there is more than one culture in a country, it is essential that there should be more than one educational system because such an educational system should provide in the needs of the child belonging to such group. In South Africa decentralization in the educational sphere is not based so much on the geography of the country, but on cultural and ethnic factors in order to adapt the educational systems to the cultural patterns and the requirements of the various groups. In this same report by UNESCO to which I have referred, it is stated, inter alia, that “differences in the achievements of different peoples must be attributed to their cultural history”. But this norm mentioned by UNESCO was not applied in appraising and in forming an opinion of Bantu education in our own country. Education on the whole of the African Continent is at present going through a process of adaptation to the local cultures and requirements of the various countries.

I can now give the assurance—and the Opposition can think about this—that as long as the South African Government remains the guardian of the Bantu peoples, it will see to it that the traditions, the customs, the culture and the social order of the Bantu will not collapse. It is for that reason also that the Bantu child is being instructed in his mother tongue. We are convinced that this is sound practice. This honest and educationally sound practice. But like UNESCO, there are also other groups in our country which, like the Opposition, accuse our Government of simply wanting to delay the development of the Bantu to a higher level of civilization and of simply wanting to camouflage these delaying tactics with fine ideas and fine-sounding words.

The Government is, within the framework of its policy, keeping the door to self-determination and self-realization open to the Bantu on the basis of what is their own and according to their own nature and their own culture, and this determined attitude on the part of the Government as it is being applied by the Department of Bantu Education, is metting with a favourable response particularly in our homelands. Last year at the first meeting of the second Advisory Board for Bantu Education the chairman of the Advisory Board for Bantu Education. R. Cingo, said the following meaningful words—

He emphasized this by saying—

Sir, this was stated so unequivocally and so convincingly that comment on my part will simply detract from this clear view and elucidation of this matter. [Time expired.]

Sir, I want to thank the hon. member for Koedoespoort for his well-meant suggestion that I should study some glossy pamphlet which gives the facts of education so that I would know what progress is being made. Sir, I want to tell the hon. member that I assemble my facts by asking the hon. the Minister questions and by studying official reports. I then analyse them objectively and this is the basis on which I reach my conclusions—on facts.

Sir, in my previous remarks I was referring to the disparity which exists in regard to expenditure on school books and writing materials for White, Coloured, Indian and Bantu. I pointed out—just to put it another way— that the amount expended per Bantu pupil, per year on school books and writing material, by the Department is one-eighteenth of the amount expended for white students, and approximately a fifth of the amount expended for Indian and Coloured students. The position therefore is that the poorest and the least educated people in South Africa are those who are called upon to make the biggest financial sacrifice and contribution to their own education. I cannot reconcile this with the Government’s declared policy to lead these people to independence. How can they become fully independent, even if not viable, in terms of the new policy, and justify that independence, if they are not decently educated?

Sir, I now want to deal with the question of Bantu teachers and teacher training. We admit that there is a teacher shortage throughout every section of education in South Africa, but insofar as the Bantu are concerned, it is particularly severe; I believe it is a crisis. There are certain facts which concern the shortage and which are closely linked to it: Firstly, there is a serious backlog in the number of Bantu teachers; secondly, the low qualifications of many teachers must surely be affecting the efficiency of Bantu education and, thirdly, the low salaries must be having a profound effect and influence on those who may contemplate entering the teaching profession.

Now I come back to the latest report of the Department of Bantu Education, in which it says that there was a need for 60,000 teachers and that the actual number was 41,000. I assume, that this figure of 41,000 is a later figure than the report itself gives, because in the report the total is given as 34,400. Then the report goes on to say that as the result of this shortage, it has been found necessary to continue with the emergency measures of double sessions and classes of 55 or more pupils in the higher standards. In passing, let me just say that the latest figures from Rhodesia indicate an overall ratio of teachers to pupils of 1 in 40, a much more favourable position.

Then we come to the question of the low qualifications of Bantu teachers. This is a pathetic situation, because almost 20 per cent of the Bantu teachers have no qualification, other than Std. 6 or J.C. and yet these people, well meaning, are called upon to teach their own people. When we come to the question of salaries, we find that these are fixed at R34 per month for a male unqualified teacher, and R25 per month for a female unqualified teacher, that is a teacher who has Std. 6 or J.C. and no lower primary teaching certificate. This is a position of responsibility which they hold. They have difficult working conditions because most of them are involved in the double session system and most of them have very large classes. I want to make a comparison which is not a very pleasant one for the hon. the Minister, but is nevertheless, a very true one. A general worker falling under the wage determination of the commercial distributive trades, starts off at a minimum starting salary laid down in the determination, of approximately R36 per month, and yet the Department of Bantu Education expects teachers with Std. 6 or J.C. to teach at a salary, for males, of R34 per month. These general workers do their work efficiently but no standard of education is required, for them to be engaged. Then even in the higher echelon of teaching what do we find? We find that a woman teacher with a degree and a professional certificate earns a salary of R70 per month. I would suggest in all seriousness that some semi-skilled Bantu are earning as much as or more than that; and this is paid to teachers after they have taken a degree and have a professional certificate!

As far as teacher training is concerned, I was told in reply to a question that no separate figures were kept in the Bantu Education Account concerning expenditure on teacher training itself, but in so far as bursaries are concerned the 1969-’70 Estimates show that R46,000 has been allowed for bursaries and there are no figures listed for loans because they are repayable. Let us make a comparison. Take the money allowed by the same Government for the training of Indian teachers. Here we find—and I hope the Committee will remember my ratio of one Indian pupil to four Coloured pupils to 13 Bantu pupils. We find that in regard to Indian teacher training an amount of R836,000 has been allowed, and that bursary loans are allowed to an amount of R462,000, i.e. ten times the amount for one-thirteenth the number of pupils. Anything more inequitable I just cannot imagine! But we must not forget also that according to the latest report 5,600 teachers in State-aided schools, which is approximately 17 per cent of the total number of teachers, are being paid by the parents of the Bantu children.

I have referred to double sessions. We know that double sessions were introduced in about 1955 as an emergency measure. Fourteen years afterwards, the emergency measure is still in operation, and worse still, it has even become aggravated. It has become aggravated because each year we find that the number of schools involved, the number of pupils involved and the number of teachers involved in the double session system are increasing. At present the figures are as follows: 4,246 schools, over three-quarters of a million pupils and 8,300 odd teachers. They are all involved in this double session system. In certain cases we are told that the double session system has to extend as far as standards one and two. We find that under the double session system we have two sessions of three hours, against one session of four and a half hours. It does not take a mathematical genius to work out the amount of schooling that a pupil who is trained under the double session system loses, in comparison with those who fall under the normal system.

There is another matter to which I wish to refer and that is the allocation of funds for libraries. I am sure that everyone will agree with me that libraries and books play a very important part in the life of any student. What do we find in so far as the Bantu students are concerned? I analysed the figures and I found that the allowance for libraries for Bantu students is 4½ cents per pupil per year, whereas the amount allowed for both Coloured and Indian students is 36 cents per pupil per year.

Then, in the short time at my disposal. I want to deal with the question of school buildings. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in the editorial column of one of the latest student newspapers of a well-known university in Natal, there appears, inter alia, the following sentence, and I quote: “It is evident that the days of the token black in the predominantly white organizations are over.” I start my speech with this quotation, particularly in the light of the fact that under Bantu Education we have to do with the entire education pattern of the Bantu, and because we want to take a closer look at it. I also mention it in the light of the standpoint of the National Party in respect of Bantu education and in the light of its wider policy. With this. I want to contrast the United Party’s policy. Lately we have heard the refrain from the United Party that the National Party is failing in its policy of separate development. I tried to listen very attentively to the speakers of the United Party who took part in the debate on the Bantu Administration and Development Vote, and I particularly tried to find out whether there was any real substance in that refrain. I must say that I did not really find any. I should have liked to hear a more fundamental standpoint from the hon. member for Berea in respect of where the National Party is no longer succeeding in its declared policy of Bantu education. I am afraid the hon. member touched on minor aspects which do not affect broader principles of policy.

I want to refer in particular to the tertiary education policy, in other words, the university education policy. Hon. members know that the National Party’s Bantu education policy is an integral part of the solution and handling of our whole population situation, i.e. the policy of separation between Whites and Blacks and also the recognition of the diversity of peoples we find within the Bantu community.

Let us take a look at tertiary education of the Bantu in universities for a moment. Let us also take a look at the history of the standpoint of the United Party in respect of the university facilities of the Bantu. At the time the reports of the Eiselen and Holloway Commissions appeared, it was, inter alia, Nusas as a student organization which objected strongly to them. I should like to hear from the hon. member for Berea what his standpoint about that is to-day.

I want to ask the hon. member to reread the booklet which they published at the time, i.e. “The African in the Universities”. He should also look up what the Education League of South Africa said in their booklet, “Defend the Universities”. In addition, he should read up again on the countrywide conferences which the Institute of Race Relations organized in 1954, as well as rereading their booklet which subsequently appeared under the title “The Idea of a University”. I want to take the hon. member back to the protests which the United Party raised during those years in respect of the establishment of separate universities for the Bantu. The United Party then agreed with the student mass meetings and demonstrations which were organized in collaboration with the convocations and the senates of certain English-language universities of that time. I hear that the hon. member for Hillbrow established a “Club 100” for the youth, but that it has now come to naught. I am grateful that particularly the post-war youth can thoroughly re-examine the standpoints of the United Party and the standpoints of the National Party to-day, and that we can then put forward our standpoints not only locally, but also on a world-wide basis. I want to tell the hon. member for Berea that he and I can stand on any platform in South Africa, and in the world as well, and in particular before the black man, and contrast the Bantu education policy of the National Party with that of the United Party.

When the National Party put forward the policy of separate Bantu universities at the time, no less a person than the hon. the Leader of the Opposition objected to that Bill at the First Reading already. The hon. member for Transkei seconded the standpoint of his Leader. The United Party criticizes the Bantu education policy of the National Party because it not only wants an integrated academic institution in respect of universities, but also wants primary and secondary education in South Africa to be completely integrated in the long run.

Where did we say that?

I am glad the hon. member asked me that question. In a debate in 1959 the then hon. Minister argued his case. He said, inter alia, the following—

Then the hon. member for Jeppes—at that time the hon. member for Bezuidenhout— asked what was wrong with that. Therefore the United Party is not only opposed to separate universities for Whites and Bantu in principle, but the actual direction in which they want to go, i.e. a federation in the political sphere, will also result in our getting integration in the educational sphere.

Surely you do not believe that yourself.

Of course I do not believe it. I just want to tell the hon. member that I quoted what the then hon. member for Bezuidenhout said. The hon. member can ask the hon. member for Jeppes what he said at the time. Mr. Miller said at the time that he supported Nusas in the standpoint that there should be no segregation in our education system in South Africa. [Interjection.] Mr. Miller supported Nusas at the time. The situation we have to-day is that even Nusas, which moves on the extreme left-wing in South Africa and which must produce the young leaders of to-morrow, is no longer accepted by the Bantu students. Hon. members can just take a look at what has happened in student politics in recent times, and at the attitude Bantu students have adopted in respect of Nusas. I am telling hon. members categorically that the United Party, by way of an interjection of Mr. Miller, pleaded for the abolition of the colour bar in the educational system in South Africa. This is the policy and this is what Mr. Miller said. [Interjections.] Then the hon. member for Transkei should get up now and say that Mr. Miller was wrong. Was he wrong?

[Inaudible.]

But I want to go further, while the hon. member for Transkei is making remarks now. At that time, when the amending Bill was introduced, Dr. Steenkamp moved an amendment containing seven points in which he fought separate universities for the Bantu tooth and nail. Do hon. members know who seconded that amendment? No less a person than the hon. member for Transkei.

What is wrong with that?

That is a very good question. It is quite intelligent, coming from that hon. member, because Dr. Steenkamp said in conclusion—

Here he includes everyone who subsequently became Progressive Party supporters and liberalists in the Alan Paton sense—

[Time expired].

Mr. Chairman, I am sure the hon. member who has just sat down will understand if I do not follow his line. He has his own private fight with the United Party and I leave him to it.

I want to say at once that I am very pleased indeed about the additional R17 million which this year was voted from Revenue to the Bantu Education Account. That is a very welcome addition. I hope it is going to be the beginning of many other such additional grants.

So you saw it. You are the only one who has seen it.

Oh, well, I have very sharp eyes. But I do want to say that this R17 million is very much appreciated and will be used, I am sure, to great effect in an account that has been starved of money for very many years. I notice that in the annual report of the Department and also in an article written by the Secretary for Bantu Education, reference is made to the fact that the Bantu Education Account will in future receive more money anyway, as the direct taxation is paid into the Bantu Education Account. That is so, of course. One does not approve of the principle of making the African pay for their own education by way of direct taxation, but they will be getting an additional amount at any rate. But what interests me, is the reference made by the Secretary, and also the reference in the annual report, to the African’s share of the new sales duty. In other words, other than the direct tax which is going to be paid into the Bantu Education Account, apparently an amount is also going to be paid from the new sales duty.

Nothing has been decided.

Well, there are two references here and I was very interested to spot them, because I wonder how anybody was going to work out the Africans share or contribution to the new sales duty. Of course they are entitled to that. After all, they do buy a lot of goods on which the sales tax is levied. They buy a lot of goods on which indirect tax generally is levied.

As far as I am concerned, it would be very equitable if a further amount were applied to the Bantu Education Account from Revenue as a regular feature and not just as a bonus, as this R17 million this year appears to be. I want to say that this is very much needed. I wonder whether hon. members realize that we have in fact reached a new low. This becomes evident when one compares the fraction spent per African child with the fraction spent on other children. Let me give an example of what I mean. The latest figure I could obtain, which relates to 1968, shows that the African unit cost is one-sixteenth of the white unit cost. It is lower than it has ever been.

How do you arrive at that figure?

I am comparing the amount spent per Bantu child with that spent per white child. One-sixteenth of what is spent on a white child is being spent on each Bantu child. This means that the fraction is lower than it has been since Union in 1910. It was about one-seventh or one-eighth when the Department of Bantu Education took over. That was in 1954. Let me give it to the Deputy Minister in absolute figures. In 1954, when the Department of Bantu Education took over, R17 per African child was being spent. The latest figure we have had from the Minister is R14.48 per African child.

It is no longer calculated on the same basis.

I can only quote the hon. the Minister’s figures. These are the figures per unit, or per capita. I know that the Secretary for Bantu Education in the same article quoted a figure of R20 per African child. I do not know the basis on which he made his calculation, but I am quoting the official figures given to me by the hon. the Minister. The Secretary also mentioned that if we spend money on African children at the same ratio on which money is spent on white children, we would have to spend R400 million. I should like to point out that nobody is anticipating that such a change can be introduced overnight, where there will be compulsory education for all African children because it is obviously not possible. That is, however, the policy which my party advocates. It is something which should be aimed at as far and as fast as possible. I realize that it cannot be done overnight, simply because there are not sufficient teachers and schools. The physical impossibilities do exist, but that is the aim of my party. There must be compulsory and free primary education for all African children as soon as possible. That education can then be extended to Std. 8, or whatever level exists for white children. I do not know what the official Opposition’s policy in this regard is. As I have mentioned before, the hon. member for Wynberg said that there should be compulsory education up to Std. 2, but that was more or less denied by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I therefore do not know whether the United Party has an official policy regarding free and compulsory education for Africans.

Do you think they have?

I do not know. I can only go on the fact that the hon. member for Wynberg said that it was their policy, or at any rate, advocated it. This was then denied in the House, but I must say that if it is their policy, they have reached the stage which the Eiselen Commission reached in 1951. Twenty years ago the Eiselen Commission recommended that there should be compulsory schooling up to Std. 2 as soon as possible for African children. I think it is a pretty poor aim for the official Opposition to have.

What are your aims?

I have told hon. members what ours is. We want compulsory education up to the end of primary school, and thereafter development must take place as fast as possible to the same level which already exists for white children.

Who is going to pay for it?

What a silly thing for the shadow Minister of Finance of the United Party to say. He asks who is going to pay for it. The State is going to pay for it and it is going to be an excellent investment. As every country has found, it is cheaper to educate and to have the benefit of an educated population than to keep the vastmasses of people in poverty and ignorance. If that had been the aim we would still not be educating white children. One sets an aim and then works towards it as fast as one possibly can.

Oh, I see. That is different.

That is what I said. The hon. member was perhaps not in the House when I started my speech.

It will cost R400 million.

That is nonsense. One need not work on the basis of R400 million. We would go as far as we can, but we do not have the teachers or the schools.

Sir, I want to mention two or three of the very important shortcomings that disconcert me as far as Bantu education is concerned. First of all I want to say what I have said before, namely that as a policy matter we are devoting far too much time and energy on lower primary education, instead of focusing attention on secondary education in order to evolve a population which you can train as teachers and who will go on to universities so that we will have desperately needed professional people. To have a broad mass of semi-literate people, because 80 per cent of the children have been educated as far as Std. 2 and then drop out, is a bad policy. We should be doing all we can to keep children in school. If necessary we should subsidize them or provide bursaries. We should spend less money on lower primary education and more money on secondary education, in order to develop the teacher population that is so desperately needed if we are ultimately going to educate the entire population. A broad mass of semiliterate children is not going to help us to achieve that object. Every educationist who has made a study of this, agrees with that point of view. We must concentrate on post primary, on secondary schools, and then finally try to get people up to the level of matriculation and on to the universities. Then we must concentrate on the broad masses.

Secondly, I want to point out that farm children are very badly off. There are no post primary farm schools as far as I understand. There are something like ¼ million farm children at school. This was in 1967, the latest figure I could get. Of those children less than 30,000 were in the higher primary classes. That again is a very disconcerting position. In all schools of course there is a tremendously high drop out rate. Of 1,000 children who entered school in sub-standard A in 1955, seven had reached form 5 in 1967. We have a tremendously high drop out rate. We must, as I say, do all we can if necessary, by more bursaries and by spending more money on the higher classes, to try to keep more children at school for longer periods. This dropout rate is very disconcerting. 71 Per cent of the children at school have dropped out at standard 2. I do not believe that a child can be functionally literate after two years in the grades and then one year in standard 1 and another in standard 2 and having had education through the vernacular and a couple of half hours a week of the official languages during that time. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Houghton has just asked us to start building without first laying a foundation, because she says we devote far too much attention to primary education and too little to secondary education. As far as the United Party is concerned, I can only say that they summed me again, because they asked for taxes to be reduced, but at the same time they pleaded for every conceivable thing one could plead for. Education is the basis of the succesful development of any country and people. This is what the National Party is bearing in mind in this case. In addition the National Party is also bearing in mind the fact that the pupil should be educated within his own milieu. Then we must also keep in mind fact that the National Party has a policy of multi-national development. For that reason the education policy of the National Party is centred more on the homelands. This policy consequently forms a very important and basic part of the multi-national development programme of the Government to help people to help themselves. The National Party firmly believes in that policy. The sooner the whole White population of the Republic of South Africa as well as the Bantu population believes in this, the easier the task of the Government will become and the easier the ideal will be realized. In other words, considerable progress has been made by the National Party as far as this matter is concerned. In order to illustrate the deeds arising from the conviction and seriousness of the National Party I want to furnish a few figures to show what progress has been made during the past decade in respect of the multi-national development policy of the Government. We cannot but take cognisance with great appreciation of what the Government and the Department have done in respect of the development of education in the Bantu homelands. The distribution of the school population, in primary schools only, is as follows: The percentage of pupils in white areas during 1959 was 51.41 and in the Bantu areas 48.59. In 1968 the distribution in the white areas was 42.95 per cent and in the Bantu areas 59.05 per cent. This means a swing of 11 per cent to the Bantu homelands. Of the total school population in 1968, 60 per cent was in the homelands in the Republic of South Africa and 40 per cent in the white areas. Already there are 133 school hostels, 17 of which were made available in the past two years. These hostels accommodate 23,000 pupils. Sir, I just want to refer briefly to examination results as well. The following particulars illustrate very clearly, and are practical proof of, the success which has been achieved in education in the homelands: The 24 schools in white areas entered 657 candidates for the matriculation examination of whom 256, or 39 per cent, passed. The 61 schools in the Bantu homelands entered 1,632 candidates of whom 1,101, or, 62 per cent, passed, the examination standards being identical for both groups. In nine of the schools in the homelands—and the Opposition may well listen to this—100 per cent of the candidates for the matriculation examination passed. There are opportunities for disciplined study in the homelands, and this most probably is one of the reasons, but another reason may also be that these people are educated in their own milieu, in their own environment. Sir, the Government has therefore made it its object to settle all educational services, which are not location-orientated, in the Bantu homelands, or to remove existing facilities so that they may be of economic significance there and may serve as symbols of progress. The following policies have therefore been maintained in this respect: All except two central teacher training schools have already been moved to the homelands while new training schools have also been established there. As far as primary schools are concerned, these are provided in white and Bantu areas according to the needs, while secondary schools in white areas are limited to only one school per 3,200 students. Secondary schools which intially offer only the junior certificate course, but which can develop to matriculation standards, are approved for any community in the homelands, if such a school is in any way justified. Technical and trade schools are provided in the homelands only. The technical secondary schools in each of the three major industrial centres, i.e. Pretoria, Johannesburg and Port Elizabeth, are still being maintained. All State funds for buildings and other capital expenditure are spent in the homelands only. All available hostel bursaries are offered at homeland schools only. School hostels are not allowed in white areas. In 1968 alone the erection of 25 hostels out of State funds was launched in the homelands. Certain tribes also erect their own hostels out of tribal funds, and we take cognisance of this fact with appreciation. Ten per cent of the accommodation in hostels is reserved for pupils from the white areas who go to the Bantu territories to study. Urban children are encouraged to go to hostels in the homelands for post-primary training. Many parents in the cities welcome this arrangement and urge more and more hostel facilities in the homelands. This is a sign that these people, too, accept that training, particularly in the case of secondary training, should rather take place within the homelands. In this way the parents of those pupils also form closer ties with the community within the homelands, and therefore they eventually have a greater affinity for the homelands. Children from the rural areas are not allowed to attend schools in white urban areas. The three Bantu universities which are maintained in the homelands contribute to a very large extent to the welfare and significance of the homelands concerned. It is being envisaged to establish for each of the known Bantu groups an education department of its own in the homelands, with Bantu officials and Bantu teaching staff under white leadership, so that they may be taught in the course of time to take over their responsibilities themselves. In this way self-determination will come into its own to a large extent. At present there already are eight Departments of education in the homelands, i.e. in the Transkei, the Ciskei, Tswanaland, for the North Sotho and the South Sotho, for the Venda, the Tsonga and Ovamboland. [Time expired.]

I want to say at once that I was sorry to have had to listen to the speech made by the hon. member for Rissik, unless, of course, it was a somewhat “verkrampte” speech. Furthermore, I must say that he is completely aware of the fact that the United Party stands for social separation in residential areas. In addition, he is fully aware of the fact that, in spite of the National Party’s policy of separate universities, there still are white universities at the preseno moment which have non-white students, and if this constitutes such a danger of integration, he must accuse his own party of that.

There are certain reasons for that.

In this debate and in the debate on Bantu affairs we heard a great deal from the hon. members on the other side about morality and the Christian basis of their policy. We also know that they are very proud of their motto: “Judge us by our deeds”. But in this debate on Bantu education, I do not know whether they can reconcile their policy so well with the demands of morality and Christianity. I have here the annual report of the Department of Bantu Education for 1968. It is a well compiled report and the officials can be proud of it. It contains very interesting data and information, but when I read this report, it actually tells me a human story. For example, we find on page I that the total establishment of 41,000 teachers includeds 7,507 privately paid teachers. What struck me immediately was the high percentage of privately paid teachers. It is more than 18 per cent. You know, Sir, as soon as a person hears about a privately paid teacher, a prosperous community appears in his mind’s eye, because this is a feature and a tendency in a prosperous community. But if we are conversant with the facts in South Africa, we find that this is in fact in the poorest section of our population. Now I am wondering at this stage whether …

You do not know what it means.

I know very well what it means. I know very well what they mean by “the privately paid” teacher. A very small percentage of that money is derived from church and other organizations, but by far the greater proportion comes from the pockets of the Bantu parents. It comes from the pockets of the Bantu parents, who are from the poorest section of our population. In this case one finds that 18.3 per cent of the teachers are privately paid teachers. Furthermore, it does not affect only the parents, but also the teachers, who must teach for much lower payment in certain respects. I regard this as a question, but it is not one to which I must reply; it is a question which must be answered by the hon. members on the other side. It is the question which they must answer in connection with the moral basis of their policy. Let us continue and read what appears on page 3 of the report. The hon. member for Hercules also referred to this. He tried to transform what appears on page 3 of the report into Nationalist propaganda. The following words appear on page 3, and I quote—

As far as figures are concerned, the school population is then shown, first that in the Bantu areas and then that in the white areas. If we compare the figures of 1961 with those of 1968, we find that there was an increase in the percentage of school population in the Bantu areas. Something like this is now seized upon and political propaganda is made of it and it is spoken of as if it was proof of the success of the homelands development policy. If we analyse it to some extent, we once again see a human story behind this matter. Why is this so? It is so because it is the policy of the Government, as the hon. member for Hercules mentioned, not to establish schools in the urban areas, where there is a permanent population. The hon. members on the other side can deny it if they like, but there is a permanent urban population. This is actually an artificial result of that. Do they for one moment think of the damage and the injustice which they are doing to the family life of those Bantu families? What is involved here, is not merely the R60 which it costs the Bantu in the urban area to have his child placed in a hostel in a homeland, nor only the R4 to be paid for class fees …

What about white children who are in boarding schools?

What is involved in this case, is not merely the R64, but also the withdrawal of the child from the community of his parental home. He is placed in a boarding school miles away. Then those hon. members are proud to mention this and to say, “This is how the policy of the Nationalist Party works”.

I cannot accept the morality of the Nationalist Party’s policy as long as the present Dositi on in regard to school books exists. I myself taught in a white school, and with my own hands I issued free books to the richest children in the country. I now want to make a positive proposal to the hon. members. I myself saw in schools where I taught that the Rotary movement and the Round Table took in and redistributed the books. Is it so much trouble to negotiate with the Department of Education on an official basis so that these books can be distributed? I do not accept that it is any trouble. Do the hon. members, and especially the hon. member for Rissik, believe that it is a form of integration if a book which has been read by a white is handed to a Bantu? There are other aspects in this report to which one can refer as well. There is one in particular which I found very striking indeed. On page 5 and on page 10 there are long paragraphs which deal with the number of unqualified teachers. The whole matter is stated so convincingly that after reading it, one comes to the conclusion that in practice the unqualified teacher is actually the best. We cannot disguise matters by presenting them in such a way.

I want to mention another matter which I find interesting. I find it interesting to see that the R13 million of the Bantu Education Account was supplemented by R17 million from the Loan Account. How many hon. members on the other side are under the impression that this R17 million really is a loan? Do they really believe that it will eventually be possible to repay it? I know that hon. members on the other side are up against a spectre which they themselves created in the days when they still sat on the Opposition benches. This spectre is that they accused the United Party at the time that it was spending too much money on Bantu education. The Nationalist Party is now trying to disguise the matter by making only R13 million available for Bantu education and then saying that the other R17 million is only a loan. As far as I am concerned, hon. members on the other side cannot boast that they are carrying out their moral duty as they should in the field of Bantu education. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the longer I listen to the speeches made in this debate on education, the clearer it becomes to me that hon. members on the opposite side are again telling the old story, i.e. when it suits them, we are doing too little for the Bantu, and in some other respect we are doing too much again.

There is one great difference between the two parties, and that is that the National Party accepts separate development and is determined to carry this policy through whereas the United Party rejects this policy. This also holds true when we come to education. What we are doing in the sphere of education, we are doing because we accept separate development and multi-nationalism. Consequently we act in a different way than the United Party does.

It is the policy of the Government as regards Bantu education, that the Bantu youth should be trained to be of service to his own community. This is essential because the basis for the development of the Bantu homelands has to be found in the Bantu’s own institutions and their own customs. It is expected of the Bantu schools, as established by the Government, that the education system of the Bantu will be intent on enabling the Bantu, through more knowledge and education, to help himself to carry through this policy of separate development in his territory eventually. It is in this process that the traditional Bantu culture and particularly his language play such an important role. Western knowledge, cultures, techniques, scientific developments, etc., will of necessity have an influence on the Bantu. But the basic instruction to which it must be geared is that the ethnic context of the Bantu must be preserved. The National Party was guided in this thinking by the Tomlinson Commission. The Tomlinson Commission said the following with regard to Bantu education—

The Comission went on—

The Tomlinson Commission arrived at this conclusion because it had found that education in the Bantu territories had not been coming into its own up to the time of the Commission’s investigation. During the régime of that Government it in no way enjoyed precedence in the interests of the Bantu. This gave rise to an unbalanced education pattern. There were large Bantu schools in the white areas. The results and successes produced by Bantu education were not utilized in the interests of the Bantu, but were lost in the white areas.

The United Party and the Progressive Party agree with each other on one particular point. Last year the then hon. member for Kensington, Mr. Moore, said a very ugly thing. He said the policy of the National Party was that the Bantu should be educated so that “he will be able to return to the land on which his parents and ancestors had lived”. So far so good, but then he continued and said “that the Bantu are taught that this return to what is their own is the new substitute for the old idea of heaven, and that he will enjoy perfect happiness there”. He also said the Bantu were not being educated for the community of which they formed part, but for a foreign community. The other day the hon. member for Houghton told a story here to the effect that the greatest grievance on the part of the Bantu parent was the fact that the children had to be educated in their mother tongue. I want to say that I accept that the United Party agrees with that standpoint. They agree with that standpoint, despite what UNESCO said in this regard. The hon. member for Houghton said—

She says this deapite the fact that UNESCO gave completely different advice. We wonder where the United Party stands in respect of this matter. Perhaps they can reply to this. UNESCO said—

In a different report they said—

This is the advice which our own educationists give us. This is the advice which world experts give us, but those people do not want mother tongue instruction to be introduced for the Bantu. They want to influence the Bantu to come into the white areas to be educated in a foreign language in those areas. If, as is being envisaged by our system, it does happen that they will be educated in their own territories, do those hon. members still want them to be instructed in a foreign language?

My time is limited, but I want to express appreciation for what the Department of Bantu Education does to help the Bantu, in particular in the linguistic sphere. Various language committees exist. There is the Bantu language board. Language research is being done in the Department. There is the section which assists in the publication of Bantu literature and so forth. I also want to express my appreciation for what Radio Bantu is doing to make the Bantu more conscious of his own language. If the Bantu cannot receive mother-tongue education in their own territories, the numerous opportunities offered to them will be lost, because mother-tongue education does not only help them to grasp their subject better, it does not only help them to pass with better marks, but it also helps them to absorb more of what they hear and what they read. If the Bantu do not know and grasp their mother tongue well, they will not have the advantage of Radio Bantu. In the seven programme services in the various Bantu languages 94 listening hours are provided for the Bantu daily. More than 3 million Bantu listen to these programmes. More than 600,000 children and more than 13,000 teachers listen to the Bantu school programmes during school hours every day. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I was very glad to hear the hon. member for Westdene talking about the educational programmes on Radio Bantu. You know, Sir, that for years this side of the House has pleaded for more use to be made of the radio and even of television and other unlikely or unliked media for assistance in education. I hope that the speech of the hon. member for Westdene was not purely for the benefit of the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, who happens to be in the Chamber. I must say that I agree with him wholeheartedly. The radio has tremendous power to assist us here in South Africa in the tremendous task we have, namely to educate not only the Bantu children we are discussing to-day, but all the children of South Africa. It was quite clear from the way the hon. member for Westdene spoke … [Interjections.] Of course, Sir, there are still some members of this House who cannot bring their minds above their navels. Perhaps when we do get them in that position we may be able to carry on a responsible debate. As I was saying, it is quite clear that the hon. member for Westdene suffers from the philosophy which is apparent in the Nationalist Party. That is the philosophy that they must teach the Bantu only one thing and that is to accept separate development. Having been taught that, the Bantu must then accept a separate Bantu arithmetic, a Bantu science and a Bantu culture. Everything must be Bantu and they have to be completely separate from us. I am afraid that I must disagree with the hon. member also with regard to the medium of instruction. That side of the House talks about the right of self-determination, but where have these Bantu ever had the opportunity of determining for themselves? We still have the Government and members like the hon. member for Westdene interfering with their choice. Let us examine the opportunity to decide that English should be the medium of instruction in the schools of the Transkei. Why did they make that decision? They made that decision because no textbooks or set-books were available in the Xhosa language. It is as simple as that. But what has happened to education in the Transkei to-day? What is happening there is happening throughout the Republic. In this connection I should like the hon. the Minister to try to follow my line of thought. Let us try to get together and solve this matter. What is happening is that although the decision was taken that English should be the language medium of instruction, this is falling down because they do not have the teachers capable of teaching those subjects in English. We therefore have the position today where the textbooks and set-books are in one language, while the teachers are trying to teach the children in another language. The result is that from Std. I onwards the children are suffering.

I should like to quote from a speech by the late Dr. Stewart, who was a founder of Fort Hare. He said—

This is very true. It is in this respect that I want the hon. the Deputy Minister to co-operate with me. I am prepared to co-operate with him and I am sure that applies to all hon. members on this side. We should see to it that a sufficient number of these people are educated so that they can pass on their knowledge, not only to inspire others to greater efforts to attain a higher grade of education, but to help their own people and to teach their own people. This is where Bantu education has fallen down ever since the system was introduced in 1956.

Reference was made here this afternoon to Bantu who are resident in the Bantu townships around the white urban areas and the difficulties under which they suffer when it comes to education. I want to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that by taking a cross-section of the Bantu people in this country, you will find a greater acumen and desire for education among the urbanized and semi-urbanized Bantu than there is among the rural Bantu. I am not saying that there is no desire for education among the rural Bantu. Of course there is, as is apparent from the number of schools which are there. But there is a greater desire among the urban Bantu. I will almost go so far as to say that I believe there is a greater ability amongst those urban Bantu to assimilate that education. But things have been made very difficult for them by this Government in that no provision is made for secondary education, technical education, or any advanced education in those areas where these people live. They have no option but to go away, as my hon. friend here said, and to pay R60 a term for boarding-house fees. It is being made more difficult for them.

But now let me follow on the theme of Dr. Stewart. What is the position once the parents of these people have made the sacrifice and they have attained this education? Here I refer particularly to technical schools. I remember the visit which was arranged by the hon. the Minister to Pietersburg in the Transvaal, where we called on the technical school there. There we saw what was being taught to these people. But I want to commend to the hon. the Minister a comment which was made to me, not by only one, but by a few of those students. They posed the question: When we have finished here, where do we go? Where can we work? What can we do? Engineers are turned out there. Mechanics are being turned out there. In not one Bantu township in a white area is there a motor garage. No qualified mechanic can work in those townships. There are in the Transkei to-day certain garages which employ qualified Bantu mechanics who have been through the technical schools. But there is no provision for them in the Bantu townships in the white areas. This means that these qualified mechanics, qualified tradesmen, are working as backyard garages because under this Government they cannot go into a garage in a white area. In the Bantu townships there are no garages for them, so this work is being done under the lap.

What also happens to these Bantu students who go through the primary standards, reach high school finally get through matriculation and then go on to university? When we look at the figures which are given in the report of the Department we find that of the small number of students at Ngoya, the University of Zululand, namely 367, only 230 can take degree courses because the balance have not passed matriculation and can therefore only take diploma courses. Nearly half the students are taking diploma courses. Sir, Ngoya is geared to take many more students but we have not got the students because we have not got the teachers to teach them in the first place. I think that the primary task which the hon. the Minister must set himself is to see that he trains sufficient teachers to turn out sufficient matriculated students to be able to fill these universities. Let us in this way keep this cycle going; let us then educate these people and give them a chance to take their place in the sun in their own country. Sir, an example of what is going on is that an ex-member of this House tried to get a post at their university and was told, “I am sorry, we cannot give you a post here, because there are insufficient students; there will be nobody for you to teach.” Sir, I commend this thought to the hon. the Minister; Let him make it the primary object of his Department to train sufficient of these people to pass on their knowledge to the Bantu students.

In his very first sentence the hon. member for Berea, the main speaker on the Opposition side, said a very important thing when he said that the Bantu education policy of this Government was influencing the whole Bantu policy of the Government in regard to the independence of the Bantu homelands. But, Sir, this is exactly what this Government is doing, the result being that I can tell hon. members to-day that just over 60 per cent of the Bantu education facilities for Bantu are centred in the homelands, and just under 40 per cent are centred in the white areas. Do you know, Sir, that in the homelands at present the number of schools for Bantu is almost 800 more than is the number in the white areas? This is a very great achievement. In addition, there are 3,000 farm schools in the white area. [Interjection.] Sir, if these figures do not impress the hon. member for Hillbrow, I honestly want to say that nothing on earth will impress him. This is a phenomenal achievement. Do you know, Sir, that in the Bantu homelands at present there are almost 1½ million more Bantu children at school than is the case in the white area of South Africa? I want to add at once that the reason for that high percentage of Bantu pupils in the homelands is not that there are so many high school boarders in those homelands; the reason is that more and more Bantu are living in the homelands. In 1968 already the percentage of pupils in the homelands had increased to 59. Sir, I notice that hon. members opposite are shaking their heads. Figures will probably be made available to them shortly, and then we can examine those figures, but I am saying here this afternoon that one of the reasons why this explosion has taken place in regard to Bantu Education, especially in respect of the Bantu homelands, is that more and more Bantu are living in the homelands. That is the reason, and hon. members can take it from me that this is the case.

Sir, right at the beginning of the debate on this Vote I want to make mention, with the highest appreciation, of the Secretary to Bantu Education and his most competent and dedicated staff as well as the host of teachers employed in Bantu Education to-day. These are people who are performing this great task with exceptional zeal. In this regard I should like to refer to the most outstanding annual report, which I want to invite hon. members to study a little, and then they will agree with me.

To come back to Bantu Education in the homelands, I want to tell you, Sir, that during the past year we took over four additional departments in the Bantu homelands. Previously we had five. There are at present 600 schools in the Tswana homeland, 214,000 pupils and 3,400 teachers, i.e. in this one homeland alone. In the North Sotho homeland there are 720 schools, 226,000 Bantu pupils and 3,740 teachers. In the South Sotho homeland, which represents a very small group, there are 11 schools, 4,630 pupils and 67 teachers. In the Ciskei there are 530 schools, 132,000 pupils and 2,170 teachers. In all the homelands taken almost 98 per cent of the teachers in Bantu education are Bantu. In the Zulu homeland there are 1,257 schools, 338,683 pupils and 5,727 teachers. In the Shangaan homeland there are 185 schools, 56,000 pupils and 730 teachers. In the Venda homeland there are 225 schools, 66,000 pupils and 900 teachers. In the Transkei there are 1,617 Bantu schools, 375,728 pupils—this is the 1968 figure; the latest figure will be higher—and 5,727 teachers.

Sir, I am giving you these figures in full, in view of the fact that during the past year we have had to establish, as I said, four Bantu Education Departments in four of these Bantu homelands. I say that this is an exceptional achievement on the part of the Government in view of the first point that was made here by the Opposition, i.e. that the Bantu Education polic would most certainly reveal how serious the Government is about the development of the Bantu homelands. After these few facts with which I have just furnished hon. members on that side, they will have to agree with me that this Government has no reason to hang its head in shame in regard to its achievement in this sphere. We have established thousands of schools in a few homelands, and there are more than a million pupils in the homelands. Surely, this is definitely an achiement.

Sir, I want to tell you that at the present stage already the Department of Bantu Education is slightly more than twice as big as are all the other education departments in the Republic of South Africa taken together. If we look at the highlights of the activities of the past year, we see that the aggregate number of Bantu pupils has increased from 2,397,000 in 1968 to 2,552,000 in 1969. Sir, I hold the hon. member for Berea in high esteem and regard, but he was somewhat inclined to disparage Bantu Education. I do not want to say that he did so wilfully, but this is the impression he left. I am asking him to bear in mind that there are in South Africa at present, thanks to the National Government’s policy of Bantu Education, more than 2½ million Bantu children attending schools, of whom million are in the Bantu homelands.

For how long do they remain at school?

Over the past year there was an increase of 155,000 pupils. At the rate of increase over the past number of years, the expectation is that by 1980 there will be more than 4½ million Bantu pupils attending schools in South Africa.

And it is not only the number of primary pupils that has grown so considerably; that considerable growth was also evident in the secondary school sections. Over the past year the number of schools increased by more than 300 to 9,853. There are almost 10,000 Bantu schools in the Republic to-day. Do you know what this means, Sir? It means that on every school day of the past year a Bantu school was established somewhere in the Republic. And then that hon. member refers to comparisons with other states and other countries. I shall come to that in a moment. On every school day of the year a school was established. I have already said that four education departments were established this year, which now brings the total number of education departments in the Bantu homelands to nine. At the head of all circuit offices in the Bantu homelands which have been granted partial self-government, Bantu inspectors of schools are appointed, and at present we already have 35; previously white inspectors were appointed to these posts. While I am dealing with this point, I may just tell those hon. members that if there has ever been a department in which one can see how opportunities and rights are being created out of nothing for the under-privileged in our community, i.e. the Bantu, then it certainly is the case in the Departments of Bantu Administration and Bantu Education.

I am only giving one example: With the take-over of these departments for the Bantu themselves in their respective homelands, we have at the moment as many as 35 Bantu circuit inspectors, whereas in previous years such posts were held by Whites, and I make bold to say that under any other policy there would probably not have been one Bantu circuit inspector. These are opportunities and rights which are being created for the Bantu through the implementation of the policy which we also discussed here on the previous Vote. I am referring to highlights in this Department during the past year. Native education in South-West Africa was also taken over without any disruption, and it is functioning smoothly in that part of South Africa. As regards university students at our Bantu universities, about which those hon. members had so much to say when those universities were established and which they opposed with everything in their power, I want to say that now, for the first time, we had in the past year more than 2,000 Bantu students who were enrolled at these three Bantu universities, and you know. Sir. that these universities have now become full-fledged Bantu universities. If we consider the large number of Bantu children attending schools and the very large number of Bantu schools, and if we look at the Bantu at our universities in South Africa, it is perhaps interesting to note that at present 2,022 Bantu students have been enrolled at these three Bantu universities, that more than 2,400 Bantu students have been enrolled at the University of South Africa, and that at the University of Natal 134 have been enrolled at the medical school. At the University of Cape Town we still have at present two Bantu who are studying there because as yet their subjects cannot be taught at elsewhere, and at the University of the Witwatersrand there are also two of them. This brings the aggregate number of Bantu students in South Africa to almost 4,500.

But what employment is there for them?

One does not hear of Bantu who obtained degrees but are unemployed. They find their way into a large variety of categories and, what is more, they will do so to an increasing extent as these homelands develop further. Many of them do in fact find their way into the Bantu home lands. I do not want to allow myself to be put off my stroke by that hon. member, but if he were to accompany me or the hon. the Minister, we could take him to more than one chief and territorial authority who have approached us and said, Please, help us; a need exists here for Bantu medical doctors; these are our sons and then they go away and work elsewhere; help us so that we may just tie down those children in some way or other in order that they may perform that work here with us in the homelands.” The hon. member does not know what he is saying. He should rather try to make a prediction again, or to issue a statement.

Now I want to proceed calmly, and I would not like the hon. member to put me off my stroke, but on this point I just want to tell him that we have been working on a professional register for quite some time. There is a professional register at the Department of Bantu Administration and Education in which every Bantu person is classified and tabulated according to his qualifications so that we may know exactly what his qualifications are in order to ensure by those means that there will be no Bantu who have these qualifications and who cannot be placed in proper employment. These chiefs and territorial authorities are complaining and moaning to us and saying, “Our children are not here; help us, for there are so many openings here; the people are ill and there are openings in the hospitals; bring the people here so that they may help us.”

But Deputy Minister Vosloo denies the existence of this registry.

I said a moment ago that we were working on such a professional register. Does the hon. member not believe me?

Then the hon. member for Berea went on to draw certain comparisons with African states. I sketched here in brief a mighty Bantu Education Department, and I tried to give a few indications of the dimensions of this Department and what was being spent in order to channel the activities of this Department into the homelands and the almost incredible success which has already been achieved by these means. Now I want to draw a comparison between the position in other states in Africa and Bantu Education in the Republic. That hon. member referred to Rhodesia only. But take Algeria, for instance, with a total population of 12.4 million people. Ours is very close to that, i.e. approximately 13 million. They have two university colleges. We have three Bantu universities and 64 colleges. They have 429 secondary schools in Algeria and we have 431 secondary schools. They have 2,495 primary schools. They are working on the principle of hon. member for Houghton. They have 2,495 primary schools and we in South Africa have 9,543 primary Bantu schools, almost four times as many as they have in Algeria. But look at what the result is. If one accepts the policy of the hon. member for Houghton, as she stated it here a moment ago, do you know what the literacy in Algeria is estimated at 20 per cent? And that is a very old country. The literacy in South Africa is estimated at 85 per cent in respect of Bantu between the ages of 11 and 20. Does the hon. member still want to go on drawing comparisons? If one takes Botswana, with .5 million people, one finds that there are 9 secondary schools and 241 primary schools, and the literacy is 44 per cent. Compare this with South Africa with 431 secondary schools, 9,500 primary schools and a literacy of 85 per cent. Compare this with a country such as Ethopia, with 22.5 million people, 56 secondary schools and 1,278 primary schools whereas we have more than 9,500, and their literacy is 5 per cent as against our 85 per cent. And so I could go on.

I have a complete list of all the African states. But then that hon. member disparages this Department in the way he has in fact done. I simply do not think this is fair, but this is the difficulty we have with the hon. members on that side. They never want to admit how much progress is being made through the implementation of the policy of separate development, especially in respect of the homelands, and, with all due respect, this is so because they do not know what is happening in the homelands. Now I am trying here to give them an idea by furnishing figures, and I want to take a bet that only to-morrow or the day after, when they are afforded the opportunity on the Prime Minister’s Vote, they will come back to this again. This afternoon I told the hon. the Minister in all sincerity that I thought we had to buy a luxury bus, as luxurious as one would not find anywhere else in the world, and that we had to take all those U.P. members of the House of Assembly and the bishops and everybody to the Bantu homelands so that they might see with their own eyes what was happening there and would not rise here again in order to deliver themselves of such nonsense. We did this on two occasions. We got two members from that side of the House, and one of them said he would go, but he never turned up. The other one came along, and subsequent to that I have never again seen him rise in this debate—and he is a very prominent member —in order to talk nonsense about the Bantu homelands, for as far as I know he has never talked about the Bantu homelands again.

On a previous occasion I said in another debate that our difficulty was that we found it difficult to bring home to people what was being accomplished. For how can one do this in any other way than by way of statistics, as I am doing now? Then most people fall asleep; they are not interested in statistics. I said before that television, when it was introduced, would show the people what was happening here. Therefore, I want to emphasize this strongly, in view of the fact that the main point made by that hon. member was that this had to be the test of how serious we were about the implementation of our policy of multi-nationality, and about guiding these people towards full autonomy and independence. He could not have asked for a better test than in fact Bantu education to be applied. That is what I am trying to tell hon. members.

I discussed the achievements of this Department over the past year. I wish those hon. members, as well as the hon. member for Houghton, would pay visits to a few of our special education institutions for Bantu in our homelands, for instance the Kutlwanong school for the deaf and dumb and the deaf and blind at Rustenburg, the Vuleka school for blind and deaf Bantu children at Nkandla in Natal, the Efata school for blind and deaf Bantu children at Umtata, the Barthimea school for the deaf and the blind and Thaba ’Nchu and the Letaba school for cerebral palsied Bantu children at Tzaneen. We have 11 such schools. More than a thousand such blind, deaf and dumb, deaf and crippled Bantu children, as well as leprous children, are in those institutions. I want to confess to this House to-day that I visited some of these schools where I as a man was moved to tears at seeing what wonderful work was being done there for these underprivileged Bantu children. For instance, I shall never forget how, on a certain occasion when I paid a visit to the Letaba school for cerebral palsied children, those children, who are paralysed and do not have hands or feet, gave, measured in terms of any normal standards, an excellent orchestral recital by making use of their limbs, mouth and whatever they did in fact have at their disposal. If hon. members would only pay one such visit to see something of this nature, something which is not merely words. “a dream in the sky”, etc., but realities which have been brought about where people are toiling in order to achieve this! Hon. members should merely go and look at one cerebral palsied Bantu child. There are hundreds who are receiving help in this way. There are 11 such schools. Let them go and look at one blind Bantu child, and then rise here and say that nothing is being done in the homelands. Let them visit one of these places—I am extending an invitation to them—and they will not deliver themselves of the nonsense they have been propagating in the course of these debates on Bantu affairs and education. One honestly expects there to be only a reasonable basic knowledge on the part of the Opposition. One expects them to be familiar with the facts and then to argue on that basis. If that were the case, we would make better progress in regard to these matters.

Are you satisfied that you have done all you should have?

Will you ever be satisfied?

I was, in fact, just about to proceed to dealing with that point. The hon. member for Berea, their main speaker, raised the question of finances here. And now that hon. member wants to know whether we are satisfied. If we bear in mind that several million people are involved in this grand task which we have undertaken, then it is very relative to ask whether we are satisfied. A great deal is being accomplished, but the ideal is to accomplish more and more. One thing those hon. members should not expect from us. is that the Whites, who are already making such a tremendous contribution, should do everything. That cannot happen. The Bantu, in his own country, must also make his contribution. That is exactly what is happening.

Hon. members on that side of the House find it so easy to talk about the question of finances. However, I must say that I was very pleased to have noticed that on this occasion the hon. member for Houghton spoke about this matter in a very responsible manner. But there is a reason for it. When those hon. members talk about this matter so easily, I hope that they will also take cognisance of the fact that the Whites are already making a very large contribution in regard to the implementation of the policy of multi-national development as reflected in Bantu Education. If one takes the Bantu Education Account and also adds in Special Education, South-West Africa, Caprivi and the Transkei, the aggregate amount is R54,754,000 for 2.7 million Bantu children. Included in this is a contribution of R11 million contributed by the Bantu themselves through taxes. Then one of those hon. members is still referring to 20c a month, which the Bantu have to contribute towards the school levy. And he is the one who has so much to say about the moral aspect. But the hon. member is still young; otherwise I would have dealt with him more harshly. Does that hon. member really and truly want the Whites to pay for everything? Is that what he proposes? After all, the moral aspect of this matter is in fact that the Bantu have to be guided so that they may also make their contribution. Surely, this is necessary. Therefore, hon. members on that side of the House should not pretend to know such a great deal about this matter when, in fact, they have merely heard something about it but do not know any details.

But there was also another point that was mentioned. This Budget of R54 million is not a small budget. In this regard hon. members should also consider that there are many other things which are being done in Bantu education and which are not reflected in the Budget. There are, for instance, buildings which are being constructed by the homeland department of works out of trust funds, buildings which are being provided in the white areas by the local authorities out of levy funds. Then there are buildings which are being provided by mines and factories for their own employees, and buildings which are being provided by farmers on a subsidized basis. There are more than 3,000 Bantu farm schools. Then there are farmers who take pride in erecting their own schools for those Bantu children. All these buildings are not reflected in the Budget. Mighty contributions in regard to Bantu Education are also being made in other ways. Therefore, in talking about the Budget, we should have regard to these things.

I want to tell hon. members that, in spite of what I have just said, the position is such that we are carrying out investigations in order to find the best way in which contributions in regard to Bantu Education can be made. At this stage, therefore, we are not in a position to furnish a final reply in this regard. We still have to see what the P.A.Y.E system and also the purchase tax of the Bantu are going to yield, and what the effect of these two new sources of revenue will be. The Department of Finance and the Department of Bantu Education are investigating these matters. As soon as these investigations have been completed, we shall pay the necessary attention to this question of finances. That hon. member should, therefore, not talk about this matter so lightly.

The hon. member referred to an education crisis. It is true, as was stated in a report in the Argus, that the teachers in Bantu Education are performing a superhuman task”; 43,000 teachers are doing the work of 73,000 teachers. But now hon. members should not think that these teachers in the Bantu Education Department are the only people who are working very hard. I need only look to my right to see the hon. the Minister of Bantu Education who, as those hon. members said, is working himself to death. But I can give the assurance that he feels very well. I could also, with all due respect, look at our hon. Prime Minister. Do hon. members not think that he, too, is performing a superhuman task? Just look at the Department of Transport. Surely, our railway officials are doing much more than they should. We all know this. Therefore, the teachers of the Department of Bantu Education are not the only people in South Africa who have a superhuman task to perform. In fact, this is characteristic of South Africa and peculiar to South Africa. One is grateful for the fact that those supreme demands are being made upon all of our people. Because of the fact that such high demands are being made upon our people, we are achieving such results and feats. I also want to pay tribute to the very large number of Bantu teachers upon whom equally high demands are being made and who are meeting those demands in such a laudable manner. Let me say with great emphasis that with 43,000 teachers, in round figures, we are doing the work for which we ought to have 73,000 teachers. I can honestly say, and I challenge the hon. members to deny this, that the standards of Bantu Education are not inferior because of this superhuman task. The hon. members are welcome to look into the matter of Bantu education schools or to study the reports, or even to carry out their own investigations in regard to the matter. Those standards are, in fact, not inferior.

Once again in reply to that hon. member I want to say that, whilst I have the highest respect for qualified teachers who are in possession of a doctor’s degree, a B.A. degree, a M.A. degree or any other degree, there are many teachers who do not have degrees and who are excellent teachers. If I had to say who my best teachers were when I was still at school, I would name teachers who had not obtained degrees. Therefore, the hon. member should not discuss these matters so lightly. We appreciate that there is a shortage of teachers, and everything is being done in order to get as many graduated teachers for Bantu Education as possible, and also to get as many other teachers as possible. At the moment we have 34 Bantu training schools for teachers. Furthermore, at the moment we are establishing three training schools, i.e. at Madadene at Newcastle, at Motetema at Groblersdal and at Hlabane at Rustenburg. Therefore, we are paying a tremendous amount of attention to this matter. The hon. member may go to the three Bantu universities and to the 34, now 37, training colleges in order to see how the number of student teachers has increased.

May I ask a question? Is it policy not to put any of these teacher training institutions in the urban areas?

The policy is, as I said right at the beginning, to centre, as far as possible, the whole matter of Bantu Education in the Bantu homelands themselves. But we are not blind to the fact that we should at the same time provide a fair modus vivendi in respect of the Bantu child in the white area as well, and that is what we are doing.

As that hon. member has now asked me that question, I might as well reply to the other questions she put to me: Generally speaking junior secondary schools are being provided strictly within the framework of a quota, i.e. 10 classrooms, a library, a laboratory, a homecraft room and a handwork centre. for 3,200 Bantu families resident in a white residential area. This comes to 320 families per classroom to a maximum of 16 classrooms per school. This is the formula on which we operate. Local pupils are admitted, and consequently no hostels are provided. In this respect I am at the moment giving consideration to being more lenient in future, especially in smaller rural residential areas which cannot comply fully with the quota system, because I thoroughly appreciate the problem. But as far as the matter is concerned, it must be made quite clear that the Government’s policy is to make education facilities available to the Bantu in the Bantu homelands. In respect of senior secondary schools, i.e. beyond Form 3 or Std. 8, I want to say that we are very reluctant to grant such facilities in a white area. I might as well state this frankly. We are not keen to do that. As regards junior secondary schools, the age limit of the Bantu has been lowered considerably, and for that reason I am prepared to be more lenient in regard to junior secondary schools.

While I am dealing with that hon. member, I may as well reply quickly to the other questions. In regard to the “unit cost lowest since Union”, there are two answers to this: The first answer is that there were different basic forms of calculation. Last year instructions were given to the effect that those different basic forms had to be standardized. That explains this reduction that was quoted. It is, therefore, not correct to draw this comparison, as the hon. member is doing now, and then to state on that basis that it is the “lowest since Union”. At the moment there is a new standardized basis of calculation. In the future the hon. member will once again be able to draw a comparison.

I have referred to the question of buildings before. More and more buildings are being constructed in the private manner, and these buildings are not reflected in the Budget. Therefore, this also brings down the cost per unit in this regard.

I have already replied to the hon. member for Houghton in regard to the question that our whole policy should in actual fact not be aimed at making the masses literate. I do not want to go into this again. I have now replied to all of her questions.

In regard to the matter of school books, which was raised by the hon. member for Berea, I know that this matter is very near to the hon. member’s heart. The hon. member need not think that this is not near to the heart of the Department of Bantu Education and to mine. If we could, we would certainly have made more school books available. In this regard I want to state two very important facts, and the first is that over the years there has been a constant increase in free books to the Bantu. For instance, the hon. member will notice in this Budget that an amount of approximately R600,000 is being provided for free books to the Bantu. Once again we are back to the principle of the so-called “morality”, which was raised by the hon. member for Durban (Central). Do hon. members on that side now want us on this side, or the Whites in South Africa alone, to accept responsibility for free books to the Bantu? Is that what they want? I am very sure that they will not advocate this; if not, they must advocate it. I also want to say, since comparisons are being drawn, that in the Sunday Tribune the other day I saw a comparison between what a white child and what a Bantu child has to pay. This is not quite fair, because, after all, the white child pays, through his parents, provincial tax, and from that tax the white child receives his free books. Therefore, the white parents are making a very significant quid pro quo which enables them to obtain free books for their children. We are back to the moral principle, for if the Bantu, too, made his quid pro quo we should most certainly like to proceed to doing something about the matter as quickly as we can.

I think I have said enough about these matters, since it is possible to discuss them at very great length and in detail. These are great and very important matters. Merely in order to lift the veil a little further, I want to say that very important and outstanding work is being done in the Department of Bantu Education, not only in the interests of the Bantu and the implementation of the multi-national homeland development policy of this Government, but also in the interests of every white parent and white child in South Africa, for this Department, along with the Department of Bantu Administration, is making a mighty contribution to neighbourliness and good relations between the Whites and the Bantu in the Republic of South Africa.

Votes put and agreed to.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.