When the House adjourned yesterday I had just pointed out that though we may give close attention to every piece of legislation that comes before this House, we ought to give a special degree of care and attention to a measure that comes before us affecting the Bantu people. For historical reasons and on account of the numbers of the Bantu people today such measures in my opinion call for careful and serious consideration.

I should like to state our attitude towards the question of legislation affecting the Bantu, with particular reference to legislation such as the Bill we have before us now. We believe that we can live in amity with the Bantu people of South Africa; we have proved it in the past; we have lived in friendship with them, and worked with them, and they have played their part in building up our economy. We have worked together, as I say, in harmony and friendship and we believe that there is no need for that to be disturbed. But we believe that much of the legislation the Government is bringing before us, and this is to the point as far as this particular measure is concerned, is conducive to a most serious disturbance of the relationships which existed in the past.

I shall make particular reference to the Zulu people rather than generalize with regard to other tribes of whom I know little and, accordingly, I want to see this Bill in relation to the Zulu people. I think it can readily be said today, not only in respect of the Bantu but also in respect of the various racial groups in South Africa, the generality of the public—the Whites and all non-Whites—that there is one expression which we hear continually and over and over again from the lips of people. It is “I want”. They are seeking security, they are seeking homes, a better income, more leisure—in short, they are seeking for something which will give them a job, security, a home and a chance to live their lives with their wives and families without undue interference. Sir, this has been disturbed as far as the Bantu people are concerned and you hear “I want” from their lips just as much as you hear it from any other section of our people.

The last few years the Government came forward with its concept of Bantu homelands, Bantu Authorities, etc. I want to say here and now categorically that the Zulu people have never willingly, have never actively, themselves of their own volition, without prompting or pressure, asked for the Bantu Authorities legislation to be applied to them. What has happened is that continuous pressure, official pressure, has been brought to bear upon the Bantu authorities in Zululand to accept the Bantu Authorities Act and all that goes with it. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and his deputies may think they are playing a very important part in this, and so they are—they are playing a tragic part. However, the people who must bear the heat and burden of the day are the White officials throughout the Bantu areas, particularly the area of Zululand. The White officials are the people who are continually standing between the Zulu people and the administration of the Minister. These are the people who know where the harrow goes, because they are under the harrow. Day after day, week after week and month after month they know what the true feelings of the Bantu are. These they cannot express any longer to Pretoria; they are forever trying to find means for putting up to the Government a situation which they know in their heart of hearts does not correctly reflect the feelings of those people. What is happening today in Zululand? It was shown clearly by the man who is today virtually Prime Minister of Zululand, Buthelezi, at the opening of the territorial authority when the Minister himself was present, where he said, “this is being forced on us; we will accept it”—because that is what it means when translated. He said: “It is being given to us; we will accept it.” Repeatedly at gatherings at the Bandhla in Zululand it was put to them, “You must ask for this Act to be applied to you,” but they said: “You tell us it is going to be applied to us in any case; why then must we ask for it? If we ask for it, you say it will be given to us. If we do not ask for it, you tell us that we will get it anyway, so why should we ask for it?” and the officials had to keep saying: “No, you must ask for it.” In other words, a false facade was to be built up to indicate that a request had come from the Zulu people. Sir, there has never been a voice raised in Zululand yet which was not, somewhere or other, from behind under pressure, asking for the application of this Act to the people of Zululand. Sir, the enforcement of this legislation, not only in Zululand but in all the other territorial authorities is a hothouse method forcing the European concept of parliamentary government on to people who are not ready for it and who do not understand it. But, Sir, there will be individuals who understand it, and that is what the metropolitan powers in Europe found when it came to the question of these emergent states, as they are called today, the negro states in Africa; they found that there was a group of people who understood exactly the way in which the machine worked; they found that in India many, many years ago. A group of people understood it and they immediately grasped the central idea that political power was the source of all power; that all power— economic power, military power—sprung from political power. Sir, this kind of legislation and that kind of pressure builds up a group of political agitators in the areas where the legislation is to be enforced, the agitators being those people who otherwise cannot get the plaudits and the backing of the multitude but who have found that this is the way to do it; you do it by getting votes; you appeal perhaps to the baser instincts of the multitude; you get them on your side. Are we immune, Sir, to that kind of happening and that kind of history in our own country? Do we not know it? Why do we think that this is not going to happen now to other people?

Mr. Speaker, I want to deal for a moment with claims that I have heard ad nauseam from the other side of the House about the principle of these Bantustans, about the principle of self-government. As we pointed out the other day, there are so many names under which this type of constitutional development is being heralded today, particularly by hon. members on the other side, ranging the whole way through the gamut of human ingenuity and finding new words to explain “self-government”, finishing somewhere in the ultimate and with “independence”. Sir, when the hon. the Minister gets up I hope he is going to repudiate the word “possible” which he used here the other day. He asked my hon. friend the member for Transkei to ignore it if it worried him. It does not worry him, Sir, it will worry everybody else though, because it is from the mouth of the Minister, not from the mouth of the hon. member for Transkei. The Minister qualified “independence” by using the word “possible”. Sir, what is “possible independence”? I hope that when the hon. the Minister replies to this debate he will say, “I withdraw that word; I stand and my Government stands for giving these Bantustans unqualified independence —complete sovereign independence”. Sir, when hon. members on the other side of the House come here and put this forward as the traditional policy of South Africa …

It is.

Nonsense.

The hon. the Minister of Information nods his head; it is traditional policy. Sir, he knows better than that. He was a schoolmaster. What did he teach the children in his school?

Supremacy (Baasskap).

Sir, let us get this right: The originator of this concept was the late Dr. Verwoerd when he was Prime Minister. He was the man who came to Parliament and who first framed it in language, and it is curious that for years after 1961 when the policy was enunciated by the late Dr. Verwoerd, not a Cabinet Minister, not an M.P., not a Senator, nobody in authority in public life on that side of the House, was prepared to stand up and support what Dr. Verwoerd had said in public.

Nonsense.

Sir, you can search through Hansard from year to year and you will find that every year Dr. Verwoerd was the only man who spoke, and what did he say about it? This is what Dr. Verwoerd, the late Prime Minister, said—

It was not traditional policy. The Prime Minister said it was what we would not have liked to see—

Can anything be clearer than that, Sir? A form of fragmentation which we would not have liked to see if it had been possible to avoid it. And there sits the hon. the Minister of Community Development who with us condemned in the loudest possible and the most emphatic manner this declaration made by the hon. the Prime Minister, the late Dr. Verwoerd.

Nonsense.

The hon. member need not worry. I can say to him that even the ranks of Tuscany can scarce forbear to cheer today. Then Dr. Verwoerd continued—

External pressure, Sir, on South Africa. This was not home-made bread. This was not our own preconceived idea of what was right and proper. We did not want to do it. It was forced on us from outside.

You know what Gen. Hertzog said.

And then he goes on—

Buying.

Yes, buying; paying the price. So let us have no more about the idea that this is traditional policy. The Nationalist Party were the people who manufactured it and cooked it up, as an offshoot from traditional policy in South Africa which goes back into early history. Gen. Smuts and Gen. Hertzog are quoted, and all that sort of thing. Mr. Speaker, they did not want it, and the man who conceived it was the late Dr. Verwoerd and he said in the clearest possible language, that they did not want it; they would not have had the fragmentation if they could have avoided it.

Sir, I come to fragmentation. That was the word used by the hon. the Prime Minister. Because Dr. Verwoerd saw it was fragmentation, which was the basic principle in this idea of Bantustans. He was the first man. It is very interesting that a year later he chided me in this House for using the word “fragmentation”, and I stand on record as having quoted this very speech to him, and I said to him: “But, Mr. Prime Minister, you were the first man to use that word.” The man in South Africa who first used the word “fragmentation” in regard to Bantustans and the policy of the Bantustans was the Prime Minister, the late Dr. Verwoerd. He was the man who first used it, and he did not beat about the bush. He was not mealy-mouthed over it. He said it was fragmentation, and it is fragmentation because of external pressure from countries “buite ons grense”. There was no argument about it. It was people outside South Africa who had brought this pressure to bear upon us. So this then is where we go now, along a path forced on us by outside agencies, which we did not want to tread but which this Government is now accepting and absorbing and which they say themselves they will try to make work.

Un-South African.

Sir, let us for a moment look at the Bill, because I want the hon. the Minister, when the time comes and with as little verbosity as possible, to give a straight answer to a question I now want to ask him. In clause 4 there is set out a large number of matters in respect of which a legislative assembly to be constituted by proclamation by this Minister under this Act will have no power to make laws. It runs from (a) to (j). I am not going to read them. These legislative authorities will not be able to make laws in this regard. I ask the Minister whether he has given an assurance to any of these Bantu authorities that in the process of time, as their constitutional development goes ahead, they will be given these powers, or any of them or some of them? Have they had any kind of assurance? Is there by implication a genuine feeling or a moral obligation on the Government to give these powers to those people in the course of time as their constitutional development goes ahead? [Interjections.]

You will get your reply, of course.

Will it be like your thesis, Piet?—Saying one thing and meaning another.—You see, Sir, throughout the world where the European metropolitan powers have put this kind of concept before the non-Whites who have been their subject people in foreign countries, that has simply immediately become a target at which the non-White peoples have aimed.

It must be so, Mr. Speaker. Would we not do the same? Did we not do the same in former days until, eventually, Gen. Botha, Gen. Koos de la Rey, Gen. Smuts and Pres. Steyn went overseas to go and ask for a full government for South Africa? It is no good saying to people that these are the powers they shall not have and then thinking that time will stand still there. Those immediately become the powers that the people strive for. That is what is going to happen here. This is going to be the opportunity for the political carpetbagger, the political agitator amongst the Bantu people. Here is the target provided for him by the Government itself. It is specified word for word and tells him exactly what he has to go for. At any meeting, whether it is in the private company of a few people together, a public indaba or at a meeting of the Bandhla or anywhere else he can say: Why will not the Government give us the power to do this or the power to do that, as it appears in this Bill? Let me say to the hon. the Minister, the Government and the hon. members on that side that this is the target for political agitators. Some of the hon. members on that side understand the Bantu. I was surprised at the hon. member who preceded me, because he knows a lot about the Bantu. He made a very sad speech last night, from my point of view. He laughs now, but he knows the Bantu and he is at the present time suppressing his own conscience when he makes a speech as he did yesterday. He should be telling the Minister that he is wrong. He should tell them not to do this, because he knows the Bantu.

To come back, this Bill is the target for political agitators. It will create political agitators who will seize the opportunity of scoring some immediate gain for themselves by having before them this list of “you can’t get it”, because I started off by saying that the Bantu are coming and saying “I want”. This is what they are going to want. They will want these powers—(a) to (j) inclusive. If they do not get these powers and a political and civil administration has been created, as the Government is doing in these territories, and then there is trouble. I want the Government to realize that the one recourse they had is no longer available to them. The arbitrator they used in the past cannot be used again, either here in South Africa or in those territories. That form of arbitration is gone. I am sure I need not speak more plainly than that. So where do we go from here? We go thus far, that these people—and they are good, responsible people who have not wished to be pushed into this position —are seeing the Government with might and main forcing political institutions and constitutional development. However, the side that is going to lift them economically is getting scant attention and scant support. Instead of the Government building them up economically and giving them something in their country which is worth while so that their standard of living is raised, the very antithesis is taking place. Forcing people back into the reserves without an adequate infrastructure having been built up is no way to keep these people on our side—and I say to keep them on our side, not to bring them to our side. They are on our side. The primary duty of the Government should be to keep them on our side and to have them with us with a common patriotism here in the interests of South Africa. But, Sir, the Government is not doing that. They are not taking the economic welfare of the people in those areas and building that up before letting the political power, the political development and the constitutional development come along and flow naturally from the build-up of the economic statuts of the folk concerned. Instead they are forcing a hothouse brand of politics based on European concepts down the throats of these folk.

Mr. Speaker, I want to touch on one other point particularly with regard to the Zulus. When I first read this Bill, I was appalled to find that the position obtaining, whatever it is, in the Transkei is the position that the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development can by decree hereafter confer on other Bantu tribes, for example the Zulus. The Zulus are not only a law-abiding tribe, but a respectable and respectful people. They are a people of very long traditions, of courtesy, of understanding and of appreciation of the ceremony that goes with public life. People who have seen a true big Zulu undertaking in public life will bear me out and will understand what I say when I refer to the pomp and ceremony that goes with a big Zulu gathering when some official matter is being dealt with. For others who do not understand it, I am sorry, but they can read it up in the books. Is there anything more incomprehensible to the mind of the ordinary 1½ million Zulus living in Zululand and the 1½ million Zulus who are outside of Zululand, than that they shall have a change in their constitutional development of such magnitude that this Government can call it “self-government” by no other means than what appears in a paragraph in the Government Gazette? There is no college of the elders of Zululand, of the Prime Minister and his people there with a proper presentation of the case to the Zulu people. There is none of that, but only a short paragraph in the Government Gazette. I think this is a shocking business. They deserve better than that. This is not the way to deal with it. It should have had a special Act of Parliament. Very special preparation should have been made to ensure the fullest kind of adherence to the tradition of the old days. May I call to the mind of hon. members opposite what was done by the Voortrekkers in the days when they crowned Mpande. Our forefathers did that. There were English-speaking people present when they crowned Mpande King of the Zulus. Go into the details of the pomp and ceremony at the time when Mpande was crowned king of the Zulus by the Trekkers and see exactly what happened under those circumstances and what took place there. Why do we now fall back on a short sentence in the Government Gazette to confer this new type of self-government on the Zulu people?

I say that this is shocking. I hope the hon. the Minister is still going to think better of it. They at least deserve an Act of Parliament to give them self-government. Was there anything less than that that they are entitled to after the whole of their history? Was there anything less than that that we were entitled to here in South Africa when we finally received the Statute of Westminster? Were we entitled to just a clause in the Gazette in London? Were we not entitled to an Act of Parliament? Surely after all their history, and what they have done, and what they are doing and what we expect them to do, they were entitled to an Act of Parliament when they were to be given self-government. Therefore I ask the hon. the Minister to reconsider the matter. If he is proceeding with this Bill, he should exclude the Zulu people and give them an Act of their own. I cannot speak for the others, because I do not know their feelings and their attitude in regard to this matter.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for South Coast is a person for whom I have always had a high regard. But in spite of everything he said, particularly at the beginning of his speech, I want to say I have a very high regard and appreciation for the responsible way in which the Bantu leaders of the various Bantu areas expressed themselves in connection with the measure we have here before us in this House today. I want to tell the hon. member for South Coast that in my opinion he made a very big mistake at the beginning of his speech. I do not think he did so intentionally. But on the basis of what he said I have come to the conclusion that he was actually implanting poisonous and vicious ideas in the minds of possible future agitators amongst the Bantu population. That I hold against him. This is my opinion. I sat here listening to him. When I say I have appreciation for the responsible attitude displayed by Bantu leaders, I am very sorry that a respected man such as the hon. member for South Coast expressed such ideas here which may actually implant poisonous thoughts in the minds of possible future agitators.

What do you know about the Zulus?

What do you know?

Order!

The measure which is at present before this House was introduced as it is a further step in the process of separate development in our multi-national fatherland, with its diversity of people and nations. It could not be otherwise. It is a logical consequence of legislation already on the Statute Book and legislation which has already derived its pattern from a specific policy. Not only is it a logical consequence of what has already been done, but also a step in the right direction. The Bantu peoples who are affected were consulted about the legislation we now have before us.

I want to assume that every member of this House will recognize and accept the diversity of people in our country. However, whether we all agree with the handling of the problems arising from that diversity, is another matter. But I do accept that each one of us here accepts the diversity of people we have here in South Africa. This diversity of people and nations within the same fatherland naturally creates problems, and we as representatives are confronted with those problems. We have to face up to them and we cannot run away from them. Consequently we have to cope and deal with those problems and lay down in legislation patterns and directions to be followed so as to achieve success in this relations policy and so as to create the greatest measure of harmony possible under the circumstances. It should be borne in mind that harmony must be created not only for the Bantu peoples or for the other diversity of peoples concerned in this, but also for the Whites living in South Africa.

Over the years we have become conscious of deep-rooted differences as regards the approach and the eventual solution to the problems which arise from the multinational character of South Africa. The National Party, and consequently the Government of the day, sees the solution to these delicate problems in the policy of separate development. I assume I am not doing the Opposition an injustice when I say that their approach to this problem, seen from a political point of view, is the policy of a race federation. We see South Africa as a multi-national country, whereas the Opposition regards South Africa as one common fatherland with one integrated community of 21 million people. In this is to be found the basic difference of approach to these problems. Since 1948, for the sake of our relations policies, we have been enacting laws regulating race relations and national relations in South Africa. We met with opposition in the case of each of these measures we introduced into this House and subsequently placed on the Statute Book with the best of intentions, i.e. to promote good race relations in South Africa.

We were not the first people who noticed these differences. Now I should like to have the attention of the Opposition and I want to ask them to listen to the speech made by their great leader, the late Gen. Smuts, in the Savoy Hotel in London in 1917. We may well take note of what he said for even at that time he saw far into the future what problems were awaiting us. He said at that time—

The hon. member for Maitland will be well advised to listen to me now. Even at that time Gen. Smuts was thinking much further ahead than the hon. member for Maitland is doing now. I read on—

This is how Gen. Smuts saw it in 1917.

But also read out the other part dealing with representation in one Parliament.

I shall read out what has a bearing on this debate, and then the hon. member for Durban (Point) may read what he likes. The hon. member should take cognizance of what I am now going to read out. I proceed—

This is what the United Party wants to do now.

But they already are.

Do you not want to mix them up in this Parliament? I read on—

We have to say what is going to happen tomorrow. Gen. Smuts thought “it may take 100 years to work out”. I read on—

This may just as well have been the speech of someone participating in this debate in support of this Bill.

Why do you omit the gist of his speech?

I shall come to that. I read on—

I think very highly of this view of the late Gen. Smuts, as expressed by him in this speech and as I have just quoted here. It is not my fault if the United Party has deviated from this view. We, too, are groping towards a solution to this most urgent problem with which all of us in South Africa are concerned. I do not think anyone with any sense of responsibility will deny this. As I have said, the National Party believes in a policy of separate development, and not only from today or yesterday. This policy of separate development, in the implementation of which this measure is another step, was already laid down in an election manifesto for the 1948 election. We were given a mandate to implement this policy, to bring about separation. Now I am not speaking of the petty apartheid of the spiritual leader of the United Party, Mr. Japie Basson; we do not know something like that; it is a concept which he created. As I have said, the policy of separate development has been the policy of the National Party since before 1948. We were given a mandate on that basis and we, are irrevocably in honour bound to carry out that mandate, in honour bound to the White electorate of South Africa to implement that policy. Since the 1948 election that mandate has been confirmed in each subsequent election, still as recently as last year, and the National Party will continue on that road. There is no doubt about that; every National Party speaker went on to the platform and explained the consequences of our policy to the voters. They were subsequently returned to this House of Assembly and today the National Party is still in power. This measure is a step in carrying out that mandate.

Why were we given this mandate by the electorate? It was given because this policy is being implemented and because legislation such as this is being passed not only for the Bantu but also for ensuring the identity of the White man for all times. However, it guarantees the identity of not only the White man but also the Black man and every other coloured group in South Africa. In this legislation we are making provision to enable us to give each Bantu people not only self-government but also the symbols of a nationhood of their own. We gave them citizenship and we know what the attitude of the Opposition was when the legislation concerned was introduced here; we know that they were not prepared to give the Bantu a citizenship of their own. We, however, gave him that citizenship and in this legislation we are making provision so as to allow of the further symbols of a nationhood of their own also being given to them, symbols for which we in this country, particularly the Afrikaner, had to fight many years. Here we are giving the Bantu the opportunity of obtaining a flag of their own, a national anthem of their own—the symbols of a nationhood of their own.

What does the whole lot mean to them?

Perhaps these symbols mean nothing to the hon. member for North Rand, but to us as a self-respecting people they mean everything.

They mean nothing to them.

They mean everything to them. I know that hon. member—he is the man who has already called on foreign powers and said that a shock from outside might remove the National Party from office. Therefore I can appreciate that these things mean nothing to him. I trust, however, that he is not speaking on behalf of his party. I say the symbols of a nationhood of their own mean a great deal to these Bantu peoples.

There is an alternative to this policy of separate development. As a matter of fact, there can be only one alternative and it finds expression in the declared policy of the United Party—one common fatherland, with one common legislature in which all the Bantu peoples of South Africa will have only eight representatives in the House of Assembly, 25 for all the various non-White race groups. It is time for us to take cognizance once again of what really is the alternative to our policy of separate development. If that alternative were to apply in South Africa, what could we expect? There is a yardstick by which we can measure this, and this yardstick we find in Africa. Africa was the laboratory in which these experiments were carried out. Well, the White man disappeared there. I now want to level the accusation at the Opposition that if their policy were to be applicable in South Africa, and this legislation were not to be enacted, the same process as that which was in force in Africa, would come into force also for the White man of South Africa and in a democratic system he would eventually disappear. My hon. friend, the hon. member for Pinelands, knows this and in his heart he agrees with me. This is the only alternative there is to our policy of separate development.

But, Mr. Speaker, the Whites are not the only ones who are asking for this legislation, it is not being passed only in terms of a mandate from the White man. The Minister went out of his way to inform the Bantu leaders of this legislation. He held discussions with them and each and every one of them welcomed it with acclamation. Here I should like to quote in brief from a radio talk given by the chief councillor of the Venda people. After they had studied the 1959 Bantu Authorities Act they experienced problems and then approached the Government with specific representations. Now he says the following (translation)—

The hon. member for South Coast may be so kind as to show me the courtesy of listening. Perhaps he does not know about this. I want to repeat what I have said. I have said that the Bantu were experiencing certain problems in their legislative councils and then approached the Minister with certain representations. The chief councillor of the Venda put it as follows (translation)—

Who is asking this?

The hon. member should listen before drawing his own conclusions and he must not allow himself to be misled by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District), who is sitting next to him.

Who was saying this?

The chief councillor of the Venda. [Interjections.] I can also quote what was said by the Zulus, what was said by the leader of the South Sotho and the North Sotho. I continue with the quotation—

Let me just say at this stage that the Minister submitted this legislation, as it is here, by memorandum to the leaders of the various Bantu peoples. They studied it and all of them, including the Zulus, supported it. I refer once again to what was said by the chief councillor of the Venda—

I can continue to quote from what this leader of the Venda said, but I shall just quote the final paragraph of his statement—

Can you quote some of the other authorities?

Yes, I can. I can quote the South Sotho …

Let him make his own choice!

I can quote what chief councillor Mota of the South Sotho said. He, too, spoke of problems experienced by them but admitted at the same time that they had learned a great deal in the past years. He proceeded (translation)—

I emphasize this part. This is what this Bantu leader said. He continued—

He continued in this vein and I can quote what the attitude was of each of these leaders. There is, for example, Chief Matlala, chief councillor of the Lebowa territorial authority who said (translation)—

[Interjections.] The hon. member asked me to quote other authorities. The pattern is exactly the same in each case, and that is why we have introduced this legislation. If hon. members opposite question the bonafides of these people, they should have the courage to get up and say so. Each one of them expressed their confidence in this legislation after they had been properly consulted and had been properly informed of the provisions thereof. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) has now made enough interjections.

Sir, I have quoted what their attitude is and with that I think I have proved conclusively what the attitude of the Bantu leaders is in respect of this Bill.

Sir, in conclusion I should like to say this: At each election a choice was put to South Africa; at each future election in South Africa—and this House and every inhabitant of South Africa should take cognizance of this—a choice will be put to South Africa; the electorate is the deciding factor, and that choice is the following: We follow the road of separate development which is going to lead to the Whites as well as each Bantu people in South Africa retaining their identities; the alternative is the policy of the United Party which leads to integration and the disappearance of the White man in South Africa, as the pattern in Africa has shown us. This is the choice before South Africa.

The hon. member for Wolmaransstad said here that the only alternative to Bantustans was one integrated society. I want to ask the hon. member for Wolmaransstad: They do not stand for a Colouredstan—or do they stand for it?—because we cannot get clarity from their leaders—and does that then mean they are going to have one integrated society with the Coloured people?

What did your father teach you?

He taught me to be decent, which that hon. member’s father did not teach him.

Then the hon. member went further, read out certain quotations and said that this legislation made provision for the Bantu to retain his own identity and ensured that the White man would retain his own identity. I want to ask him whether he needs a Bantustan in order to retain his White identity. We do not. He then continued and tried to quote the late Gen. Smuts in order to show that Gen. Smuts stood for Bantustans. Well, if Gen. Smuts stood for Bantustans in 1948, why did they throw him out? They said that his policy would lead to a Black society; that was the propaganda they made.

You are using the hon. member for Durban (Point’s) arguments now.

Sir, I want to return to this Bill. We are being asked in this Bill to give the Minister a blank cheque; to give him the sole right to grant self-government to the Bantu peoples just as he likes. In addition he would receive the right to modify the boundaries. Parliament is no longer to be consulted; Parliament is to be disregarded; the sovereignty of Parliament is to be violated; he is to be the sole ruler over the Bantu peoples and over the White population of South Africa as well.

Are you an Afrikaner?

We are not prepared to give it to him. Sir, that hon. member would not dare make that remark in a debate in which I can reply to him. Mr. Speaker, what I find even more disconcerting about this legislation is that we are specifically and explicitly being asked here to reaffirm the assurance of the firm and irrevocable intention to lead every individual Bantu nation to independence. That is what the memorandum states.

We state our policy clearly.

It is true that there are certain limitations, certain reservations in this Bill which alleviate the shock, but it is clearly stated that this is another step towards independence, towards absolute independence and therefore we must face up to the full implications of absolute independence.

Hear, hear!

The hon. member for Brits says, “Hear, hear!”; he accepts it. In other words, they can get independence in a territory in which they will have full military rights, in which there will be no prohibition on arms. Does that hon. member still say “Yes”? [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Wolmaransstad says “Yes”.

Thank you for that admission. This then is the independence we are going to get. In other words, we are today being asked here to be a party to partitioning South Africa, to carving up South Africa, to abdicating over parts of South Africa, but worse than that, to handing over our eastern seaboard, the most vulnerable flank of White South Africa—if we are attacked, we shall be attacked not from the west, but from the east—to a foreign Black ruler. We must place ourselves at the mercy of a Black ruler, for him to decide, and for him to decide on his own, whether he will open that territory to terrorist activities against South Africa, whether he will allow our eastern seaboard to be used by Red China as a springboard for attacking us. That is the attitude adopted by those hon. members. That is the love they show for South Africa. They are living up there in the Free State. Let them come and live in my constituency, where we are faced with these problems. It is easy to say in the Free State that we can give away parts of our east coast, because they will not fight for them. [Interjections.] Yes, you can break up meetings with tomatoes, but you will not fight.

Why must we take this drastic step? The reason for it is as was stated by Dr. Verwoerd in this House on 10th April, 1961—

The Bantu will be able to develop into separate Bantu states. That is not what we would have liked to see. It is a form of fragmentation which we would not have liked if we were able to avoid it. In the light of the pressure being exerted on South Africa we will have to do so.

In other words, it was done only to relieve the pressure exerted from outside. Now I want to ask the hon. members: What assurance do we have that that pressure will be relieved? This policy was announced as long ago as 11 years—and not 40 years as those hon. members say—and has the pressure from outside been relieved? It has increased, Sir. This holds no advantages for us, only disadvantages. But before I come to the disadvantages: various speakers have tried to prove here that this is a policy which has been in existence for years and years. Sir, where did this policy originate? It originated on 27th January, 1959, when it was announced (Die Burger, 28th January, 1959): “New era begins in South Africa. Dr. Verwoerd sees future of Bantustans.” He was the first man ever to speak of absolute independence.

It was inherent.

Why is the Nationalist Party in this position? Why did he make that announcement? To relieve the pressure exerted from outside. And how was that pressure created? Those hon. members do not see South Africa as it is, that there are White people, Brown people and Black people in South Africa. In our so-called White South Africa there are 8 million Natives: in the territories there are only 6½ million. That is the pattern of South Africa. There are Black people, White people and Brown people and we have worked together in South Africa. The White man has provided the capital and the initiative and the non-Whites the labour, and together we have built up a wonderful country. There were certain points of friction in South Africa, and in 1948 the Nationalist Party saw its way clear to exploiting those points of friction for political gain, and they presented these people as being a Black danger, to serve as an incentive to all Nationalists to unite themselves in the Nationalist Party against this Black danger, just as they had previously worked up the Afrikaans-speaking people to unite themselves against the English-speaking people, against this English danger. They won one election after another, and they were so successful that they simply promised their people that they would not only put the Black danger in its place, but would simply place these people in the reserves and, by so doing, remove them from the so-called White South Africa. In Hansard, Volume 84, 1954, col. 801, Dr. Verwoerd is recorded as having said:

Have they removed the Natives?

Of course!

My hon. friend says, “Of course”. In 1948 there were 3.9 million Natives in the so-called White South Africa. Now there are 8 million of them.

What is the percentage?

I am speaking about figures! Percentages are nonsense. The percentage is a hundred per cent more than in 1948. That hon. Minister was a school-teacher. Can’t he do arithmetic? From 3.9 million to 8 million is an increase of one hundred per cent. They said that they would remove the Natives, but they have not and could not, because the White people cannot manage without them. The territories are already overpopulated, overgrazed and denuded, and cannot carry any more people than they are carrying at the moment. They cannot even carry the 6½ million, and in total there are 15 million of them. By the turn of the century there are going to be between 35 million and 40 million of them. But we cannot remove them, because the White people cannot manage without them. No mine can be mined without Bantu labour. No farmer can farm without Bantu labour and no industry can produce without Bantu labour. If we removed them, who would do the unskilled work in South Africa? Who would do the pick and shovel work in South Africa? Not that I have anything against pick and shovel work; it is good exercise. There would be no need for us to play golf and football, but coupled with pick and shovel work go the wages of pick and shovel work and the standard of living of the Whites would be reduced to the present standard of the Natives in South Africa.

When businessmen and economists, not political organizers and teachers, began warning against this policy, what did the Nationalist Party do? They said the Natives could come to work as migratory labourers. But migratory labour is inefficient, because the Native has hardly learnt how to do any particular work when he must go back and a new Native must be taught the work. He remains inefficient. That is why our cost of living is so high. Our industry cannot compete with foreign industry. That is why our balance of trade is in the state in which it is today. What is more, 77 per cent of our unskilled workers are Natives. Can one deny family life to 77 per cent of the workers for all time? When that Native comes from his work at night, he does not have a home to go back to. He does not have a wife and children to go home to. He must roam around in the streets, get intoxicated, steal; he must murder and smoke dagga. He must assault White women. That is why the crime rate in Johannesburg is one of the highest in the world. Can you imagine, Sir, what would happen if they should pass a law in Britain or in America providing that 77 per cent of the unskilled workers must live without a family life for all time? In South Africa this means 8 million male Natives, with their human urges, without any family life. But this Government wants to grant political rights instead of granting human rights. While these little stories and the tomfoolery with the voters of South Africa were going on for the sake of a few miserable votes, the Natives were streaming into South Africa at a rate unparalleled in the history of this country. Then the Nationalist Party came along with a new story that the stream would be reversed in 1978. I am sorry the hon. the Minister of Community Development is not here. He had staked his political career on this, but when the hon. member for Maitland asked him a question about the matter, he said that he had got a different job in the meantime. Then the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration said that figures no longer mattered.

Now it is the percentage.

It was Dr. Verwoerd who said that if there were a certain percentage here, they would take full political rights out of our hands. While this politicising was going on in regard to the greatest problem in South Africa, the Natives started becoming restless and pressure from the outside world started building up against South Africa. In order to relieve that pressure, Dr. Verwoerd, out of desperation, then announced this policy. In so doing he promised to abdicate in respect of certain parts of South Africa and conceded to the principle of one man, one vote, although he said that it would only be the case in a foreign country. From that day onwards a campaign was launched against White leadership which those hon. members will still regret bitterly. Just look at the propaganda made by them, Sir. Dr. De Wet Nel said, “White leadership with justice—the entire concept is so childishly naïve that one wants to chuckle at it. Does the United Party want to tell me that the proud Bantu would be amenable to that?” Sir, the proud Bantu have been amenable to it for 300 years and will always be amenable to it, because they have benefited as much from White leadership as the White man has done, provided they were not incited by that side of the House.

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

I withdraw it, Sir.

Die Burger went further and said (translation): “The United Party defiantly states its policy of White rule. The concepts of White supremacy and White rule, although toned down with the words ‘White leadership’, are indefensible before God and man.” I now want to ask those hon. members: Are they not going to maintain White leadership over the Coloured people in South Africa? What do they think they can achieve if they run down White leadership in this country, purely for the sake of their miserable political objectives? And then Dr. Dönges stated his policy: ‘The Natives will be given a part of South Africa, where they will receive what the White man demands for himself—rather a smaller South Africa than one large Black South Africa.”

Hear, hear!

Hon. members are saying “Hear, hear”, but surely this smaller South Africa will not be any Whiter than it is today? There would still be 8 million Natives and more. It will not be any Whiter. The problem would not diminish, but the country would be smaller, which would only aggravate the problem. Do you for one moment imagine, Sir, that the Native would be satisfied if you told him that he could have a family life and a home in a foreign country, a home in which he could never live?

Would they be satisfied with your eight White representatives in this House?

I shall reply to that question in a moment. I shall come to that. Sir, do you for one moment imagine that it would reduce the Native’s demands for political rights if one told him that he could go and vote in a foreign country? What must he do with a vote in a foreign country? If we told the English-speaking people that they could go and vote in England, would they be satisfied? If we told people of Dutch extraction that they could go and vote in the Netherlands, would they be satisfied?

What do we tell the Basotho and the citizens of Botswana and Swaziland?

Yes, what do we tell them? [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must new cease making these interjections.

Hon. members must bear in mind that the United Party and Dr. Malan, before Verwoerd and Vorster took over, were in favour of Swaziland and the Protectorates being incorporated in South Africa.

I want to come back to political rights. Sir, do you for one moment imagine that this will reduce the Natives’ demands for political rights? It will intensify their demands and they will be in a better position to impose those demands on us, because they will be supported by these strong, hostile, mighty Black Bantustans which this Government wants to create. Make no mistake about that, Sir; certain of them are going to become strong, because they can obtain as much capital as they like from overseas countries such as Russia and Red China.

That is nonsense.

What about Tanzania?

What about Lesotho?

Tanzania has all the arms and money it wants. Just recently Red China gave Zambia money for a railway line. Red China gave it all the money and all the arms it wanted. If they become independent, what is there to prevent them from importing fire-arms? I want to remind the hon. members of a resolution passed by the Legislative Assembly of the Transkei in which they asked for machine-guns. Admittedly they asked for these in order to combat communist infiltration, but they are nevertheless asking for machine-guns, at this stage already. What is there to prevent them from importing fire-arms? What is there to prevent them from concluding defence treaties with the whole of Black Africa, which has a population of 250 million people, and with the entire Asiatic world, India with a population of 600 million and China with a population of 700 million people, and with the entire Russian world? What is there to prevent them from providing air bases to any country? What is there to prevent them from granting any foreign power access to their ports? What is there to prevent them from making use of Chinese technicians, and of Chinese officers for training their troops?

Once they are independent, what are we going to do if they demand additional land? They have only 13 per cent of the country’s land, but form 75 per cent of the population. They were never consulted in regard to this division of land, nor in regard to when it was to take place. Kaiser Matanzima has already said, and I quote: “The Hughes and the Mitchells must realize that the territory from the Fish River to Zululand is Native territory.” The Legislative Assembly of the Transkei passed a unanimous resolution to the effect that Elliot, Maclear, Matatiele and Port St. Johns should become Black territory. What does the hon. member for Aliwal say? Would he vote in favour of this? If they demand still more land, are we going to give away more areas of land? If we tell the Nationalist Party this, they say, “Then we will shoot”. If then they want to shoot, why first make them strong and then want to shoot? If they are so keen to shoot, why do they not shoot in Zambia now, while our boys have at the moment to sit waiting along the borders until the terrorists come over? That cannot be done, because you dare not touch a Black state, because then you will have the entire world around your ears, including Red China. What are we going to do? Are we going to draw a laager at the Fish River against 250 million Natives in Africa and against the whole of Asia? If we are going to draw a laager there, what is going to become of our women and children, who will remain behind among millions of Natives on our farms and in our industries who will have no loyalty to South Africa?

Do not be afraid, we shall help you.

I am not afraid. What about our industries? Are the hon. members prepared to make our industries dependent upon 8 million foreigners who will have no allegiance to South Africa, while every labour dispute will become an international dispute? What about our borders? We already have to patrol the Zambian border. What about the long border which is now being created? Who is going to patrol those borders while half of our Police Force today are Bantu? They will not be subjects of South Africa and will have no allegiance to South Africa. They will have allegiance to that foreign power, whose borders they will be patrolling.

†Have the hon. members not learned the lessons of Africa? We have had these Bantustans in South Africa already and one of the main reasons for the Great Trek was the stealing, the murdering and the pillaging which took place across the borders of those Bantustans. Have they not learned the lessons of Algeria, where one of the French generals said that the reason why they could not subdue the Algerians was that the terrorists fled over the border to Morocco and that they could not extradite them? Have they not learnt the lesson of the Belgian Congo? When Belgium gave the Congo its independence, the very next day the White people were slaughtered and massacred. Have they not learnt the lesson of Zambia, where the very same policy was implemented? Zambia was given independence, but is Kenneth Kaunda concerned with governing Zambia properly or is he only concerned with overthrowing the Smith Government in Rhodesia? What makes the hon. members think that these Black rulers will be any different from Kenneth Kaunda or that they will be better men than Kenneth Kaunda?

*If the United Nations want to take South-West Africa, every Nationalist will fight side by side with us, because we cannot allow a hostile power to gain a foothold in Southern Africa.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

I would have liked to grant the request, but my time is too limited. But what use will it be to fight and to die in the dust of South-West Africa while the hon. the Prime Minister is surrendering our eastern seaboard behind us? South Africa is the most fortunate country in the world. We are surrounded by the sea on three sides. In the north we have Angola, Mozambique and Rhodesia and if we can sustain the Smith Government and the Portuguese territories nothing can affect us. Nothing can affect us provided we can prevail upon this Government not to do this diabolical deed which it wants to inflict upon South Africa.

†There is only one policy in South Africa and that is to keep White control over the whole of South Africa, to keep the hand of the White man over the whole of South Africa. White leadership with justice, and by justice I mean that we will give them the things that matter in life. We will give them human rights instead of concentrating on civil rights.

*We shall give them a decent family life. This is the first requirement. We are prepared to grant them proprietary rights in their parallel Native townships. When such a Native then comes back from work, he will have something to go home to, namely a wife and children, and he will be able to live a decent life. As a result the young Native will look up to the one that has improved his position in life and in this way we shall build up an established middle class among the non-Whites.

And what about political rights? Any man who tells me that the Bantu can govern this country is out of his mind. But any man who tells me that the Bantu are not entitled to a certain measure of representation is also being unreasonable. Therefore we shall give them eight White representatives in this House. This was the policy of all the former Prime Ministers in South Africa. It was the policy of Gen. Hertzog, Dr. Malan and Mr. Strydom. Three White representatives in this House was everybody’s policy until this Wilson-Verwoerd-Vorster idea blew over to South Africa. I have to hurry, because I have only two minutes left. Now they are asking us: What about the future? We state very clearly that if the time arrives that further concessions should perhaps be made to them and if they have reached the standard of civilization, we shall consult the White voters of South Africa. Every person will then consider the matter along with us. Hon. members opposite will also consider the matter along with us. It is not only our problem, but also that of the opposite side of this House. The United Party’s policy is a flexible one, which adapts itself to South Africa, because we have people here who are on different standards of civilization. More important than that, it is a policy which has withstood the test of time. Throughout the centuries, wherever there was White leadership in Africa, there were stable governments, such as in Rhodesia and South Africa. Where White leadership was relinquished, there was chaos. For these reasons I reject this Bill with every means at my disposal.

Mr. Speaker, his father might have taught the hon. member for King William’s Town many things, but it is clear to me that he has remembered only two of all those lessons his father taught him. The one is to talk nonsense, and the other is to abandon his Afrikanerdom. I can quite understand the hon. member’s speech. If he does not even have that personal pride in him to appreciate his Afrikanerdom, how can he find it in a Bantu nation or in any other nation in the world. Then he has been stripped, surely, of all his dignity as a member of a nation.

But that is not all. The hon. member does not know anything whatsoever about his history and his constitutional rights. Hon. members on this side dwelt on the historical aspect, and I do not want to do so again, but I do nevertheless want to point out to the hon. member a few aspects of our constitutional law. The hon. member talks about how the hon. the Minister is going to be given carte blanche to do what he wants to in future.

Is that not true?

Is that hon. member and the hon. member for Durban (North)—he is after all a man who ought to know better—not aware of the procedure whereby this Parliament governs the country? We have such a thing as legislation by proclamation. The hon. member for Durban (North) ought to be fully aware of this. In fact, most of our legislation today is carried out by means of proclamation. If hon. members do not understand this, I should like very much to refer them to the South African Constitution of H. J. May, the Third Edition. Unfortunately I was unable to get hold of a more recent edition. This edition was printed in 1955. Therein he states, inter alia:

On what page is that?

On page 457. I am quoting further, from the next page, where May quotes a certain Rogers—also a very well-known person:

It is very clear that in numerous spheres today we simply issue a proclamation after a law has been made. In fact, Sir, I want to go further. In 1963 this Transkei Act could simply have been introduced by way of proclamation. It was not even necessary to have introduced it by means of legislation.

But the hon. member also made mention of an absolutely independent state without military or other forces. I think the hon. member for Houghton also referred to that yesterday. She took out the Act, quoted from it, and alleged that it was not possible for these people to defend themselves. She also said that they do not have a postal service or other services of their own. I also want to refer hon. members to The Law of Nations by a certain Mr. Briggs. I am quoting from the Second Edition, on page 73. Therein he states, inter alia:

This legislation is therefore entirely within the limits of our constitutional law and our common law.

The background against which we should view this entire Bill, is the singleness of purpose of our country with all its people, of our Government and of the world outside. Every nation in the world has over the centuries still had in them that singleness of purpose to maintain themselves, to uplift themselves, and to become a nation in the gallery of nations. We find the same thing in Africa as well. There are numerous small states which have since the beginning of the ’fifties been struggling to obtain their independence. They had in them that singleness of purpose to be an independent nation of which they could be proud. Why should the inhabitants of the Republic be different? Why should they, Whites as well as non-Whites, not want their own Parliament? Do hon. members think for a moment that the French will allow an Italian to have a seat in their Parliament? We as Whites are as unwilling to have a person of a different nation to have a seat in our Parliament. The essence of the difference between us and the United Party is that the U.P. maintains that all 21 million people in the Republic must be one people and one nation, and must be represented in one Parliament. In addition to that they speak in their little yellow pamphlet of the various forms of integration: of social integration, educational integration, political integration, etc. Now one can understand why the hon. member for King William’s Town states that he must abandon his nationhood, and that the Immorality Act is the pettiest aspect of petty apartheid. Mr. Speaker, these people have no singleness of purpose. They are fighting amongst themselves. For example, when it comes to a definition of petty apartheid, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout even differs with his leader. How can one carry on with such an Opposition? Over and against that it has always been the aim and endeavour of this side of the House to place the Blacks on a road of their own as well. This Bill did not suddenly manifest itself; it is the unfolding of a policy which has its origins a long way back. This is indisputably proved by the debates of the past two and even three decades. That is why we must read and look upon this Bill in the spirit of its history. Then you will know what to come and say here; then you will have that political orientation which is necessary in order to participate in a debate here. This Bill is home-grown, indigenous to the inhabitants of South Africa. We know the position here; it has developed systematically over the past three hundred years. We have over the years been chiselling and smoothing away at this policy of ours. We found that in every nation in South Africa there is an inborn desire to maintain themselves. The object of the National Party has always been to develop that pride among every nation in the country. We have always assiduously adhered to the policy of “live and let live”, and “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. We cannot always say the same of the opposite side of the House. One must have that pride before one can know what one is talking about. When pride leads to vanity and haughtiness, then you have something evil, but when pride leads to gratitude, generosity and a willingness to serve, then you can forge ahead to the benefit of your own people and your country.

It is very easy to deprive the Bantu of basic human rights; it is very easy to tell them that we are not giving them a country of their own, that we are not going to give them a Parliament of their own and that we are going to absorb them, as the United Party says, into a federation of communities, while nobody really knows what that means. They also say that they want to throw all these inhabitants of South Africa together into one centrally controlled state, and that some or other concoction will then result from that. Nor do they ever have anything to say in their “yellow” policy of a people (volk); they are afraid of the word “people”; they speak of “races” and of a “federation of races”, and they keep on referring to those races. Are they ashamed of being part of a people?

Yes, they are ashamed.

Mr. Speaker, one thinks involuntarily, as I have done today, of the Americans and the Russians. The American is in fact a world citizen. You will recall that when the Americans landed on the moon, their first words were: “Peace for all mankind.” What was the attitude of the Russians, on the other hand? When Yuri Gagarin spoke to his people for the first time from outer space, he said: “Russia, I have done this for you; Khruschev, I love you.” Sir, in that one can on the one hand see the denationalization of a people, and on the other the inculcating of nationalism in a people. It is also the single-minded endeavour of this side of the House to inculcate that nationalism in every people. That is why we are opposed to this form of internationalism; that is why we are opposed to detaching a people from what is unique to them, of their place of origin.

Another very good example, if one wants to look for examples, is Judaism. After all the centuries of having to give up their fatherland—when they had no country and had lost their own language—the Jew still remains a Jew. This kept them intact and brought them to where they are today, where they can be proud of their own country which they are building up. Sir, this is a wonderful example. Take even the Jews in South Africa who are not living in Israel. When Russia condemned two men to death, these Jews in South Africa were the first to enter a protest against the death sentence of those two Jews. But, Sir, one can go further with this everyday history and sources to find examples of this division of peoples and division of territory, and of the self-government of every people; one can even go to the Scriptures. When we read Deuteronomy 32:8, we find the following—

One also finds it in The Acts 17: 26—

Mr. Speaker, from these scriptural sources, from our legal sources and from the history of mankind, surely one can see clearly whence we are going with this legislation.

This legislation was discussed thoroughly with the Bantu peoples, and they have cognizance of it. The hon. member for King William’s Town, or one of the other speakers—I think it was the hon. member for South Coast—also stated that the Zulu people do not want this legislation; that they do not want nationhood, or rather, that they do not want self-government. But I can testify to the opposite; I can testify in regard to the North Sotho people, of the Leboa group, whose chief leader, a certain leader Matlala, said as recently as last year in the presence of the hon. the Minister that they must now pick up the reins from where the White people had led them, and that they must forge ahead themselves for their own nation and their own people. He even used the striking imagery of theirs when he said that it was a custom among their people to milk a borrowed cow, but the borrower was always looking over his shoulder to see when the owner was coming to fetch that cow. In other words, he wanted to intimate that these people of his, the North Sotho people, should carry on by themselves. The White people have brought them to where they were along the road, and had furnished them with guidance, but now they have to carry on by themselves. Sir, we furnished them with this guidance.

As I said at the outset, this legislation has not been hastily steam-rollered through the House. We have been preparing the way for this legislation since the early years, since Union. First we passed the Bantu Administration Act and the Bantu Trust and Land Act, but we did not leave it at that. In 1951 we also passed the Bantu Authorities Act; in 1959 the Promotion of Bantu Self-Government Act; in 1963 the Transkei Constitution Act and last year the Citizenship Act. Mr. Speaker, we have quite obviously set about doing this in a different way to the way in which the European nations did with the African states. They merely conferred independence upon these African states without giving these people any prior guidance in how to govern a country. The National Party, on the other hand, has recognized its duty in this regard. It has given them very clear guidance as to how to govern themselves, because it is an economic law that if your neighbouring states or your neighbour progresses economically, you are going to raise your own economic status and you are yourself going to make progress. We can see very clearly what happened in Africa with the former French colonies. Where they gave the Bantu peoples independence, they gave them prior guidance. In fact, France is today still furnishing those former colonies of theirs with guidance, and they are the only colonies that are making progress. During the ’fifties quite a number of African states obtained their independence. In 1960 there were 17 Bantu states that had obtained their independence, and between 1960 and 1970 a further 17 obtained independence. But unfortunately there has in recent times been 20 successful coups d’état in the African states, and that happened in those states to which the French were not furnishing any guidance. Of the original number of independent Bantu states, there are only 16 that have remained intact and have been able to maintain themselves.

A few of the hon. members on that side mentioned that we want the fragmentation of South Africa, but the opposite is true. We want to consolidate and bring together what belongs together. Over the centuries our Bantu peoples have had their traditional homelands, and they are going to retain those homelands. Someone also mentioned the fact that these people might be friendly now, but how do we know that they will not subsequently be unfriendly? But surely that is quite a ridiculous argument, because if they are in our midst, surely they cannot become unfriendly. Who says that they are always going to remain friendly if they are in our midst? Hon. members also mentioned that this independence has now for the first time been written into this legislation, but this independence one must interpret in the spirit of this legislation and previous legislation conferring self-government upon the Bantu. Then one will understand what the National Party has always been aiming at and what has always been the traditional policy of the National Party. Arguments were also raised to the effect that this legislation would not offer any solution because the Bantu would still be in our midst. Sir, the Bantu will still be in our midst; the Bantu will still be in their own areas. This is in fact a short-sighted policy. One wants to reduce their numbers here, and that is the purpose of the Bill. You will reduce their numbers if they have their own nation and have the pride to go and live in their own country. That is the whole purpose of the Bill.

The hon. member who spoke a moment ago, is apparently a person whose father did not teach him arithmetic either, how to work out percentages. He takes only the increase in the number of Bantu in the White areas, but he does not take the simultaneous increase in the number of the Bantu in their own areas, and work out the percentages according to that. He will then arrive at the correct solution. Surely it is very clear that the Whites who are in the Bantu areas, will suffer no financial damage. These people will be compensated if there is any question of their assets, of their business enterprises or their land being bought out. They will suffer no losses. This National Party Government will see to that, and the Government in the Bantu homelands will also see to that.

These Bantu authorities in the Bantu areas were very clearly consulted. This legislation is being laid upon the Table here and discussed in advance, and in future they will not again be able to use the excuse that they had no knowledge of this legislation and that they did not know of its provisions. They will now have more than sufficient time to go and study the legislation and acquaint themselves with it This Bill itself indicates very clearly, particularly in clauses 1, 2 and 27, that there will be thorough consultation with these people in the Bantu areas. Nor will there be any, as the hon. members on the opposite side of the House implied, by-passing of Parliament. There will be no circumvention of Parliament. This proclamation will in fact be laid upon the Table, and we will be able to discuss it. As I indicated at the very outset, we do have the procedure of legislation by proclamation.

We must also cast our minds back a little to the middle ages when the system of feudalism was still enforced, the so-called feudal system. With this Bill we want to do away with that feudal system. Inherently the Bantu share in that feudal system. Th“ Bantu had their own land, and the chiefs were inclined to make subjects of any individual entering that area. Such a person had to pay some or other “lodga” fee to be able to live in that area. He was then protected by that chief.

There are other sources as well, from which we can learn. A certain Brierly said in The Law of Nations—

That is why, Mr. Speaker, it will be to the benefit of these Bantu peoples as well to have their own land or home area where they can develop themselves and where they can establish their own Parliament, elected from among their own people. This safeguards us in South Africa in this respect that there will be no integration of any kind whatsoever. There will be no claim to integration. We are after all the people who are advocating a democratic system of government. We must expect that these people will sooner or later come to us and say: Look, you are advocating a democratic system of government. Where is our franchise? That is why we welcome this legislation and I believe that the hon. members on that side of the House will also, in the years to come, come to recognize the wisdom of this legislation.

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat, referred time and again to the idea of legislation by proclamation. To me that is of an academic nature. There is something which I find rather funny in regard to this specific legislation with which we are dealing at the moment. In dealing with a previous piece of legislation, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration made the statement a moment ago that the question of independence was a fundamental and very important matter which was at present a disputed point in South Africa. Now this hon. member is telling us that there is a system of government by proclamation and that it may as well be applied in this regard, too. Surely, one does not apply government by proclamation in regard to a matter in respect of which the hon. the Deputy Minister himself has said that there is an important and fundamental disputed point between this and that side of the House. He also said that in 1963, when the Transkei Act was originally introduced, it could also have been done by way of government by proclamation. It is rather illuminating that in 1963 we apparently had a much more responsible type of Minister taking care of this portfolio. At the time we had the hon. Mr. Daan de Wet Nel, who apparently realized, just as the hon. the Deputy Minister does, that this was a fundamental matter and that he had to take it to this Parliament. Now this portfolio is being looked after by a new Minister. He simply wants to govern by proclamation only.

Now I want to deal with the hon. member for Rissik. The hon. member who has just resumed his seat, said that this policy was traditional in South Africa. I have a copy of a quotation that was made by the hon. member for Rissik when he spoke in this debate. He said that it was one of the basic principles of the Nationalist Party that in respect of the Bantu in the Republic the admission was being made that they represent permanent sections of the population of the country, under the Christian guardianship of the European races. Surely, if this were traditional in South Africa, it could not be a principle of the Nationalist Party. These Acts are being steam-rollered through this House in a way which cannot be accepted by us on this side of the House. In the course of speeches made on that side of the House, it has become very obvious to me, from the arguments advanced by that side, that the Government’s entire philosophy and school of thought are based purely on a theory. It is a theory which will always remain nothing but a theory, because it is unworkable in practice, impracticable and will remain unacceptable from a realistic point of view. One finds that the propagandists of this theoretic philosophy are beginning to appreciate the real and the fundamental problems. They realize that this previously watertight policy has sprung so many leaks that panic and fear are beginning to get the better of this Government. That is why it is of fundamental importance to me that one should get behind the real motives for this legislation. To my mind the amending Bill before this House contains a purposeful and planned motive. Apart from the fact that it is a circumvention of this Parliament, which is constituted from representatives of the people, I see a deeper meaning in it. In the first place, I see that this Government is beginning to lose confidence in itself and in its own policy and philosophy, and, in the second place, I see that this uncertainty on the part of the Government is causing an ever-increasing number of voters to be unenthusiastic about this whole concept. After all, if the Government has confidence in itself and in the philosophy of its party, there should at no stage be any doubt about its having to confront this Parliament with legislation for putting their philosophy into practice. To my mind this lack of confidence is depicted clearly in the provision of this method of government, in this government by proclamation, in dealing with fundamental matters of this Government policy. I believe that the architects of separate development, with their foolish recklessness, lack the courage to proceed with legislation here in this House. These measures aimed at preparing the way for independence and the additional provision for the development of Bantu areas to self-government and to independence, must be carried into effect with as little fuss as possible. The opportunity for placing under the magnifying glass, step for step, every step of the development of the Bantu areas on individual merits, for examining, criticizing in the smallest detail and even opposing every step, must be removed, and all the Minister has to do, is to pick up his pen and take steps by proclamation. This must be done without any fuss and as quietly as possible.

This amending Bill deals in particular with a very sensitive and a very controversial school of thought of Government policy, as stated explicitly in the preamble i.e. that this legislation prepares the way for the independence of the Bantu areas. We must understand very clearly that we on this side of the House are not opposed to the development of the Bantu areas as such; on the contrary, we have on so many occasions already said in this House that this development ought to take place at a much faster rate, especially in regard to the economic aspect of their development. When this side of the House and that side of the House agree that legislation is necessary in order to make development possible, the question that arises, is whether at this stage we do not already have sufficient legislation on the Statute Book for guiding all Bantu areas to a high degree of development. Then the hon. member for Wolmaransstad comes along trying to explain to us that Gen. Smuts allegedly supported this whole school of thought. But the hon. member never got to saying that Gen. Smuts had never had in mind the granting of independence to Bantu areas in South Africa.

You are still a child.

Mr. Speaker, in listening to that type of remark being made on the other side of this House, it does not astonish me that the youth of South Africa has turned its back on those people. Whenever a young person rises to speak in this House, he is continually being told, “We do not speak to children.”

However, the problem behind this legislation is that a way is being prepared not only for development to self-government, such as we on this side of the House also have in mind, but that it will eventually lead to the granting of independence to Bantu areas. Once we have reached this stage, I believe that the time will in fact have arrived for us to take a serious look at Government policy.

The next point at which I arrive, is the rapid acceleration of the granting of independence to the Bantu homelands. When the term “independence” is being used, all sorts of questions spring to my mind. Terms such as “representative government” are not being used, but there are in fact references to “independent government” to the Bantu homelands. Nevertheless, it was very striking, even when the hon. the Minister made his introductory speech in respect of this legislation, that even he considered it necessary to insert between the words “ultimate independence” the word “possible”. He spoke of “ultimate possible independence”. Even this so-called granite-hard Minister is beginning to have doubts about the Government’s foolish recklessness in regard to this matter. He does not say, in his usual bombastic manner, that “we are going to grant them independence whether you want it or not”. No, he spoke of “ultimate possible independence”. He added to it the word “possible”, merely, so I believe, in order to water down this school of thought and to phrase it as mildly as possible. What does this independence refer to? Independence in regard to the political maturity of the Bantu; independence in regard to autonomy; in regard to economic growth and the inability of the homelands to absorb development, whilst all of us know what the problems are in regard to funds and, specifically, in regard to skilled labour inside these Bantu areas. Independence whilst there is uncertainty and confusion in the minds of both the White electorate in South Africa and the Bantu themselves about the terms being used by this Government, namely self-government, independence and full independence. There are thousands of voters, including so many of this Government’s own supporters, who themselves still do not have any certainty about the granting of independence to the Bantu areas, independent, detached and on their own, away from White South Africa. On so many occasions already I have personally confronted supporters of the Nationalist Party with the question of whether they realize that they are voting for a government which is preparing the way for the independence of the Bantu areas. What is the reply one receives? The reply is: “They may be saying that, but I do not believe they will really do it.” I regard this legislation as a checkmate move as regards the voters of South Africa; a checkmate move before the voters, by means of their representatives in this House, can put forward the case of every specific Bantu area on its own merits and thrash it out. What is the basis of this legislation? [Interjections.] Pardon me, Sir. Did the Deputy Minister say that I was a “sour-mouth”?

Order! Did the hon. the Deputy Minister say that the hon. member was a “sour-mouth”?

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. the Deputy Minister must withdraw it.

Sir, I find this hard to do, but I withdraw it.

Sir, what is the basis of this legislation? It paves the way for the hon. the Minister to grant to all Bantu areas the same rights that are being enjoyed in the Transkei at present. One asks oneself why this step is considered necessary at this stage, when all of us know that there is no Bantu area in South Africa which has reached the stage of autonomy reached by the Transkei. I want to state very clearly today that with this type of legislation this hon. Minister is engaged in fanning and precipitating a matter. In fact, this is a matter in respect of which the following was said by my Leader when the late Dr. Verwoerd was still alive: “Once you promise independence, you lose control over the time-table.” Sir, is that not what is already happening? When the Minister refers to self-government, the Bantu interpret it as meaning independence. Let me just refer to the Tswanas. Hon. members will know that this point has already been ridden to death. We mentioned it in the previous session already, but apparently those Ministers are not taking any notice of it. I am going to quote from the Rand Daily Mail of 27th May, 1970, in which the following was said—

Sir, I want you to pay close attention to the manner in which the chief continued. He said—

This is precisely what I have just said. After the imagination of the Tswanas had been fired by the Deputy of the hon. the Minister and after they had been buttered up to that extent, the Tswanas asked for their independence. “We should be given independence,” they said. After so much confusion had been sown and after a matter of such cardinal importance had been fanned and presented by the hon. the Minister’s Deputy in such a rosy manner, the Minister quickly intervened in order to water down the matter. Now I want to quote from The Star of 16th November, 1970. The report reads as follows—

With such confusion in the air and with so much incitement on the one hand and watering-down on the other, I do not think that, when the matter is getting too hot on the one side, such drastic legislation is really a wise move.

One’s first observation in this regard is: The whole matter appears to be too fast for the development of the Bantu’s pattern of thought. All of a sudden the “natural” development of these people is forgotten, something we are so often being told by Government propagandists. “Independence is on the distant horizon,” they are telling us. According to them this will come about in perhaps 50 or perhaps 100 years’ time. One is almost tempted to ask: Why this sudden haste? Why is the Government in such a hurry to introduce this type of legislation? Have all Bantu areas, including that of the Tswanas, already availed themselves fully of existing legislation? We know that at the Transvaal Congress of the Nationalist Party last year, deputies adopted a motion to the effect that the implementation of separate development should be proceeded with, but we also know that the emphasis was placed on development. Was full, sovereign independence included in that motion? To my mind this question remains unanswered. Viewed from the undue haste on the part of the hon. the Minister and his Deputy, this question of independence has now become a serious matter, and if this matter has become as serious as that, I believe, and I am sure the electorate does too. that it is time self-government and independence were granted not by proclamation, but that the people be asked by way of a referendum whether they will support the granting of independence to the Bantu areas, or whether they will accept the fragmentation of South Africa into a large number of independent states. After all, this is a very important matter which has to be decided upon, and, as I have already said, the hon. the Deputy Minister has already admitted that this is a fundamental matter on which we differ.

Mere proclamation in respect of such a very important matter is, to my mind, absolutely incomprehensible and ridiculous. Here we are dealing with legislation which prepares the way for independence, whereas there are uncertainty and inconsistencies in regard to the consolidation of these Bantu areas for instance. All of us remember well how, during the second session of last year, the hon. the Prime Minister stated unambiguously and clearly in this House that consolidation was not a prerequisite for the granting of independence to the Bantu areas. Consolidation is not an essential requirement. Once again there is confusion about this matter as well, apart from the absolute impracticability of such a principle. Once again it is as though it is suddenly being realized what absurdities are being propagated here. Before the provincial election the hon. the Deputy Minister made a speech at Robertson. In the Express of 18th October, 1970, he was reported as follows—

This is an absolute repudiation of what was said here by the hon. the Prime Minister. While we are dealing with the statements made by the hon. the Deputy Minister, we may perhaps be able to obtain more clarity from the hon. the Minister in this regard. This is a story I have never heard before, neither from the hon. the Prime Minister, nor from any other Minister. I also have here the second “controversial statement” made by the hon. the Deputy Minister.

On the same day?

On the same day and at the same meeting. I am quoting from the Express again—

The last part is not correct.

This is a quotation from the speech made by the hon. the Deputy Minister. If it is not correct, why did he not take up the matter with the Press Board? Why did he not lay a charge? After all, he probably reads all the newspapers. How often have we not heard the opposite, namely that the Bantu homelands, once they are independent, will have full control over their own foreign affairs? Surely, in the light of such standpoints, statements, fundamental points of difference as well as inconsistencies coming from members of the Cabinet, this House cannot be expected to grant these powers to one Minister, or one-and-a-half Ministers. And then there is still the standpoint taken up by the hon. the Prime Minister and other Ministers on the economic viability, which is not a necessity prior to consideration being given to the granting of independence. I do not want to elaborate on that, for my time is running out. With such recklessness on the part of a Government which is so obviously and conspicuously irresponsible, we do in fact believe that it is necessary that this type of government by proclamation should not exist when it comes to these matters, but that legislation of this type should be submitted here in this House in order to afford the voters’ representatives in this House an opportunity to examine it thoroughly, to place it under the magnifying glass and to determine whether or not we want to oppose it. When it comes to such fundamental matters, one cannot simply grant a Minister the right to issue a proclamation merely by having to pick up his pen.

Then we also had the hon. member for Heilbron. He said that as the Government had been given the so-called mandate on the basis of the number of seats, the Opposition was not to speak against this legislation. He simply said “government by proclamation”. I suppose this is the one-party state propagated by the hon. the Minister of Health.

Where did you get that from?

Surely, that is the very reason for the existence of this House, i.e. to examine all legislation thoroughly and, if necessary, to oppose it drastically. The areas in South Africa which will in fact be affected worst by this kind of legislation, are areas such as Natal—the hon. the Prime Minister himself said that he only held 12 per cent of the number of seats in Natal—in which this Government only holds 12 per cent of the number of seats. But, Sir, in the Free State, in which there will be no Bantustans, they hold all the seats.

Hon. members also spoke here of White leadership, and wanted to know how long it would last. I should like to refer hon. members on that side to the standpoint of the United Party. If we were the government in this country today, we would pursue the policy set out in this yellow booklet of ours. We wish hon. members would in that regard quote a few passages from this booklet of ours. Merely in passing I want to tell the hon. member for Rissik that we have a copy in Afrikaans as well, if he wants it. It is not available in English only. In that booklet we clearly state the following—

I want to put a question to hon. members. If we on this side of the House were in power today and such a referendum were to be held tomorrow, would they agree with us that the representation be retained as set out by us?

May I ask the hon. member a question?

Is the hon. member prepared to reply to a question?

Mr. Speaker, I have finished my speech.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Turffontein, who has just sat down, broached various subjects. He claimed, inter alia, that confusion allegedly reigned among the electorate of South Africa. I believe that the greatest confusion which has ever reigned in the political history of South Africa, is that created by the federation plan of the United Party. I shall return to the hon. member later.

I should like to start off with the hon. member for South Coast. I would not mind having the hon. member’s attention. The hon. member for South Coast gave us a fine description of the Zulu population here this afternoon. He said they were good, honest and reliable people. However, it strikes me as very ironical that last year, during the Railway debate, a Zulu was made out to be so unreliable that he could not even serve as a ganger on the Railways! The hon. member must be consistent. We cannot carry on in that way. I saw him having a good laugh while the hon. member for Turffontein was speaking, but I agree with the hon. member that the Zulu people are indeed reliable and that there is no comparison between the Zulu people of today and the Zulu people of Chaka or Dingaan. Neither is there any comparison between the Xhosa people of today and the Xhosa people of earlier years. They are reliable people today. But we must encourage and develop that reliability, and it is our task to do so. That is why we have this legislation before Parliament today. The hon. member for Turffontein maintains that in this we are by-passing Parliament in that we are proposing to grant Bantu peoples self-government by proclamation. But surely this is not so because at the moment we are debating this whole matter in a democratic way in this House. In spite of new authorities and new seers who have come forward since we passed the Transkeian Constitution Act, we have not heard one single new argument, not since we debated self-government for the Transkei here in 1963. Why should we return to Parliament seven times for the same debate to be conducted all over again? After all, it would be unpractical and a waste of time to do so. What is more, we have full confidence in the hon. the Minister. The hon. member tried to suggest that the Minister was not to be trusted as far as the implementation of this measure was concerned. Mr. Speaker, all our Ministers are honest and they act accordingly. I do not know why the hon. member compared this Minister to the previous one, because both of them are honest. [Interjection.] Those were the words which you used. If anything goes wrong with this legislation juridically, it can be rectified by this Parliament. We trust the hon. the Minister to do so if necessary.

We are now in the dynamic third decade, this being its second phase. We believe in multi-national development, whereas the United Party believes in uni-national development. This is the cardinal difference between us. I remember their going about at the time of the election, trying to propagate the idea in a sinister way that there was not such a big difference between the National Party and the United Party, and that consequently the voters might just as well vote for the United Party.

Who said that?

The person who opposed me in my constituency said so. He said that there was not such a big difference between the United Party and the National Party, and that consequently the people might just as well vote for the United Party. [Interjections.]

We are dealing here with an old policy, but with a new dispensation, because we see a new dispensation in this legislation. Each person may develop as far as his own intellectual capacity allows him to do, and likewise every state may develop as far as the intellectual capacity of its people allows it to do. A great deal has been said here about Lesotho, Botswana and Swaziland. Lesotho has gained its independence, and what has happened? Since Lesotho has gained its independence there has been far better co-operation between Lesotho and the South African Government. But now they are speaking of the foreign Bantu in the White areas. What has been happening to Lesotho’s redundant Bantu since 1896? They have all been deposited in the Republic, with the result that there are more Basuto in White South Africa than in Lesotho today. This also holds good of other states; there are many foreign Bantu in South Africa, and the United Party wants us to add those Bantu to the population of South Africa. That is why I say that their development is in the direction of a uni-national state …

Nonsense.

We are not a multinational state. Not only is the United Party in favour of developing in the direction of a uni-national state, but the anti-government Press also ranges itself on their side and helps them at all times to make propaganda against us in this respect. Sir, I should just like to quote to you from the editorial which appeared in the Sunday Times of 31st January, 1970—

I should like to rectify this at once: Our policy of separate development is aimed not only at the non-Whites, at the Bantu, in South Africa but also at the Whites. Just as it applies to the Bantu, so it applies to the Whites—

Hear, hear!

Sir, I am pleased to hear hon. members of the United Party saying, “Hear, hear!” because now the Sunday Times has forsaken the hon. member for Houghton so as to side with the United Party. However, let us listen to what The Argus says—

Here they refer to “all responsible South Africans”. Are we on this side of the House not responsible?

No.

We have always accepted our responsibility. We have always been honest with the electorate, and we have always told the electorate in which direction we are moving.

Is this your new policy?

Sir, when I look at the hon. member for Durban (Point) I am reminded of a flower that opens at night.

At night it is open but it closes its petals to the light of day, just as the hon. member closes his mind to the light. Sir, we have always been honest with the electorate of South Africa. We have always told the electorate which way we are heading and what we want. But has the United Party ever been honest with the electorate?

Yes.

How many times have we not heard criticism to the effect that their policy is not clear; that it is too complicated? Has that point of criticism, i.e. that their policy is too complicated and that no one understands it, not echoed throughout the country? Everyone in South Africa understands our policy. But, Sir, I should like to continue and I should like to pose the question here today: What is wrong with the Transkei after eight years of Transkeian government; what has gone wrong in the Transkei? I challenge anyone on the opposite side to reply to this. The same criticism as that expressed here today, yesterday and the day before, was expressed at the time of the passing of the Transkeian Constitution Act, and what is the position today? The Transkeian Government is governing responsibly.

Under emergency regulations.

It has never been necessary to apply Proclamation 400 there.

Then why do you not repeal it?

Proclamation 400 stands and will remain. I say the Transkei is being governed in a responsible way in spite of the anti-government Press, which is trying to incite the people in the Transkei against the National Government at all times.

A great deal is always being said about labour, and I just want to refer to it here in passing. There is the big Tsomo Dam project which is now being built in the south of the Transkei. It is a big project. I recently met the chief engineers who are in control of that project, and do you know what they told me? They said, “Sir, we should like to have some labour; we have 600 people working for us here, 300 children and 300 old people.” Yet, when people discuss labour, they say that we should throw open the flood-gates, but we should rather reverse this process so that the people will go to work in their own territory and serve their own people.

I just want to refer to the hon. member for Transkei. The hon. member again referred to a certain matter the other day —I notice the hon. member for King William’s Town is not present at the moment; I do not think he knows where these places are—as he does every year; it is a kind of hardy annual. He said Chief Minister Matanzima was laying claim to the districts of Elliot, Maclear, Matatiele and Kokstad. The position is that the Transkei as such —and I am not referring to the Ciskei—has been consolidated to a large extent, and as far as those areas are concerned, they will remain White, not only for the present but forever. We have the word of the late Dr. Verwoerd for that.

What does the Chief Minister say? [Interjections.]

That hon. member lives in the Western Cape and he does not know a great deal about those parts.

But did Matanzima ask to have them or did he not?

What does it matter whether he asks for them? [Interjection.] I am not denying that he has made such a demand, but the hon. member for Transkei has been here since 1948. He is a senior member of this House and he ought to have satisfied himself in the past as to the true circumstances there. He represented Griqualand East in this House for a long time. Why has he so shamefully neglected his duty?

In what way?

By not ascertaining where the borders are.

I tried to.

I say that that hon. member represented that area for many years and that he never ascertained where those borders were.

You are talking nonsense.

The result is that every year the hon. member creates the impression in this House and outside that the borders are not where they indeed are, and I should like to sound a warning here today. With these things the hon. member is doing the White economy in those parts a great deal of harm. Whispering voices are creating the impression there that the borders are not where they indeed are, and I repeat that the Transkei has been consolidated to a large extent. Only small patches need still be seen to, but otherwise the borders are in fact fixed. You will see that this is so. It will not take long before everything there will be consolidated.

Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude. I am not saying that the implementation of our policy is a path strewn with roses. I am not saying that at all. Our policy will possibly give rise to problems, but the policy of the United Party will certainly mean the downfall of the Whites in South Africa. In Kenia there was a White majority Government that bad to get out because of Black dominance. Take a look at Tanzania where the Whites …

You are talking nonsense.

Do not tell me I am talking nonsense. That hon. member cannot make his own speech, and then he talks nonsense in this House. In Tanzania it was the same story. There was a Government on the basis of ratios. The Whites were in the majority in that Government. The Blacks triumphed. In Zambia the position was the same. If we were to accept the policy of the United Party, we would have the same story in South Africa within ten years’ time. That is why I accept, in all honesty and sincerity, the policy of the National Party as it is at present being implemented by the National Government.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Aliwal did not cause much damage. However, I must add that the damage he did cause by way of argument, he at least shrouded in a smile. He did not present his case so vehemently.

You are too clever, man.

That hon. friend is sitting there; I wonder why he does not speak. And if I am clever and he is not, the hon. member must not be so jealous.

The hon. member for Aliwal said that the hon. member for Transkei was doing a great deal of harm and was in fact inciting and prompting the farmers …

I did not say that.

But give me a chance. He was allegedly prompting the people in regard to the determination of the boundaries. Now he takes it amiss of the hon. member for having spoken about the determination of boundaries. The hon. member must tell me whether I am right or wrong. Is it not true that the same problem of the non-determination of boundaries has been accentuated many times by important farmers’ organizations as well? Or does the hon. member want to suggest that the hon. member for Transkei is such a fine fellow that he is prompting the farmers’ organizations as well. I have always thought him to be a fine person, but not as fine as that. The hon. member cannot have it both ways. This is certainly a matter of the greatest importance to all concerned. I think any person living in that part of the country has every right to ask where the boundaries are.

The hon. member made another point. He said that the Transkei was full of goodwill and peace and that it was being governed in an orderly way. Then he was asked: What about proclamation 400? His reply was: Proclamation 400 just happens to be there and has never been necessary. Proclamation 400 hangs like a sword over their heads. I must say that if proclamation 400 hung over my head, I myself would govern with peace and goodwill. There is not the slightest doubt about that. I can continue in this vein. He speaks of “veelvolkerigheid” (multi-nationalism) as opposed to “eenvolkerigheid” (uni-nationalism). The hon. gentleman was a bit hazy about the matter. No, Mr. Speaker, there is no such word as “volkerig”. I may tell the hon. member that even his “veelvolkigheid” is wrong. Now I want the hon. member for Rissik to remain seated, because I want to deal with him.

I found this debate extremely interesting. I prefer leaving the hon. member for Aliwal there. He is a namesake of the hon. the Minister. There is such a struggle for leadership in the party, but I do not think we need be worried about him. This debate, which is concerned with constitutional development perhaps at an initial stage, is a matter which must not merely interest any person in this hon. House, but must interest him intensely, because it is a matter which goes down to the roots of our national existence here in South Africa. I am not interested in mere argument, and moreover this matter is too profound and too significant, but I want to say to the hon. the Minister that I believe I am correct in what I am saying. In due course I shall expect it from the hon. the Minister or from any other member on the other side to try to convince me that I may be wrong. We are dealing with fundamental matters. It would be wrong of any hon. member to say that this matter can be treated lightly. To me it is a problem that we differ on facts and statements in connection with this matter. Do hon. members know that we differ on basic facts and their interpretation? I want to give an example. I am glad the hon. the Minister is present. I have here an article from Die Transvaler dated 9th February in which it is reported that “An increasing number of Bantu are streaming to the cities”. This is an interpretation of the census figures.

It is only control.

I never knew that the Nationalist Party was so proud of the influx of Bantu. Numbers apparently do not count in any case. My argument is that I have here a statement which is an interpretation of the census figures and which reads as follows: “An increasing number of Bantu are streaming to the cities”. Only a day after the same newspaper had stated that “an increasing number of Bantu are steaming to the cities”, it reported that the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development had said: “Black stream to White areas checked”. We have here a totally contrasting interpretation of the same basic fact and statement. In the light of this contrast, I want to ask in all seriousness, how does one discuss a matter such as constitutional development where basic factual statements are in fact of the greatest importance?

I shall give a few other examples. The other afternoon there was a lot of clever talk about the so-called programme of principles and about the question of the principles and about the question of the permanent part of the population. The hon. the Minister said it was correct. Did the hon. the Minister not think too quickly, in the light of the current statements of the Nationalist Party? Are the Bantu still a permanent part of the population of South Africa today on the basis of the Government’s present philosophy? I wonder what the hon. the Minister has to say to that. In all humility I expect an explanation from the hon. the Minister. Do the Bantu today form part of the 21½ million people of South Africa? Is this still basically accepted by the Nationalist Party?

The statement was wrong.

Was the statement wrong? I am quoting from the programme of principles as stated by the hon. member for Rissik. The fact of the matter is that this is no longer the principle on which the Nationalist Party stands. The hon. member for Rissik read to us from the 1960 programme of principles of the Nationalist Party, but he did not tell us everything, although I shall not say that he did so deliberately. If I am correct in saying that in the light of the present philosophy of the Nationalist Party, the Bantu is not a permanent part of the population, then this programme of principles is not correct. I now ask hon. members on that side of this House: Why have they not changed this? I shall tell them why not. It is because the Nationalist Party has never had the courage to have the essence of the Bantustan idea discussed at their congresses. Never, as long as I have been reading the newspapers and been interested in politics …

Can you read?

Oh please, the hon. member must not be facetious. Mr. Speaker, as long as I have been studying politics, I cannot remember the principle of the matter being discussed fundamentally at a Nationalist Party Congress. The day the policy was announced here by Dr. Verwoerd, hon. members on that side of this House were as surprised as the rest of South Africa. But I shall continue. I say that we are seeking clarity. The hon. the Minister created the first problem for us in this regard. He spoke of “possible independence”. Then the hon. member for Germiston came along and played with words. He asked us whether we would vote for the legislation if the word “independence” were omitted? He thought it was a very clever and challenging question. But it is not a challenge. The question which he must answer for himself in his own conscience is whether it would he what the Nationalist Party wants if the word “independence” were omitted. Would they then be prepared to continue with the legislation and to say: “No, we no longer want to grant independence”? That is the cardinal question. Of course, it is also a question to which the hon. member will not reply now.

Now the hon. the Minister comes along and says that it is merely a matter of playing with words. But surely there is a basic difference between the possibility of gaining independence or not. If the Bantu is told that he cannot get independence, he will understand it. But if we say to him that he may choose whether he wants independence or not, he does not understand it. Then, surely, the Nationalist Party has two policies: one policy in terms of which they can get independence, and another which states that they may remain here. We expect the hon. the Minister to tell us which of the two policies he supports. There is only one way in which he can do so. He cannot have it both ways. If he allows the Bantu not to accept independence, the present constitutional position of a unitary state will apply. Then the Nationalist Government will have solved nothing at all. Then the problem will be exactly the same as it is now. Then not one of the counter-arguments which the Nationalist Party is using against us today, will apply. Then, surely, they will have solved nothing. The hon. the Minister will have to tell us what he means by independence. He can tell us only in one way.

Political independence.

That hon. member must not talk so quickly. He must tell me whether he means sovereign independence.

Of course.

Thank you, I agree. But if the hon. the Minister means sovereign independence, why did he not contradict his colleague the hon. the Minister of Defence when the latter spoke about conditional independence? Why did he not contradict his hon. Deputy Minister when the latter spoke about conditional independence? Why did he remain silent? Why did the party remain silent? No, they are blowing hot and cold. They want to do one of two things; either they want to satisfy the people outside, or they do not want them to know. I can continue in this vein.

When did the Minister say that?

We must obtain clarity on the matter. With all the earnestness I can command I want to say to the hon. the Minister this afternoon that we must really have no doubt about a fundamental term in this legislation. The term is “independence”. Do I understand the hon. the Minister correctly when he says that? Does he mean sovereign independence? If he says “yes” we will have clarity. I do not want to have an argument about it. Then we will have clarity that it is sovereign independence. Let us understand one another clearly in future and let no leader, non-leader or any other figure of the Nationalist Party ever again tell the people that they will receive independence in 200 years’ time, but that certain matters such as defence will be withheld from them. Sovereign independence means authority subject only to the Creator. The hon. the Minister must also tell us this afternoon that his colleague the hon. the Minister of Defence was wrong, and then he must also put his hon. Deputy in his place and tell him that he too was wrong in speaking of “conditional independence”. I shall proceed. Self-determination is the new word which the hon. the Prime Minister introduced last session.

It is not a new word.

The word “self-determination” was used repeatedly last session, and two days ago another hon. member also used it very frequently. Self-determination is not the same concept. If you hold up the concept of self-determination to the Bantu, you are telling him in clear terms that he can either become independent or remain with us. Then you cannot say to the Bantu, as the hon. the Prime Minister did, that if the Bantu choose this alternative, i.e. not to become independent, he will be under the Government’s control and cannot get any further rights. That is no alternative. Self-determination means only one of two things, and the Nationalist Party must tell us which of the two alternatives is their policy. This means either that the people may go their own separate course and can have their own state, and that they then must go their own separate course, otherwise the moral basis of the policy would collapse, or, as the other alternative of the Nationalist Party reads, that they must remain here and receive the rights to which the Whites are entitled.

May I put a question to the hon. member?

Yes, the hon. member may do so.

Does the hon. member acknowledge that political self-determination means absolute independence?

That is a very interesting question. It may mean that …

[Inaudible.]

The hon. the Chief Whip must not kick up a fuss now. He says that self-determination does mean political independence.

Yes.

It may mean that in the light of the Bantu’s present position, but it may also mean that if the Bantu wants to determine his own affairs and his own destiny, he may decide to remain with us. What will the hon. members do then? What will the hon. the Chief Whip do then?

May I put a question to the hon. member?

No, these questions must not trouble the hon. the Chief Whip now. They should have troubled him a long time ago. He cannot bother me now. The problem of obtaining clarity and of speaking with one voice is of great importance in dealing with this Bill. I want to ask the hon. the Minister with the greatest respect, when he replies to this debate, to do us the honour and grant us the privilege of giving us clarity as to where the Nationalist Party stands. Is it sovereign independence? Must we now forget about self-determination? What are the facts and his interpretation of the facts and what is the programme of principles of the Nationalist Party? The hon. the Minister can give us the answers to these questions so that we may know where we stand with him.

I now want to come to the Bill itself, and I should like to approach my argument from three angles.

You have not had any argument at all yet.

Mr. Speaker, I really cannot help it if the hon. member is not too well endowed up top. I should like to state my argument on three different levels. The first question which I want to try to answer briefly, is the following: What does this Bill contain? Then I want to ask: Why is it in this particular form? In the third place I want to ask: Where are we being led by this? We are concerned with basic rights here, and in regard to this Bill the Nationalist Party is entitled to say that they have a mandate from the electorate of South Africa. They are entitled to say this, but then something remains for me to say as well. If they have that mandate, does it exist on the basis of their old, obsolete programme of principles? Do they have a mandate on the basis of conditional independence, or does that mandate exist on the basis of sovereign independence? Do they have a mandate on the basis of the hon. the Minister’s interpretation of basic facts, or do they have a mandate on the basis of Die Transvaler’s interpretation of the facts? What mandate do the hon. members have? Do they have a mandate for the possibility that there will be independence in 200 years’ time, or do they have a mandate on the basis that it is a matter of urgency which will perhaps be disposed of in five years’ time? I want to say to the hon. the Minister with respect that this matter is so far-reaching that the people of South Africa do not realize its implications and extent. Sir, it is like a big lie. If the lie is big enough, the people believe it to be true. If the Nationalist Party can tell me on what basis and in terms of what statements of fact they have a mandate, we may discuss the matter further, but as long as I can prove to them that we have two or three different versions about one fact, I say to them that they cannot talk of a mandate.

Sir, we are dealing with basic statements and basic rights. Here we have a Bill which can be compared to the electric switch of a machine. With this Bill, the switch of a machine is pressed which will set a whole process in motion and which will take the preparatory steps for independant Black states in South Africa. There is no doubt about that. What further consequences will this process have? This process is going to interfere with the sovereignty of the Republic of South Africa. There is no doubt about that. In the long run this Bill is going to make inroads on the area of the land of South Africa. In the long run this Bill is going to make provision for steps which will lead to the changing of the boundaries of White South Africa. But what is more, this Bill will lead directly and indirectly to a change of the Constitution of South Africa. Let us have no doubt about this. We find this in the first few clauses of the Bill. In all honesty and sincerity I want to say to the hon. the Minister this afternoon that there are certain national rights which a nation is not prepared to abandon. It can be deprived of them only by force of arms or by a war. Many of those rights are affected by this Bill. One such right is surely when the territory of your country is interfered with. Now I ask: When were the White people of South Africa consulted in regard to this interference with their territory? Mr. Speaker, no nation in the world will allow its territory to be changed or its borders to be redrawn. They are prepared to fight about that. Now we are hurriedly being asked to approve such a Bill. This is a serious matter. I repeat, nations have definite rights, and they are prepared to wage a war in order to protect those rights. Now these hon. gentlemen expect us to allow an hon. Minister to be able to change these rights in future by way of proclamation. This is something unprecedented in the history of South Africa and which this Parliament certainly cannot allow. At one stage this hon. Minister stood up in this House and made a grand statement. He said: “We are building nations”. When I heard that I thought: “I am listening to the voice of destiny”. Building nations is a great task. I suspect that the hon. the Minister also saw it in this light when he came to us with this Bill. If there are hon. members on the other side who think that I am not right, may I repeat this? In course of time this Bill will lead to the changing of the territory of South Africa, a reduction of our field of sovereignty, a redrawing of our boundaries and the amendment of our Constitution. The hon. the Minister wants to do all this by way of proclamation. A people cannot allow something like this, and no people in modern history will allow something like this, unless the people are consulted by way of a national convention or referendum. Unless the Government is prepared to consult the people …

Who are the people?

The White people, my friend. Unless the Government is prepared to consult the White people by way of a referendum, something like this cannot be allowed to happen. Are they prepared to do so? When were the White people consulted in regard to this matter? Never! No, Sir, I say to the hon. gentlemen on the other side that if the people of South Africa knew what the Government is doing, they would never allow the Government to do it.

The second question is: Why is this legislation being passed in this way? The hon. member for Turffontein put it perfectly when he said: “This Government wants to put this Bill through quickly, because it is afraid to go back to the people”. But I think there are other reasons as well. What I cannot understand, is why the hon. the Minister is in such haste. Why this unnecessary haste? I remember him telling us in this House a year or two ago what the requirements were which the Bantustans would have to fulfil in order to become independent. I just want to refresh his memory here this afternoon. I just want to read to him what he said at the time. At that time he indicated to us what the preparatory steps were before independence could be considered. He said there should be enough administrative experience before independence was granted. He said there should be a sense of responsibility. There should be integrity. There should be no nepotism. These requirements have not yet been fulfilled in the Transkei. Democratic action must be possible. The people must be able to govern themselves. They must be able to provide employment for their own people in the economic sphere. These are the requirements for independence. The hon. the Minister cannot even say this of the Transkei today. He now comes to this House and says that we should give him the right to place these people on the road to independence. I think the hon. gentleman is expecting too much of us. But I think there may be another reason, and it is perhaps this: Through his policy, his philosophy and the actions of the Nationalist Party the hon. the Minister has aroused a spirit of Black nationalism in South Africa for which they must now find an outlet, and this unnecessary haste is in order to find answers to the call of those people. Sir, my third question is this: Where must this legislation lead to? If we ask where, the Government says to us: “You always say that these states will be hostile”. But do we not have the right to believe that these states may be hostile? Surely the Bantu must be childish not to realize that this policy is a result of the erstwhile “Black danger” of National Party origin? Surely the Bantu must have no intelligence if they do not realize that this policy of the Nationalist Party has its origin in fear of the Bantu? This being the case, Sir, do you think the Bantu will be very favourably disposed towards us? May I give you an example? Britain tried the same type of action. She also abandoned her colonial territories and Mr. Wilson’s predecessors apparently presided over this liquidation of the British Empire. Sir, how grateful are these people to Britain now? Just recently there was a Commonwealth conference. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Maitland came along here very theatrically with statements and allegations. He predicted all the things that would happen as a result of the fact that this Bill will be passed. The hon. member asked whether the Government Party had a mandate to pass such legislation here, and at a later stage he also asked for a referendum. In this respect he associated himself with the hon. member for Turffontein, who also proposed here that a referendum should be held in connection with the future of the Bantu areas. Sir, why must we hold a referendum? The South African electorate has only just, in April 1970, accepted the policy of the National Party in respect of the Bantu and the handling of matters concerning the non-Whites, and they returned the Government to this House with this strong majority. What does the hon. member now want to hold a referendum for? If a referendum were to be held, the question arises about who, according to them, must take part in the referendum? Are they also going to ask the Bantu to take part in the referendum?

The White people.

Very well; if only the Whites were to take part and were still to decide on the National Party’s policy, would the hon. member and his party accept this and never again in the future make a political puppet or a political football of this matter? As far back as 1913 Gen. Botha asked that Native affairs and Native policy should be kept out of politics; that it should not become a puppet of political parties. Will they give us that guarantee? I doubt it. I want to point out to you that the two hon. members who have just spoken, the hon. member for Maitland and the hon. member for Turffontein, spoke directly against each other. We are already used to this double-talk from the United Party. The hon. member for Turffontein said that the National Party’s policy is unrealistic and impractical, but the United Party opposes us when we want to implement this policy in a practical way; they now come along and debate the matter here and oppose the National Party’s course of action. The hon. member for Maitland asked the hon. the Minister: “Why are you in a hurry; what is the hurry?” The one person asks “Why are you in such a hurry?” and the other one says that the policy is unrealistic and he does not want to allow us to implement it.

Sir, at the beginning of his speech the hon. member for Maitland referred to reports that supposedly appeared in two successive issues of a daily newspaper; one report in which it is said that increasingly more Bantu were streaming to the cities, and another report in which it is stated that the flow to the cities has been blocked. He described the reports as contradictory. Sir, the preliminary figures we have obtained in connection with the 1970 census indicate a new pattern of influx. In the past 10 years the White areas in South Africa have percentage-wise become Whiter. You cannot only work on numbers; in this connection you must also take percentages into account. You cannot only go according to numbers as the hon. member for Maitland wants to do.

You are confused now.

In the 10-year period the percentage of Bantu in the White areas decreased from 62.5 per cent to 53.5 per cent. This proves to me the truth of the statement that the flow to the cities has been stopped, at least to that extent.

But, Sir, let us ask: What would have happened, if the United Party were to have remained in power, as far as the influx of Bantu is concerned? Under that party squatter conditions developed around the cities. Sir, I was on the Pretoria City Council for years and I know what the conditions on the outskirts of that city were like. What party that improved these conditions around our large cities that we inherited? It was the National Party. If the United Party had remained in power that unbridled influx would have continued. The United Party nominally had a kind of influx control, but in reality it was not applied. When it comes to the question of the admittance or otherwise of Bantu, with their families, to the cities, the United Party is not consistent. They have various opinions; they are inconsistent about the matter. I want to ask the United Party: What will the position in our White areas be in a few years’ time, or in the next decade, if the Bantu are allowed to enter with their families?

Sir, various members of the United Party spoke of fragmentation, of the cutting-up of South Africa. I think it was the hon. member for King William’s Town who very theatrically raised his hands and spoke of the carving-up of South Africa. In this connection I should like to refer to an Act that was passed in 1913. I am going back as far as 1913 in order to compare conditions at the time with those at present. I am referring to the Bantu Land Act of 1913. There was a schedule to that Act, “Schedule of Bantu Areas”, That schedule, which mentions the many different regions, totals 16 pages. Since then there has been tremendous progress with consolidation, etc. Moreover, the National Party wants to carry out the promise of the 1936 Act. Consolidation has already taken place on a tremendous scale. When Gen. Botha was Prime Minister this tremendous cutting-up existed, and since then attempts have been made to consolidate Bantu areas and otherwise eliminate black spots. As far back as 1913 Gen. Botha already pointed to consolidation. On 16th May, 1913, he stated the case as follows (translation)—

Is this not precisely what the National Party is doing? Is this not precisely the National Party’s policy with the various homelands?

This Bill now before the House in connection with the proclamation which the State President can issue to the effect that a territorial authority can be converted into a legislative assembly and an executive council, and also that by way of proclamation by the State President the territory for which the legislative assembly is established can be converted into a self-governing territory, is nothing new as far as the National Party’s principles as such are concerned. This principle of the National Party was already laid down long ago. It definitely interprets Government policy.

It is now obvious that this matter must be laid down at this time in the constitutional development of the various homelands. It is obvious that it will eliminate the long-windedness and delays in connection with legislation concerning every homeland, and that it will eliminate the boring and time-consuming process of repetition of the same kind of legislation in all its phases. I am thinking, for example, of the legislation we had in 1969 in connection with the three Bantu university colleges, and how, when the second and third bills were discussed, one simply had monotonous and boring repetitions taking place, precisely about the same arguments. When a territorial authority asks for self-government, specific provisions can be laid down in the proclamation, and this will fit in with the prevailing circumstances of a particular territory over which the territorial authority is requesting greater control. This provision will, of course, obviously deal with the size of the legislative assembly and the executive council, and what relationship there must be between chiefs and the elected members, as well as how many chiefs will have a seat. We know, for example, that the Northern Sotho people actually have a shortage of chiefs. They do not have many of them, while in the Zulu national unit there are a large number of them. It will contain provisions in connection with the flag and national anthem of each group, and the proclamation will fit in with their nature, their way of life, and the wishes and the demands, etc., of each national group. Moreover, it will fit in with the particular characteristics and origins, the assets and even the identity of each group.

The National Party stands for separate or parallel development, but the National Party also believes undeniably in development along individual lines. This development among individual lines, in which we believe, is in conflict with the principle of equalization and rejects that levelling-off idea that wants to eliminate all ethnic boundaries and all ethnic differences. I shall again refer to what Gen. Botha said in 1913. There are people particularly from the Progressive Party, that want to eliminate these boundaries, and basically, as far as their policy is concerned, the United Party also believes in the elimination of ethnic boundaries. There are people who want to destroy this tradition of the Bantu people, and they are repudiated by Gen. Botha’s standpoint, as stated by him in the House of Assembly on 16th May, 1913. In this particular context he said the following in connection with the Natives (translation)—

We have seen the many attempts at impressing White Western culture per se on these people. Even more particularly in connection with the various tribes in the Transvaal, he said (translation)—

This is precisely our Bantu homelands policy in respect of recognition of the differences between Bantu national groups.

The Opposition Press, and in these debates the Opposition as well, stated that this Bill would result in the other homelands now obtaining self-government merely by proclamation and without Parliament being able to discuss it. I say that this is an erroneous conclusion. Clause 37 of the Bill specifically provides that all proclamations must be tabled in Parliament, and Parliament can, of course, reject them. As far as I know the procedure in connection with a proclamation—and many proclamations have been issued in connection with Bantu affairs—is that after a proclamation has been issued by the State President it is tabled in the House of Assembly and in the Senate. Then it is referred to the Select Committee on Bantu Affairs, and the matter is again discussed by the Select Committee, on which members of the Opposition have a seat. In other words, there the Opposition members have an opportunity of discussing the matter. Then, of course, the report of the Select Committee again comes to the House of Assembly and the Senate and there is once more an opportunity to discuss the proclamation. I want to emphasize the fact that Parliamentary control over the granting of greater self-government to the Bantu homelands as a result of this Bill, and as a result of the issuing of a proclamation by the State President, is not being withdrawn, and on that point an erroneous judgment is, I think, being formed.

The Opposition has discussed this Bill a great deal, and I would now just like to ask them one very simple question. I want to ask the Opposition which leading Bantu chief or other prominent Bantu were consulted by members of the Opposition, Bantu from whom they obtained the moral support to oppose this Bill? It is a very simple question, and I should very much like one or other member of the Opposition to answer it for us. You know, Sir, in previous years the Opposition quite frequently mentioned the question of consultation with the Bantu. In an election pamphlet issued by the United Party in 1961, under the heading “Election News” the United Party put it as follows (translation)—

Well, Sir, we know, and we believe it to be so, that previously the United Party members individually, and perhaps also as groups, consulted prominent Bantu. According to the Newspapers, for example. I remember that the hon. member for Yeoville did consult such persons several years ago. Up to the present moment, of course, we have never received a reply to the question about which prominent Bantu were consulted by the United Party in connection with its race federation plan. We at least have proof that in the past the United Party endeavoured to approach the Bantu. In about 1964-65 we learned of a prominent leader of the African National Congress who was to have addressed a Bantu Affairs group of the United Party. This was done in an attempt by the United Party to sound out leading Bantu. One of the then members of the Government, i.e. the hon. member for Windburg, Mr. Sadie, referred on occasion to this incident. No one ever repudiated him. We must, therefore, take it that the U.P.’s caucus group was addressed. Apparently the United Party could not get the support it expected from that person. We know that even a person like Albert Luthuli totally rejected the United Party’s policy at the time. Neither do I think that there was any consultation on the part of the United Party at this stage in respect of this legislation. I say again that if this was the case we should like to know when and in what way it took place.

Let us now compare the United Party’s attitude to the conduct of the National Party in respect of consultation. What did the hon. the Minister and his department do in this connection in preparation for this measure? In August, 1970, the officials of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development went to the homelands and held discussions about the proposed legislation. In October, 1970, the discussions were pursued in Pretoria. The Bill was subsequently drawn up and during December, 1970 and January, 1971 it was considered by the territorial authorities. All the territorial authorities of the Bantu homelands accepted the pattern of the draft measure. With permission amendments were introduced here and there. I therefore wanted to emphasize in his case full and decisive consultation took place with the territorial authorities, i.e. with the representatives of the millions of Bantu affected by this legislation. What can the United Party show? Whom did they consult?

One can now ask any objective observer to judge the conduct of these two parties objectively in the light of the information I have made available here. Or does the United Party want to accuse the National Party and the officials of the Department of Bantu Administration of indoctrination? That is, after all, a word we have heard so many times from the hon. member for Orange Grove. Do they want to accuse the representatives of the territorial authorities of being Government lackeys or stooges? The hon. member for Houghton said that the agreement was reached “under the guiding hand of the National Party”. Implicit in that is the accusation that behind the scenes there was influencing or persuasion of the Bantu leaders in connection with this matter. This is, of course, absolutely wrong, and at the same time it is an allegation against the Bantu leaders.

The question we must ask in connection with this Bill is the following: What does the United Party offer the Bantu peoples as against that which the National Party accepts as its policy and is developing in this Bill? There are clear proof that the National Party is not only realistic in its policy, but that our policy is morally justifiable and defensible. What does the United Party want to give the Bantu in the homelands? According to the hon. member for Albany, who spoke yesterday, they want to give: “a degree of self-government.” According to page 18 of the United Party manifesto it is stated as follows (translation): “The reserves will govern themselves to a considerable extent, and will be responsible for their own affairs.” That is vague and actually “as clear as mud”. Yesterday the hon. member for Germiston quoted what the hon. member for Yeoville said on occasion, i.e.: “We see them developing politically to provincial status and higher”. The hon. member for Germiston also asked, what does “higher” mean? Not a single hon. member has yet tried to reply to the question which the hon. member for Germiston asked here? In 1913, on the same occasion to which I have already referred, Gen. Botha said in connection with the self-government of Natives (translation):

In addition he said the following:

He continued by saying:

Mr. Speaker, the United Party’s approach and its attitude in connection with the entire Bantu matter in this country, and in connection with this legislation, is negative and unrealistic. In my opinion it is still based on the old British Colonial policy, applied here in the Cape and in Natal in the previous century by the British governors on the instructions of the Colonial Office. The United Party has a Rip van Winkel mentality in respect of the development of homelands, and particularly in respect of the political constitutional field. The United Party wants to free itself from the homelands idea of the National Party, as well as from the undertakings which the National Party gave the homelands, i.e. that if they chose to, they could progress further along the road of self-development. The United Party wants to turn the hands back where much progress has already been made. I say it is unrealistic and impractical, because they cannot undo what has already been established. How can the United Party undo what has already been established so far under National Party rule, or are they once more going to have recourse to referendums? I hope that when they hold referendums they will at least do so differently to what their present policy prescribes, and that they will at least also consult the Bantu when they decide about the future of the Bantu peoples in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, this is the first opportunity that I have had to address this House since the hon. member for Nelspruit was given promotion. I should like to congratulate him on the position which he has now obtained. I want to welcome him to that fraternity which I like to refer to as the three blind mice. I just hope he will not be as blind as his predecessor. I wish him luck.

Now we can get on with the debate. The hon. member for Koedoespoort referred to us as having, what he called, a “Rip van Winkel” mentality. But if ever anybody in this House showed a “Rip van Winkel” mentality, he did here this afternoon with his quotations out of the dark ages, with his quotations in Hoog Hollands, something that was written long before I was even born. Does the hon. member not realize or understand that this is the age of the seventies, that we are dealing with the question of now? It is no good looking to those days for a solution. It shows the bankruptcy of that hon. member that he had to go delving into the archives to try to find an argument to justify this sort of legislation.

The hon. member started off by saying that we cannot only work with numbers. That was the argument of the hon. the Minister as well. However I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has done a little sum when he talks about numbers?

What makes you think he can do arithmetic?

I assume that he can do a little bit of arithmetic. He was a teacher after all and at times he thinks he is still a teacher. If there were 3.9 million Bantu in the so-called White South Africa in 1948 and there are now something in excess of 8 million Bantu in that same area, surely this is an increase of over 100 per cent. Or does the hon. the Minister not agree with me? But I want to go further. If there were 3.9 million Bantu in the so-called White areas in 1948 out of a total population of just over 10 million, what percentage was that in the White areas? When I went to school it worked out at about 41 per cent. Today we have 8 million Bantu out of a total of 15 million. Today I make that 53 per cent. Is this the way they have achieved their object? Is this the way the hon. member for Koedoespoort who incidentally, also was a teacher, talks about percentages? [Interjections.] Yes, he is proud of it. I accept all that. The hon. member must not talk about percentages if he has not sat down to work them out Or is the hon. member proud of the fact that the percentage of Bantu in the White areas has increased from 41 per cent to 53 per cent since 1948? He is proud of the fact that their policy of apartheid has succeeded to the extent of twice as many Bantu? And if you want to take it percentage-wise, an increase of 41 to 53 per cent. What sort of argument is this to come with to this House? We are people with brains. We can understand these matters. He must not think we are a bunch of children.

He also raised the same argument as was raised by the hon. member for Aliwal, namely why should there be seven Bills to come before this House? Why not accept this one Bill and give the hon. the Minister that power by proclamation to give all these powers to these Bantu? I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether his head restseasy when he thinks of the tremendous responsibility which will be placed on his shoulders if this is to be passed? I should like to remind the hon. the Minister that uneasy lies the head that carries the crown. Does he really want that responsibility? I also want to ask the hon. member for Koedoespoort and to the hon. member for Aliwal and other members who raised this same argument whether they wish to abrogate their responsibilities as members of Parliament? Do they believe that everyone of these seven areas is going to be given the same type of self-government? Do they believe that the same conditions will pertain in every case? This is one other reason why we believe that there should be a separate Bill for each area. When they talk about seven, do they know that there is only going to be seven? The hon. the Minister has already argued with the Zulu people in Natal about the question as to whether they are all Zulus or not. I will deal with that a little bit later.

The hon. member for Koedoespoort talked about Parliament still having control because the proclamation will be tabled in this House. What a puerile argument! Surely the hon. member must realize that by the time a proclamation is tabled in this House it is already a fait accompli. Even if it is referred to the Bantu Affairs Select Committee, what powers do they have even to change, let alone criticize whatever might have been done in terms of that proclamation? I am sorry, but I am quite satisfied that the hon. member for Koedoespoort still lives in the Dark Ages; he has no idea of what is happening now, in the year 1971. This can be seen especially when he comes again with the challenge which has been put to us so often by hon. members on that side of the House. This challenge is about whom has been consulted by the United Party. I want to say quite categorically that that hon. Minister knows that I consult with the Bantu people. If he does not know, and if he does not find out from his own department, he has his Security Police and his Special Branch who know the movements of everyone of us here. They know when we do consult people, but we are not prepared to divulge the names. I particularly am not prepared to divulge the names of those people whom I have consulted because I am not prepared to have them victimized. If the hon. the Minister does find out and he has already done so …:

But you are saying scandalous things now.

What I am saying is not a “skandelike” thing; it is the truth and the hon. member knows it. While we are talking in this way, I want to come back to the hon. member for Rissik who unfortunately has left the Chamber. At the beginning of this debate this hon. member alleged that under a United Party Government the African National Congress and the Pan-African Congress would revive and would rear their heads again. I want to ask the hon. member under which Government did those two organizations arise? Under which Government did they gain strength? Which Government had to handle them and which Government had to take these Draconian powers to deal with them? It was this Nationalist Party Government. Those two organizations arose under this Government and they took these tremendous powers to deal with them. What are they doing today and what have they been doing in the past few years? They are now actively fostering nationalism among the Bantu people and this Bill is a further step in the fostering of nationalism. I want to remind hon. members in this House that that is Black nationalism. I want to repeat what I have said before in this House, and that is that that Black nationalism is not going to remain dormant, but it is becoming militant. If that hon. Minister would only take the trouble of getting into direct and personal contact with the people whom he is trying to control, he would find that this is so. I am satisfied—and I know what I am saying when I say this—that that hon. Minister is completely out of touch with the reality of the situation today. I say this advisedly because I believe he is being protected and I believe that the truth is not reaching him. I want to ask him again in all sincerity the same thing that the hon. member for South Coast asked him last year and the year before, and that is that he should go out and make personal contact with these people. He should go himself to find out exactly what they are thinking, because he is not being told the truth. In regard to all these letters which have been written by Bantu chiefs and which have been read to us by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad, I want to know why did he not quote the letter that was written by the Executive of the Zulu Territorial Authority.

I will quote it.

Will the hon. Minister quote it in full? Will the hon. Minister quote it from beginning to end?

Yes. I will also tell the hon. member what he told me personally.

I hope we can expect that from the hon. the Minister. We want to hear what was said by the Executive of the Zulu Territorial Authority from beginning to end.

This brings me to the next point.

The hon. member for Wolmaransstad spoke about the Tswana and Venda people, but what of the request made by the Tswana Executive Council to the hon. the Minister? They asked for independence, did they not?

No, they asked for a Transkei.

They asked for independence. In terms of a statement that was made by the Tswana Territorial Authority, headed by Chief Lucas, as reported in The Star of the 30th November, 1970. “Earlier this year this body took the unusual step of requesting the South African Government to grant it independence under the Bantustan policy.”

The Star is not my source.

If these people have asked for independence, why has it not been given to them? What have they asked for? Have they only asked for what is in the Bill, or have they asked for more than is in the Bill? The hon. the Minister is running away from the implications of what he has put in this Bill, because he says that this is what they have asked for. What about the consolidation that they have asked for? Why does he not do something about that? I believe that they have asked for a lot more than is in this Bill. I believe that they have asked for development. What has the Minister done about that? He has done nothing. They have asked for consolidation, and what has he done about that, apart from statements made by the hon. the Deputy Minister? He has done nothing there either. They have asked for more land and has this hon. Minister the courage to buy more land and to give it to them? These are the questions. I believe they have asked for independence, not because they want independence, but because it has been forced on them by this Government. That is the only promise that this Government has offered to the Bantu people. Apart from this promise of independence, the Bantu people can see no future in continuing to live in South Africa under a Nationalist Government.

You are talking nonsense.

I do not care if the hon. member says I am talking nonsense. He can make his own speech in turn and tell us what his experience is with the Bantu. I do not believe that there are any Bantu people who have asked for independence in this country. There was not one Bantu who asked for independence before it was promised by this Government. That brings me back to the Bill again.

Up to now it has been a verbal promise on the part of Nationalist politicians, but today we have this promise of ultimate independence for the first time written in a Bill which, if the Government has its way, will become an Act. This Bill is going to be the lever that is going to be used by the Bantu agitators and demonstrators and those who are egging on their own people.

Wishful thinking.

It is not wishful thinking. I say this with every degree of responsibility. It is because I feel so strongly about this that I am airing it in this House today. I am not wishing for it and I resent that inference from the hon. the Minister.

Are you wishing for it?

No, I am not wishing for it. I am warning against it. We are sitting on an explosive situation and we have to do something to regain the loyalty of the Bantu people. These people have never wanted independence and have not asked for it. They do not want independence today, but they are being forced to accept it, because they realize it is all that lies in the future for them under that Nationalist Government.

Mr. Mitchell has already told us that.

It is not a question of what the hon. member for South Coast has told us. It is what I sincerely believe. I believe that this Minister must think again. He still has time to think again, and that is why I want him to think about going out and meeting with these people personally and not depending on what other people tell him what they think the position is.

We have reached the stage now where these people are asking for independence. I believe that certain of these territorial authorities have made it quite clear to the Minister’s Department, even if it has not reached him, that they are asking for it only because it is what has been promised by the Minister. But they do not want it. They want to be treated as subjects of South Africa. They want to be citizens of the Republic of South Africa, as they have always been. We have here in the Gallery Hall—we all saw them again yesterday— two rolls of honour. I wonder how many Bantu names appear on those rolls, people who were loyal to South Africa and who still are.

But they want equal rights.

They do not want equal rights. They have never asked for equal rights. No Bantu has ever asked for equal rights. If ever a member revealed his ignorance, it is that hon. member. They have never asked for it. They do not want it. They are getting to a point now where they are demanding it because of the condition that they have been driven to by that Nationalist Government in the last 23 years.

Now we come to the question of independence. I want to say to those hon. members who tackled my friend over here about independence, there is no degree of independence. Either one is independent or one is not independent. There are degrees of dependence, yes, but there is no degree of independence. There is no question of whether the Government is going to give them independence or is not prepared to grant them independence. We have the words of the hon. the Prime Minister, let alone words that have been said before. His words in Hansard, 1968 (Column 3947), were:

“We shall lead them to independence.” That is what the Prime Minister said. But, Sir, I believe he is losing grip, and so is this hon. Minister. No longer is it going to be a case of leading them to independence. It is now going to be a case of trying to hold them back. I think that if that hon. Minister were honest and really in touch with matters today, he would have realized that this is the case. The hon. the Prime Minister virtually admitted ‘that the Nationalist Party Government have lost control of the timetable. This is why I say they are holding them back now. Again in column 3947 I asked the hon. the Prime Minister while he was speaking:

The Prime Minister replied:

I asked the further question:

The Prime Minister replied:

I asked a further question:

The Prime Minister’s reply was:

Mr. Speaker, this is the point. The hon. the Prime Minister himself has now admitted that he has lost control of the timetable. But this Minister, in terms of this Bill, now thinks that he can control the timetable up to the point of independence. Perhaps he can, provided he is not going to be too dilatory in going ahead with his plans. Provided he is not going to waste time on this plan, he might be able to control it. But is he going to be able to control that ultimate step which is promised in the Preamble of this Bill? This is the crux of the whole argument.

There is another aspect to this whole matter. This Government has ruled this country now for 22 years. Surely most of us would have expected that by now the Nationalist Party would have been able to implement its main policy of apartheid— or call it what you like—but every year we are presented with more Bills, and this absolute mound of Bills that we have been presented with grows higher and higher. Sir, is that not a clear indication that the Nationalists themselves are bewildered by their own ideas? Not only are they bewildered by their own ideas, but, as I have said, they have lost touch with the reality of the South African situation. The elusive goal of complete separation shimmers brightly in the distance for them, yet the Nationalist leaders, right from Malan to Vorster, have discovered many cul de sacs along the road. They have not been able to get anywhere, and yet today we have this Bill presented to us as another attempt to solve a further problem, a further cul de sac in which they find themselves. The last one that we had was the Bantu Homelands Citizenship Bill, which was an attempt to prove that the Bantu in the so-called white South Africa are not or never were there. That Act gave to the Bantu citizenship of some ethereal state, some state which existed in the minds of the hon. the Minister and his Deputy only and did not quite deprive them of their South African citizenship. This Bill today attempts to give some substance to these ethereal states of which citizenship was prematurely bestowed by this Government. But, Sir, it remains something ethereal. Notwithstanding this Bill that we have before us today, it remains something ethereal because we do not know where these states will be. We do not know what they will be called; we do not know who will control them; we do not know what form the controlling body will take and we do not know what the powers of that controlling body will be. Sir, the hon. the Minister is taking tremendous powers unto himself and is taking tremendous responsibilities upon his shoulders. I cannot see that any one man should be saddled with this tremendous responsibility; I cannot understand his coming here with a Bill in which he takes these tremendous powers unto himself. Sir, because of these points, this Government, as my hon. friend over there has put it, is asking for a blank cheque. It is asking that of all of us in this House, the representatives of the voters of South Africa. The Minister is asking for this blank cheque because he does not tell us where the boundaries are going to be; he does not tell us where he is going to establish these authorities, and he does not tell us when he is going to establish them. With regard to the Legislative Assemblies that he is going to create, I wonder if he will tell us what his plan is. Are the members of these Assemblies going to be wholly elected? Are they going to be traditional chiefs only? Are they going to be an admixture of these two? Are some of them going to be nominated? If so, in what proportion are these various ingredients going to be mixed? Sir, when the hon. the Minister says that he has consulted with the various Territorial Authorities I wonder if he told them what sort of Legislative Assemblies they would have? The hon. the Minister does not answer. Did he tell them whether they would be wholly elected, or whether they would be nominated, or whether they would be traditional chiefs only? These are the questions to which I believe this House needs to know the answers. If he has given some secret information to these Territorial Authorities, well and good, but, Sir, should it be a secret from the members of this the highest legislative body in the country? This is the body that should know the answer to these things, especially while this House is being asked to give the hon. the Minister these tremendous powers. The Transkei is not one kind of legislative assembly; it is an admixture of traditional chiefs and elected members and it is working pretty well. I am prepared to concede that, but I do not believe that the same conditions can work in every one of the suggested Bantustans. And, Sir, when I talk about the suggested Bantustans, we do not know where they are going to be or which they are going to be. Is there going to be one Bantustan for all the Zulu people in Natal? How many independent Bantu states will he carve out of Natal? Because the hon. the Minister has already said that the Bantu people of Natal are not all Zulus, that all the tribes are not Zulu-speaking. He said that when he denied the Territorial Authority the right to have a national day. They wanted to declare a national day and to call it Chaka Day. Perhaps his antipathy towards this is based on the fact that he wants to be the White Chaka of the 1970’s. I wonder if that is what is behind it? But at that time he indicated that he did not believe that all the Bantu people in Natal were Zulus. But in terms of the Bantu Homelands Citizenship Act he classified them all as Zulu’s. When it suits him he divides them and says that they are separate; we cannot have a Chaka Day because not all the Bantu people in Natal, not all the tribes, are Zulu-speaking. He goes further and says that they were not all under Chaka. Sir, what abysmal ignorance the hon. the Minister displays when he talks like this, ignorance especially of the attitude of the Zulu people today. Why this sort of interference in the affairs of the local people? Does he want them to govern themselves and look after their own affairs or does he not? Why must he stick his oars into such a question as to whether they should have a national day of their own? Every national unit throughout the world …

Order! Has that anything to do with the Bill?

I submit it has, Sir.

I submit that it has not. The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

The example which I have just given shows the complete confusion even in the mind of the Minister regarding the ideological policy of the Nationalist Government. Sir, it has been suggested that the Government is asking for a blank cheque in this Bill. It has also been suggested that this is just a gigantic bluff; that this is one way in which the hon. the Minister can buy time to try to handle the situation which is developing in this country, the situation which I described earlier in my speech. I want to end by saying that we are categorically against this. I believe that by far the greater percentage of the Bantu people who know anything about this Bill are also against it. I believe that very few of the Bantu people would voluntarily accept, let alone ask for, independence, but that they are being forced by the illogical policies of the Nationalist Government into the position where they are going to have to demand their independence.

We have just had from the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) another exhibition of his usual aggressiveness, of a lot of loose accusations and questions and of inconsistencies, on which one really does not want to waste time by trying to reply. However, I should like to refer to a few of them. In the first place he accused this Government of having introduced this legislation at the request of the Bantu Territorial Authorities, but in the same breath he alleged that they did not want it. A further allegation of his was that lately the hon. the Minister was “holding back these people all the time”, but just before saying that he told us that we were forcing independence on them. And in the end his allegation was that this entire Bill was a bluff.

Mr. Speaker, in order to give hon. members the opportunity of recovering from this verbal onslaught, I want to move—