I have to announce that at a ceremony in the Gallery Hall this morning, I accepted on behalf of Parliament a painting of Mr. J. J. Fouché, the State President of the Republic of South Africa. The painting, a gift from the Government, will be hung in a suitable place in the Parliamentary building.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As hon. members know, the Appropriation Act is usually passed only at the end of the Session, and it is therefore customary, by means of a Part Appropriation Bill to request an advance from the House in order to cover the necessary State expenditure during the first few months of the new financial year. For safety’s sake this Bill makes provision for the period from 1st April until about the middle of July.

The total amount requested is R725 million, of which R530 million is on Revenue Account, R155 million on Loan Account, R17 million on Bantu Education Account and R23 million on South-West Africa Account. As usual, it will only be possible to spend these amounts on services which have already been approved by Parliament in terms of an Appropriation Act or for which there is other statutory authorization.

Mr. Speaker, as has already been announced, I intend introducing my main Budget on 31st March, and on that occasion I shall furnish a summary of the economic situation of the Republic as well as of the position of the State Accounts. The House will therefore not expect me to anticipate my Budget speech this afternoon. Nevertheless I want to refer briefly to certain aspects of the economic situation and make an important announcement in this regard. Before I come to that, however, I want to say something in regard to the operation of South Africa’s agreement with the International Monetary Fund regarding the sale of our gold.

Hon. members will recall that this agreement was concluded at the end of 1969, so that it has been in operation now for slightly more than a year. As recently as September, 1970, at the annual meeting of the International Monetary Fund, the Managing Director of the Fund, Mr. Schweitzer, made known to South Africa his satisfaction with the agreement and added that South Africa had complied in letter and in spirit with the agreement.

Experience has shown that the agreement is of considerable value to South Africa, and particularly for our gold mining industry. It affords us the protection of a floor price for our gold, but it also gives us sufficient freedom in the sale of our gold to monetary authorities as well as on the private market. In this way, for example, we were able to sell all our gold to the monetary authorities at the official price when the price on the private market dropped below the official price during the first few months of 1970. Subsequently we were still able, in terms of various clauses of the agreement, to sell considerable quantities of gold to monetary authorities and in this way we were able to prevent the private market from being overloaded, with the result that the price on the private market showed a fine increase. Since April, 1970, we have in actual fact, been able to sell virtually our entire current gold production on the private market without any difficulty. In terms of the agreement we need never sell more than our current production on this market, and particularly with a view to the expected increase in the non-monetary demand for gold, I have no fear for the future marketing of our gold. Of course, temporary price fluctuations may still occur, but we have the protection of the floor price, and the long-term trend of the price on the private market is undoubtedly an upward one.

I return now to the economic situation. I readily concede that inflation and rising, prices are our most important economic problem, but I think we must maintain the proper perspective. The consumer price index, as adjusted by the Reserve Bank, has increased by 4.1 per cent during the year 1970, as compared with 3½ per cent in 1969. This can hardly be regarded as galloping inflation, particularly if it is compared with the figures of other countries. After their relatively small increase in 1969, food prices increased by 5.3 per cent in 1970, while the cost of housing and related items increased by 4.7 per cent, and those of other items by 3.2 per cent. I am not satisfied with these increases, but to describe them as a price explosion is a gross exaggeration.

The economic situation is still characterized by the high level and rapid growth of total internal monetary demand for goods and services. It is encouraging that fixed investment by the private manufacturing industry has during 1970 clearly shown a revival. However, the very marked increase in private consumer spending has undoubtedly been an important factor in the intensified inflationary pressure in the economy. In the first three quarters of 1970 expenditure on durable goods was for example no less than 17 per cent higher than during the corresponding period of the previous year. This higher consumer spending is reflected in the low level of savings; in fact, personal savings as a percentage of available personal income reached an abnormally low level during the third quarter of 1970. The House will recall that I appointed a committee last year to examine the savings channels offered by the State. The committee’s report is expected to be available soon, and I hope that its recommendations will contribute to encouraging thrift in our country; in this way inflation can be effectively curbed.

The higher rate of spending, particularly consumer spending, has also had its effect on the balance of payments. Imports have reached a very high level while exports have increased only minimally. The somewhat disappointing rate of our exports is partly attributable to the drought of the previous year, partly to a decrease in the prices of certain agricultural and mineral products, and partly to the high level of internal spending. There was, however, a considerable inflow of capital, with the net result that the total foreign reserves have during the year 1970 decreased by approximately R300 million and stood at approximately R800 million at the end of the year.

This is a great decrease and we cannot allow the reserves to continue to diminish at this rate. However, there is reason to believe that certain special and temporary factors have contributed to the recent marked decrease. In the first place, supplies have continued to increase—the total increase over the eighteen months ended September, 1970, was more than R700 million —and a large proportion of these supplies probably consisted of imported goods. This high level of investment in supplies was perhaps partly attributable to the unfounded fear on the part of importers that import control might be intensified or even that the rand might be devalued. As far as import control is concerned, any intensification would to some extent frustrate our attempts to curb inflation, and it would also be difficult to obtain the necessary approval of G.A.T.T. Unilateral devaluation would, in the present circumstances, also be in conflict with our international obligations and would in any event, under prevailing inflationary conditions, definitely be contrary to the interests of South Africa. I believe therefore that importers will begin to understand these facts and that excessive stockpiling of imported goods—which is an expensive and difficult operation in view of the present high interest rates and credit restrictions—will begin to level off.

The decline in interest rates overseas will possibly result in our trade having to be financed to a greater extent from abroad, which could also have a favourable influence on our balance of payments.

On the export side the present favourable agricultural season holds the promise of an increase in the export of agricultural products. There are also signs that the prices of certain mineral exports, which have over the past year declined considerably, may possibly begin to recover soon.

I am therefore not pessimistic about our balance of payments, and, just as in the case of inflation, the picture of a crisis which is sometimes painted, is definitely an exaggerated one and may have prejudicial consequences for our economy. Just as in the case of inflation, we cannot, however, sit still and hope that matters will remedy themselves, and since excessive consumer spending is such an important factor in both cases, it is the duty of the Government to take steps to curb this excessive spending.

Here I want to refer briefly to the conflict between the so-called “curb school” and the “growth school” in the combating of inflation. Everyone would naturally prefer inflation to be overcome by means of increased production and general growth of the economy, and it remains the aim of the Government to encourage economic development and increased productivity. However, these are long-term measures. They work too slowly for the immediate problem of inflation and the unfavourable balance of payments, and we must therefore apply certain short-term curbing measures to restrict the excessive increase in spending. Such measures are particularly necessary in the prevailing conditions in South Africa where—in contradistinction to conditions in the U.S.A. and certain other overseas countries—the economy in general is still overstrained.

It is sometimes alleged that such measures affect only the symptoms of inflation, and not the basic causes, and in this respect particular reference is made to the shortage of skilled labour. I do not agree with this argument. The scarcity of any particular production factor could give rise to an increase in the price of that factor and to an increase in the cost structure, but it need not result in a continuous inflationary spiral; for this monetary factors are responsible. The seasonally adjusted total amount of money and near-money has increased during the first three quarters of 1970, and it still remains high in spite of a moderate decrease in October and November. The fact that money and near-money increased considerably during the year in spite of the deficit on balance of payments, indicates that the other factors determining the money supply—particularly bank credit to the private sector—had a considerable expansionary effect. This expansion of the money supply undoubtedly contributed to the increase in spending and the resultant upward movement in prices.

Another misconception that must be eliminated is that measures to curb excessive spending or activity in particular spheres are designed to force down the long-term growth rate of the national economy. On the contrary, the whole purpose of the Government’s economic policy, to which the fiscal and monetary policy is the key, is in fact to promote economic growth in the Republic to the fullest extent possible, coupled with financial stability—in other words, stable growth. The measures which already have been introduced and which I am now going to propose, are in fact aimed at maintaining the stability of our economic growth—and it is certainly not necessary for me to emphasize the benefits of continued, firm and stable growth, in contract to a fluctuating situation of growth and recession and the disruption of the entire national economy which this involves. Spending in excess of production undermines this vitally important stability, with clear implications for the balance of payment and for price increases. The absence of savings to finance investment in productive assets, also undermines stability.

Where such tendencies present themselves, I deem it my duty to protect the stability of our growing national economy. Sound financial management requires that we allocate the correct priorities for the utilization of our available means. I want to emphasize that the present measures are specifically aimed at the allocation of sound priorities. As Dr. A. F. Jacobs recently observed, overspending must be selectively curtailed. Private consumer spending, which in any case absorbs the bulk of our gross domestic product, has recently increased to an excessive extent, at the expense, inter alia, of fixed investment in the manufacturing industry. A readjustment of priorities is therefore necessary—a lower priority to private consumer spending, and a higher priority to savings and investment in production means to increase production and promote the further growth of our national economy. This will at the same time help to alleviate the pressure placed on prices and the balance of payments by excessive spending.

Therefore it is also wrong to refer to the present measures as being merely short-term control measures—they are in fact measures which are aimed at promoting the growth and the stability of the national economy now and in the long term. There can hardly be such a thing as a long-term solution which could be applied once and for all. The circumstances are continually changing, particularly in a vigorous and dynamic country like South Africa, and we must adapt effectively to them.

It is quite true that there are certain measures which can only be planned and implemented over a relatively long period of time, for example the supply of water or electricity, the building of roads, railways and harbours, the exploitation of minerals, vocational and professional training, housing, hospitals and health services, and so on. I want to point out that in its own spending the Government is in fact allocating the highest priorities to these matters.

In the economic debate which is being conducted each day, it is right that the desirability of growth and of suitable measures for promoting it in the long term should be strongly and positively stated. Nevertheless we must guard against, as Prof. Terreblanche of Stellenbosch expressed it, cultivating “a distorted obsession with a high growth rate” at the expense of stability and strength, both internally as well as in our balance of payments and our financial relationships with foreign countries. This I want to emphasize.

For the sake of this stability, the existing measures against inflation will consequently continue to be maintained for the present. The credit restrictions of the Reserve Bank will therefore remain in force, and there are signs that these restrictions are in fact beginning to work effectively. The hire-purchase restrictions which my colleague, the Minister of Economic Affairs, introduced in November, 1970, have also had a beneficial effect. The fact that these relatively moderate restrictions have had such an effect is also an indication of the unhealthy and extravagant proportions which consumer credit had assumed.

However, it is necessary to curb excessive consumer spending on less essential goods on a broader front, and for this fiscal measures are necessary. Ordinarily such measures would have to wait for the main Budget, but for two reasons I consider it essential that certain measures should be applied at this early stage. Firstly, the longer excessive spending continues, the more difficult it will be to check inflation. Secondly, with the speculation which always builds up before the Budget, there is a real danger that any fiscal measures may to a considerable extent be anticipated.

I have previously posed the question of the desirability of the Minister of Finance being empowered to amend certain rates of taxation within specified limits during the Parliamentary recess, subject to ratification by Parliament during the first ensuing Parliamentary session. I understand that the Franszen Commission has studied this proposal, and their recommendations will in due course be considered by the Government. At present, however, I do not have such a power, and I must therefore approach Parliament on this, the first opportunity, in order to introduce certain fiscal measures which have now become necessary.

Where excessive spending is the problem, an increase in the sales duty is the obvious measure. I therefore propose that the sales duty on a wide range of articles be increased. The increases are primarily in respect of less essential goods and articles which are not purchased very frequently, such as furniture, stoves and refrigerators. In most cases the increase is 5 per cent, i.e. from 10 to 15 per cent and, in the case of certain less essential articles such as jewellery, furs, perfumery, wigs, radios, record players and records, as well as certain motor vehicle spares, from 25 to 30 per cent; for certain other less essential articles such as carpets, artificial flowers, sunglasses, smoking pipes, the duty is being increased from 10 to 20 per cent. The duty on motor cars is being increased by 5 per cent.

Of course it is not possible to mention all the articles in question here. Full particulars of the changes may, however, be obtained from all Controllers of Customs and Excise. A circular indicating the goods concerned as well as the sales duty items under which they are classified, together with an explanation of the tax increases, is being posted to manufacturers and to the clearing agents of importers.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the provisions of section 58 (1) of the Customs and Excise Act, 1964, I lay upon the Table for consideration by the House, tax proposals in respect of the increase of the sales duty on certain sales duty goods. The increases take effect immediately on all the goods concerned which have not yet been cleared for domestic consumption. In the case of locally manufactured sales duty goods, the increased duty is applicable to the goods which are subsequently sold and removed from the licensed warehouses of manufacturers. Licensed warehouses include depots, branches, forwarding agents and distributing companies which are included in one sales duty licence.

The estimated additional revenue from these increases in the sales duty during a full financial year is R47,000,000.

It is never a pleasant task to increase taxes, and at this very juncture when prices are increasing, many people will ask why it is necessary to effect tax adjustments which may give rise to further price increases. The answer is twofold. As I have already indicated, the present inflationary conditions are largely attributable to an excessive increase in consumer spending. Measures such as these tax adjustments, which may curb consumer spending to a certain extent, consequently have a direct influence on this inflationistic factor. In addition buying power is being transferred from the private to the government sector, which will help the latter sector to finance its essential expenditure in a non-inflationistic manner, that is, without an increase in the amount of money and near-money.

The effect of the tax adjustments on the prices of the articles concerned is non-recurrent and should not affect the cost of living too much. It is not possible to achieve the desirable goal by taxing only luxury articles, but our aim is still to refrain from including the basic necessities of life such as foodstuffs, accommodation and clothing. In most cases the increases apply either to less essential goods or to articles which are not frequently purchased and the purchase of which could in most cases be postponed for a while. And with the recent salary and wage increases the average man will, even after these tax adjustments and even taking into account the price increases which have already occurred, still be considerably better off than a year or two ago.

The effect of the tax increases on industry will continue to receive attention and, as hon. members know, I have the power to make downward adjustments where necessary. In the light of these tax changes, certain relaxations are also possible in the conditions of payment which are applicable to certain groups of durable consumer goods, and my colleague, the Minister of Economic Affairs, will issue a statement in this regard today. I want to emphasize, however, that it is in fact the purpose of the tax increases to curb excessive consumer spending, and consequently adjustments of the sales duty may only be considered where it appears that the measures are having an unexpectedly extreme effect on the industry.

The Government is determined to curb inflation. For that, drastic and sometimes painful measures are necessary. But it is far better if we take a firm stand and solve the problem now, rather than to allow inflation to run its course and subsequently still have to apply even more drastic measures. The private sector can also help in the struggle against inflation by avoiding unjustified price and wage increases. If we stand together in this struggle we can look forward to a new period of stable growth in our economy and to greater prosperity for all in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, it has always been our belief in the past that the shock to the voters of South Africa took place during the Budget debate. However, it appears now that the hon. Minister has found another medium the Part Appropriation debate, to deliver a portion of his shock. He reminds me of a dentist who in his endeavour to alleviate pain, first jabs you with the needle, but if the injection does not take, the pain follows somewhat later. This is what the public of South Africa appears to have to look forward to in this new instalment they have to pay, for having this Government in power.

We are grateful for the opportunity which has been given to us by the hon. the Minister to look at the speech and examine the important announcements he has made. This makes it possible for us to come back to the House with our studied comment. I therefore move—

Mr. Speaker, I move—

That the Bill be now read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend reiterating all the speeches made during the Second Reading debate and in the Committee Stage. This House knows very well what the standpoint of this side of the House is in respect of this Bill. We are opposed to this Bill, because, in our opinion, a further political step is being taken in the direction of the independence of the Transkei. We shall not agree to any Bill which may create the impression that we have changed our mind or that we are not going to oppose the independence of the reserves as vigorously. Consequently we intend voting against the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, during the discussion of this Bill it was very clear that the views held by this side of the House were diametrically opposed to those held by that side of the House. It is also clear that the opposite side of the House is reading something into this Bill which it does not contain at all. I want to repeat that this is an ordinary administrative measure which is being taken in accordance with the experience of the Legislative Assembly of the Transkei and because of a unanimous request made by that Assembly. I think that is how we should leave the matter, i.e. that we have agreed to differ on a very fundamental matter of great importance to this country.

Motion put and the House divided:

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout, P. C. Roux, G. P. van den Berg, and H. J. van Wyk.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst, and J. O. N. Thompson.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned yesterday, I had indicated the characteristics of a political unit. I then tried to indicate the extent to which the various Bantu national groups comply with those theoretical requirements. I was dealing with the second point, in which we put the question whether there are specific areas in South Africa which traditionally and rightly belong to the Bantu. The reply to that was affirmative.

I just want to make a last observation by saying that everyone who is concerned with the consolidation of the Bantu homelands, certainly realizes the problems associated with it, that there are boundary lines which are still vague and that they will be drawn more clearly in the course of years. I think the National Party has done phenomenally well in the period since 1948 in that process of drawing the lines clearly, whereas previous governments, especially during the British Imperial rule, upset the position in South Africa.

Then there was a third requirement. The question was put whether a regulating authority exists among these various Bantu groups. The reply to that too is “yes”. A regulating authority does in fact exist among these various national units. It has traditionally existed. Traditionally the Bantu has had his own political facet of his pattern of life. But that regulating authority among the Bantu was disturbed by British Imperial policy of the previous century, of which the United Party is a continuation. Under the policy of the United Party the binding authority in Bantu society will continue to be disturbed. Over against that there is the policy of the National Party, which recognizes that the Bantu have a political system, which recognizes the authority of the chiefs and wants to restore it, with, through a process of acculturation, grafted on to it the modern requirements of democracy. That is why we are restoring their administration of justice and why we give an indication in the Schedule what powers we are prepared to give to these people at this stage already.

The fourth requirement is whether there is submission to authority. The reply to this too is “yes”. This submission to authority was also disturbed by British Imperialism, as well as by the United Party. We often hear the argument that the urban Bantu will not subject themselves to the authority in the Bantu homelands. If ever there was a fiction, it is the argument that the Bantu living in White areas have no more contact with their traditional way of life, nor with those in authority in the homelands. Such an argument is a fiction, as it is a fiction to say that every Bantu living in the White area has been westernized. Anybody who says this is speaking unscientifically and telling untrue stories.

Dr. Rhoodie said it in his book.

Dr. Rhoodie did not say it anywhere. I want to suggest to the hon. member to read the trilogy which was compiled on the Bantu, I think in East London or Port Elizabeth. It is indicated in that trilogy that change of culture is not limited only to Bantu living in the urban areas; it also occurs among the Bantu living in the homelands. The election we had in the Transkei a few years ago, proved that the Bantu in White areas are submissive to the authorities in their homelands and in fact recognize them.

The last point is the independence of a political unit. The question we have to reply to here, is whether the Bantu of South Africa want political independence. Here too the reply is “yes”. In the past thirty, forty, fifty years we saw how a government which created no outlet for the political aspirations of the Bantu, caused the emergence of organizations such as the A.N.C. and the P.A.C. and a variety of other militant organizations. For that reason it is impossible for us to accept the United Party’s policy to give the Bantu such scanty representation and then to expect that in the world environment of today we shall not have a resurgence of these militant organizations. The National Party, on the other hand, will by this measure systematically lead the Bantu in South Africa to the full realization of their political aspirations. We are doing this honestly and sincerely, in such a way that we need not be ashamed of ourselves and can look the Bantu in the face. We can debate our case before the world and I know that, if not this generation, then our children and grandchildren will reap the fruits of our labour.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest, as I always do, to the speech of the hon. member for Rissik, a speech in which he elaborated on the policy of apartheid, endeavouring to show that it was part of a trend, a continuing historical trend in South Africa. He started off by referring to the printed principles of the Nationalist Party and went on to show that these principles were in fact the foundation of the policy of partition which the Nationalist Party follows today. In my view it is difficult to find language less appropriate to the policy being followed by the Nationalist Party today than the printed principles of the Party. Let me refer you, Sir, to them. Let me quote—

Not only is there a reference to the Bantu of the Republic, not of the homelands therefore, but a reference to them as—

How anybody subscribing to these principles can follow the policy of this Government today and demands to be regarded as being consistent, passes my understanding.

The hon. member then dealt with the hallmarks of unity and enunciated five principles which, he said, were the hallmarks of that concept. I have no quarrel with the hon. gentleman’s analysis of the concept of unity; as a matter of fact, I believe it was properly stated. Where I do differ with him, however, is when it comes to the application of that concept to the facts of life in South Africa. Let me refer briefly to what the hon. gentleman said. This is the first of the principles. He said—

Sir, where in South Africa have we got this “aanduibare gebied” within which any one of the eight Bantu nations can make itself felt, more particularly when the greater part of each one of those nations is not living within “’n aanduibare gebied”? They are not there, Sir. Then he goes on to say—

Once again, there is nothing wrong with the principle which the hon. gentleman speaks of but it is not applicable to the situation in South Africa, where, even when these authorities are established, they will not have authority over the whole social entity of each of these tribes. A great part of each of those tribes will be living under a different authority and in a different area, the White state, over which a different government has jurisdiction.

Then, Sir, the hon. gentleman went back into the South African history. He again tried to show that from the time of the Dutch East Indian Company onwards, including the period of British rule in South Africa, various governments in the states which now make up South Africa, had adopted a philosophy of separation which was consistent with the policy of apartheid as applied by the Government today. Sir, once again the facts of history simply do not support that point of view, however attractive it may be and however one may wish that that were the case. Separation or segregation in the various states which make up the South Africa of today has been both a constitutional arrangement between Black and White states and a set of rules designed to regulate human relationships between various races in one state. It has been both those things. Sir Benjamin D’Urban, to whom the hon. gentleman referred, and Sir Theophilus Shepstone, the latter in Natal, certainly did for a time follow the policy of keeping the Bantu tribes separate in the sense of seeking a clear demarcation of boundaries between the Bantu kingdoms of those times and the colonies of those times. To that extent the hon. gentleman is right.

But, Sir, this situation never lasted; nowhere did it last. Due to the warlike nature of the tribes or the Bantu kingdoms concerned, which manifested itself both against the White colonists and against other Bantu tribes, there was constant warfare and there was constant unrest to the extent that, contrary to the inclination of the British governments of those times—contrary to their inclination because it meant more expenditure on their behalf—the then independent Black states were subjected firstly to British suzerainty and then finally to direct British rule. In the case of Natal, what had been a cohesive defined Zulu kingdom was deliberately broken up not only by the British administration of the time but by the Boers themselves. Both parts of our population set out to break up the independent Black states which then existed in the northern part of Natal. As I have said, there has been in our history an acceptance, for a time, of the concept of separate Black states where they were found, not where they were created. But the direction throughout our history from the earliest times has been towards their gradual elimination, not towards their gradual creation.

Sir, that is the constitutional aspect of separation in our history. The other aspect, as I have said, is the aspect of separation as a means of regulating human relationships between different races in one state. This has always throughout our history been a flexible concept. It has varied from place to place and from time to time; it has varied from one race to another and it was never, prior to 1948, set up as a goal in itself. Nowhere in our history can I find it, prior to that date, as having been set up as a goal in itself. It has always been applied only in so far as it was necessary to bring about peaceful co-existence between the different races with different susceptibilities, widely different habits and different standards of civilization, but all living and working within one constitutional state.

Now, this type of separation, the second type I have referred to, dealing as it does with human relationships, is often ad hoc in its nature. It is essentially flexible and it can seldom be fitted satisfactorily into a logical philosophy because, as I have said, of the subject matter with which it has to deal, that is to say people. And people, Sir, are not all the same. Their behaviour is not part of a logical pattern even when they are of the same race. Sir, if you seek the proof of the truth of what I am saying, then I say look at the disastrous mess which the country has got into by this Government’s attempts to apply the rigidity of apartheid to the Coloured people of South Africa.

It is the United Party’s policy, contrary to the contention of the hon. member for Rissik, which draws from the experience of South Africa’s history. It is the United Party which takes what is left of the old Bantu kingdoms, which takes these scattered fragments that are left of those kingdoms and proposes to use them to give a new geographic content to the federal arrangement which must ultimately govern the races in South Africa. I have no doubt at all that the ultimate arrangement between the races of South Africa will be of a federal nature. It is we who choose to use what is left of these old kingdoms to give a geographical content to that pattern. It is the United Party which says in its policy statements: Review all discriminatory legislation in South Africa and keep only that which is necessary for peaceful co-existence in South Africa. There again we are in line with the traditional and historic pattern of the government of races in South Africa. Now, a government which does these things is not only on safe ground, but it follows the path in the control of race relationships in South Africa which has been followed in the various states which we now call South Africa for some 300 years. I have dealt with that because the hon. member for Rissik has obviously devoted some time and attention to presenting a picture which attempts to show that it was the National Party whose policy today was in the direction, in the path, of South Africa’s traditional approach to the solution of race relations, but on a true analysis I believe it can fairly be said that far from the National Party being in the trend which South Africans who came before us have followed, they are attempting to go against the trend which has been followed, and it is we on this side who follow in that great and ancient tradition.

This, of course, has relevance to the Bill we are discussing because the two concepts I have attempted to outline represent the two points of view which are put one against the other when discussing this Bill. This Bill is designed to set the pattern for the establishment of the remaining Black states in South Africa, with a view to their ultimate sovereignty. As the hon. member for Transkei has said, it is, I think, of considerable significance that the word “independence” appears in this Bill for the first time. I was very interested, and I have been for some time, in the hon. the Minister’s reference to the possible independence of these states, their ultimate possible independence. This is not just a different way of expressing something. Whether one includes the word “possible” or not is of cardinal importance to the whole case because, if one believes that there is the possibility that the Bantu states may not achieve independence it then means that you accept the possibility of having to find a formula whereby they co-exist within the White state. If one concedes that possibility one undermines the whole foundation of the philosophy of apartheid. The hon. gentlemen can only have their philosophy in fact if they adopt the viewpoint that these states must have their independence. Only that point of view is consistent with the philosophy we are asked to accept. Now, Sir, it has been put on a variety of bases. One of these is that they must ask for their independence and that the possibility exists that they do not ask for their independence. Supposing they do not ask for their independence but tell the hon. the Minister that they do not want independence, but want to remain an integral part of South Africa, what then will be the formula whereby these states can remain in a relationship with the White South African Government? That is why I said that, as far as I can see, there is only one formula which can be adopted, namely a federal formula, accepting that it will be on a basis of race with a geographical content from the areas with which we have to deal.

As has been pointed out earlier in this debate, the trappings of sovereignty which appear in clause 29 with reference to the Cabinet, in clause 27, which is a reference to the flag, and in clause 28, which is a reference to the anthem, are in themselves sufficient grounds for our opposition. That is to say, the trappings of sovereignty together with the stated goal of independence are sufficient grounds for our opposition. But there are other grounds as well. Whilst I deal with that aspect of the matter, i.e. the trappings of sovereignty and the stated goal of independence, I should like to say that I think it is accepted that sovereign independence is yet in the future. How far in the future we do not know. How fruitful a discussion could we not have had if both sides of the House limited a debate of this kind! Of course it would mean putting before us a Bill which would so limit the debate. How fruitful a discussion could we not have had, were we looking for limited objectives and were we discussing a Bill which was designed to give an advanced form of local self-government to the Bantu areas consistent with the development of the people at the present time and consistent with their present geographical state. Largely, there would have been unanimity of opinion. I cannot think of a more desirable state of affairs than for us to have a major debate on a major question of policy relating to the Bantu people on which there could have been largely unanimity amongst the parties in this House. That could have been achieved in a measure of this kind had we not had reference here to the trappings of independence and sovereignty, and the stated goal of independence together with one or two other matters which appear in this Bill as well.

But we must deal with what we have. The first aspect, apart from the question of independence, is the question of the ability of the Government to grant self-government by proclamation. Here we are being asked to agree to a measure which is designed to circumvent this Parliament. It has been specifically designed to circumvent this Parliament in an important matter, namely the partition of South Africa, the physical partition of this unitary state, this Union of South Africa. This surely is unheard of in any parliament of the world, namely that the parliament which governs a state is asked to abdicate the power to debate a measure, which will be by proclamation, which in future seeks to partition that country and which seeks furthermore to bring about the abdication of sovereignty and authority by that parliament over substantial areas of the country. The proper method of approach was adopted when we dealt with the Transkei Constitution Bill. We had a lengthy debate on that matter. There was wide-ranging debate not only on the principle involved, but on the type of constitution which was being given to that state. The hon. gentleman in his speech and in the White Paper, said that this method of dividing the country by proclamation is necessary because there would be inordinate delay pending the passing of the different Acts. With great respect, that is utter nonsense. The greatest possible delay there can be is seven months.

Do you want seven Acts at the same time?

This is very interesting. Is the hon. gentleman saying that all seven of the remaining Bantu states will be given their independence at the same time?

Yes, it is quite possible.

Well, this is very interesting. However, we will discuss that aspect further at another stage.

What is seven months’ delay in the history of a state or a country? It takes three or four months to get the State President’s approval to a provincial ordinance. The delay in this Parliament is not likely to be more than three or four months. It is highly unlikely that the legislation would be ready on the day that Parliament rises at the end of June. Therefore, this is no reason whatever and does not bear a moment’s examination. What is three or four months, or indeed seven months or a year in the lifetime of a people? I can deal with the Coloured people of Mangeti in Natal, who have been waiting 20 years for the transfer of their land which was promised to them. What then is seven months when it comes to the powers of this Parliament to debate the partition of South Africa? There must be more powerful reasons to circumvent this Parliament than that. I think the reasons can be found partly in this Bill and partly in the attitude in the country today, the attitude in the country and in the Nationalist Party which makes it necessary for Ministers even in 1971 to softpedal the notion of independence and to say that it might only possibly happen as an ultimate end.

Let us look at clause 1. Clause 1 allows the definition by proclamation of the area concerned which will constitute each of these states and furthermore allows it to be modified. This in itself is objectionable, particularly when we know that these states will be constituted from a variety of fragmented areas. It is also objectionable in view of the recent utterance of the new Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration, who made a statement on his appointment—and I should like to congratulate him on his appointment—that one of the important issues of the day was the consolidation of these Native areas and used words to the effect that the Government proposed to go ahead with it. This is interesting. In the past one thing we have failed in utterly is to get the Government to discuss the question of consolidation. I myself, representing an area which is perhaps more acutely concerned with the question of consolidation than any other area, have tried for ten years to get some fruitful discussion on the question of consolidation from any hon. member on that side of the House, but I have failed. We are asked to approve a measure which allows the hon. the Minister to create a new Black state in Natal. It will give him the power to modify the geographical area of that state and we are asked to give him that power so that it can all be done without any discussion. This is an unheard-of proposition and I really cannot believe that the hon. the Minister expects us to accept it. In this Bill it is not a case of asking us to give up control of overseas territories. It is not like the British or the French Parliament being asked by the Minister of Colonies to give up some island in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. In terms of this legislation we are asked here to give the hon. the Minister authority to abdicate control of metropolitan territories, an integral part of the metropolitan country. This too, I believe, is unprecedented in any part of the world.

The next aspect which causes concern is the question of the executive government of the proposed areas as it is set out in clause 5 of the Bill. If one reads this clause together with a later clause in this measure, one sees that the Minister asks us to give him power to declare by proclamation what the form of the executive government of each of these states shall be, whether it shall be Cabinet government or any other type of executive government.

Are you talking about clause 2?

I am talking about the power in the Bill. I do not know the exact clause which leaves open the form which the executive government will take. I have great respect for the hon. the Minister’s knowledge of the various Bantu races in South Africa, but I think I can say without any disrespect to him that there are many in this House, and I do not include myself under those, who have a far more intimate knowledge of some of the Native tribes than the hon. the Minister. They are the people who ought to be brought into the discussion when it comes to framing the type of executive government which is most suited to that particular tribe.

That is going to be done.

It is going to be done, but it is going to be done in the hon. the Minister’s office and not in this House.

No.

Of course it is going to be done in the hon. the Minister’s office.

That is the first proper point I can reply to and I shall make a note of that.

Well, I am very grateful for that. [Interjections.] Then there is the question of executive government. There is the fact that in this Bill these parliaments are given extra-territorial jurisdiction. There is the fact that they are given control of the Police. Time does not permit me to elaborate on those clauses, but the principle, amongst the many principles which we object to and which is perhaps the most important principle, is that we are asked to abdicate our function as a Parliament in respect of most important matters and to abdicate our function of debating how we are to give these various states their independence. I do not think that this Minister or any other Minister could seriously ask us to support a Bill which is designed to do that.

Mr. Speaker, right at the beginning of my speech I now want to issue a challenge to the next speaker on the opposite side of the House. He can furnish me with a reply. The hon. member for Zululand, who has just resumed his seat, said that we could have had a very fruitful discussion here if there were more restricted aims in this Bill. The “objectionable” word to which the hon. member for Zululand objected is the word “independence”. I now ask the next speaker whether the Opposition will vote for all the stages of this measure if we remove the word independence. I shall then ask the hon. the Minister whether we could not give consideration to the omission of that word. It is true what the hon. the Minister said, that the hon. member said very little to which one can give a reply. He made this proposal, but when one challenges the Opposition to come forward with such a fruitful discussion, one does not hear anything from them. Independence, as stated in this Bill, is not the big stumbling block. Much more is at issue. I specifically want to ask the hon. member for Zululand what they plan to do with Zululand. Geographically speaking Zululand is at present fragmented, with its people scattered over those areas. What is the United Party going to do with Zululand? Are they going to accept it as it is, or are they also going to consolidate it? It does not help to speak in the old United Party way of “geographical content” that will be given, how no-one knows. They speak of “peaceful coexistence”, but again this remains a question of words and we hear nothing further. He also speaks of our Christian guardianship. The hon. member thought he had come upon something wonderful when he read in our Constitution that these people stand under Christian guardianship. I shall also use these words at a later stage. There has always been Christian guardianship.

The hon. member for Zululand, however, took umbrage at the word “independence”. The Opposition frequently asks us about this word, as if they are altogether surprised that we can use this word and that it is also our object in this legislation. Surely it is not only in recent times that we have used this word and that we have laid down self-government and independence as an aim. By chance this afternoon I read what Dr. Verwoerd said in 1959 when the Promotion of Bantu Self-Government Act was discussed here. He said:

This was already said in 1959, and then the Opposition gets a fright each time we speak of independence. With the discussion of the Transkei Constitution in 1963 the Leader of the Opposition said that our objective with that legislation was to grant full independence. He said:

And if they do not want to accept what we say, they can accept what their leader said, and his inference was correct.

And what we are dealing with today is only a part of a development process that has already been taking place for many years. The hon. member for Rissik referred to it as the “historical process”. With centuries of experience, with the elements of the national units of which we are composed, we as Whites have established a political structure for ourselves. Now I come to the word which the hon. member discovered. Under Christian guardianship we, who have progressed a long way up the ladder, will take by the hand those of whom we are the guardians and help them, in an orderly way and with the retention of that which is their own, to establish a political structure as well which will put things in order for them in their own areas. Co-operation and consultation are words that we hear very frequently from that side. That is what we are putting to the practical test here. We are placing no hindrance in the way of these people eventually being able to reach that ultimate object which the road of political development holds in store for one. I say that it is a lengthy process that has taken place in South Africa. I therefore want to advise that hon. member to give a little attention to reading up the history again, or he can just do a little level-headed thinking about the matter. He says the British administration in Natal destroyed the Bantu areas. Not only the British administration in Natal, but British imperialistic politics in the whole of Africa did it. But then he also accused the Boer Governments of the Republic of having done the same thing. Sir, who eventually had the then Basutoland, Swaziland, Bechuanaland and the Bantu areas of Rhodesia under their administration, Britain or the Boer Republics? Under the Boer Republics they continued to exist as units with independent identities; under British administration they were included under one crown, where tribal, national and territorial areas were no longer guaranteed to those people. This is an historical fact, Sir. We can compare them. It was specifically the Afrikaner or Voortrekker policy—call it what you will —that recognized separate peoples and their territories. They referred to Moshesh and his people and to Dingaan’s people, each separately. A writer on occasion claimed that the friendly coexistence of nations, each on its own land, was the endeavour of the Boer leaders. Those are the historical facts, which differ from what the hon. member for Zululand said.

But a break came in this development process of the Boer or Afrikaner view of the maintenance of tribal, national and territorial ties. Take the Second Anglo-Boer War as an example. Now we have all the provinces under the British Crown, and now once again the integrity of the tribe or the people and its territory are not guaranteed. I am now referring to that hon. member again. That is what the British Government destroyed with its imperialistic politics everywhere that it operated.

But I am now taking a big jump to 1910, actually to round about 1913. I am referring to the discussions on Native areas and their futures that were then taking place. Then the emphasis again began to fall increasingly on segregation and also on separate political rights. There were certain points at issue about the entrenched franchise of the Blacks, and other problems at the time dominated the scene. For that reason, unfortunately, little attention was given to what form these political rights should take on the other side of the dividing line. One gained the impression that the Bantu were spoken about as one uniform mass of people there on the other side of the dividing line, and that there was no clarity at the time about what its political rights would eventually be.

But, Sir, I also want to refer to the 1936 legislation, which was meant as a keystone for the development of White—non-White coexistence. It made no meaningful provision for the development of natural national units. With that legislation and its corollaries the identity of separate Bantu national units was overlooked. I want to refer hon. members to the following: Local councils were established, but not on an ethnic basis. Advisory councils in urban locations were established for all the Bantu who gathered there jointly. A native development fund was established for all the population groups combined. Electoral colleges were drawn up and the Bantu were given White representatives in Parliament. A Natives Representative Council, a kind of blanket body to serve all the Native peoples and to braid them together, was called into being. From the beginning English was the language medium in all discussions. I mention these points to indicate that clearly no emphasis falls on national unity, on homeland areas, on a national entity or a national identity. There was a levelling up of the Bantu mass on the other side of the dividing line which the 1936 legislation was to bring about. What was the result of this, Sir? The result was the disregard of national units and of their specific homeland areas and national identities. The result of that disregard was that the Natives Representative Council, together with the Parliamentary representatives of the Bantu, rapidly became an anti-segregation body. Later they demanded that all discriminatory measures should disappear from the Statute Book. In 1946 they went as far as suspending their activities. They said (translation):

Even Gen. Smuts and Mr. Jan Hofmeyr, with all their efforts, could not get them going again.

I mention this to indicate that it is dangerous, in our present situation in South Africa, not to recognize the national identities of national units with their homeland areas. We on this side refuse to travel that path again which eventually led to those people agitating for the disappearance of all segregation measures. Hon. members opposite partially want to follow that path again. They want to follow that path again so that segregation must eventually disappear, because they fail to appreciate certain facts.

I just want to refer to 1948 again. After 1948 this positive development programme progressed quite rapidly. I am not going to mention all the Acts that were passed in this House over the years. I do, however, want to refer to the memorandum that accompanied the Promotion of Bantu Self-Government Bill in 1959. I want to read to you what is stated in page 7 in order to prove that here we are dealing with an ordered pattern of development, a development pattern which we are now implementing with this Bill. The memorandum reads, inter alia, as follows:

If we read this document further and see how they saw the proposed effect of this Bill and what is meant by creative withdrawal, we see that the National Party is on a positive course along this road of development; that we are not doing these things in a haphazard way, but that we are ascertaining the hard realities of the situation in South Africa and that we are taking the only political course, by not placing any impediments on the road of the Bantu national units in South Africa. We are convinced that along that road we can even insure peaceful coexistence for supporters of that party in this Fatherland of ours.

But apart from the historical development, Sir, and where corrections had to be carried out, for example, where the 1936 legislation went wrong, there are a few other important matters that we must take a look at today. The various ethnic groups among the Bantu still have, despite continual Western influence, a great respect for their cultural assets and they cling tenaciously to them. The hon. member for Rissik also referred to it. It is a fact that has been determined by thorough ethnological studies and research, and in this Bill we also clearly recognize that fact. The Bantu national group accepts the system of Government with which it is familiar. It has respect and confidence in authoritative bodies. We must remember, Sir, that one people cannot build permanently for another people. A people must itself build and make its mark, because in the long run it is only for its own achievements that it will have the greatest love and respect. Here we have, with our responsibility as guardians—once again for the information of the hon. member for Zululand—guided the Bantu’s footsteps on to the road with, at the same time, the retention of his national identity, the recognition of his territory and the appreciation of his cultural assets, and with the knowledge that no people wants to see its political aspirations and political future linked to that of another forever, and we are placing the Bantu on the road to the possible achievement of eventual independence in their own homeland area as a national entity. It is for his own structure that we are laying the foundations for him, and it is in this structure that he will have confidence and respect. We are placing greater responsibility on the Bantu. The Whites will help in all manner of ways, but people —and also National groups—who have true self respect want to create things for themselves according to their own natures, they want to create their own structure of authority according to their own natures and they want to have a share in this authority structure of theirs. That is why a great deal of responsibility rests on present Bantu leaders of the various national units to indicate that they can carry and want to carry greater responsibility in building for themselves. They have a wonderful opportunity because they can build on foundations of peace and quiet which we have jointly created in South Africa over the years. They have no need to rebuild and re-create out of chaos, as we also saw on our big continent when people were let loose in freedom and independence with systems in which they had no confidence, systems for which they even felt repugnance. But that which has been proved in the Western system of national government, together with the accepted self-creations for which they have respect and in which they have confidence, is the foundation we are also laying down today with this legislation.

But diametrically opposed to that we have the United Party with its view of common loyalty, of a common love of the Fatherland and a common ideology. The Leader of the United Party, who is so fond of casting the word “ideology” in our teeth, said in 1963 that they had a common ideology and that this common concept was opposed to the concept of separation on this side. It is interesting if one takes a look at the evolution of the United Party’s non-White policy. I pointed out a positive growth to you over the years with the recognition of elements going far back into history, but I have a document here, “Evolution of U.P. Race Policies”. I do not want to quote from it, but it is laughable how a game is made of moving first in the progressive direction to prevent more members going over to the hon. member for Houghton, and then towards the more conventional schools of thought. They are rummaging around, there is nothing positive on which one can draw a line, where there is positive growth in respect of the system of government of the Bantu as well. [Interjections.] I can give it to those hon. gentlemen if they want to read it. I think that on occasion one must create the opportunity for reminding them again of this jumping of theirs from one side to the other. I think it is laughably opportunistic. One finds in it nothing to give our Whites the assurance that we will have peaceful coexistence in the future, and we find even less there to give direction to the Bantu peoples when it comes to the inevitable journey towards political maturity. Sir, they refuse to accept a few things, and that is where their problem lies: A disregard for national diversity; it remains the mass of Bantu. I believe that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has already in small measure had a taste of the national diversity, but he remains the careful individual we know. If it suits him at a later stage, he will perhaps take a larger bite. Sir, disregard for cultural assets. If they recognize this, it is only very mildly that they do so. Disregard for a homeland as the foundation of development for political aspirations and the only place where Bantu peoples can realize themselves politically without also endangering our existence. But what does the U.P. give in its place? If it now disregards these things and will not admit that we must take these facts into proper account, what does it, in fact, offer? There must surely be development, and they admit as much, but at a certain point one must now suddenly nip this development in the bud. I shall tell you, Sir, what exactly I mean by that.

On occasion the hon. member for Yeoville had a kind of question-and-answer interview with the Cape Times. It was in October 1966, and in answer to one of the questions he said the following in respect of the Bantu areas—

Sir, now just two questions for the hon. member for Pinelands. Can one have a “national home” if one does not also have national aspirations in respect of self-government, the development of which must not be hampered?

Is that not what they did recently in Belgium?

Do not take us so far away now. Let us ask you what the situation is in South Africa, because we want you to take the realities of South Africa into account. Can one have a “national home” if the other national aspirations are nipped in the bud there? They say a measure of development and a measure of self-government, even higher than provincial level. Now I should like to know again, how does one regulate this growth? One places the people on a path of development. One gives them the necessary help to develop to the provincial level and even higher. Now, how high is the “higher”? When must one knock them over the head so that they stop growing? What must one do if one has placed them on a path of development and even given them a hand in progressing, and one does not want them to progress beyond a certain ceiling? Those are the things hon. members must give us answers to. And the hon. member for Simonstown is even welcome to make use of a full speech in a moment to inform us about that. I shall now say what the answer is. If they may not develop any further, and we have come to the “and higher” (and no-one knows how high that is), and problems crop up when the ceiling must be introduced, there must be a new attraction. And do hon. members know what the attraction is? I shall tell you what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition mentioned as that attraction. He said (translation)—

If we run into problems, and want to block avenues of development, we still have a back door that we can keep open, and that is the attraction of having them represented in this House by their own people. We do not present any such attractions to the Bantu. This legislation is basically concerned with the Bantu as national units with their own aspirations, their own natures, the Bantu homeland areas and structures in which they have a share and with which the National Party is assisting them. Now we are told: Very well, walk that road, but you will lose your grip on the time-table. We will then have no more control over the time-table. If the timetable slips out of our hands, they will possibly obtain the self-government and independence, for which we are now making provision, more quickly in their areas. They take what is theirs more quickly. But if the time-table slips out of the hands of those hon. members, the Bantu will also take my time-table that I have set for myself. We therefore do not even have to be concerned about the time-table. The time-table is much safer in our hands than in theirs.

Those hon. gentlemen might just as well agree with this legislation, because along this path, as I said a moment ago, we shall also ensure peaceful coexistence in this country for them and those who support them.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Germiston has given us a very interesting dissertation on the historical development of the Africans and their political structure in this country. There was, however, I thought, a contradiction in what he said. He told us in a somewhat patronizing way that the National Party Government is going to build up the Africans’ political aspirations and their national identity and put them on a path to the full realization of national independence. At the same time he gave us quite an interesting history of the Natives Representative Council of 1936. I wonder whether the hon. member ever listened to any of the debates that took place in the Natives Representative Council. He might have been astonished at the high standard of debate. Even in 1936 the Africans did not need the guiding hand of the National Government—which was not in power in those days, anyway—to show them what was meant by a meaningful say in the political power structure of the country. They knew full well that the Native Representative Council as their only forum was a forum which was listened to but whose advice was never taken. That was the main reason why in 1946 they themselves disbanded that council. They were very sophisticated then. Some of the speeches delivered there were as good as, if not a lot better, than many of the speeches that one listens to in this House.

I do not dispute that. I was referring to their aims.

I am talking of the aims as well. It is the hon. member who has decided what the aims of the African ought to be. I wonder if it is for him to decide or whether it is for the Africans themselves to decide whether they want this culture and this national identity, or whether they want rather to be absorbed in the wider aspect and greater benefits of Western civilization. This is where the hon. member has lost track of the realities of the situation in South Africa, about which he had a good deal to say. He has lost track of the realities of South Africa because he is apparently of the opinion that all the Africans in South Africa are living in their tribal areas and searching eagerly for the national identity, which he feels they ought to want to have. But the situation is quite different in South Africa in 1971. If the hon. member had only bothered to study the latest census and statistics figures produced by the hon. the Minister of Statistics the other day, he would see how very wrong he is. I believe that those figures are, if anything, an under-estimate because, as I have said once before in this House, it is highly unlikely that all the Africans living illegally in the towns are going to stand up and be counted on census night. But, leaving that aside, I wonder if the hon. member knows that the latest figures show that more than eight million Africans live outside the Bantu areas and that 6.9 million live inside the Bantu areas? That is the reality of the situation whether the hon. member likes to accept it or not. These are the 1970 statistics of South Africa. The economics of South Africa of the seventies are that the fortunes and fate of the African people of this country, tribal or otherwise, and the White people of this country, are quite irrevocably bound together. This farce of the path of separateness on which the hon. member now wants to set them under the Bill which we are discussing today, is very far indeed from the realities of South Africa in this day and age. It is true that the resettlement plan of the Government has resulted in hundreds of thousands of Africans being sent back to the tribal areas, but nevertheless there are millions of Africans still in the urban areas, many of whom have been there since birth, and are likely to want to stay there until death. Nothing the hon. member says about the attraction of national identity or anything else, I believe, is going to make any difference to that fact. What is more, if it does make any difference, the economy of South Africa will fold up. I am afraid that that is another inevitable reality we have to face today. If there are hon. members who share of the view of the hon. Minister for Community Development who said the other day that it was the aim of the Government to put the whole African labour structure on a migratory basis, they do not understand what is happening to the economic and industrial development in South Africa today. Economic and industrial development does not require unskilled migratory labour. Today it requires skilled labour. That is where our shortages are. As we develop more and more, it is more skilled labour we are going to need and, since the Whites are unable to provide all this, we are inevitably going to have to look to the Africans and one cannot draw on migratory workers as skilled labourers. That is surely quite obvious to everybody.

Why not?

Because if a man is moving backwards and forwards from the tribal homelands, from a so-called agricultural occupation back to the urban areas, he is never stable or able to be trained and cannot become a skilled worker. That is what our industrialists are discovering. It is something they have known for a long time and what they are trying to impress on this Government is that they cannot rely on migratory labour only to keep the wheels of industry and commerce turning in South Africa.

Do you mind if I go and use some of my economic resources on some coffee?

No, go and have your tea. I am finished with you. The father of this Bill, as has been pointed out and as in fact the White Paper points out, is the Promotion of Bantu Self-government Act, 1959. The grandfather, I might say, was the Bantu Authorities Act which was passed some 20 years ago. The Bantu Self-government Act, 1959, gave expression to the intention to provide, as the White Paper says, for the “gradual development of the different national units within their own areas to self-governing units on the basis of Bantu systems of government”, whatever that may mean. Of course that Act also, inter alia, removed the last vestiges of representation of Africans in this House. That Act removed the three White representatives of the African people, representation they enjoyed since they were removed from common role in 1936. Perhaps I ought to remind the hon. member for Zululand that the traditional pattern of representation was not on a racial federation basis in this House. It was first on a common roll basis, for the Cape anyway. And then later it was on a separate roll basis. But it was certainly not on the race federation basis as he puts it for hundreds of years. There was no such thing.

Four-fifths of the people lost their representation in this House with the passing of the 1959 Act. What worries me about this Bill which we are discussing is what worried me about that Act in 1959. This after all is simply an enabling Act. That is all it is. It is an Act to enable the Government, without coming back to this House, to create another eight or nine little Transkei’s. That is all it is. It is not, as the hon. the Minister correctly said, a Bill creating independence. It is not doing that It is an enabling Act which will enable this Government without coming back to Parliament again, to give self-government to any other territorial authority on the lines, presumably, that are presently enjoyed by the Transkeian Legislature. What worries me about this Bill, like the Act before it, is that it is considered as a sort of quid pro quo. That is what worries me. It is a sort of quid pro quo for the depreciation of rights of the Africans living in the so-called White areas of South Africa. This is the quid pro quo, this is where they are to find their political fulfilment.

This is news to me.

The hon. the Minister ought to read the speeches that were made when the 1959 debate was on. He also ought to listen to the explanations which some of the hon. members on that side of the House give, namely that the African will never be able to enjoy any political rights in the White areas of South Africa.

Yes.

The hon. member for Brakpan says “Yes”. Instead they are going to enjoy political rights in their own areas. This is the quid pro quo I am talking about. I happen to be somebody who believes that this is a multi-racial country. I believe it has 21½ million inhabitants of all races. I believe, as I have said earlier, that our fates are irrevocably bound up, past, present and future. Therefore I believe the people ought to enjoy political rights where they live and where they work and where they will spend the major portion of their lives. That means all those Africans who are living in the White areas, on the White farms where they are not migratory workers and in the White towns where some of them are migratory workers, but where a great number of them are not migratory workers. There are today hundreds of thousands, millions in fact, of Africans born and living in the urban areas and who have been here permanently. The hon. member for Rissik is correct when he says the people who say that all the urban Africans have lost all contact with the homelands are wrong. However, he is equally wrong if he does not think and does not know that there are in fact thousands of Africans who have lost contact with the homelands, who have never set foot in the homelands, who are never going to set foot in the homelands unless they are lifted up lock, stock and barrel by this Government and sent back to the homelands. This is the position. This is what the Government takes no cognizance of whatsoever. As I say, it is this quid pro quo aspect of this Bill that frightens me most of all.

What will the Africans get in terms of this Bill? They will get a form of self-government. What it boils down to is a system of local government which gives, whenever the legislature has been set up, jurisdiction over certain scheduled subjects. The schedule sets out what portfolios, if you like to call them that, or areas of jurisdiction, the legislature will deal with. Interestingly enough, among them is education. It is very important. But I notice that everything about education: the syllabus, the appointments, the language medium, everything is subject to ministerial approval.

Why not?

For goodness sake, what sort of self-government is that? If they are supposed to be running at least a limited number of portfolios, then why make it all subject to ministerial approval? Is that self-government?

It is only a stage.

Nonsense! There is nothing about stages printed in this schedule. If the hon. member would only bother to look at it and read it. All the laws passed by this “self-governing” legislature are in fact subject to approval. They are subject to the approval of the State President which means in effect the Executive. What sort of self-government is that? Even the limited number of laws they can pass covering the limited matters they may deal with, are subject to the approval of the State President and can be vetoed by the State President. No laws can be passed by these self-governing legislatures which are in conflict with any existing laws in the Republic of South Africa. All the discriminatory laws which exist at present are going to remain. In this schedule it also says that these self-governing legislatures will deal with labour. Does this mean that influx control will go? Of course not. Influx control will remain. So, the self-governing legislature of Zululand, or whatever the next self-governing area is to be, will not have the power to decide how many men they want to have employed in the White areas in order to keep those areas going. That will be entirely dependent on the laws passed by this Government. What sort of self-government over labour is this legislature in fact given? According to this Bill we do not even know how the legislature is going to be constituted. We are not let into that secret. That is going to be decided at some future time.

Which secret?

The secret of how the legislative assembly is actually going to be constituted. Nothing in this Bill tells us that. It just says when it is going to be done, it will be done. Nobody, however, tells us whether there are going to be more nominated members than elected members or not. Nobody tells us whether there is going to be a universal franchise or what the franchise system will be. We have no idea. That is left entirely in the hands of the hon. the Minister. He can decide, bypassing Parliament entirely, that he is going to give another territorial authority some form of self-government. We are not told whether or not the executive council that is to be the Cabinet of the so-called self-governing area is to be elected or nominated or whether the chief executive officer will have the power to do what Chief Kaiser Matanzima will be allowed to do by legislation that has just been passed. We do not know whether they will be able to elect their executives. None of these things have been told to us. Africans who are living in these territorial authorities, or the homelands, or whatever one wants to call them, are entirely dependent financially on this Government, I might add, before and after self-government. They are going to depend entirely on how much money is voted to them, in other words they are going to be financially dependent on this Government which will conduct their affairs. Everything they do, the social welfare they can manage, the education and everything else is going to depend on how much money this Government is going to vote them. They are allowed to impose some taxes. They are given the power to impose taxes, but does that mean that our Government is going to stop taxing the citizens living inside or outside those homelands? The authorities are allowed to tax them whether they live inside or outside the territories. Eventually there is going to be a system of double taxation on these people. As for being able to manage their own affairs financially, there will be no such thing. They are not economically viable and we all know that. Most of them are entirely dependent on the earnings of the migratory workers who come to work in this country. The homelands are not even economically viable.

The hon. member who has now left this House, the hon. member for Germiston, had a lot to say about the 1936 Act. I should like to remind him that the 1936 Act has not even been implemented fully yet. Oh yes, of course, the removal of representation in this House was implemented immediately. The other part of the bargain, the quid pro quo which were made then, has not been implemented. The land which was promised to the Africans in return for their removal from the common franchise in 1936, has not even all been acquired.

Nearly.

According to the latest figures in this House one and a quarter million morgen of land, which is much needed, has not yet been acquired. This land is desperately needed. The total overall amount of land which belongs to the Africans, namely 17¾ million morgen, which is only 13½ per cent of the total land area of South Africa, is little enough in all conscience when compared to the percentage of the population. It is true that it is little enough, but not even that has been acquired. 1936 is a very long time ago and I think it is shameful that by now that part of the White man’s bargain with the Africans in 1936 has not even been carried out. I say that the priorities of this Government are all wrong. Instead of coming here with grandiose schemes for constitutional future development, of territorial authorities and self-governing African territories, this Government should have been busy completing the Land Act deal which was made in 1936. It should have been busy developing the economic viability of those territorial authorities and not spending millions of rands on housing resettled Africans, the superfluous appendages, who were perfectly well housed where they were in the urban areas. That is what the Government should have been doing. It should have been building up the economic structure of the territorial authorities before it even begins to think of self-government for areas which are not economically viable. I say that they have their priorities all wrong. As I know it, the truth of the matter is that these areas are not going to be economically viable with the best will in the world and with all the money spent on them. Even with all the devoted officials doing their best, these areas can never hope to compete with what the industrial areas of the so-called White Republic of South Africa can offer people.

Is Lesotho a viable area?

No, I do not believe it is a viable territory, but that does not mean that we have to carve out of our land mass non-viable independent self-governing states. What good is that to anybody? I shall come back to this question of independence in one moment. The final question which remains is, who is satisfied with these grandiose constitutional schemes anyway. Are the Africans in the homelands satisfied?

Yes.

The hon. the Minister says “yes”. He told us that he consulted with many people about this.

With all.

I do know who “all” is and how you consult with “all” the people. Of course there will be some who will be satisfied. There are always some people in the best seats who are very satisfied. They are going to get everything they can out of this Government, quite cynically, and I do not blame them for one moment. It is no good the hon. the Minister glaring at me over the top of his spectacles. He is not in a classroom now and I am not a schoolgirl. He does not frighten me in the slightest.

And what are you doing?

I am glaring at you through my spectacles.

You are an old woman.

That is right. I am an old woman. There are others who are less cynical who have accepted these schemes. I hope the hon. the Minister is listening now.

Order! The hon. member must proceed with the discussion of the Bill and not make personal remarks.

The hon. Minister tells us that he has consulted everybody in connection with this Bill and I am now discussing what form this consultation took. There are people who will accept this because they realize it is the only way in which they are going to get any development at all for their territories. I do not believe the Africans in the towns view this whole grandiose scheme of constitutional self-government proposed by this Bill as anything other than another ridiculous scheme of the White man. I am absolutely convinced of that. If this Bill is meant to silence our critics overseas I can just say that they took a look at independent homelands long ago, namely when the first one was created, and they decided that that quid pro quo was not a good bargain at all for the Africans. They will take another look at this scheme that is offered today and they will come to exactly the same conclusion. As far as I can see, the only people that this Bill does satisfy are the Government itself and they are past masters at drinking the heady brew of self-deception. They are the only people who are satisfied with this Bill.

I now come back to the “possible” independence about which we heard so much when the hon. the Minister spoke. Few if any of us will see the end of the rainbow in this regard. I may be an old woman, as the hon. the Minister so charmingly remarked a little earlier, but I doubt if the youngest member in this House will live to see at the end of the rainbow the pot of independence which is “possibly” going to be offered to the Africans by this Government. I doubt it very much indeed. I would like to know what kind of constitutional method for the granting of independence is going to be used. We were not told what it would be in the White Paper. As the hon. the Minister has said, and I agree, this is not an Independence Bill.

And you are talking about it.

But I want to know how the Government is going to do it. We are entitled to know it, since the White Paper mentions that the ultimate or possible end is independence. How is it going to be done? By a Bill brought before this House, by a plebiscite among the African people concerned, or how? How is the hon. the Minister going consult all the people before he decides they want independence? This is what I would like to know. Most of all I want to know whether the Government is really serious when it talks about this granting of independence. I, for one, do not believe it for one moment. If one believes that one has then to believe that clause 4 of the Bill will have to be scrapped. This clause is all about diplomatic exchanges, armies and military presences, and so on. That clause would have to go. If there is really going to be independence in these territories a clause such as the one which says that the establishment, control, entry, movement or operations of any full-time or part-time military unit, quasi military unit, the registration, establishment and control of factories for the manufacture of arms, ammunition or explosives and the appointment, accrediting and recognition of diplomatic and consular officers and the conclusion of treaties, as well as setting up postal, telegraph, telephone, radio and other services, and so forth may not be undertaken by any territorial authority, must be abandoned. Such a clause must go when independence is granted. Do the hon. the Minister and his colleagues seriously tell this House that they are ever going to be prepared to consider this scrapping of a prohibition on the matters that I have mentioned by a land mass with in our borders, as many as the African homelands are? Are they prepared to contemplate giving those powers to, say, Chief Matanzima, whose land mass borders on the coast of South Africa?

You are now talking about a Bill which is not under discussion.

No, Sir, I am talking about the ultimate independence, or possible independence, about which the hon. the Minister is talking. Every member on that side of the House has stood up with deep and penetrating sincerity and has told us that that is in fact the honourable and sincere intention of this Government. Now I want to know from the next Government member who stands up if he has read clause 4 of this Bill and if he is prepared to give those powers to Chief Matanzima if he asks for them tomorrow. One hon. member said, when someone asked when independence is going to come, “when they ask for it”. It is as simple as that. [Interjection.] Yes, says that smart hon. member again. The hon. the Minister looks very unhappy about that interjection because it puts him on the spot. I ask the hon. the Minister when he replies to the Second Reading debate to tell me unequivocally, is he prepared to grant independence when an African territorial authority asks for it? If he is prepared to do that, is he prepared then to scrap clause 4 and of course, all the other inhibitions which this Bill will place on the legislative assemblies of the self-governing territories. I say it is laughable, but I will listen with the keenest interest to the hon. the Minister when he does reply. Until he replies, as far as I am concerned, this Bill is just another phoney quid pro quo that the Government is offering to the African people.

Mr. Speaker, in listening to the United Party one arrives at the alarming conclusion that they have truly lost touch with reality in South Africa, and the same applies to the speech made here by the hon. member for Houghton this afternoon. Then one simply arrives at the conclusion that the Opposition has been out of touch with reality here in South Africa for a long time. They are talking like people who have no knowledge of the background to and the spirit of this legislation which is before the House today. Hon. members on this side of the House went back into the past and pointed out what had been done by the National Party in this country in order to place the Bantu on the road to self-determination. Hon. members on the other side went back into the historical background and tried to prove that their views were correct.

In considering the facts that are relevant in respect of this legislation which is lying on the Table of the House today, one must take stock of what the National Party has been trying to do over the years in order to place our Bantu peoples on the road to self-determination. If that is done, one finds that what is relevant, is what was done in the twenties and thirties. Then I also want to make special reference here to a policy speech made by Dr. Verwoerd in the Senate on 30th May, 1952. I am also referring to other speeches subsequently made in this House by hon. Ministers. But, Sir, in 1951, 1959 and 1963 certain Acts were placed on the Statute Book, and these Acts really form the basis of the Bill which is before the House this afternoon. In listening to the argumentation of the United Party, one realizes that they do not have the vaguest idea of what is involved here this afternoon. Is the United Party discussing the principle of self-government to Bantu homelands? I want to make the statement that this principle was accepted as far back as 1963, when the Transkei Constitution Act was passed. I want to go even further than that. This afternoon we are discussing legislation which fits in with the pattern which has over the years been aimed at the progress of the Bantu in the various homelands, and it is very obvious to me, from the speeches made by hon. members opposite, that they are by no means willing to make their contribution to this well-ordered legislation. Those hon. members have become afraid of the future of South Africa. As I have said, this afternoon we have before the House legislation, the principles of which have already been accepted. Therefore, this is actually enabling legislation, i.e. legislation enabling the Government to grant, in similar cases, a constitution to other Bantu homelands and to do so by proclamation. Now those hon. members are delving into the past and are entering into elaborate arguments as to a principle that has already been accepted.

I am very pleased that the United Party has stated its negative standpoint so clearly this afternoon, for a major task is awaiting the National Party, i.e. that of helping the Bantu along the road to self-determination. This is a task from which we shall not shrink back. In this respect I just want to refer to what the hon. the Prime Minister had said on the steps leading to the Senate immediately after his election. This is what he said (translation)—

I should like to associate myself with what was said by hon. members on this side of the House, i.e. that they would be pleased if hon. members opposite would also contribute their share in regard to this great task which rests on the Whites in South Africa. However, this afternoon the United Party intimated unambiguously that they did not want to have any part in this legislation, which will promote order, peace and quiet in this country. They do not want to have anything to do with it. It is true that on many occasions in the history of our country, when major steps had to be taken and major decisions for the future had to be made, a negative and passive attitude was adopted by the United Party.

They also had a great deal to say about friendship. The hon. member for Transkei also referred to friendship in his speech. He spoke of “nine or ten separate states leaving White South Africa ringed with a horseshoe of foreign states which the Government hopes will be friendly towards us”. This is the attitude adopted by the United Party. Whereas they often speak about friendship, they are afraid of friendship in this case. To me this is understandable, for over the past number of years we have seen what became of the friendship built up by the United Party. Over a period of 23 years the friendship that did exist towards the United Party, has broken down. The people have consistently, from poll to poll, been leaving their ranks. They have been boasting here about the fact that they gained friends or supporters at the last election, but, Mr. Speaker, surely this is not the case?

After all, these people who joined their ranks, are not real friends. These people were, after all, not people who supported their policy because of the positive attitude they adopted; they did so for other reasons. Surely, these people know that when they are blowing hot and cold, as they are in fact doing, friendship on the part of our Bantu states is out of the question, because up to now the integrity and identity and nationalism of these people have on every occasion been disparaged and ignored by the United Party. The difference between the United Party and the National Party is that we recognize nationalism. We recognize the identity of the people who are different from us. We have no misgivings about the fact that, when one follows the course which the National Party has been following for the past 22-23 years and more, and when one places this type of measure on the Statute Book, and also wins over the support and confidence of these people whom one recognizes and whom one wishes to help in an ordered manner. The United Party has been discussing a matter, the principle of which has already been accepted. They do not want this legislation to be placed on the Statute Book. Why not? The United Party wants to reserve to itself the right that separate legislation be introduced in respect of each Bantu homeland.

As I have proved, the United Party does not want to co-operate; they do not want to accept this legislation. They are making long detours, as they did in the past, by talking here about a principle which has already been accepted, merely in order to evade the point and to keep open for themselves a loophole and an opportunity for kicking up dust about a matter in regard to which the National Party and the people of South Africa have already given a decisive answer. Sir, if there is one matter about which a decisive answer has been given in this country over the past 23 years, then it is this very question of self-government to Bantu homelands and the advancement of the apartheid development pattern.

From poll to poll the electorate of South Africa has given the National Party a mandate to proceed with the development of Bantu homelands. The attitude once again adopted here by the United Party this afternoon, is to my mind very clear additional proof to the effect that they have lost touch with the real situation in South Africa. On 3rd April, 1966, a certain journalist, namely Joel Mervis of the Sunday Times, gave the United Party this piece of advice—

What was the date?

The 3rd April, 1966.

That was after the election of 31st March.

That was after the election on 30th March, 1966. This standpoint that was taken up by the United Party this afternoon, a standpoint in which they have lost touch with what is happening in South Africa in respect of this important matter, and the fact that they have also become afraid of their own friendship in regard to their own people, has now brought the United Party to the point where it is unable to see in this legislation the logical consequences of what has been done over the years in regard to the advancement of the separate development of the Bantu states, but is instead raising other matters which have nothing to do with this matter.

I say that in respect of this mandate that has been given to the National Party, namely to carry on with this great task of placing the Bantu on the road to self-realization, also for the sake of our descendants and the advancement of their future, the United Party is deliberately forcing their standpoint on the electorate and on us. I am levelling this accusation against the United Party, i.e. that they are not content with the outcome of the elections, that they are raising other matters here. At this stage, where South Africa and the Government have to display the greatest measure of responsibility in respect of the development of our Bantu homelands, they are diverting our attention from the real issues.

There is nothing as confusing, especially abroad, as this standpoint of the United Party, i.e. that South Africa is made up of a nation of 20 million people, because this gives direct cause for people to start agitating that the majority are being oppressed by a small White minority, whereas the National Party’s policy, in terms of which we grant every national group, with an identity of its own, what we also grant ourselves, is a clear one. The standpoint of the National Party can be justified on the grounds of Christianity and morality, but in contrast to that they are putting forward here the confused standpoint of one people and one nation and one loyalty in South Africa. I want to know whether it was necessary this afternoon for the United Party to adopt this attitude once again during the discussion of a logical measure such as this one— a measure which fits in with the pattern, as we have known it over the years, in regard to the development of self-government for the Bantu homelands. The prosperity of South Africa is very closely bound up with what we also want to bring about in respect of our Bantu states. The United Party realizes very well that if this policy of the National Party should succeed, the bottom would fall out of their policy.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout is creating confusion, within his own ranks as well, for he is prepared to accept the fact that South Africa is a multinational country. The disparagement which they want to perpetrate against the National Party and the sincere efforts which the National Party has been making in recent years in order to place our Bantu homelands on the road to self-realization, is the only method still left to the United Party for putting its case and by means of which it may hope to come into power. I want to tell the United Party straightaway that I do not know of any party that came into power with negative statements and a negative attitude. The fact of the matter is that one must come forward with something positive, something constructive.

Where were you in 1948?

I take pleasure in replying to that, because in 1948 I was in the service of the National Party. I do not know where that hon. member was. The fact of the matter is that the truth is now catching up the United Party in regard to this anachronistic attitude which it is adopting. Realism is gaining the victory in the minds of our people. Our people are prepared to think realistically and positively about these important matters. The United Party should not think that it can at this stage knock a hole in or thwart this development.

This afternoon we have before us a measure which is a logical one, because it is nothing but legislation enabling us also to grant to other groups what we have already granted the Transkei. Now I want to know what is wrong with that. What is wrong with the fact that the hon. the Minister and the hon. the State President can also grant this authority to other Bantu homelands which have progressed up to the stage which the Transkei has reached? It is a pity that the hon. United Party has not read this Bill properly. They are claiming that this authorization will simply take place without the Bantu having been consulted, and also that it will simply be a unilateral declaration. Surely, this is not the case. These things are done in a planned manner. If the United Party wants to look back into the past, it will be able to see that this side of the House acted honestly and sincerely. This was also the case in the time of the Bantu Trust. In the spheres of finance, agriculture, culture and politics honest efforts were made, also to lead these people to self-government and eventual independence.

In the homelands education has already reached a stage where 60 per cent of the education facilities have already been provided there. There are almost 800 more schools for Bantu children in the Bantu homelands than there are in the White areas. As far as numbers are concerned, there are 1.5 million more Bantu children at school in the homelands than there are in the White areas. As far as university training is concerned, there are 4,500 enrolled students, 2,022 of whom are receiving instruction at Bantu universities; 2,400 of them are pursuing their studies through the University of South Africa, whereas 78 are still studying at White universities. Once they have received their training, these Bantu will find their way into employment at various places. They will be able to join the ranks of the professional people and intellectuals in their own area. They will be able to serve their own people. Along this course on which we are ordering their affairs and training them, they will also be able to make their contribution to the intricacies of government.

If one makes a careful study of the background to and the spirit of the legislation before the House, as well as the measures taken in other spheres in order to make this legislation possible, I find it inconceivable that the United Party is discussing the question of the independence of the homelands this afternoon as though that were the question before the House. There are major challenges to the White man in South Africa, and particularly to the National Party. This undertaking that was given on the part of the National Party to the non-Whites in this country, who have an identity of their own—also because we on this side of the House believe in nationalism—will be honoured. We shall afford them the opportunity to go on developing along that course in an ordered manner. To my mind it is no more than logical, correct and simple to think, once it can be determined through talks that the desire and the development are there, that the Constitution, as embodied in this legislation, which is really a basis for legislation and administration for bringing about a sound national economy, can be given to them by proclamation; it is unnecessary for us to come hack to this Parliament for that purpose. A decisive answer has already been given about this principle. That is why I take pleasure in supporting this legislation, and that is why I am also viewing it in the spirit of the past, i.e. that this legislation is backed by honest efforts on the part of the National Party over the years to grant to those who are keen on having them, those things which we demand for ourselves.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Heilbron is actually feeling a little sad at heart for the Opposition’s sake. At the beginning of his speech he said that we talk like people who have no knowledge of the matter. A little later in the same speech he said that we were forcing our point of view on the Nationalist Party and on the Government. Surely it is not being consistent to say such things in the same speech? I am not going to delve too deeply into a long history of the legislation which forms a basis for this legislation, because eventually this law will become the basis for the future. At present we do not really know what the basis of the basis is. Of course, we do not agree with this legislation. Our approach to this delicate matter of colour and race relations in South Africa is quite different from that of the Nationalist Party. It cannot be axiomatically acceptable to any person in this country that we must suddenly do a somersault and agree with them because all the legislation in the past forms the basis of this legislation. Surely that is ridiculous! If there is a basic difference in point of view, that basic difference must remain. That is why we have a House of Assembly and why we debate these matters.

The hon. member for Germiston tackled the hon. member for Zululand by challenging him at the start of his speech and asking him whether, if the word “independence” were omitted from this Bill, we would continue with a fruitful discussion as the hon. member for Zululand mentioned. I can reply to that very easily. We cannot accept that challenge, for two reasons: the first reason is that that word will not toe omitted and, in case it is in fact omitted, the objective has nevertheless been stated both in the White Paper and in the speech made toy the hon. the Minister who introduced the legislation, as well as in several other speeches in this House. In the second place, there are other provisions in this legislation which affect the sovereignty of this Parliament and which we cannot accept. The hon. member also asked us what would be done under our policy about the consolidation of Zululand. My reply is a very simple one: Our policy is not the policy of the Nationalist Party. Consolidation is not so very essential under our policy as it is under the policy of the Nationalist Party, because we do not go as far as these words “sovereign independence”.

The hon. member also discussed the history of the protectorates and the developments which have taken place there. I just want to put a question to the hon. member. Can the hon. member tell me why it is that since 1948 various Prime Ministers of the Nationalist Party stated their claims to take over those same areas and to incorporate them with the then Union of South Africa?

In addition, the hon. member referred to our race policy. He insinuated that we have no direction. Later I shall prove that we do have a definite direction. I want to ask that hon. member what the case is with his own policy. Is it a policy of independence as set out in this legislation at the beginning and as recorded in the hon. the Minister’s speech and in other speeches? Is it a policy of interdependence as stated in the motion of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad? Or is it a policy of guardianship as quoted by the hon. member from the principles of the Nationalist Party? There are great differences among these three things. All three have been propagated in this debate. None of us can understand what the real direction is. Similarly, no one outside can understand what the real direction is.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question? I should like to know from the hon. member whether he regards guardianship as permanent.

I do not regard guardianship as permanent. I am asking what the policy of the Nationalist Party in fact is, because it was mentioned by three different speakers in this debate. Guardianship, independence and interdependence are placed on record in a motion from that side of this House.

The hon. member for Heilbron said in his speech that the friends who had voted for the United Party in the election and had by so doing increased our numbers to some extent, were not very fond of us. I may say that they are even less fond of this Government. That is the reason why they voted for us. I can give the hon. member the assurance that I enrolled various former members of the Nationalist Party as members of the United Party in my constituency.

†Mr. Speaker, I want to come to the hon. member for Rissik, who at least endeavoured to outline the basic differences in approach to this Bill between the Government and the Opposition. It is pleasing to see that there is at least someone on that side of the House who accepts that there are these basic differences. There are basic differences which are as wide as the world on the one hand and as narrow as a hair’s breadth on the other hand. The smallest difference is that all of us believe that there should be a degree of self-government in the Bantu areas. It is also the biggest difference—the biggest difference being to which degree that government will develop … [Interjections.] The hon. member will hear. It is also whether this self-government is to be within a federation or a confederation within the Republic or whether it is going to be a commonwealth or whether it is going to be a complete separate and independent state. We on this side of the House do not suffer from the pernicious malaise which can be epitomized by the saying, “Give us peace in our time, oh Lord” and no more than that. We endeavour, and I believe quite rightly so, to work on the basis of striving towards a solution which will give us peace, not only in our own time, but also for the generations to come. It is because of this basic difference in approach that we find this Bill repugnant and opposed to our conception of the final solution to the kaleidoscopic colour and race problems of the Republic of South Africa.

What is your solution?

We are discussing a Bill and not solutions at the moment. Right at the very beginning of this Bill, we find the following sentence, and it has also been raised before. I quote—

In his introductory speech the hon. the Minister said “possible independence”. Then, however, by way of interjection, while the hon. member for Transkei was speaking, he said “you may delete the word ‘possible’ ”. Whether independence of the Bantu areas be possible or probable or an accomplished fact …

You know it is the ultimate aim of our policy.

It is no good debating that now. Whether this be a possible, a probable or an accomplished fact, independence does not and will not fit into our policy or into our approach to this delicate matter of human relations. I have raised the question of the dangers with which this policy of independence is fraught in other debates, and in each case the replies were inadequate. I sincerely hope that I will get a more adequate reply today. During the Defence debate last year I raised this question with the hon. the Minister of Defence. His reply then was that the Republican Government would have military control over these territories “for the foreseeable future”. During a previous no-confidence debate the Prime Minister in supporting the Government’s policy said that this Government intended to give independence only to such states which are friendly and that they have no intention of giving independence to any potential enemies. Both these replies are inadequate. It intrigued me to find the hon. the Minister of Defence using the term “foreseeable future” when his party has so often ridiculed this term when used by the Official Opposition in reply to questions regarding their proposals for the political future of the country. The Prime Minister’s reply holds no guarantee for future generations. History has told us repeatedly that the friendly nations of today can be the enemies of tomorrow. During the 19th century Germany and Britain were allied against France but in the 20th century two of the bloodiest wars of all times were fought by Britain and France against the former ally of Britain, namely Germany. Similarly, at the beginning of the Second World War Russia was an ally of Germany, while at the end they proved to be enemies. With the forces of subversion and erosion working on a new and independent nation, forces which we debated with unanimity in this House yesterday, working on a newly independent nation in Africa as they have worked on so many nations of the emerging states in Africa and the East, I find it inconceivable that this Government believes that there will be lasting peace and lasting stability of the labour force under this policy and under this Bill which is before us. To maintain this would mean massive financial support from the Republic of South Africa, massive enough to compete with the bidders of Moscow and Peking. It would have to be so massive that it could break the economy of White South Africa which would be left. I am speaking of the far distant future, but these are things that this House, by accepting a policy of this nature, must accept in the interests of our children.

Let us get down to the other aspects of this Bill, the explanatory memorandum and the speech of the hon. the Minister. Clause 1 of the Bill provides that the State President, after consultation by the Minister with the territorial authority concerned, may advance the political status of a territorial authority to that of a Legislative Assembly, as we have in the Transkei today. This is the springboard to sovereign independence. This can be done without consulting Parliament, which is sovereign under the Republic of South Africa Act. In terms of clause 37 any proclamation issued by the State President in this regard will be laid on the Table of the House only after the deed is done. What chaos cannot come out of an absurdity like this! What option in the interests of peace and security would this Parliament have but to pass that proclamation? If they, as in all possibility could happen by certain divisions of parties, rescinded such a proclamation and rejected it, would the newly created legislative assembly accept that? If they did accept it, would the acceptance be peaceful and without civil disorder? These are things that we have to think of. Both the explanatory memorandum and the hon. the Minister in his speech say that this clause is to save inordinate delay. The hon. member of Zululand has made it quite clear that the maximum delay would be six to seven months. I am quite sure none of us here can believe that there would be any further delay than that by introducing an Act into this Parliament. Why all this haste and all this urgency? I believe that this is possibly a sign of ineptitude or of inertia and complete disregard for the future, or it may be arrogance in its purest form and a complete negation and disregard for the powers and sovereignty of this Parliament. I believe it is a combination of the two. It is possibly the arrogance which comes with the inertia created by their own realization of the complete failure of their policy.

*Mr. Speaker, in addition, we find in clause 3 that this legislative assembly or council may pass laws in respect of citizens in terms of the Bantu Citizenship Act, 1970, who are or reside outside that area but within the Republic. We on this side of the House definitely do not like the words “or reside”. If this clause is aimed at additional taxation of the various Bantu groups, I want to say that we can understand this in regard to migratory labourers, a matter we shall still be concerned with in the distant future. But we accept, and it is a fact, that there are thousands and thousands of Bantu living in the Republic who have not seen a homeland for generations and do not want to see a homeland for the present either. Is it therefore not extremely unfair to subject them to the laws of an authority which they do not know, have never seen and can never see either?

Mr. Speaker, we want to safeguard our inheritance from our fathers for the future, because we are prepared to retain the responsibility of our fathers and expand it, and do not want to throw it overboard as this Government is prepared to do.

†We also find in this Act provision for a flag and a national anthem. While, Sir, I do not like to say things about national anthems of other countries, it is a strange thing that the national anthem of the Transkei was once a banned song. Is this going to happen with all the other authorities that have been established? These anthems and flags create separate nationalisms, something that I believe is unhealthy within our borders. This may be a psychological disease which is taking root in this country that people believe that, because we are now a republic, we can dispense freedom to other people. I think this is an utterly dangerous idea. I said earlier in my speech that we believe that there should be a degree of self-government. On this question we can get together. But this Bill is going far too far. The ideology behind this Bill is going far too far. I do not believe that it is necessary to have a patchwork of flags and a symphony of national anthems confined within the borders of the Republic of South Africa, I believe we can have peace and order under the policy of this party, where there will be that element of self-government, but not with the ultimate aims of the present Government.

We find, too, in other parts of this Bill that this council, albeit in a limited manner, will have the right to amend and repeal “any law, including any Act of Parliament”. But then, of course, in the Schedule this power is controlled. But is this not tampering with the sovereignty of Parliament rather heavily? Is this not taking us a little bit too far on this so-called road to independence, perhaps the road to nowhere? I believe this is taking things a little bit too far, giving the legislative assemblies the right—it has been done, of course, in the Transkei—to repeal Acts of Parliament. Where is the power of Parliament? It used to be a matter of pride for the Government benches once upon a time that this Parliament was the sovereign authority in this country. This sovereignty is gradually being surrendered. Those powers are being reduced. This Parliament will have no say whatsoever in the creation of any further legislative assemblies. But proclamations will be tabled. What powers do we have? A proclamation will be tabled and we will have no option whatsoever but to accept it. No, Sir, this Bill contains many aspects which we cannot accept, and in particular clause 37, which deals with the tabling of a proclamation after the deed is done, after the creation of the legislative assembly. I cannot see that this can bring about peace and harmony in this country at all. For that reason I support the motion of the hon. member for Transkei and oppose this Bill wholeheartedly.

The hon. member for Albany, who utilized all the time available to him, began by emphasizing the vast difference between the policy of the United Party and that of the National Party. I am glad he made this as clear as he did, because when he and other members of his Party arrive in the platteland, particularly at election time, they tell the people that the National Party has in fact taken over the principles of the United Party as far as race relations and Bantu policy are concerned and then the members of the United Party pose as better Nationalists than us, and as more assiduous champions of a policy in terms of which the Black man has to be kept in a sub-ordinate position while all we are supposed to be doing is spending money to improve the lot of the Black man, particularly in the Bantu homelands. He said the direction in which their policy was moving was the very opposite of that of the policy of the Government and that he would furnish us with an explanation later. He never came back to that point, but this is a fact: the direction in which their policy is moving is the very opposite of that of the policy of the Government; the end result of their policy will be and can only be political, economic and, ultimately, social integration; that is the only ultimate consequence of that policy; I shall deal with that later. I just want to ask the hon. member this one pertinent question. The hon. member said a moment ago that what they stood for was that the heritage of our fathers—the land of our fathers—should be safeguarded and not be abandoned, should be retained and not sacrificed or surrendered to the Bantu peoples.

You did not listen.

I now want to ask him whether, according to his views, and that of the United Party, Zululand and the Transkei and the Ciskei and other parts are really the native soil—the heritage of our fathers—of the White man?

May I reply to that?

Yes. Are these really the heritage of the White man in South Africa?

The question has to do with something I never mentioned in my speech.

That conclusion can quite clearly be drawn from the speech made by the hon. member. The hon. member also quite clearly stated that separate nationalism, separate national forms of identity, and so forth, for separate Bantu peoples were not acceptable to them at all. I then want to ask him whether he subscribes to the policy of the United Party, as we understand it from the statements made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, that is that the United Party stands for one citizenship, a multi-national, multiracial state, one nationalism, one flag, one people, one Parliament for South Africa? I gladly ask him this question and he now has the opportunity to reply to it. Shall I resume my seat? The hon. member does not respond and he therefore admits that it is so. Mr. Speaker, it may be necessary for us once again, for the information of the United Party, to outline the background of this phase and of the various phases we have experienced in developing the Bantu homelands, because the introduction of this Bill is merely representative of a further phase in the constitutional development of Bantu self-government in South Africa. This is my reply to the hon. member for Houghton, also, who said in her speech a moment ago that she objected to our not wanting to give full legislative responsibility to the government in the Transkei and to the other homelands immediately. She wanted to know why, for example, jurisdiction over education was being retained by the Minister. The reason is that this legislation merely represents a phase. We proceed step by step; we cannot do everything now; time will show when the next step needs to be taken. Sir, from the earliest times it was clear that the Bantu peoples are not a homogeneous group, despite the fact that they are of one colour and have many corresponding features. Different languages were spoken by different ethnic groups and they never lived together in harmony. Also, the majority of the groups had jurisdiction over certain territories; sometimes the boundaries were very vague, although they were known to and recognized by the British government as well as our previous Republican governments. However, a feature of the history of the Bantu tribes in South Africa, was violent clashes which often resulted in their being annihilated and exterminated. It was marked by fear, jealousy and hatred towards one another, a phenomenon which is, even today, manifesting itself in the African states, many of whom are independent today, where violent fights break out among the different tribes. This merely goes to show that definite, major differences exist within the Bantu peoples of South Africa and Africa; that there are various groups with an identity, a language and a territory of their own, which they themselves governed in the past. What is of importance here, Mr. Speaker, is that the Whites found various Bantu groups or peoples in South Africa; when they first came here; this is the first important point of departure. Those groups could, in the first place, be distinguished on account of their language and, geographically speaking and in the second place, had a territory of their own; in the third place, there existed for every group a form of government under a chief and a number of subordinate chiefs and advisers—a system of government of their own which, as Dr. Verwoerd put it “was engraved in their own souls”. The National Government took that form of government, in which the chiefs were given a special place, as a basis for the development of self-government for the Bantu and developed it even further. This historic position was accepted like that, while the various ethnic or identity groups, attached to particular territories, were recognized. The old Cape Colonial Government recognized the existence of separate Bantu peoples. In this way it recognized the existence of, for example, the Amaxhosa, the Amazulu, the Basutos and others.

Abazulu.

It makes no difference how hon. members opposite pronounce these names; I am merely stating the facts. The Boer Republics recognized and respected the existence of separate Bantu peoples. In his known Bantu legislation of 1936. Gen. Hertzog formulated the recognition of separate Bantu peoples attached to particular areas. He recognized the fact that there were particular areas belonging to those people and which would serve as a basis for his policy of segregation and of territorial separation. He allocated to them 13.7 per cent of the total territory of South Africa and laid down by law that a further 7¼ million morgen would be purchased from White owners and gradually made available to them. The hon. member for Houghton took exception to the fact that not all of this land had been granted. Does she want this Government to make available in one, two or three years, sufficient funds available to purchase the remainder of the 7¼ million morgen? The Government makes available enormous amounts every year and I can tell her and South Africa that every morgen promised them in terms of the 1936 Act will be purchased and gradually made available to them. There is no need for her to raise a hue and cry about this. It is so that the basis for our present policy of separate development was laid by Gen. Hertzog. It is an indisputable fact that, since 1948, when the National Government came into power, active steps were taken to develop the policy of separate development even further so that it would not merely be a sound theory, that it would not merely remain platform politics as the United Party has so often accused us of in the past by saying that we talk apartheid only when we fight elections. The National Government, particularly under this hon. Minister, gave proof, since 1948, of the fact that this was a policy which could be put into effect and applied, a policy which had already achieved positive results in that regard; that it was not merely an ideal and would remain so, but that it was a practical reality.

The primary task of the National Government was to identify the various Bantu groups. In order to place them, it was necessary to identify them. They had to be divided into separate groups, and the next step was to effect the necessary changes in the administration of the various groups and to train them to accept more responsibilities. This is where we differ and have differed with the colonial powers in Africa, the colonial powers which simply granted self-government to many of the present African states overnight, self-government for which they were not ripe enough and consequently, as has been clearly proved, they have not always been successful in their task. The National Government made a point of creating a group of leaders for each separate entity and to train people to do their share in other spheres as well, for example agriculture, and so forth, in order that they will be in a position to fulfil their duties successfully once they have developed up to that point. The first real success was achieved when the Transkei Constitution was placed on the Statute Book in 1963. In terms of that legislation an advanced measure of self-government was granted. The Legislative Assembly consisted of 60 nominated chiefs and 45 elected members, with a chief minister, and so forth. They were given a flag and a national anthem of their own, and, in addition, powers as regards education, agriculture and other matters; powers as regards defence and certain other responsibilities have not as yet been afforded them. However, the National Government is committed to afford the remaining peoples that which it afforded the Transkei as long ago as 1963, and to guide them along until they have reached that same stage. This forms part of the framework of its policy. It has never been the idea that it would all end with the Transkei. In that case there would have been stagnation. The other leaders in the Bantu homelands would have thought immediately that the National Government was dishonest in its policies because of its unwillingness to apply such policies to other Bantu peoples as well. Sir, the Government wants to carry out its policy and it will carry out its policy. This legislation is merely a further step towards the carrying into effect of that policy. The Government has to honour its word; it cannot allow itself to be influenced by the United Party or by any other element pursuing policies which are the very opposite, as the hon. member for Albany stated quite clearly a moment ago. The granting of the Transkei status to the remaining seven or eight groups amounts to the recognition of the provisions of a testament, a political or constitutional testament in which it is laid down that the heritage will be granted then when the time is ripe to do so.

The Government does not want to come back every time and repeatedly afford the Opposition the opportunity of discussing Bantu legislation for hours and days on end; we have grown very tired of that. This Bill has been drawn up in such a way that when the time is ripe for the remaining homelands to be put on a similar road, the State President will be in a position to do so by proclamation; the necessary adjustments may be made in due course in order to make the law applicable to particular ethnic groups. This Bill merely provides the machinery and the power to give effect to the policy of the National Party. This Bill wants to streamline our Bantu legislative programme. As I said a moment ago, we keep on talking for hours and days. We fill volumes of Hansards with our discussions on Bantu legislation; the United Party derives much pleasure out of it; many people are surprised at the way in which Bantu legislation is being dealt with; it affords the outside world the opportunity to voice strong criticism against South Africa; what is more, our own Bantu are being confused because it becomes evident to them that we, as Whites, differ among ourselves as regards our relationships politics. This Bill makes it possible for the legislation applicable to the Transkei to be made applicable by proclamation to other Bantu homelands as well.

If I have a few minutes more left to me, I want to come back to what was said by the hon. member for Zululand. [Interjections.] The hon. member tried to explain the position by furnishing us with an historical analysis and he said that there was, in fact, a time when the colonial powers were in favour of partition and tried to recognize the territories of these Bantu groups, such as the Zulus and others, on a basis of apartheid, but that the idea was abandoned later. A relevant question in this respect is whether he thinks that the Bantu who have made so much progress in South Africa in that they have already been placed on the road towards self-government—particularly having regard to the position in Africa where our neighbouring states and others have progressed to the highest form of self-government— whether the Bantu in South Africa would be satisfied with the policy of the United Party depriving them of that right to their own identity and the opportunity to retain that which they have already achieved along the road towards full status? Does he think that the Bantu, and particularly their leaders, would ever be satisfied in view of the fact that they have come accustomed to and are satisfied with the policy applied by the National Government as far as they are concerned? I can not imagine that this could ever be the case. The ultimate consequences if the policy of the United Party were to be applied, would be that the Bantu would eventually be allowed to integrate in all spheres in the national affairs of the Whites in South Africa.

You know that is not so.

But it will be impossible to prevent him from doing so, because we are being told from the benches of the United Party that when they come into power they will neither hand over to the Bantu nor want them to have the so-called heritage of the fathers, namely the Bantu homelands; in other words, they will be incorporated into a unity state. They will begrudge them their own flag; they will begrudge them their own national anthem. They will bring them into this House. They will nullify what they call petty apartheid but which, to us, is simply apartheid. They will bring the Bantu into this House. For the sake of convenience they will apply certain restrictions initially. The hon. Leader of the Opposition said that they would have separate residential areas. How is the United Party going to prevent the middle-class Bantu it wants to create and which will retain permanent residence in the White homeland and will obtain freehold here—not only the Bantu, but also the coloureds—from moving in and living among the Whites eventually? How are hon. members going to prevent the Coloured member of Parliament and ultimately the Bantu member of Parliament from settling in one of the White residential areas? What excuses are hon. members going to advance if a Coloured or a Bantu representative in this House were to complain that their people are being discriminated against? The White leadership policy of the United Party will disintegrate. What are hon. members going to tell him in strict confidence when he asks them why he as an educated person, is not allowed to travel with the Whites in the same train or are not allowed to mix socially in hotels or elsewhere? Surely, it will not be possible to prevent this from happening. And once the door has been opened, it will be the thin end of the wedge towards an integrated state, in which there will be no room for the policy of separate development or separate states, as we want it, of the National Party. It is quite clear that this will be the end result, that you will ultimately be swamped in the large cities by thousands of Bantu who will come streaming in.

But this is precisely the case at present.

Yes, it is happening now, but we are trying to prevent it. We are succeeding on the basis of apartheid; those hon. members should only help us.

No, Tienie, we can do without their help.

Those hon. members should only be more positive and less negative. Hon. members should throw in their weight with us in order to help us to carry into effect that which is right. But do you know, Mr. Speaker, why the hon. the Opposition talks so glibly? They are only too thankful for the fact that the National Party Government applies separate development, because they enjoy living under separate development. For example, the representative for Houghton knows that a non-White is not allowed to come and live next to her in Houghton. They know that there is no need for them to carry the responsibility of the consequences their policy of integration will have for South Africa in the distant future.

For that reason we must support this legislation and for that reason we are in a position to appeal to South Africa, particularly young South Africa, to throw in their full weight with us as they have done in the past in order to carry out this policy consistently. Otherwise the result could be that which was anticipated by a person such as Lord Malvern when he spoke the following true words in London in 1955. This may serve as a lesson to the Opposition, a lesson it should take note of. Lord Malvern said the following—

On a democratic basis and according to the policy of integration of the United Party the majority is bound to govern in the end because it will be determined by the number of votes. The Leader of the Opposition was informed of this by Dr. Verwoerd in this House on numerous occasions. I continue to quote what was said by Lord Malvern—

That is the vision of Africa which was held up to the world by that man in London in 1955. I want to read out a further quotation. In its review of this problem the London Observer had the following to say on 8th February, 1959—

This is the inevitable end result of the policy of the Opposition. In 1927 Gen. Smuts made a certain statement which supported the views of this side of the House. I believe that, with that statement he made, he made a contribution towards the 1936 and other segregation laws of Gen. Hertzog. In 1927 Gen. Smuts uttered the following important words (translation)—

He was still using that word—

This Government is in the process of establishing Bantu councils or systems of government. This is what is being placed on the Statute Book in terms of these measures. These are measures which fit in with various phases and which will ultimately take the various Bantu peoples to where they belong for the welfare of the future of South Africa. We will have to achieve this without the assistance of the Opposition.

Sir, when we have legislation dealing with the Bantu people, I feel that we have before us matters which in every case will require the most careful and serious consideration of this House. In other words, however small, short or apparently trivial a Bill may be which deals with the Bantu people, it should get the most serious consideration of Parliament. In view of the lateness of the hour, I would like to move—

That the debate be now adjourned.

Agreed to.