When the House adjourned yesterday, the hon. member for Bellville had just completed his maiden speech and I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating him and of wishing him well during his term of office in this House. He dealt most adequately with the subject of fire-fighting services. Of course, there is no need for such a service in this House because the fire in the Government benches started to peter out in 1966 and since then we have been involved in the process only of sweeping up the ashes in preparation for a good solid government in South Africa, a Government which can face the future with a good deal more confidence. We on this side of the House are fighting to take over the government of the country because we believe it has been mismanaged and misruled for so long. Any unbiased witness listening to the debates of the last two or three weeks would have come to the realization that people in South Africa can no longer afford the Government we have, a Government which cannot face the future with any confidence because it has handcuffed its mind to the actions of the past, a Government whose members without exception have during the last couple of weeks dealt only with the history of the past. Their speakers have referred to such things as “die Rooitaal”, brown bread, ploughing the Afrikaner under, saving the White race, etc. How tragic it is for South Africa that in the year 1971 we are still talking of saving the White race. They are so confined within their narrow thinking about the problems of South Africa that they can see no solution for them while their fears hide-bound them to the history of the past instead of facing the future with confidence. They do not realize that we have little hope of saving the White race in South Africa if we do not save the Coloured race, the Indian race and the Black race as well. [Interjections.] Surely, all these people are South Africans. An hon. member to my left has just now interjected by saying that that was exactly what the Government was doing. Well, their actions do not point that way. They have forgotten that all of us live on the continent together and that we cannot wish the other race groups away. Instead we have to learn to live with each other. Our task is not to save any particular race group in South Africa; our task is not to save only the White race but to save every race group in South Africa for Western civilization. We on this side do not fear the future and we have confidence in all South Africans to face the future. We have confidence that they can face a changing world and whilst the clock in this House ticked away the waste of 23 years all hon. members could do was to stumble from one crisis to another. We heard the hon. member for Worcester saying that if we had economic integration it would lead to the downfall of the White man and yet we have had economic integration in Southern Africa for 300 years, and the White man is still present. In the last three years alone in the private sector the number of non-Whites has increased at nine times the rate at which the number of Whites has increased and in the public sector the number of non-Whites has increased twice as fast as the number of Whites. For every skilled White worker in South Africa there are 100,000 non-White workers. How can the White people of South Africa exist without the help of the non-Whites, and equally, how can the non-Whites exist without the help of the Whites? And here, in 1971, we have a member on the Government side saying that economic integration would be the downfall of the White race. Sir, if this is how little confidence he has in the White race, I repeat he has very little right to be sitting in this House. We are economically integrated and we have been for 300 years, and every South African of every colour can thank his lucky starts that that is so.

Sir, fear of the future on the Government benches is making us slaves to a philosophy that is unattainable and unworkable and it deprives every South African of the advantages of the 20th century. We have now reached the stage that homes are not being built because of Government policy. For too long they have traded compassion in the mistaken belief that this would give them security, and for far too long they have allowed their common sense to be straitjacketed with prejudices of every kind and colour. Sir, the blinkers are at long last beginning to be lifted and a new spirit of justice and understanding is beginning to emerge in the land. Apartheid for apartheid’s sake is dead, and it is no longer accepted by the majority of the people of South Africa. Sir, they talk of changing the dishcloth that cleans their cups and saucers but they allow the same Bantu to change the sheets on their beds.

They want a white one and a black one.

Sir, people are beginning to realize that in South Africa to be exclusive will result in being excluded from the rest of the world. They realize that Government slogans and philosophies cannot solve our race problems and that these philosophies are in any event outdated in the 20th century. We have already discovered that people in South Africa are being shunted about by various Ministers on the other side of the House …

Nobody has been shunted about.

Sir, if that hon. member on my left had been shunted about like some people, he would not have made such a stupid irresponsible remark. Sir, people are shunted about in this country in the mistaken belief that if you can get them out of sight they are no longer a problem. We have had an hon. Minister on the other side saying that he will reverse the flow by 1971, and he staked his political reputation on it.

By 1978.

Yes, I am sorry; 1978. The new Minister of the Interior stated last year that if the White man did not succeed in at least maintaining the present numerical relationship he would not be able to ensure his own safety by means of legislation, economic stability or military power. Sir, it is a wonder that he sits on that side of the House after expressing these sentiments. Since the hon. the Minister of the Interior made that statement the number of non-Whites in South Africa has increased at four times the rate at which the number of Whites has increased, and yet he is on record as saying that unless you can maintain the status quo, then apartheid has no chance of success.

Tell us about your policy.

I would like to ask that noisy hon. member what the position in South Africa would be when the White population is no more than between 10 per cent and 12 per cent of the total—and that day is less than 30 years away? Who will supply the skills when that comes about; who will run the trains? Already 52 trains are being cancelled per day for lack of staff. In the harbour of Durban in the last year 2,000 man hours were lost through lack of staff. The accident rate is climbing because the staff is overworked, and houses that are built cannot be repaired. Hon. members on the Government side talk blithely of the past but will not face the future. Our natural resources are going to waste simply because we cannot and will not make use of our human resources. Government policy is governed entirely by fear and they overlook the fact that we will be destroyed far more quickly than any enemy can destroy us by the very simple fact that we are not training our non-White labour. For 23 years the Government has consorted with calamity. Surely they realize that the country’s strength lies not in its laws, its Police Force or its armed services, but in the number of man hours it can work, in the way it trains its skilled workers. In times of economic depression it is the skilled workers of South Africa who will be our security, because the unskilled workers have nothing to lose. The skilled workers will maintain the law; the unskilled workers in times of depression will break it. Yet at the present time there are 7 million, effective workers in South Africa, and of that 7 million 27,000 non-Whites only can be classified as skilled workers. Our strength will be in our labour force and not in our Police Force or in any law they wish to pass. I am very fortunate to be able to quote the hon. the Minister of Sport who, one accepts in this House, is quite an astute politician. I think he was quite astute when he addressed the Indian College and said that South Africa needed 100,000 skilled workers in the next few years and that with our present growth rate we would be short of 40,000 White skilled workers and 100,000 non-White skilled workers. But this astute Minister of Sport did not say where these people who were being trained at the Indian College were going to work. One assumes from his statement and the past record of the Government that we will train these people at the Indian College in Natal, and after having granted them their degrees they will end up as waiters in our restaurants. We have today a Public Service which is 250 per cent higher than the one we had in 1948, a Public Service which spends most of its working day trying to implement a policy which is completely impracticable.

Because of this misuse of labour, the building trade suffers, and here I should like to deal with the hon. the Minister of Community Development in particular. The price of a house has doubled in the last 10 years. [Interjection.] I will tell you how the Minister can help it. The waiting list for houses at the moment in the four major cities of South Africa excluding Pretoria is such that there are 70,000 families waiting for accommodation.

Of all groups.

But surely the hon. the Minister realizes that a human being has to live in a house of some sort, or does he want them to live in a cave? But where are the builders to build these houses? Sixty-one per cent of the White artisans in the building trade are already over the age of 35 years and only 14 per cent of the White artisans in the building trade are 24 years old and younger. Now the Minister asks what housing costs have to do with him. I will tell him.

The Minister’s department at present controls over 10,900 building sites in South Africa. I want to know from the hon. the Minister when he is going to release those sites.

Whenever necessary.

Sir, do you know that the Queensborough Municipality a few years ago bought six acres of ground and they wanted to put up a housing scheme. They went to the department for the necessary funds and the department requested that they be allowed to put up the scheme. They sold the six acres to the department at the same price it had cost, which is something the department never does. This was something like four or five years ago, and they sold it on condition that the department erected the houses immediately. But to this day not a single house has been built. Then the Minister asked what this has to do with his department! The Minister appointed a commission to go into the high price of land, the Niemand Commission, and I would like to say to the hon. the Minister and to the Government that this was no more than an election gimmick, because since this Niemand Commission sat none of their recommendations have been implemented. It made no mention anywhere in its report of the holdings of the department itself. Nowhere did it mention that the department in fact is the biggest property holder in South Africa.

In the few minutes left to me there are one or two other matters I must discuss with the Minister. Earlier in the session he said in a debate that everybody moves to a better house than the one he occupied before. I would like to say to the Minister that that is not so and has never been so in the past. The hon. the Minister has never visited the Wentworth Coloured village, because if he had, he would have seen that people there are living in houses which are certainly far inferior to the ones out of which they were kicked.

I have been there.

Then you should not have made those statements until you had seen the houses concerned. And I shall accept your apology afterwards.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a plea in the two or three seconds left to me to the hon. the Minister of Community Development, to the hon. the Minister of Planning and to all the Government benches to realize that at the present rate of progress, they will not have solved the housing position by the turn of the century and I can prove it. Since that is the position, surely common sense and humanity will demand that they stop moving people around until they settle those they have already displaced.

When last have you been to Chatsworth?

I was in Chatsworth the week before I came here, and I will tell you about Chatsworth. There are approximately 59,000 adults living in Chatsworth today according to information given to me a few days ago. The people in Chatsworth only got there because they are displaced people and not one of their dependants is considered displaced. So, anybody in Chatsworth who have families that wish to get married do not qualify for housing, because they are not displaced. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that, although he may here, as in District Six and elsewhere, have eliminated slums which were created through economic circumstances, he and his department are creating slums under Government decree, which will be far worse than anything we have ever had before.

The hon. the Minister says there is no housing shortage. Why is it that I have here a letter in my possession from a person who has been waiting for a house for seven years in Durban, who lives in a garage and was told that it would be several years before his application could be considered? Why is it that I have a letter here from a family of immigrants in Pretoria, who are living in one room? An hon. member got up here the other day and said that we would now like immigrants, because we can supply the housing. I would like to say to that hon. member that he was talking tripe, as members of the Government side so often do. The fact of the matter is that this Government cannot supply housing, because it is bound by its archaic policy and its fear of the future, which it will not face with any realism. The Minister has said that our housing standards are too high. In the no-confidence debate he read out advertisements from The Argus and said there was a flat in Sea Point for R157 a month, which to him is a reasonable rent. I would like to know how many people in South Africa can afford that reasonable rent.

Your Leader said they cannot get flats under R250 a month. I just read that out to prove that he was wrong.

This Government has had inquiries into every blessed thing under the rainbow such as bananas, oranges, mealies and everything else. It is about time they held an inquiry into the actions of that department which deals with human beings.

I have read your thesis and it is hopeless.

The hon. the Minister may think the report was hopeless, but I can tell him that there are something like 20 million people in South Africa and I know whose side they are on. In a statement the Minister of Planning said the other day that reproclamations are only done after very careful consideration. I would like to say that the careful consideration that went into the reproclamation of Ladysmith was a disgrace The consideration that is now given to the reproclamation of Newcastle will cause quite a stir before it is completed.

However, I want to come back to the hon. the Minister. He says that he has nothing to do with reproclamation. I accept that. But perhaps he might use his influence which is probably not inconsiderable, to kindly persuade the hon. the Minister of Planning to make up his mind about Grey Street. For 12 years Grey Street has been in a state of flux. Grey Street, as we know it today, is dying, because of the Government’s lack of attention to it. What happens when an area dies because it is frozen? Then that hon. Minister comes along and applies the urban renewal scheme powers and says: Look at the slums. But who created the slums in the first place? That hon. Minister. This is what is happening. The hon. the Minister gave a demolition order for a certain block of flats in Johannesburg and the occupants of those flats were put out. That demolition order, I understand, was given two years ago. The block of flats has still not yet been demolished. Surely the hon. the Minister should give attention to some of these matters.

I do.

You do? Perhaps the hon. the Minister will explain to me what happens to the profits that his department makes.

I make a lot of profit but I have a lot of losses too.

The hon. the Minister has never yet had a loss when dealing with an Indian or a Coloured which is very strange.

Of course.

I bet the hon. the Minister that those losses are very few and far in between. Surely one is entitled to expect that a Government department and a local authority are not there to make profits out of the ordinary man in the street. Does the hon. the Minister not make any profits?

Sometimes I make a profit and sometimes I have a loss.

The figures are in Hansard. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will tell me how many houses owned by his department are standing vacant at the moment?

Where?

Anywhere.

Very few, as far as I know.

In Chatsworth in Durban, just before Christmas, 460 houses—I think that is the figure— were vacant for something like three months. On the list of people waiting for houses in Chatsworth were 18,000 families. However, more than 400 houses stood vacant in Chatsworth. How many houses in the centre of Durban bought by the Department of Community Development are standing vacant at this moment? I will tell the hon. the Minister. It is something like a hundred. He ejected the tenants of these houses because they were disqualified and these houses have not been occupied since. They will eventually fall down because they are left vacant for so long. This is what is happening time and again.

There is nobody who has been ejected and has not been given alternative accommodation. The hon. member knows that.

When the hon. the Minister comes to Durban he should please come and see me. I will then show him what I am talking about. I am sick and tired of having to deal with a Minister who continually denies that these things are happening. If he only opened his eyes he could see them for himself.

I will be going to Durban during the recess. Then I will be visiting Mr. Wood. I do not want to visit you and spoil my holiday.

I am not concerned about whose holiday the hon. the Minister spoils. What I am concerned about is that there are over half a million people in South Africa who have come under this hon. Minister’s responsibility for supplying housing. My accusation is that he cannot supply the housing. He never will supply the housing. Until he does so he should stop moving people around. Or at least, let us have a commission of inquiry to see what is happening in that department.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 136 and debate adjourned.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, hon. members will have observed from the documents already tabled that a further amount of R15,906,000 requires to be voted to cover additional expenditure to be defrayed from Revenue Funds for the year ending 31st March, 1971.

The earnings for the current financial year will be dealt with when the Main Estimates are presented to the House on 10th March, and I shall, therefore, not comment on the revenue prospects at this stage.

I shall now deal briefly with the main items appearing in the printed Estimates of Additional Expenditure.

Under the main head Railways, the additional amount of R1.2 million required under Head No. 1—General Charges—is mainly in respect of improved salaries and wages, Sunday time and overtime payments, expenses and improved fire-fighting services. Under Head No. 2—Maintenance of Permanent Way and Works—an additional amount of nearly R1.4 million has to be voted mainly to cover the increased cost of superintendence, replacement of sleepers and maintenance of buildings. An amount of R1 million has to be appropriated under Head No. 3—Maintenance of Rolling Stock—mainly for heavy repairs as well as an increase in the price of steel. Under Head No. 4—Running Expenses— an additional amount of R1.1 million has to be voted on account, inter alia, of more power station coal conveyed by sea. An amount of R1.8 million has to be appropriated under Head No. 5—Traffic Expenses —to cover increased compensation payments, higher cost of superintendence and higher costs in respect of electric current. Of the additional amount of R1.1 million required under Head No. 12—Road Transport Service—almost R600,000 is for repairs to and upkeep of vehicles brought about by the increase in traffic. An additional amount of R1.2 million has to be voted under Head No. 14—Interest on Capital, Net Revenue Account, Railways—due to increased interest rates. Of the additional amount of R97,500 required under Head No. 17—Miscellaneous Expenditure, Net Revenue Account, Railways—R69,000 is in respect of an adjustment between Revenue and Miscellaneous Expenditure in respect of guaranteed lines to serve non-White townships, and the remainder for ex gratia payments.

Under Airways, Working and Maintenance—Head No. 28—an additional amount of R4.1 million is required. Of this amount R1.2 million is in respect of the hire of aircraft, depreciation on the Hawker Siddeley and Boeing-727 aircraft not provided for in the original estimates, and an increase in other flying operation expenses and landing charges.

The amount of R894,000 under “Services to Passengers” is for the additional cost of meals, refreshments, amenities for passengers and more catering equipment due to increased traffic.

An additional amount of R782,000 is required under “Sales, Advertising and Publicity” due to an increase in staff, rental of new computers and telephone data channels.

The contribution of R654,000 to the Reserve Account of the Sinking Fund provided for under Head No. 38—Net Revenue Appropriation Account—is in respect of the net gain on redemption of low interest yielding consolidated stock.

I shall now deal with the Brown Book items.

The additional expenditure to be voted in respect of Capital and Betterment Works amounts to R23,393,900. Of this amount, Loan funds amounting to R10 million will be required from Treasury and R500,000 the Level Crossings Elimination Fund, whilst an amount of R12.9 million will be made available from savings on existing appropriations.

Under Head No. 1—Construction of Railways—R6 million is required for the new line from Vryheid to a point on the line under construction between Empangeni and Richard’s Bay. As a result of the rapid progress of the work the existing provision will be insufficient to meet anticipated expenditure in the current financial year.

An amount of R2.5 million requires to be provided under Head No. 2—New Works on Open Lines. Of this amount R653,400 is required in respect of works authorised initially under the Unforeseen Works Allotment as a matter of urgency and for which specific provision is now being made.

The finalization of certain sanctions in respect of track relaying has involved the adjustment, from Renewals to Betterment allocation, of expenditure totalling some R294,800, whilst an amount of R60,000 is required to cover expenditure on track relaying, signalling and workshops machinery which was not anticipated when the original estimates were prepared. To enable general traffic conveyed in open trucks to be covered by tarpaulins, it is proposed to increase the stock of canopies and R10,000 is required for this purpose. The demand for scotches for the purpose of securing motor vehicles conveyed in trucks has increased considerably and it is proposed to purchase 1,250 sets at an estimated cost of R39,000, of which R3,000 will be spent during the current financial year.

Various contracts for the elimination of level crossings are now expected to be completed at an earlier date than originally anticipated and an additional amount of R500,000 will be required to meet the increased expenditure. Approximately R940,000 comprises individual items of delayed charges which have to be authorized in terms of Resolutions of the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours.

The additional appropriation under Head No. 3—Rolling Stock—amounts to R6.6 million. In view of the growing commitments against the Rolling Stock section of the General Renewals Fund, expenditure in the amount of R6.4 million, which it was the intention to finance from the Renewals Fund, will now be met from Capital funds.

An additional amount of R7.9 million is to be voted under Head No. 6—Airways. Of this amount R3 million is required for the purchase of three Hawker Siddeley 748 aircraft to replace the Dakotas on the internal services. Due to the earlier delivery of two Boeing 727s, an additional amount of R2 million has to be provided to effect payment of the aircraft in full during the current financial year. In view of the heavy commitments against the Aircraft section of the General Renewals Fund, it is proposed to reallocate an amount of approximately R2 million, being portion of the cost of three Boeing 737 aircraft, from Renewals to Capital account, whilst an amount of almost R900,000 is required mainly in respect of items expected to have been completed in the previous financial year.

Under Head No. 8—Working Capital— an additional amount of R300,000 is required in respect of the House Ownership Scheme for further loans to the staff.

Summarized, the position is that appropriations from Revenue Funds require to be increased by R15.9 million and those on Capital and Betterment Works by R23.4 million.

Mr. Speaker, in a budget as large as that of the Railways today, the amounts asked for by the hon. the Minister are not excessively high. On Revenue Account he is asking for some R16 million, which comes to something over 1 per cent of the total appropriation we made last year. On Capital Account he is asking for approximately R23 million, which comes to between 6 and 7 per cent of the original appropriation. This is good bookkeeping. On occasion in the past I expressed criticism when these amounts differed greatly, and I am pleased to see that the matter is being strictly controlled at present. We feel, as always, that these additional estimates can be discussed more effectively in the Committee Stage. In principle we have no objections to these matters, but we shall ask for more information with regard to particular items. Also in this respect the hon. the Minister has already assisted us a great deal by means of the information he has given. Consequently I hope that the discussions will not take up much time. The hon. the Minister knows that if he gives us satisfactory replies, the discussions in the Committee Stage will not take up much time.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Schedule 1: Revenue Services:

Head No. 1,—“General Charges—Railways”, R1,221,000:

The total is not a large amount in relation to the total Budget. Could the hon. the Minister therefore explain under “Miscellaneous” (item 210) why there has been approximately a 25 per cent increase and under “Office and Travelling Expenses” (item 202) 14 to 15 per cent increase?

Referring to item No. 202, namely “Office and Travelling Expenses”, it is anticipated that parliamentary and miscellaneous expenses will be higher than the original estimate due to two sessions during the financial year. The additional amount voted under item No. 210 is due to the increased Sick Fund contribution with effect from 1st August, 1970.

Head put and agreed to.

Head No. 4,—“Running Expenses—Railways”, R1,076,000:

Could the hon. the Minister explain to us how it comes about that the South African Railways is hiring rolling stock, and for what purpose this is happening?

It is the practice to pay rent for all the Rhodesian and Moçambique trucks which are on our railway lines. They, in turn, have to pay rent for our trucks which are on their railway lines. The one usually cancels out the other.

I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could give us an explanation for the steep rise in respect of conveyance of coal by sea. It is approximately a rise of about 75 per cent on the estimate. It is account no. 310/3.

The Johan Hugo belongs to the Railways and it is transporting coal from Lourenço Marques to the different ports. But in addition, we charter some other vessels, too, to avoid coal shortages especially in Cape Town. That is why there are additional costs to be covered.

Mr. Chairman, could the hon. the Minister please explain to us why the amount under “Hire of Rolling Stock”, which is determined by agreement, is more than double the amount of the original estimate?

Yes, there were that many more trucks of other Railways on our railway lines for which we had to pay.

More than twice as many?

Yes.

Head put and agreed to.

Head No. 5,—“Traffic Expenses—Railways,” R1,818,000:

I would like the hon. the Minister to explain under Account No. 335 the reason for this 33 1/3 per cent increase in the goods and livestock compensation paid during the year. Is there any particular reason for this steep increase in compensation?

It is entirely due to damage to goods en route while in the possession of the Railways, damage to livestock and delays. Unfortunately it is a fact that very often the goods are not sufficiently covered by tarpaulins. Water leaks in and damages the goods, and the Railways have to pay compensation. It is very perturbing, I agree with the hon. member. The amount is considerably above the original estimate.

Head put and agreed to.

Head No. 13,—“Tourist Service—Railways,” R170,000:

Can the Minister tell us whether this additional amount of R170,000 is the amount that bounced, as we read in the Press?

No, Mr. Chairman, this is not the amount that bounced. That has been reported upon in the report of the Controller and Auditor-General and will be discussed by the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours. This amount of R170,000 is in respect of additional tours arranged by the Publicity Section for tourists from overseas. Of course, it pays us to do this and to render this service.

Head put and agreed to.

Head No. 13 A,—“Pre-cooling Services —Railways,” R186,499:

In regard to Item 509, can the Minister tell us whether it was his estimates or the quantity that skidded when it came to fruit skids?

This item is here for quite a different reason. This is merely in respect of a modification and conversion of fruit skids. The additional amount is required for this purpose, to make them more efficient.

Head put and agreed to.

Head No. 17,—“Miscellaneous Expenditure—Railways,” R97,501:

I should like to refer to item 534 (c)—financial relief for railway servants receiving medical treatment outside medical districts, R5,000. This is a new item, Mr. Chairman, and I should therefore like to raise with the hon. the Minister the policy of the Administration confining railway servants to the medical doctor or panel to whom they are allocated. Throughout the Railway service there is much dissatisfaction in that Railway servants may only seek the attention of the medical doctor on the panel to which they belong. I have raised with the previous General Manager the position as it pertains in Glencoe for instance, although the same thing applies to many other centres. But let me use Glencoe as an example. There is only one doctor in Glencoe and yet it is a major Railway centre. This doctor is at the same time the District Surgeon and the Medical Officer of Health of the town. As a matter of fact, he is the only private practitioner in the town. At Dundee, five miles away, there is a provincial hospital with a large number of doctors practising there. Yet, according to the regulations, railway servants may not even in an emergency take an injured child, for instance, across to Dundee to seek medical treatment; they are not allowed to do it because it is outside the area of the doctor to whom they have been allocated for treatment. Now, for the first time, there is this additional token amount of R5,000 as a relief for servants receiving medical treatment outside medical districts. I hope this indicates a new policy and that from now on there will be greater flexibility when it comes to medical treatment by doctors from whom Railway servants may seek treatment. Can the hon. the Minister elucidate this for us further?

This item does not of course refer to the matter raised by the hon. member. The Sick Fund regulations stipulate that members beneficiaries of the Fund are not entitled to benefits when outside their respective medical districts. Following representations, however, it has been decided that the Administration and the Sick Fund will bear such costs on a 50/50 basis when members beneficiaries are on leave, travelling or temporarily away from their own medical districts. This also includes pensioners who live outside medical districts but in the Republic or South-West Africa. It very often happens that a beneficiary is on holiday and has an accident, whilst travelling by car for instance. Urgent medical attention may be required. With this in view, and after representations, it has been decided that the Sick Fund and the Administration will meet costs thus incurred on a 50/50 basis.

The matter referred to by the hon. member is quite a different one, i.e. a question of members having a free choice of doctors. As the hon. member knows, the Sick Fund is being run by the members themselves; it is their Fund, it belongs to them.

The Administration also has a say.

The Administration has representation on the board, representation equal to that of members. The Administration is represented by the Management who are also members and beneficiaries of the Fund. In other words, it is being run by the members themselves, whether it is the Management or the ordinary worker because they are all in the employment of the Railways.

It is being run by the top officials.

No, it is being run by the District Sick Fund Boards, and the Central Sick Fund Board. I only act on their recommendations. When they submit recommendations to the Minister he usually accepts them. This then is entirely a matter for the Central Sick Fund Board. If they so decide, it is a matter for them; they are free to do so. However, representations in this connection must be made to the Central Sick Fund Board. It is, as I have said, a fund for the members, run by the members for the benefit of the members.

The hon. the Minister is naturally quite correct when it comes to the control of the fund. But, as he realizes …

Order! The hon. member may only discuss this particular item. He therefore may not discuss the whole question of the Sick Fund.

I am asking for this relief to be accepted and at the same time that it be expanded to cover a wider range. We are being asked here to vote relief to cover certain eventualities—such as when a man is on holiday, on duty or on pension away from his medical district. I am asking that this relief be extended to cover a wider field.

Order! The hon. member should discuss that under the Railway Budget and not under this additional Vote.

Very well, Mr. Chairman, I shall then raise it later.

I want to refer to item (b)—ex gratia payment to Mr. C. P. K. Landman of R14,875 in respect of the loss incurred when 175 cattle were poisoned. Can the Minister tell us how this happened?

I shall give the hon. member all the particulars. On 9th January, 1970, the firm African Explosives and Chemical Industries Ltd. forwarded 200 drums of thiodan insecticide to Magudu R.M.S. halt via Candover station. The full consignment was received at Candover station and placed on the loading bank outside the goods shed but when loading for the R.M.S. halt on the 20th January, 1970, one drum was found short.

About 100 yards from the station there is a spray dip on a farm which is being rented by Mr. C. P. K. Landman. On 20th January, 1970, Mr. Landman drove a herd of cattle through the spray dip and soon afterwards 175 cattle died. Tests revealed that the cattle died as a result of this particular insecticide which was present in the dipwater.

Investigations by the S.A. Police revealed that a Bantu who was previously employed by Mr. Landman and who had a grievance against him stole one drum of this insecticide and threw the contents into the spraydip. The Bantu concerned was found guilty by the Regional Court and convicted. Mr. Landman lodged a claim through his attorneys for R30,000 for the loss of the cattle but this was rejected by the Management. On further representations the Administration decided, although not accepting legal liability for the loss, to compensate Mr. Landman to the extent of R14,875. I felt that we had a moral obligation. The drums of poison were not under lock and key; we were responsible for the safekeeping of those drums and they were stolen by a Bantu. Although we were not legally responsible, we were morally responsible so we decided to compensate him to the extent of 50 per cent of his loss.

Sir, I refer to items (e), (f), (g) and (h) under the same heading. This is also a new item dealing with ex gratia payments concerned with military training. There is still a considerable lack of knowledge in the public mind about the position of military trainees in the Railway service and I think it might be of value if the hon. the Minister could use this opportunity, where certain specific cases are being dealt with, to make a statement on the current policy. There are many young people who still think today that they can join the Railways, do their military service and then simply resign from the Railways, having been paid for the whole period of their military service. I still get them coming to me and saying: “If I cannot get off military service I will join the Railways to get paid.” I think it would be a good thing if the hon. the Minister would state the policy clearly so that the public can know exactly what the situation is.

Frankly this is not the time and place to discuss the policy. According to the Rules of the House we can only discuss these particular items. I am quite prepared to give the hon. member all the information with regard to these two items.

It covers all four cases.

No, these are individual cases that I am dealing with, not general policy; that is a matter for the Budget debate. I am bound by the Rules of the House and the Chairman is very severe when one does not obey the Rules of the House. I will give the hon. member the explanation. Let me first deal with item (f). Mr. J. C. Kruger, formerly employed as a checker at Barkly West, was released for compulsory military training from 9th July, 1969 to 17th June, 1970, and, in terms of the agreement, was to receive the remaining two-thirds of his emoluments for the period he underwent military training provided he completed a qualifying period of service after his discharge from the army. However, he was fatally injured on duty before completing the qualifying period of service, and it was decided to pay to his estate, ex gratia, the balance of the emoluments, i.e. R1,123. which he would have received if he had completed the full period of service. Then I come to item (g). Mr. J. J. Koen was released for military service from 10th July, 1968, to 8th June, 1969, but absconded on 10th December, 1969, before completing a period of service equivalent to that for which he had been released. On 23rd February, 1970 he rejoined the Service and on 11th August, 1970, completed the requisite period of service. It was consequently decided to relieve Mr. Koen of the penalty amounting to R1,116 on an ex gratia basis. This deals with the two particular cases.

May I perhaps help the hon. the Minister not to contravene your ruling, Sir, by asking him if he could tell the Committee what the regulations are which necessitated the voting of these two items?

Order! I cannot allow the hon. member to ask that.

Am I not entitled to ask why it is necessary to make an ex gratia payment? Why should the Minister have to make an ex gratia payment in these two cases? What is the regulation which makes it necessary for him to pay these amounts? He has explained the circumstances which caused it. I am asking what the regulation is which penalizes them and therefore makes this necessary?

I will give the hon. member the information. At the time these cases were being dealt with, the regulation was that any person released for military service received his emoluments during the period he was undergoing military service, but for an equal period of time he had to serve the Railway Administration after the completion of his military service. That was the regulation at the time.

And is that still the position?

No, that is not still the position. That was the regulation at that time.

Head put and agreed to.

Head No. 25,—“Miscellaneous Expenditure—Harbours,” R76,000:

I wonder whether the hon. the Minister can tell us about Item 742 (i) (a), where there is a tremendous increase from R1,300 to R77,300.

The increased provision under this item is due to costs incurred by the Administration in extinguishing a fire on the Greek vessel Alexfan at Durban harbour and to various other services rendered in this connection since 25th September, 1968. The Department was unable to recover the full costs from the owners or from the proceeds of the sale and it was therefore decided to write off the outstanding amount. I do not know whether the hon. member remembers, but it was a Greek vessel which caught fire. It was a danger to the harbour and we had to employ a private firm to extinguish the fire. The vessel was eventually sold, but the proceeds of the sale were not sufficient to cover these costs.

Head put and agreed to.

Head No. 28,—“Working and Maintenance—Airways,” R4,137,000:

Item 1023. deals with the hire of aircraft. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could give an explanation of that item. In his speech he also mentioned insurance on some new aircraft that we intend purchasing. I wonder whether he can explain the position there. Item 1024, deals with depreciation, and Item 1025 deals with insurance.

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister about Item 1094, “Other Expenses.” It is a very large amount and I think we should have some explanation of it.

The hon. member for Salt River wanted some information in regard to Item 1023 which deals with the hire of aircraft from other airlines. We have come to an arrangement with Sabena to hire one of their aircraft, but employing their flying crew to fly a service for S.A. Airways. We have done the same with El Al Airlines, and the additional amount represents the hire charges for the particular aircraft. Of course it is profitable for S.A. Airways to hire such aircraft. We did not have the aircraft available and we did not have the crew available, so we hired these two aircraft.

Then there are Items 1024 and 1025. As purchase was decided upon after the Estimates had been approved, no provision was made for depreciation and insurance on the three Hawker Siddeley aircraft. Two Boeing 727 aircraft, also, are being delivered at an earlier date than budgeted for. That is the reason why this item appears in the Additional Estimates. Then there is Item 1094: This is increased provision for accommodation, meals and refreshments, uniforms and transport of the personnel.

Head put and agreed to.

Head No. 30.—“Miscellaneous Expenditure—Airways”, R3,000:

What amount of the sum under Item 1147 (i) (a) was bad debts?

A loss of R8,380 arose through the failure of Messrs. Germiston Travel Bureau (Pty) Ltd, to remit to South African Airways the value of Airways passenger tickets sold during December, 1967, and January, 1968. The amount is, however, partly offset by a saving in payments to Air Mauritius in terms of a pool agreement. This particular firm went into liquidation whilst still owing the Railways a certain sum of money. The Railways was unable to recover that money. It was also decided that no civil proceedings could be taken against this firm. That is why Parliament has to approve of this amount.

I wonder whether the hon. the Minister can give us further details with regard to item 1147 (i) (b) concerning the payment under pool agreement to Lesotho Airways, R800?

South African Airways has concluded an agreement with Lesotho Airways for the operation of both frequencies between Johannesburg and Maseru with Hawker Sidderley aircraft. South African Airways agreed to pay Lesotho Airways 7½ per cent on 50 per cent of all categories of traffic, and as soon as a break-even load factor is achieved on South African Airways’ services, payments will be increased to 10 per cent. This agreement became effective from the 1st November, 1970. The current Appropriation Act makes provision for similar payments to various other airlines, but not to Lesotho Airways, hence this provision. As the hon. member knows, we have pool arrangements with quite a number of airlines. We have embarked on a similar arrangement with Lesotho Airways.

Head put and agreed to.

Schedule 1 accordingly agreed to.

Schedule 2: Capital and Betterment Services:

Head No. 1,—“Construction of Railways”, R6,000,000:

Under item No. 2 which deals with the Vryheid-Empangeni line, could the hon. the Minister please tell us the reason for this increase and also whether the total amount is being amended or reviewed accordingly?

The total amount remains the same, as the hon. member can see in column No. 1. The additional amount is required because the progress of the work has been expedited. Therefore the increased cash provision is required for this particular year.

Is that the only reason?

That is the only reason.

Head put and agreed to.

Head No. 3,—“Rolling Stock”, R6,633,800:

Concerning Head No. 3, items 68, 69 and 73, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would give us an explanation as to why these have been placed on the Estimates when only R100 has been voted? In other words, work has just been started. Could he tell us what the urgency is in putting these items on this particular Estimate?

For the simple reason that Parliament has to sanction the purchase of these locomotives and contracts are to be entered into before the end of the financial year. That is why the provision has been made. No payment will be made during this financial year. It is merely a token amount that has been placed on the Estimates.

Head put and agreed to.

Head No. 6,—“Airways,” R7,891,300:

Mr. Chairman, could the hon. the Minister please give us some information on Item 77, dealing with the Hawker Siddeley aircraft, which is a new item? I do not wish to ask detailed questions; I only want the hon. the Minister to give us a broad picture of what services these planes will provide and whether this is the total planning or merely the start of further buying of this type of aircraft?

Mr. Chairman, three aircraft have been purchased. They will be used on the run to Lesotho, Malawi and Botswana. They will replace the Dakotas which will be handed over to the Department of Defence. The hon. member knows that the Dakotas have been flying since before the First World War. They gave excellent service, but they have reached about the end of their life.

Since the First World War? That is a long time they have been flying!

I am sorry, since the Second World War. But it is still a long time.

And they are still flying?

Yes, they are still flying. The Hawker Siddeley aircraft might of course be used on other routes. It all depends what the future holds in store. It is possible that more will be purchased in future. The hon. member knows the song “Que Sera, Sera,”; who knows what the future holds in store for us.

Mr. Chairman, arising out of the hon. the Minister’s reply, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could tell us whether the planes have arrived, and if not, when they are expected to be delivered and when they will be put into use?

Some of them have been delivered and are already in service.

Mr. Chairman, could the hon. the Minister tell us how he managed to pay for them?

Out of the Unforeseen Works Vote.

Head put and agreed to.

Schedule 2 accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, last week when we were discussing this Bill and when I was so rudely interrupted by the clock, I was dealing with the difference in approach between the United Party and the Nationalist Party as set out by the hon. the Minister, his Department and his party in the Bill. This Bill seeks to prepare the ground for eventual independence for Bantu population groups in South Africa. Then I made the distinction that the United Party’s attitude is that we stand for civilization, the Christian civilization of the West, in South Africa, while the Nationalist Party stands for separation. I drew a clear distinction between the attitudes of the two parties. At the same time I dealt with the significance of the drift to the towns and the urban areas of the Bantu population. We have had Minister after Minister and member after member claiming that because the leaders of the Bantu communities accept this legislation and the principle thereof, it constitutes acceptance by the Bantu population of South Africa. I said then, and I say now that the significance of the drift of these people away from the countryside and away from their homelands into the urban areas can be equated to the mass movement of the people who went out of East Germany to West Germany. Then the hon. member for Koedoespoort asked me why. It is because East Germany is a Communist State that-they took part in the mass migration which has come to be known as “voting with their feet”. Exactly the same process is going on in our country. Then I asked the hon. member for Koedoespoort again why. It is because the mass of the Bantu population have not associated themselves with the measure of the hon. the Minister, neither with the concept, nor with the execution thereof.

How do you know?

I say this, because they are moving by the day and by their hundreds. They are leaving their rural bases and they are leaving their homes whenever they can and by whatever means they can. They are leaving those areas, moving into the urban areas and they are associating themselves with the White man in his economy. I believe it is the mission of the White man, and I think we are agreed on this, to establish and maintain the Christian civilization of the West in this country. I want to know and I invite any Nationalist to tell me how that civilization is going to be maintained by the creation of independent Bantu states here in South Africa, while it is based on the rejection of the contribution made by Black South Africa to the common cause and the common good in South Africa. Civilization is a thing of the mind and separation is a thing of the body. Separation is based on one factor only and that factor is colour.

They can become civilized in their own states.

Precisely, but the hon. the Minister and his party are today intent on forcing them apart into states of their own and on forcing them away from the common development which we have enjoyed over the past 300 years. This will be forcing them back into something which cannot satisfy and cannot meet the need of South Africa as it is today. I say to the Nationalist Party that independence is merely the conscience money of “Nasionale Afrikanerdom”. It is the conscience money, because they have not got the guts and have not got the vision and the philosophy to be able to govern a country like South Africa as it is.

You are talking nonsense.

It is the conscience money of those people on the other side and to me it sounds like the ring of 30 pieces of silver which is the ring of betrayal throughout all history. I say this Bill and this intention of the hon. the Minister is the betrayal of the Christian civilization in South Africa.

I think the hon. member is using a very harsh word by using the word “betrayal”. I think the hon. member must choose another word.

Mr. Speaker, I abide by your ruling and I will say that they are abandoning what I regard as the mission of the White man. I think it would be a tragedy if the discussion on this Bill were to end without it being made quite clear to Black South Africa that the United Party completely reject the concept embodied in this Bill which is to force them apart into separate independent states of their own. I want to ask the hon. members and I hope the hon. member for Pietersburg will answer me, to what end is the Nationalist Party reaching and what is the purpose thereof. When you create independence for a Bantu state such as the Transkei, for argument’s sake, what you have reached is merely a dead end. You will create something in South Africa which cannot become meaningful. Today we are a strong country and we are strong enough to be able to withstand the shock and the assault of the world today, because we are one country. The source of our strength is the fact that we are united and that we have a common purpose. Independence as envisaged by the Nationalist Party, will merely release upon the world a new flock of nine mini-states, eight of them Black, and one of them White. These states, this mewling, puling flock which is the despair of the world and the contempt of the United Nations and the great powers—is that what the National Party want to reduce South Africa to? Do they want eight Black mini-states and one White mini-state when we have a position of power in this country which was achieved by the co-operation of White and Black? The hon. the Chief Whip can look as sour as he likes. It is one of the simple truths of the world today that the mini-state has become the overriding problem of international co-operation. It is the intention of the Chief Whip and of his party to create that kind of thing in South Africa. What is the independence of these Bantu states going to achieve? It is not going to be the end of the constitutional development of those Bantu states. It is merely going to raise the price that the White man is going to have to pay for continued association with Black South Africa. Continued association is going to be essential. It is absolutely impossible and unthinkable that we should live in isolated compartments. We should try to forge a satisfactory future for all the people in South Africa.

It is to meet precisely this problem that the policy of the United Party has been framed on a federal basis. It will allow creative federalism to take place in this country. It will allow us to put our minds to the problem of finding a means of co-existence and of creating unit in diversity in this country of ours.

Do you think it will work?

Of course it is going to work. It has worked right through the history of South Africa. Even today it works in our country. In spite of all the efforts of the National Party during the past 22 years we still have the goodwill to be able to make this policy of ours work. Black South Africa is the only real ally White South Africa has in all the world. We are the light that shines for them. We are the people who give them inspiration and a future and we are the people who can lead them and take them out of the backwardness in which they are today as a result of their history. We can give them a new chance and a new future by association and not by separation. I believe that, if this hon. Minister and his party persist in going on with this Bill, eight mini-Bantu states will be created with one mini-White state which is going to be based on a resident population of Black labourers, people who will be rightless, voteless and almost in the same position as the people in Sparta who were known as helots. [Interjections.] We are not going to bring them here from outside. They are here today and on their shoulders they carry …

Where?

The hon. member who cost us R60 million must really go home and think of another question. I want to say to this hon. member and to the hon. the Minister that the price the Spartan people had to pay for their security was their freedom. What is happening in this country of ours today is that it is becoming more and more impossible to discuss the problems of co-existence in this country other than on the basis which the hon. the Minister and his department lay down, namely that of separation and separate states. I believe we stand in a very real danger of being forced into some kind of a mental straight jacket. The United Party is absolutely and totally opposed to this development and thought process which is being foisted upon South Africa particularly by this hon. Minister and his department.

But Bill, you are a “sour-mouth” (bitterbek)!

Yes, in this matter I am a “sour-mouth”.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that word.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

I take it from the hon. member in the spirit in which it was said. In a matter like this, if I get a little bit upset I am sure hon. members will forgive me because I feel so strongly about it. Today the Nationalist Party is washing its hands of Black South Africa. It is turning its back. It is turning away, and I cannot escape the conclusion that this hon. Minister is sitting today with the hammer and the nails with which he is going to crucify White South Africa on the cross of the incapacity and the selfishness of the philosophy which is behind this Bill that comes before Parliament.

It is the outcome of the philosophy of self-determination.

It has nothing to do with self-determination whatsoever. The hon. the Chief Whip and the hon. the Minister today are intent on forcing apart people who are together, whose whole future, hope, drift and progress towards civilization have been in the closest possible contact with White South Africa. What is happening in this Bill, is that the stage is being set. The ground is being levelled. The foundations are being laid. On those foundations is proposed to be erected eight Black states, which will be independent, thrown into the whirlwind which blows in the world without the means to support themselves, without the hope of a viable future. The White state which today supports them all, is having the foundation sawn off beneath its very feet, because we will then be dependent, as were the people of Sparta, on a totally alienated population who carry in their hands and on their shoulders the whole of the community effort of South Africa. It is for that reason that I associate myself with the amendment to this Bill and I reject it completely.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Mooi River made a fine speech, one that was rich in words and in which he said very little. I therefore think that I shall need few words to reply to it. If I must sum up his speech I would say that it is one long argument in which the only matter the hon. member was advocating was that we should make Whites of the Bantu. According to him this side of the House is unrealistic and that side of the House is realistic. We are unrealistic because we want to ostracize the Bantu and cast them out into the furthermost darkness. They on the other hand are realistic because they want to take the Bantu under their wing and mollycoddle them the way a hen would her chicks. According to him we want to segregate the Bantu and they want to “civilize” them. Apparently the hon. member thinks that if he places turkey eggs under a hen that hen would hatch out young chicks that will grow up to be chickens!

But let us take another look at what the hon. member said:

And further:

This contains an absolute disregard for the nature and character of man, whether he be White or non-White. If it reveals any one fact it is a total lack of realism on the part of that hon. member, and this side of the House will never lend itself to such an injustice against either Whites or non-Whites. What he wants and is advocating boils down to nothing but genocide. This debate had a very interesting and significant prelude. When the Bill became known the Sunday Times immediately shouted “fire!”. This newspaper, which thinks for the United Party, saw in the Bill the last nail in the coffin of the United Party’s attempt to keep the Bantu within the Republic, and this had to be prevented at all costs. What happened then? Two gentlemen, Stanley Uys and George Oliver, hastened like two fancy generals to draw up the battlefield. The first thing they had to do was to shake the United Party out of its sleep and call it up to battle. They immediately went to conduct an interview with the hon. member for Durban North and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, two exceptional members on that side, to plan their strategy, and thought it necessary to introduce them as follows: “Mr. M. L. Mitchell, Chairman of the United Party’s justice group in Parliament and one of South Africa’s top constitutional experts; and Mr. Japie Basson, front bencher and chairman of the party’s foreign affairs group and one of the foremost specialists on the whole inter-relationship between Bantustans and the South African Parliament …”. Therefore not just two ordinary members, but two exceptional members, because this was a very serious matter. Now only one thing remained, and that was a declaration of war. For that the front page of the Sunday Times of 29th November, 1970, was used,under the headline: “M. C. Botha starts new era of constitutional strife; Parliament to be by-passed; Bantustans decisions will be made in a back room.” This report appeared under the names of George Oliver and Stanley Uys, and reads as follows—

Now they come to Mr. Japie Basson—

Which of the four gentlemen later said what during that interview we do not know, but what comes very clearly to the fore is that the aforementioned two experts, who are caught up in the Sunday Times net just like their colleagues, were not exactly very enthusiastic, but neither did they have the courage to disagree with the Sunday Times. Proof of this we find in the fact that not one of those two hon. members has thus far stood up to take part in the struggle, and that the hon. member for Kensington had to conduct a fight with ordinary soldiers from the ranks. Sir, this prelude and its development has been very interesting and definitely significant. We have received new confirmation that the party on that side of the House receives its guidance from some or other “back room” in the offices of the Sunday Times.

I now come back to the declaration of war. One would have to go very far to find a greater attempt at instigation than this.

They are actually two “back room” heroes.

What they said has long since ceased to be applicable. The arguments the hon. members opposite raised reminded me of little Johnny and Peter who were arguing the respective merits of their fathers’ motorcars. After Peter had trumped Johnny for the umpteenth time with characteristics of his father’s car that was superior, Johnny said: “Ah, anyway our cat has kittens.” Sir, what they said has long since ceased to be applicable, since the principle of laying down Bantu areas was accepted almost 60 years ago in terms of the Bantu Land Act of 1913, a principle that was given further substance to in the Bantu Trust and Land Act of 1936. Since then and for the past two decades the policy of separate development, which has that principle as a basis, has been discussed and thrashed out in its fullest consequences an infinite number of times in this House and this House exercised its fundamental right to decide in favour of it. What is more, Sir. the people of the Republic of South Africa accepted that policy. In fact, at each of the previous six general elections they gave a mandate to this Government to continue on the chosen course and implement that policy.

Now hon. members of the Opposition come along with the story of the “by-passing of Parliament”. This is conspicuously nothing more than an attempt to put a spoke in the wheel; it is conspicuously nothing more than an attempt to raise a smoke screen in order to hide their own attempt at circumventing an accepted policy and principle, because they know as well as anyone that this Parliament retains its fundamental right at all times to pronounce judgment on any action of the Government of the day.

Mr. Speaker, the question at issue here is not whether Bantu homelands should be created. The question here is not how they should be created. Equally little is it a question of what must happen to them, since all of this is inherent in the policy of separate development. This Bill is an enabling Bill and only lets new emphasis fall on one important aspect, which the United Party overlooks, i.e. the question of emancipation. Sir, the gist and the substance of the whole policy is entrenched in the process of emancipation, something which, of necessity, can only be concluded after total independence. Let me say once again that emancipation does not mean that one will take the Bantu and deposit him in another area. It does not mean summary withdrawal, which the hon. member for Mooi River is so concerned about. It embraces much more. It includes the fact that one will help him to share in the benefits and privileges that membership of a people entails, that one will help him to share in the political development and the political control in his own national home area, that one will help him to share in the economic development of his homeland and that one will help him to anchor himself spiritually and otherwise to his homeland. In other words, it means that one will help him to achieve, to own and to enjoy what he already has, and what he, because he is a human being, also desires to own and to enjoy. For that a homeland is inevitably necessary, but that is not all. Help and guidance is also necessary, because that is the essence of any guardianship. That is why our policy is one of separation, not for the sake of separation but because it is the only proven guarantee for peace and good neighbourliness, and because it places the Bantu in a position to make a contribution to the solution of his own problems as a developing people, and not to shift it off on to the Whites any longer, as if it is only the White man’s problem. That is why our policy has a moral basis, something which is an inherent element of any guardianship, i.e. we have bound ourselves not to desert the Native and leave him to his own resources, but to help and to guide him towards fully-fledged nationhood. That is why our policy has positive content. We do not withdraw; we help. Emancipation, therefore, does not embrace a single action; it is a process, and that is something the Opposition has never understood or does not want to understand. That is why the hon. member for Kensington comes along and says—

If an hon. member of this House today does not yet know what the philosophy underlying this policy is, then he is amazingly ignorant or willful. But the hon. member goes further and says—

Sir, what more could the hon. the Minister have said? I think the hon. member for Kensington ought to have been grateful to the hon. the Minister for having given him the assurance that he would not act precipitately, but such things as gratitude, thankfulness and courtesy apparently do not exist in that hon. member’s dictionary. Hence the unbridled outburst against the hon. the Minister at the end of his speech. But I do not think we should judge him too harshly, because as he sits there, he is a frustrated little general. What the hon. member and his party lose sight of is that we are dealing here with people, that we are dealing with growth and development, and that these are matters that are influenced by an infinitely great number of factors. One’s common sense therefore tells one that these are matters that one cannot link to time, much less measure with a “yardstick”, as that same hon. member wants to do.

This Bill is not only a consequence of our policy, it is a positive and logical step in that process. And now? Now the United Party comes along under the guidance of their great leader, the Sunday Times, and stand in the way. I think that if anything is ever written in the annals of history about the United Party it will be that it was a party that never did anything positive or original, but always just committed obstruction. It does not surprise one that they stand in the way. But what does surprise one is the way in which they persevere in their opposition to an already accepted policy. This is conduct that is totally in conflict with the spirit of democracy. There must be a motive for such conduct. People surely do not act without a motive. That motive has never come so clearly to the fore as during the past few sessions of this Parliament, and particularly during the past No-Confidence Debate.

Today it is clearer than ever before that the Sunday Times, and consequently the United Party, wants to keep the Bantu here in the Republic of South Africa at all costs. They want to keep the Bantu here because in him they see not the person, but the labourer, and as such a useful instrument with which to obtain economic prosperity and wealth. For the United Party, economic prosperity and wealth is the watchword. That is the ideal. That is the final point of all happiness. That is why they are opposed to separation. Hence the cry: Away with separation! Away with job reservation! Away with independent homelands, because in that they see, as I have said, the last nail in the coffin of their attempts to keep the Bantu here. That is why they are opposed to all these things, because they want to keep the Bantu here. Here he must remain. He, his wife, children, family and descendants ad infinitum.

They will remain here no matter what you do.

Now it is interesting that the United Party, in spite of the hon. member for Mooi River’s plea for “association with us the White people” says that they are opposed to social integration. I believe they are opposed to social integration. They do not want to live up against the Bantu. But I and others must do so. But the Bantu must remain here. Despite their policy they say they are opposed to political integration. I believe that in this House they do not want to sit next to the non-Whites. But rather than lose his labour they will give him representation in this House, closing their eyes and saying: May it succeed.

It is a pity that the United Party never learns. They do not necessarily need to learn from the National Party. There are many bodies and places in the world from whom they can learn. If they had wanted to learn they would have taken cognizance of conditions in the rest of the world, conditions we do not have in this country, and which none of us desire to have here, and they would also have learned good lessons from it. What is the position in America today? America is one of the richest and most prosperous countries in the world. It is a country which can comfortably appropriate billions of dollars for defence alone, but within its boundaries unprecedented unrest prevails. European countries, likewise moving on the crest of economic prosperity, are constantly faced with strikes, riots and violence, things which governments are helpless against, and which carry in them the seeds of the collapse and the destruction of things which also include the economic wealth which they would specifically like to protect. No, Mr. Speaker, material possession and economic prosperity are indispensable to the existence and the security of any people. These are things which give esteem and prestige to a people and which compel deference and respect. But in themselves and alone they have never been a guarantee for the survival of a people, and that is what the National Party is interested in. The true power, the indispensable elements that must contribute towards ensuring balance, lies much deeper. It is not always numbers and possessions that count. Of greater importance are the acceptance and realization of higher values and, in this small world in which we live, the ability to maintain good, sound and friendly relations with your neighbours.

Let us look at Africa, this large Continent with almost 400 different ethnic groups, and with just as many languages, compressed into about 42 independent states. Africa is likewise today no example of quiet, peace, order and harmony.

There are too many Bantustans.

I shall tell the hon. member why this is so. This is chiefly the case because the history of Africa has brought about precisely what the United Party wants to bring about in the Republic of South Africa, i.e. throw everything together. Through the actions of colonial powers we have the position that most of the states in Africa comprise populations consisting of various ethnic components which have neither the same language, the same religion, the same culture nor the same history. It is a heritage—a complicated heritage—from the period when colonial powers swooped down on Africa, not to help build and develop it, but for their own economic gain and prestige. They simply swooped down and marked out claims. They simply created territorial administrative units without in any way taking the various population groups of those areas into account. No wonder that in the process of emancipation in Africa the emphasis is still falling on areas, without taking peoples into account, and the State, whether it be large or small, must be the binding factor of those heterogeneous nations. That is precisely what the United Party wants to bring about in this country. And what is the result? Unrest and bloodshed. Where unrest does not prevail, there is an artificial peace. Are we in this House not witness to the discord and the clashes between ethnic groups? Are we not witness to the grief, the suffering and the bloodshed? Just think of the large number of coups d’états that take place. Just think of the 200,000 that fell on the battlefields of Nigeria and the 2 million people that died of hunger.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?

No, I am busy and I have very little time. Africa’s problem is unmistakable. The lessons to be learned from it are clear, i.e. in the first place to fix significant borders between people, and in the second place to give meaning to the existence of people. But the United Party does not learn. Throughout this debate they have, directly or by way of implication, accused this side of the House of being out of step and unrealistic. The only argument for that is that we are different to other peoples. But who are hon. members on that side to come along and tell us that we are off course? They who have never had a course to follow. Who are they to show us the way? If there have ever been people who have known the road of national conflict, it is ourselves on this side of the House, because it is a road we travelled ourselves. That is why we took as the core of our policy the question of the birth and the growth of peoples. That is why we are creating in this country opportunities for and a process to promote the growing together of ethnic and culturally related units—even though we are labelled as being out of step, even though we are being labelled as being different. That is why we are not using the Bantu as a football, but are leading him to full independence. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winburg started his speech by saying that the hon. member for Mooi River was not realistic. But after having listened to him for half an hour, I think it was evident that he did not even know on which continent he was living. The insight he tried to give us into the affairs and events in Africa, was clear proof of that. There is only one aspect on which I must congratulate him, and that is the good standard of reading-matter he reads in the Free State on Sundays. In fact, I take umbrage at the fact that he did not even congratulate the hon. member for Kensington on having had the farsightedness in November last year to warn against the very problems we are debating here today. The hon. member spoke in a disparaging way of the experts who had supplied information to the reporters of the Sunday Times. However, for his information I just want to mention that one of the experts of whom he spoke so disparagingly, i.e. the hon. member for Durban North, is, in fact, an authority in the field of constitutional law in South Africa. Two universities in South Africa share this opinion. At present he is the external examiner of these two universities.

However, I want to continue by saying that various speakers on this side of the House have repeatedly pointed out in their speeches that independence is the basic idea of this legislation. As the debate progressed, more and more members on that side of the House agreed with this. This was something very interesting to observe. However, they kept quiet about the other important point. This point concerns the outrageous step which is being taken here, i.e. the handing over of certain powers to the hon. the Minister by way of proclamation. I wonder why they are so quiet about this. However, when I say that everyone naturally accepts that the essence of this legislation is independence, I must say that there are exceptions as well. So, for example, there was the hon. the Minister who spoke about “possible independence”.

Surely, “possible” is not “impossible”.

This is very important. Every argument which they have advanced here in their praise of this legislation has revealed to us the motives behind this legislation.

The first premise I should like to deal with is the one which emerges quite clearly from their arguments, i.e. that in this legislation we have an instant solution to the whole problem of racial matters in South Africa. They believe that if they solve the problem of political rights, they solve the problems of economic and social dangers at the same time. They actually regard the economic and social aspects as being completely subservient to political development.

There is also a second premise to motive which has been advanced, and that is their obsession in trying to prove that this policy of the granting of independence is nothing revolutionary. They are obsessed with trying to prove that this is indeed a traditional policy in South Africa. It is for that reason that the hon. member for Rissik, who is unfortunately not here at the moment, gave us a history lesson on this subject. This is also why various speakers opposite quoted in High Dutch what Gen. Louis Botha had said in 1913. I find it amusing to see how afraid they are that they might create the impression that they are doing something revolutionary. Then there is a third and very dangerous premise. This has also been revealed quite dearly. This premise is that nationalism as a political philosophy is the only one that can be applied in a multi-racial country such as South Africa.

I want to come back to this theory of an instant solution. This theory is not based on any facts whatsoever. It is, in fact, based on the hope that race relations can be simplified. Imbued with this hope, the Nationalist Party has for two decades or more continued to spread propaganda to the effect that all that is at issue as far as the whole of our problem of race relations is concerned, is the right to vote. If we were to believe them, we would have to believe that there are millions of non-Whites who are yearning for one thing only, and that is the right to vote, and whose thoughts, as it were, are occupied with that yearning when they go to bed at night.

†Mr. Speaker, the overemphasis on the right to vote is in the first place based on a wrong analysis of the problems of race relations in South Africa. The franchise has value to the individual in as far as it is a means of improving his material and economic position. Let us face it! Are we in this House elected by our constituents merely to illustrate to the outside world that they possess the vote? Sir, we are under no illusions. We know that everything is not well with our constituents merely because we have been elected. The point is that we are here because we are in a position to do something to improve their position materially. I think we must test this legislation against this background. We must ask whether the implementation of this policy will, first of all, solve the political problems in South Africa, and secondly, whether it is true that once we have solved the political problems in South Africa, the social and economic problems will simultaneously be solved as well. I cannot think of a more opportune moment than the present for hon. members on the other side to indicate in their speeches exactly what social problems will be improved by this legislation once it is implemented. They must tell us what problems will be alleviated to such an extent that the social grievances the Bantu in South Africa might still harbour will be politically insignificant.

That is wishful thinking.

No, Sir, those hon. members want to solve the whole problem. It is wishful thinking on their part to think that, as a result of political emancipation by means of Bantustans, there will no longer be a race problem in South Africa. Let hon. members opposite, for instance, get up and name the labour problems that will disappear, or let them name the economic problems which will disappear to such an extent that they will be politically insignificant. And what is more, will this piece of legislation do anything towards bringing about a change of attitude amongst the Whites in South Africa? Will it, for example, make it easier for the hon. the Minister of Labour to implement more realistic labour policies and to make more effective use of the labour force of South Africa? I do not believe this.

*If there is a yearning for the right to vote among the non-Whites in South Africa, this yearning is based on a desire to improve their way of life. If we take this into consideration, we cannot but say that if this legislation were to be implemented, the Bantu who are permanently settled outside the homelands would stand nothing to gain from it. They would gain neither politically nor economically.

What will we find in respect of the Bantu in the homelands? According to the federation system of the United Party, South Africa will remain one economic whole. Every federal unit in South Africa will continue to share in the economic growth of South Africa and to benefit by it. Under our policy all parts of South Africa will develop more rapidly, whether they are the Bantu reserves or not, as White capital will be allowed there. But what do we find now? Hon. members opposite sometimes say that the Bantu must take cognizance of what we on this side of the House say. I want to use this way of debating now, too. I want the Bantu to take congizance of the price they will have to pay if this Bill is implemented. They will have to relinquish their share of the economic growth of South Africa. This applies even to the Bantu who are actually resident in those independent areas. Suppose in 1910 the Free State or Natal remained independent states. What would their position have been today? Have they not derived greater benefit by being part of the whole?

There is also another aspect and in this connection I have to use the word “prompter”. In this connection I want to refer to what was said by the hon. member for Cradock some time ago. He waxed lyrical about the growth of national aspirations among the Bantu. He said that the Nationalist Party had taken cognizance of this and that the Party had nothing against this. The reason he advanced was that the Nationalist Party was nationally orientated as well. If prompters such as the hon. member are right I dread the day when this policy will be carried out because what is the result going to be? Suppose they are right, what is going to happen with these strongly nationally orientated states on the borders of our country? Have hon. members ever heard of any strongly nationally orientated and inspired country in the history of the world which can look upon itself with pride and respect when it realizes that it cannot even provide its own people with food? What country in the world which is strongly nationally orientated—and hon. members on the opposite side want these Bantu states to be strongly nationally orientated—will approve of the fact that its population has to go and work in other foreign countries? What country will be truly proud of sending its workers to a foreign country where, in its opinion, its citizens are being discriminated against?

What about Basutoland?

We shall come to that and to the others as well.

†I know the answers—the hon. member already started to help me there—which hon. members on that side of the House have for this question. We have read all about the theories about temporary sojourners, and visitors. For instance, allow me to quote here from one of Rhoodie’s books “Apartheid and Racial Partnership in Southern Africa”. I am quoting from page 35:

This concept is based on interviews with the hon. the Minister and the large collection of quotations from Hansard of speeches made here before. It is perhaps relatively easy for the Italian worker to work in Germany and accept conditions.

Why?

Because, after all, he knows that his country does not rely entirely upon a migratory labour system to develop. He can be a nationalist-inspired person because it does not hurt his national pride. But can one expect a nationally-orientated country to be proud of this? Then he also knows that there is no need for him to have political rights as such to improve his economic condition. I have yet to hear about an Italian working in Germany being told “sorry, you cannot buy this house” or “well. I know you have the right qualifications, but I am sorry, you cannot do this because it is reserved only for Germans,” or “big deal, we will allow you to do the work, but we will not pay you the rate for the job,” or if the Italian decides that he likes it in Germany “Well, you cannot become a citizen”. I submit that this is the difference.

I cannot help to say that I feel sorry for the devoted Nationalist, the one who really believes that the political emancipation of the Bantu along the lines envisaged in this particular Bill will solve our whole problem of race relationships in South Africa. Not only do they analyse the problem completely wrongly, but once they put into effect and implement this policy, you will find that they will, in fact, be saddled with more problems. If this legislation is aiming—this has been used as an argument by them—at satisfying the political aspirations of the Bantu and the elimination of political frustration, I am convinced that once it is implemented, it will create far greater political frustration among the Bantu. The only one positive result it can have is that, in fact, it will prove to the urban Bantu, the one who is here permanently, that democracy as such is a farce. This is the only thing it can prove to him. To say to him that he can vote for a person representing him in a foreign country, means absolutely nothing to him. He can pass laws, but they can never apply to him.

*The hon. the Deputy Minister likes to talk about an explosive situation which the policy of the United Party is supposed to create, and he always emphasizes the eight White representatives. But, of course, he forgets things such as the communal councils which will be established, and the fact that there will be areas with a form of self-government.

Tell us something more about those community boards.

But, Mr. Speaker, is there not a far greater danger of an explosion when the urban Bantu are to be permanently denied their political rights in terms of the policy of the Government? If eight White representatives and communal councils will create an explosive situation, this system creates a situation which is even more so. This is like lighting a cracker on Guy Fawkes Day as against an explosion in an area that is riddled with landmines. Therefore we have absolutely no solution here. Where are all the verligtes of the Nationalist Party? Why do they not come forward now and help us to do something positive to improve the lot of the urban Bantu?

But I want to go on to another aspect —their obsession with the idea of what is traditional and their fear that this policy may be interpreted as being revolutionary. The first misunderstanding I have to clear up is the one which has arisen about the word “self-government” as used by Gen. Smuts and Botha. In order to grasp the meaning of this word we have to look at it against the background of the constitutional development of South Africa at that stage, when South Africa itself had not yet attained constitutional sovereignty. I think it is a violation of history to attach the meaning of independence to this word.

As it has become so popular to quote what previous leaders said, I want to remind hon. members on the opposite side of what a person such as Gen. Hertzog said. I again quote from the book from which I quoted earlier on—

Why then did hon. members waste their time here by quoting what Gen. Botha and Gen. Smuts said about self-government, while in 1925 Gen. Hertzog himself said what I have quoted? [Interjections.] I did not quote this because I think this is such a valuable argument; I did so only for the sake of those gentlemen who will persist in clinging to things that happened in the past. If we want to discuss what is traditional in South Africa, we can discuss that. We accept, for example, that social segregation is something traditional in South Africa, but something which is also traditional in South Africa is economic integration. Where did economic integration have its origin? If one traces the history of the first settlement at the Cape one finds that this phenomenon originated within the first few years. Why?—Because there was a labour shortage. And today we are living in the year 1970 and we still have a labour shortage. That is where this process comes from. I am sorry that the hon. member for Rissik is not here now, because he was actually the one who gave us the history lesson. Where he spoke about territorial segregation, do I have to join issue with him. In the first place, I regard the fact that it failed as historically more significant. Why did he not mention that? What has happened in countries where territorial segregation took place? I take it amiss of the hon. member that he did not start right at the beginning and that he did not tell us that Commissioner Van Goens suggested a canal between False Bay and Table Bay in 1655. Just think what a nice and small, but White and poor, South Africa we would have had here around the bay. Why did he not tell us that this failed; after all, this is of importance, and what is also of importance is, for example, the failures on the Eastern Border. Why did he keep quiet about the fact that one had neutral areas and no man’s lands? If one wants to speak of what is traditional in this country, one must also refer to history and say that the Great Trek took place, because as a result of that the present geographic pattern in this country was established. These are the facts. If the hon. member for Winburg wants to speak of realism, one has to accept what is realistic. Is economic integration a danger?

May I ask the hon. member a question?

I have only a few minutes left, and I want to save South Africa in the five minutes left to me. Sir, everything we see here has been brought about by the process of economic integration, and the attainment of independence is going to make no difference to it. It is powerless against this process. All it will possibly do is to create a situation in which economic integration may become a greater problem, where you have the citizens of one country as employees and the citizens of another country as employers and where any dispute may become an international one. Surely we must accept that as long as we have this process which has brought us where we are today, there will be a reason why both White and non-White will have to opt for co-operation, because the one cannot completely boycott or work against the other.

†In the last few minutes available to me I want to touch on the matter of nationalism, and I want to warn hon. members opposite that they must stop trying to perpetuate nationalism in South Africa to the extent that they do in this hon. House. They believe, of course, that there is only one political philosophy that can be applied in multi-racial South Africa and that is nationalism. But, Sir, they forget that as a result of the application of nationalism as a political philosophy in South Africa, we have had a certain amount of hatred and bitterness amongst the White people. It must be realized too that nationalism is supposed to be the love of what is your own but history has taught us that you start loving what is your own so much that you hate everything that is different and that is the danger of nationalism as a political philosophy.

In a country with a homogeneous population there can be no conflict between nationalism and patriotism, but the moment you have another situation where you have a multi-racial country or, for that matter, a “veelvolkige land”, then you will find that for nationalism to achieve success, it needs a real or fictitious enemy to stimulate growth and self-realization. Sir, are hon. members on the opposite side really proud of the fact that the perpetuation of nationalism as a political philosophy in South Africa has already produced extremists such as, for instance, Mr. Jaap Marais and a Dr. Albert Hertzog? Are they really proud of this?

They tell us that all they are speaking about is ethnic nationalism. What guarantee do they have that it will stay at ethnic nationalism? What type of situation do you have in a country where, for instance, your Xhosas will be so politically and nationalist-inspired that they will also start looking around for enemies, because it is in times of danger and in times when you can see an enemy that nationalism really prospers. Do they want everyone of these ethnic groups in South Africa to look upon the other groups as a possible enemy? No, Sir, I believe that the time has come when we must start being realistic. It is the easy way out to say, “We are different nations” and “Each nation wants this, that or the other thing”. You must think of the end result. You must think of what you are going to create. As I have warned already, not one of those states will be economically viable. This has been accepted and because of this, will the Bantu really be proud of those states?

The hon. member for Durban Central, who has just resumed his seat, touched upon the subject here so much at random that there is not much to debate with him about. But I nevertheless want to reply to a few points he put forward. It has filtered through that he and his party regard this Bill with a great deal of suspicion. We want to tell them that this is not necessary. The National Party’s policy of separate development is a clear and honest policy, and it is an explicit policy to implement if one wants to do it honestly and sincerely. The hon. member also said that we Nationalists were over-emphasizing the Bantu franchise, but I just want to ask him whether they do not realize that the franchise is the birthright of every person within his own national context and within his own country? In terms of our policy that is also what the Bantu will eventually have. He also said that in terms of the implementation of our policy the Bantu would also have to renounce that co-development which he had in the development of South Africa. I just want to tell him that the Bantu has had no proprietary right in White South Africa. The Bantu hired out his labour in South Africa, as he will do in the future under the policy of separate development. But I prefer to leave the matter at that. The National Party’s policy is a positive one, and in that spirit I want to continue.

There are two possible ways of achieving what is proposed in this Bill. One is that each time a Bantu area is regarded as eligible for self-government, each individual case can be brought to this Parliament, but this would be impractical and time-consuming. The second method is the one proposed in the Bill before us, so that the Minister will be able to act whenever any individual case is regarded as eligible.

This Bill is one of the links in the chain of the Government’s policy of separate development. The National Party and the United Party have long ago chosen in which direction each of them will go in respect of the Whites and the Bantu relations in South Africa. The National Party chose the policy of separate development, and not only separate development, but separate development deeply implanted in the foundations of the peoples and the structure of the South African State. Separate development which in its substance means separate, equal development for each, the Whites in their area and the Bantu in their area. That is to say, in my area I as a White will have my own schools, my own universities, my own mines and factories and my own franchise, yes, my own right to self-determination. Thus in his own area, in terms of our policy, the Bantu will have his own schools, universities, factories, franchise and self-government and, as eventually envisaged, his own right to self-determination. When the National Party chose to place him on this road the electorate chose to place the Government in power, knowing full well that this has been the pattern of living in South Africa throughout the years. It is only since 1948 that this has been clearly defined and delimited by the National Party. The National Party had to describe and define it because the world had begun to call out, and the peoples in Africa quite rightly asked to become independent. The National Party feels that it is right, moral, just and Christian.

This Bill now before the House is a further step towards the process of the completion of our policy of separate development. This Bill will give the black man additional rights which every person may claim for himself, yes, even more than that, what each mature person must claim for himself. Every person, whether White, yellow or black, has the right to membership in his own national context. A people cannot be a proud and independent people if the rights they have at their disposal are only half-realized. It appears to me as if the United Party is a continuation of the old British Imperial Colonial policy in terms of which the rights of people were only half-realized. They Bluffed people by giving them a little something. But the most important rights were withheld, because these rights could eventually have been of significance to them and to their desire to fill their pockets.

A people must have its country. A people must have its language. It must have its national anthem and its flag. Then it can be a proud people. This is what is eventually envisaged in terms of the National Party’s policy of separate development. A people which is not a proud people is a paralysed people. Just as a spineless individual is a burden to himself and to his neighbour, a people without pride is equally a burden to itself and to its neighbours.

We in South Africa are living in Africa. Our neighbours are, and will to an increasing extent in future be black African states in Africa and in Southern Africa. They will be good neighbours if we help them to be proud, independent and well-disposed neighbouring states and help them to co-operate with development in South Africa for South Africa and Southern Africa. We must realize that a favourably-disposed black state is worth much more to the Republic of South Africa than a hostile or indifferently-disposed White state elsewhere in the world.

Our honest awareness of our calling is winning us friends and allies. When I say this I am not saying it merely as a member of the National Party. I call strangers as witness. At the end of last year a big British industrialist visited South Africa. On his return to England the following appeared under the heading “Afrikaners are concerned about the fate of the non-Whites” (translation)—

This can also serve as an answer to the one statement made by the hon. member who spoke before me. He states further—

In terms of the policy of separate development the Bantu will, as in the past, be able to come and hire out his services to the Whites of South Africa. In a controlled, ordered way he will be able to come if he so chooses. He will be able to come and hire out his services, but he will have no franchise in White South Africa, as would eventually be the case under the policy of the United Party. I do not want to dwell for long on their policy, but they say that under their rule the Bantu would have eight M.P.s and six Senators. For how long would the Bantu be satisfied with eight M.P.s? Will they not ask why they cannot have 10, 20 or 100 M.P.s? Will they not ask why White people and not black people are ruling? That is the immorality of that party’s policy.

Another point of policy of theirs is the following: “We shall make it possible for the deserving Bantu to obtain proprietary rights on their houses in large urban Bantu townships.” I want to say that if that party comes into power I pity the person allocated the task of determining when a Bantu merits proprietary rights. How is it going to be determined? It is an impossible task. There is no substance in the old United Party argument that in terms of the National Party’s apartheid policy 80 per cent of the people will own a mere 13 per cent of the territory. I said this in the House last year, and I am going to say it again, that nowhere in the world is the size of a population a criterion for determining the extent of their territory. This has never been the case, nor will it ever be.

In conclusion I wish the hon. the Minister luck in the handling of this Act, because the National Party’s policy is one with many facets. The foremost are the White and Bantu facets. A strong arm and the intelligence of a statesman are needed to cut and polish these facets correctly, because one day our children must be able to say that in the years 1948 to 1980 the pattern for peaceful multi-national coexistence in South Africa was well and properly laid down by the National Party.

Mr. Speaker, when one hears hon. members like the hon. member for Heidelberg talking about the dreams their party has, when they come to the end of their road, one wonders how short their memories are. I may say that the dreams we have just heard are not quite as good as those of the hon. the Minister himself, but when he in fact now says that we are following the policy of Africa in this Bill, does he not remember what his colleagues said in this House and on all the platforms all over the country, when Britain was giving independence to the various Black countries to the North of us? They said:

Who said that?

Your party said that. Do you not remember that you said that about us? If the United Party came into power this is the sort of thing that would happen. Do they not remember the hon. member for Cradock who, in his annual speech which he made five times a day, shouted “Lumumba! Lumumba!” What does the hon. member who has just sat down and all the other hon. members who have spoken in such high falutin tones about what this Bill will do, really imagine the end result will be? When do they think that end result will be achieved, unless you can live through the 1970’s? You have to get there first; you have to get there somehow, sometime. But the strange paradox of this Government is that the blacker South Africa becomes, the more Bantu we have, the more Coloured people we have, the more Indian people we have, the more integration we have in our economy, the more they talk about apartheid; the more they talk about “skeiding”. Then we come to this, perhaps the ultimate in “skeiding”.

The hon. member for Winburg took me to task for what I said in a newspaper. I stick to every single word that I have said. What else is it? In fact, does this debate not prove everything I said, namely that the aim of the hon. the Minister is to have one debate on this question and one only and, thereafter, it will all be done, as I said, in a room in Pretoria? The final decisions will be taken in the hon. the Minister’s office in Pretoria. What are the hon. gentlemen afraid of? What is it that they are so afraid of in regard to this issue that they cannot have an Act of Parliament passed every time self-government—and self-government is an important matter—is given to a Bantu area, when the hon. the Minister wants to do what he did in the Transkei? Why can they not be given that sort of power with all the consequences that go with it by Act of Parliament? What are they afraid of? Why can we not have a debate on it?

But let me say as well that this is a complete change from the policy of the late Dr. Verwoerd. And if you want to talk to any of the hon. members on that side of the House, specially this hon. Minister, you will be told that the Government is following in the footsteps of the late Dr. Verwoerd. But the late Dr. Verwoerd did not have this in mind. I am sure hon. members will remember that, when the Transkeian Bill was passed through this House it was also necessary to amend the language provision of section 108 of our Constitution to provide that you could provide in a Bantu area which had been declared to be a self-governing area, for the recognition of one or more Bantu languages for any or all of the following purposes, namely as an additional official language, or for use in that area for official purposes prescribed by or under that Act. What Dr. Verwoerd had in mind was an Act of Parliament. That is why he put this in our constitution as it is. But there is no provision in this Bill for other official languages, simply because this is not an Act which provides for self-government. It will be done by proclamation. It will now be necessary to amend section 108 of our Constitution to put the cherry on the top of this very ugly Bill as far as Parliament is concerned.

We have to go to this extent in order to meet the dreams of the other side. And we take away the very sovereignty of this Parliament. I do not know how hon. members can sit there and hand it over to any hon. Minister—never mind this hon. Minister—as they will do if they vote in favour of the Second Reading of this Bill. One has had this before. One has had numbers of examples where the powers of this Parliament have been whittled away, have been given in fact, on a platter to the Executive, to the State President, to the Cabinet. And we have not had one pip out of the hon. members sitting on that side of the House so far as those rights of Parliament are concerned. In fact, what we have had is a number of them getting up trying somehow to defend this division and saying that they do not really mind because they trust their Ministers. [Interjections]. When they were in the Opposition, they did not have the opportunity, because the only time when those powers were given to the Executive, during the time which the hon. member remembers when they were still the Opposition, was during a time of war. Then it was necessary to do so. No other rights like this however have been given to the Executive. This is a complete abandonment by this Parliament of the rights, not just to determine how the self-governing areas are going to be proclaimed and where and what the boundaries are going to be, but also to debate it in order for that debate to have any meaning at all. That is the gift of hon. members on the other side. They should be ashamed of themselves if they go further with this Bill. As I have said, they are behaving like a gormless bunch of troglodytes. I have no idea why they are sitting in this House, because they do not want to discuss the question whether or not we should give self-government to any of the Bantu people in the country. If these hon. gentlemen really believe in the principles which they have all expounded here so eloquently, why are they afraid to come back and discuss them in relation to every single group that we deal with? This involves an awful lot more than just a political philosophy. If you look at section 3 of the Transkei Constitutional Act, you will find the following provision, and hon. members do not have to tell me that they are following Dr. Verwoerd any more— and I quote—

This means that it can only be done with the approval of this House. Where do you find a similar provision in this Bill, in relation to what these areas are going to be and what areas are going to make up these various Bantustans? Not one provision in this Bill indicates that this Parliament shall first decide whether any land in the Republic of South Africa shall become a part of a Bantustan which is going to be given away. Surely, it is so basic that when you give land away you should as you have to under the Transkei Constitutional Act, come back to this Assembly and to the people’s representatives, the people to whom the land belongs. Surely, you should ask their approval before you do it. That is basic. Is that not what all the wars have been about in our history? Is that not what the hon. members’ forbears felt so strongly about when they felt it necessary to leave the country they were living in?

This is the first territorial claim.

Now it can be done by proclamation, with the approval of every single member on that side if he votes in favour of this Bill. I find this measure even more interesting. I do not want to give an example of an enlightened Government that has a democratic respect for Parliament—I want to talk about this Government. Consider the number of Bills that have been passed in this House. In 1968 there were three of them introduced by the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions, namely the Disability Grants Act, the Blind Persons Act and the War Veterans Pensions Act. In terms of every one of these measures the Minister can make regulations, but he cannot deprive the pensioner of any benefit he is getting without first obtaining the approval of both Houses of Parliament. Sir, is this not just as important? Is it not so much more important that this House and Parliament should know of and discuss the sort of decisions that will be made by the implementation of these proclamations? I see the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs sitting over there. He will know that in the South-West Africa Bill there was a provision that the State President could amend Acts of Parliament applying to South-West Africa. We protested and said that Parliament alone should have that power, because we did not want to abdicate our rights. Oddly enough, the hon. the Minister conceded our point in the end. He did not go as far as we wanted him to go, but he agreed to take these powers for three years only. Those powers in fact come to an end this year.

This Minister, however, will not make the same concession. He wants to crown himself king of the future development of South Africa. In recent times, in more Bills than I can remember, provisions have been included by this Government in terms of which this House has to be consulted. When the Attorneys Amendment Bill was before the House in 1964, we had the situation where people could be exempted from the provisions relating to job reservation. If they had been exempted permanently by notice in the Gazette, that exemption could not be altered unless there was a resolution to that effect by both Houses of Parliament. There are more examples, which relate to important matters and which affect people. Here we are dealing with a matter which affects the whole political future of South Africa. It affects the land of South Africa and will determine where the boundaries of the Republic are going to be after these new homelands have been cut off. Those hon. members are not only happy to give those powers to the hon. the Minister, but they are also apparently quite pleased that they will not have to discuss the matter again. They have now washed their hands of it.

Sir, one of the things this Bill deals with is the most important issue in South Africa. If you have no solution for this issue, you do not deserve to sit on the Treasury benches. You do not deserve to be here. That is the solution to the one problem this Bill can never do anything about. It can only worsen the situation that already exists. I refer to the 8 million Bantu in the so-called White areas. I want to put a question to the hon. member for Brakpan, who was so vociferous just now. Without Soweto, with one million people in it, the Reef could not exist and would collapse economically. I asked him the other day, as I have asked him and the hon. the Minister before, whether Soweto would ever become a homeland, and the answer was “No”. I want to ask him another question: Does he really believe that within the next 10 or 20 years Soweto will ever disappear or that the people in Soweto will ever disappear? They are there and they are there forever. Without them we cannot exist economically. Sir, this very place was described by the hon. member for Von Brandis the other day as the biggest city in South Africa. No one has contradicted him and no one can contradict him. What one finds in this Bill now before the House are the seeds of the destruction of South Africa. Mr. Speaker, never mind about what is going to happen once they have independence—if one can ever give them independence; if one can ever get to that stage; never mind about what one does with the urban Bantu then; right at this moment one has to do something about the situation. How does one accommodate them in this philosophy? If one looks at this Bill one will find that they are going to be dealt with and governed by these self-governing Bantu states. In what condition are they going to be living? There has been created here a rootless, rightless mass of people who cannot be expected to live properly in conditions which are safe for the rest of the community with whom they live unless one puts them on a proper basis where they have a material, a substantial interest in the community in which they live and off which they live, that is the community and the part of the world that the White man lives off and lives in. If that is not done, this Bill can only exacerbate the situation which now exists.

Let us take a place like Durban. If one looks at this Bill the whole situation there is quite ridiculous. What does the hon. the Minister propose to do in relation to the Zulus in Durban? At the moment there are two big townships of, shall I say, a quarter of a million each. There is Umlazi, which has been State land for years. It is now part of the Trust; it is a homeland. Umlazi is right there at the airport; it is in the Durban Corporation area, although it is not owned by the Corporation. That is going to be a homeland and independent. Then there is Kwa Mashu with another quarter of a million. It is also right next to Durban. It is, in fact, part of the City of Durban and that is also going to be a homeland because they are going to join it up with the Inanda Reserve. Sir, have you ever heard of an independent country which has borders in the middle of a city, except in Berlin? Can you imagine the sort of potential difficulties and dangers that can arise from that? What nonsense is this! Those people, as far as Durban is concerned, are not going to come in from their homelands on some special trains and permits from somewhere. They are there; they live there and they will come across every day.

But there is a problem that this Bill affects more than any other, because it says that we are now going to abandon forever any idea of trying to come to grips with this problem, because we do not believe that these people exist at all. We have a basis, a formula, a policy which can deal with these people. Sir, let us face it; I think we all want to develop the homelands as fast and as far as we can. But this cannot be done by this Government because they have already indicated to us that they cannot put enough money into the Reserves. Our economy cannot afford it, if it to be the Government’s money that will be used to develop them. But we can do it; the Government cannot do it because they say “they are going to be independent; therefore we are not putting our money in”. We can do it, because we say that they are not going to be independent, and we will develop them with White skill, capital and entrepreneurs, and all that will develop any state that there is with all the know-how that goes with it, because it will remain a part of the economy of South Africa.

I was saying that in fact everyone in the House wants to develop these homelands, and I have indicated why it is that we can develop them properly and at once. But, Sir, that is not enough. It is going to take ages to do this. If you do not give these people independence, you have to have them as part of your scheme of government in South Africa, and we can take those homelands into our federal scheme; they will become part of this federation which we propose to have. But what we can do is something which this Government cannot do and that nobody who espouses the cause of independent Bantustans can ever do and that is to have a formula for the real dangers, difficulties and problems in your country, the urban Bantu, and that is the whole advantage of our policy. I say to hon. members over there that if they can devise a formula, which they have done, which is really a crib of race federation in essence, such as they have in the case of the Coloured population where they have a Coloured Representative Council which has certain powers, which has an executive which gets money—and it does not matter that the Coloureds are not in one geographical area; they are a community, wherever they may be, “versprei” all over the country, and as far as they are concerned this is the solution that the Nationalist Party has devised, and they want to do the same thing with the Indians—why then cannot they do just the same thing in essence in respect of the urban Bantu? The answer is that you have got to do something like that if you wish to survive in this country.

Sir, what in fact does the hon. the Minister envisage is really going to happen? What is happening here, is almost like a death wish. They have come to the end of the road, Sir, and they have no answers and they are trying this in desperation, saying “if we go down, you will all go down with us”. It is almost like a death wish. But, Sir, let us be honest with ourselves. What does the Transkei want now? What does every Bantu homeland want right now? What has every Bantu homeland been wanting for the last 20 years and what will they be wanting over the next 35 years? What every other country in Africa wants—massive financial aid. The problem in the Transkei and all these areas is one of poverty for the growing population. Sir, where are they to get this?

You have Chief Buthulezi already, having just come back from a trip to Europe, talking about money that he is going to get from Switzerland—already—and this is a long time before independence. They are all going to want it and they will go and get it. We cannot afford to give it to them. It seems that if one talks about the realities of this sort of thing one is a “verkrampte”. Let me say that this is the reality of the situation. They have to get that aid; they will need it, and they will get it from somewhere else if we cannot give it to them, and that sort of aid does not come without strings attached. Let us not kid ourselves about that. Sir, as I said when I started it is quite incredible to me that hon. members over there, really appreciating what they are doing, are here abandoning the rights of this Parliament in this regard. In terms of Clause 30 of this Bill hon. members opposite, when they vote for the Second Reading, are going to give this hon. Minister the power to give the Legislative Assembly of a self-governing area that he will determine should be self-governing, the power to amend Acts of this Parliament. Acts of this Parliament!

What about it?

Has anyone on that side spoken about it?

The Minister says: “What about it?”

We have done it in the Transkei.

This is the way the hon. the Minister thinks.

It is the same kind of government.

That does not make it right.

That is not the point. The point is that when the Transkei Bill was introduced, it was brought before Parliament and Parliament discussed it and passed it. We do not know when or how or what sort of constitution the hon. the Minister is going to give them. In fact, we do not even know what the boundaries are going to be, because in terms of Clause 26 of this Bill the Minister will determine them from time to time. We are not even expected to discuss that, Sir, so in that respect it is quite different, and once again it is a move away from what Dr. Verwoerd had in mind. Sir, it is all very well for the hon. the Minister to say that this is just the same. Why is there no provision about the land as there was in the Transkei measure, if this Bill is just the same?

Are you referring to Section 3 of the Transkei Act?

Yes.

I will reply to that.

Will the hon. the Minister then tell us what Clause 26 means?

I will reply to that because you misrepresented the position about a quarter of an hour ago.

The hon. the Minister must look at Clause 26 where you will see that he may by proclamation declare an area as defined from time to time. The districts of the Transkei were defined and they could be changed only on the authority of both Houses of Parliament by way of resolution. Where is that contained in this Bill? Is it going to come?

He is taking all the powers unto himself.

I do not have time to give further examples, but I want to repeat that if there is to be any hope in this country for any future relationship between us and the Bantu, even if it could be on this basis, we cannot at this stage pass this Bill because we are not dealing with the realities and the responsibilities that we have here now. I want to say that the hon. the Minister’s dream and this sort of legislation and all the philosophies that go with it which are intended to please someone else—not the people in this country but someone else outside—will avail us nothing if we do not get down to dealing with the question of those six to eight million Bantu living here in our own areas and the basis upon which they live and the conditions under which they live in relation to us and in relation to our economy. If the hon. the Minister’s intention is what it is in this Bill and if that is their philosophy, then there is no hope for this country until that Government goes and some government that will face the facts and realities takes its place.

The hon. member for Durban North said that this Bill affected the most important aspect of our existence in this country. I want to agree with him on that score, but then I also want to say that I reject every statement he made here. He spoke in fits and starts here to say just about three things only; he said that we had changed our policy; he said that the National Party was rejecting Parliament completely now …

That is true.

… and, thirdly, he said that we were no longer showing any respect for democracy and that these measures or this policy held no hope for the future. As far as democracy is concerned, I should like to refer him, Mr. Speaker, to your conduct a moment ago where democracy was respected in its profoundest sense, and where he was granted an opportunity to carry on with his speech although a mistake had accidentally been made. That is the tradition of this country, and that is the tradition of this people, and that is the tradition of the National Party. Mr. Speaker, we know that hon. member very well; we know him to be one of the great alarmists, as a man who is always presenting tremendously distorted pictures, apparently as chairman of the Justice group. I think he competes with the hon. member for Hillbrow to issue statements for the newspapers to proclaim every time to the world how this National Party and this Government is supposedly violating the democratic principles and the legal principles of this country. He revealed one thing in his speech, which was that he had no basic knowledge of the Bantu. He knows nothing about them. He seems to know nothing of their aspirations, their way of life, their language and what they want in life. [Interjection.] Yes, I was a know-all when I was as old as that hon. member. He knows just about everything now, but as he grows older, he will discover that one does not know all that much. But let us proceed.

The hon. member complained that we had changed our policy now, and that this policy was no longer the policy of Dr. Verwoerd. He was not very specific, but I do not think any person was under any misunderstanding in this country about what the policy of the National Party actually is, and is for the future. But I do want to tell him this, that it is not a sign of weakness to change one’s policy. On the contrary. It is a recognition of strength and of confidence. When one finds that circumstances have changed and that the answers are no longer the same as they were in the past, then the only sensible thing to do is to accept new answers. People who live in glass houses should not throw stones. What about that party? I do not blame them for their having changed their policy in some cases, and for having done so so many times. That is not a sin; that can happen on any side. But then they must abstain from criticizing us. It is a perfectly natural thing to do.

I come now to the standpoint which the hon. member adopted, i.e. that the National Party was now rejecting the sovereignty of Parliament. I think it is a disgraceful statement he made, and it is not true. [Interjection.] This Bill provides that constitutions can be granted to all the other peoples, with the exception of the Xhosa. That party is supposedly such a stickler for efficiency. If constitutions are to be introduced, why must they be repeated here and repeatedly debated here up to eight times and the same things said over and over again and time be wasted?

Parliament is not being deprived of anything. What is in fact happening, is that a proclamation may be promulgated in terms of clause 37, but that proclamation can be rejected by Parliament. This has been said over and over again. Parliament is not being deprived of its sovereignty, and if Parliament feels that self-government should not be granted to such a people, that proclamation may surely be rejected when it is promulgated. But now the hon. member is saying that we are sitting here and doing nothing; that we are perfectly satisfied with that. Sir, why are we sitting here? Why are there so many of us sitting here, and why are there so few of them on the opposite side? For the sole reason that the people have given us a mandate to implement this kind of thing which is now being implemented. We have received that mandate.

Why are you not implementing it then?

But that is what we are doing. [Interjection.] The hon. member has not yet woken from his slumbers. I want to tell him that this party has been given this mandate, and we are doing this, and I shall prove this further in my speech, and that is why we are sitting here.

But I want to come to what the hon. member for Durban Central had to say here. He said he would go out and tell the Bantu about the price they would have to pay, that they would now apparently have to forgot having any share in the growth and the economic development, of South Africa. I am shocked at that argument. It is probably the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard in my life. Why did the protectorates not complain about their lot in 1902, just after the Anglo-Boer War, when they were part of British South Africa; they were part of this South Africa and they were removed from South Africa and today they are independent countries. Then surely they could at the time have argued that they were not part of the development and growth of South Africa. But they do nevertheless share in the growth of South Africa.

I want to come to another statement made by the hon. member for Durban Central. So much is said here about economic integration which has occurred and in which we are entangled and from which we cannot extricate ourselves, but let us become a little rational about this matter. What is economic integration? None of them have ever told us, but what we have said so many times already, is that we have economic co-operation; there is an interdependence in the economic sphere between us and the Bantu. If we speak of economic integration we must accept that all the economic factors which must be combined to have production must be interwoven to such an extent that it is no longer possible to disentangle them. Then one does have total economic integration, but what does one have here today? I think the hon. members will agree with me that basically there are four economic factors which must be interwoven in order to have production. The first is capital in the general sense of the word, which brings with it those things you need. I am not going into any further details; you will know what I am talking about. Then you come to the second factor which is power and natural sources such as water and materials.

This is a factor which has to be contributed, and now you must admit that the Bantu have no share in the capital set up of that economic structure. They have no share in the natural resources and the materials, except if a factory or something similar is established within their area. We then come to the third factor, transport, without which one cannot have any economic production, and there all the initiative has been taken by the Whites; the Bantu have no share in that except for a little unskilled labour. And then one comes to the fourth factor, labour, and there I admit they do have a share in it. But what share do they really have? Their share is basically unskilled labour, labour which can subsequently be taken over by machines and which is, in the capitally intensive factories today, being done by machines.

But let us have clarity in regard to this story of economic integration. It is a popular term, grasped out of thin air; it is not based on any scientific grounds. It is merely a story. Yes, there is economic co-operation as far as this is concerned, and I want to agree with that. The Bantu, however, have no share as entrepreneurs or as managers of the undertakings. They have no say in those matters.

May I ask a question? If the Bantu fall into the five categories mentioned by the Deputy Minister, is it not labour integration? [Interjections.] I am speaking of the five categories which the Deputy Minister mentioned when he came forward with the Bill and the proclamation.

Are you talking about the legislation? I think he used the word “integration” on the social level on that occasion. He was not referring to the economic integration which I am now discussing. That was integration on another level, to prevent social integration within the White area. That is the basis on which this legislation was introduced, and that is where the Bantu have moved up to, shall I say, managerial levels which was not desirable and with which we are not satisfied within the White areas.

That is a very poor explanation.

No, it is not a poor explanation. I just think that that hon. member does not understand very much about it. I now want to deal with the hon. member for Mooi River. The hon. member fired a few salvoes at me. Now I want to tell him to take cover, because I am going to fire back. He made a very serious speech. I believe and concede that the hon. member for Mooi River is very serious in his convictions and believes in what he says. The hon. member had something interesting to say. He said that the task of the Whites in Southern Africa was the establishment of Christian civilization. Very well, I agree with him. None of us will dispute that point with him. The hon. member for Mooi River is, by the way, just about the only member on that side of the House who has ever stated the task of the White man thus in public. I never hear it from the other members. But then the member became philosophic and said that separation was something physical. That is quite correct. I agree with him on that score as well. The hon. member then said that civilization was something spiritual. Now I think the hon. member will agree with me that it is quite commonly accepted that you can transplant civilization without having physical contact. Spiritually it can be transplanted when there is spiritual contact with one another, i.e. when there is a dialogue. The hon. member will agree with me. I do not think we differ on that score. The hon. member has always spoken of Christianity as being the task of the White man.

Now, what is the policy of the National Party? We on this side of the House say that the policy of the National Party is based on a Christian moral foundation. Our policy on this side of the House is based on that, and the foundation of our policy is the retention of our White identity. Now, how do we do that? We have introduced certain methods. The first—and the United Party will agree with this—is that there should be no biological mixing and everything which goes hand in hand with that. I do not think hon. members will argue this matter with us. I think they agree with us. [Interjections.] No, that is their declared policy. I may not state it any other way, or hon. members would then be able to say that we are slandering them. We are therefore applying segregation in the biological sphere and as far as residential areas are concerned. The United Party states that they are also applying this now. But then there is a third point in respect of which we differ fundamentally with the United Party.

We say that we advocate political separation. We are going to apply this, and there are certain reasons for our doing so. Now the hon. member will agree with me that as far as Christian civilization or Christian dogma is concerned, there is one basic factor, which is that I appropriate for myself which I am also willing to give to another; I must do unto others as I would have them to do unto me.

With this Bill we are applying that principle, as well as political separation. I claim for myself, within my own White area, the right of one man one vote. At the same time I do not begrudge the Bantu the same right in their area where they are governing.

[Inaudible.]

If you make an interjection, you must do it so that a person can hear you. You are mumbling so much that a person cannot hear what you are saying. That is the right which I appropriate for myself and which I do not begrudge the Bantu. But now the hon. member for Mooi River is saying that he wants residential segregation and biological separation, but not political separation. He is not going to offer the Bantu one man one vote here. No, he is going to give them a little something, and keep them in a position of perpetual subordination. He is going to discriminate against them, and he is going to control them, under White authority. He will not afford the Bantu an opportunity of realizing themselves fully. The United Party is going to give the Bantu one, two or three members—I do not even know how many—in Parliament. And if the Bantu ask for more, a referendum will be held. I want to ask the hon. member: What does the Black man think of his Christianity? What will he think of him? Will he believe him? Will he have any respect for him, or will he have more respect for the policy of the National Party? Does he think for a moment that the Bantu are going to be satisfied, taking into consideration the development which is now taking place in these times in which we are living? They will demand more and more. If the hon. member for Mooi River wants to retain White leadership, because he does want to retain it, he will have to do so with fixed bayonets. He will have to fight. It will lead to a bloodbath, or he will have to give in. That is the standpoint he is advocating.

I want to say that I am proud that I am able to participate in this debate this evening, in the year 1971. I am proud that I am able to participate in a debate on legislation such as this. I am thinking back 23 years now to 26th May, 1948, when the National Party came into power.

A second rinderpest!

Order! I think that expression is far too drastic. The hon. member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it.

The 26th May, 1948, was a blessed day for South Africa. It was also a decisive day for South Africa. If we look back we can see that that day was the salvation of the White people and the other peoples of South Africa. We set foot on a road and prepared a way which pointed to a new method of co-existence of peoples in this country. That is why it can be a great lesson to the world as well. The world has shrunk to such an extent and become so small that the activities of your neighbour in his backyard can cause trouble in your front garden. If the world could learn the lesson of what we have been doing up to now in this country, then it would have learnt a lot and it would also be able to understand a good deal.

Why did the National Party come into power in 1948? There is a basic reason for that. They had such a lot to say about Gen. Smuts and Gen. Hertzog. In 1948 I knew many of the old Botha and Smuts United Party men, who said at that election: “Not a step further with that party. I abstain from voting or I vote against them.”

That is what they are now saying about the National Party.

Yes, my hon. friend, if that is what they were doing, why did the Opposition lose the election? The United Party at the time had no clear views on the colour policy of South Africa. That party was a conglomeration of people with divergent feelings. That was the position with the United Party of 1948. The people felt instinctively that their existence was threatened. They knew that, if the United Party should come into power again, this country would be plunged into a confusion of racial strife and racial riots as we have never known before. The National Party then came forward with a message of own identity based on a Christian moral foundation, as I dealt with a moment ago.

But what is the Opposition today? At that time they consisted of a lot of liberals, ex-British imperialists, a lot of stray Afrikaner United Party men, and here and there a sprinkling of Dominionites. When that party failed in 1948, it went astray. What happened to it along the dreary path it was following? It fought against the policy of separate development and of apartheid. What happened to that party then? It went its own way, and it exploded. The Rand Daily Mail even described the day the Progs left as “the day the United Party blew its brains out”. It seems to me as if there is still a little of their brains left on the opposite side. If we consider that party today and analyse its attitude in respect of this matter, what do we find? We find that they are a relic of the old imperialists, with here and there a smattering of the old British Imperialism. I addition to that there are still a number of liberalists among them, still the same conglomeration. However, there is one thing they have in common. It is a terrible hatred of the Afrikaner-Nationalist. I want to tell you, Sir, that the hon. member for South Coast, and the other member for Natal, the name of whose constituency now eludes me, Port Natal, have only one thing in common, and that is this hatred of the National Party. They have told the people what their policy is and what they are going to do, and on that basis the people have rejected them. They want to retain the Bantu within their political unity. As other speakers on this side indicated, they view the Bantu as their own possession, whom they want to use for their own benefit only. The Bantu’s own territory must actually be that of the Whites as well. They will then grant the Bantu a few rights, but they will bluff them and keep them on as cheap labour all the time.

With this legislation, which sets the seal on a struggle lasting 23 years, the United Party has allowed a great opportunity to pass it by. They have rejected a great opportunity. Those hon. members, as the other part of the White population, were not prepared to say that they would go along with us and that they would support this Bill, in order to demonstrate their goodwill towards the Bantu. They did not do what was done in 1936, when this Parliament convened and on behalf of the Whites in South Africa said to the Bantu: “We are going to increase the extent of your land”. I want to know whether the United Party still adheres to their standpoint of 1936. If one listens to what they have to say, one cannot believe them any more. I wonder what their position is. Just look how far the hon. member for King William’s Town has gone. He made the most disgraceful statement, which I would never have expected a member to make. He is a White representative and in this House he states that the Bantu are completely incompetent and hopeless, and that they cannot govern themselves. Ten years ago there were ten states in Africa. Today there are 48. Throughout Africa there are Bantu who are governing themselves. It does not matter how well or how poorly they are doing it, they are governing themselves. That is what they aspire to. Now that hon. member is saying that we may not or cannot allow our Bantu in this country to govern themselves. I want to tell that hon. member that he does not know what is going on.

Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the hon. member?

No, most of the time you talk nonsense. Just keep quiet. I want to tell that hon. member that he has disgraced that Party. Future generations of Bantu will still read what he had to say. He does not know what is going on. Does the hon. member now know that at the last graduation day of the University of the North, between 70 and 80 degrees were conferred? Two doctors’ degrees, four masters’ degrees and quite a number of honours degrees were conferred. These are degrees of the same standard as any degree which hon. members on that side may have.

I said …

I am not interested in what you said. You talked nonsense and you will still suffer for that. The people who obtained those degrees, are the leaders in their group and these are the people with whom we will have to hold discussions. These are the people who can provide leadership for their own group. The United Party, instead of creating goodwill and trying to further good relationships—for that is where our future lies— talks the kind of nonsense they talked here. What did that United Party say when we came into power in 1948? They told people that we were bluffing them. They said apartheid was a complete bluff and that it was another form of suppression. They said it was a method with which we were going to suppress the Bantu further.

It is.

Is that hon. member saying it? It is a disgraceful thing to say. Repeat it please! The hon. member is saying that this legislation is another form of suppression. Does the hon. member still say so?

Of course.

If the hon. member says that this is another form of suppression, it is a disgrace. Those hon. members do not know what suppression is. I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that he had better muzzle those backbenchers of his, otherwise his party as an Opposition is going to disappear completely. There will be nothing left of them. We still remember those days when one of those hon. members always used to shout, “What is apartheid?” and ridicule it. Apartheid has today proved itself to be what it is. The first legislation was introduced in 1951 and the first milestone was reached. Slowly but surely the political development of the Bantu has been worked out and expanded. Today we have left 1951 behind, we have left 1959 behind, and have left 1963 behind, and we are now in the year 1971. This legislation sets the seal on the development of the Bantu, and that hon. member for Durban Central comes along here and says that it is an instant solution. His difficulty is that he suffers from “instantitis” and does not know what it is all about. When the hon. the Minister made his speech and used the word “possible” we had to realize that they had not yet changed their spots. They turned round and grabbed at the word “possible” as if it had a sinister connotation which indicated that the Bantu may not obtain independence. I think it is a disgraceful statement and it seems to me that they have not changed their spots.

I want to tell hon. members that I believe that this development has gone so far that the Rubicon has been crossed, and that the Bantu will develop and will carry on. Nothing will stop them now; not the Progressive Party, much less the United Party. I must inform the hon. members that this is the foundation of our friendly relations with the Bantu in the future, because the White guardians have acted honestly and sincerely. They did not in any way give the Bantu the wrong impression. The story that we will suppress them and that this is a new policy of suppression is finally being scotched now, because if the Transkei were to say tomorrow that they want independence, it can ask. When this legislation has been passed, and when the authorization has been given, every other Bantu peoples may also ask for the same thing. This is the case. As I said, the foundation …

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member must speak up and not mumble.

Will you give the Transkei its independence tomorrow if it asks for it?

Does my poor friend not understand what is going on now? If the Transkei wants independence, it will take such a decision in its Legislative Assembly and it will approach the Government and ask for it. After that negotiations between the two will take place. This will also be followed by a treaty. Do hon. members think now that the Government will refuse? On what grounds will the Government refuse this, because the Prime Minister has already made this statement? [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, in terms of Standing Order No. 51 I wish to indicate that the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill will continue for another period of one hour.

Mr. Speaker, I was happy to hear one of the few speeches from that hon. Minister with which I can agree and I thank him for the concession which he has given. This is an important debate and it is indeed fitting that it should be extended.

I want to come to the hon. member for Pietersburg and say that I have rarely heard such an intransigent, such a narrow-minded, such a hysterical and such a bitter speech as the one that we have had from him this afternoon. To think that he spoke in his speech about Christianity in regard to their policy! He also described their policy as the application of Christian principles. What Christianity, what morality is there in their policy, when they give 60 per cent of the Bantu people who live outside the reserves no rights whatsoever? What morality is there in having a policy which breaks up family life? What morality is there in denying home-ownership to deserving Bantu in the townships next to our cities? If he wants to see a moral policy he should come and look at the policy of the United Party. It is a policy of one country, one Parliament and one leadership for the benefit of Black and White in South Africa. It is a policy of political pluralism and not one of either one extreme or the other, of the Progressives’ leftism or the Nationalists’ rightism, but a policy that will bring a balance between races in this country. It is a policy based on a compassionate society and is therefore a moral policy.

This Bill is another dark chapter in the history of South Africa. It is a dark chapter of broken promises, of the undermining of our historical borders and of the encouragement of Black nationalism which contains many of the worst features of the Black Power movement in the United States. Again, it is a dark chapter of giving assistance to Communist infiltration into what at the present moment are the borders of our own country. I want to say that a community diplomatic mission in Umtata can be any time as dangerous as a Russian fishing trawler off the coast of Port Shepstone. The policy of the Government will lead to both.

We still remember how Dr. Verwoerd gave the undertaking in this House that there would be no radical changes in the whole set-up of South Africa and its borders without Parliament having the final say. He said that Parliament would be consulted under all circumstances. What do we have now instead of that? All these Bantustands by proclamation are mail-order Bantustans. They only have to write a letter and it will be followed by a proclamation and, hey presto!, there will be a new Bantustan. I think it is time that we get an undertaking from this Government that no further steps than those contemplated in the present legislation affecting the Transkei will be taken without Parliament having the say. If that is not done I shall accuse that side of the House of breaking a solemn promise and the assurance given by the hon. the Prime Minister himself. In Hansard (Vol. 23, col. 3947), the hon. the Prime Minister said the following:

Is that undertaking still the policy of the Government? We want to know that very definitely.

Yes.

I shall remember this assurance from the hon. the Minister.

I mentioned earlier that this Bill contains some of the worst features of the Black Power movement, which we are seeing particularly in the United States and which is causing havoc and terrorism in those areas. Let us remember what Black Power actually is. Black Power is Black nationalism. That is what the Government is encouraging. That is also what Die Burger indirectly encouraged in a leading article on the 6th January, 1971, under the heading “Swart Mag”. In this article it says that although the Government does not approve of all the things that happen under the Black Power movement in the United States it has to be admitted that Black Power and the rise of these Bantustans, and Black nationalism in them, are closely allied. To a certain extent Die Burger approved of aspects of Black Power. Black Power is Black nationalism gone wild. That is the policy of this Government with this particular Bill. Has the hon. the Minister read what the Black Power people want in the United States? They want a separate Negro-stan consisting of Florida, Mississippi and a few other Southern states —exactly the same as this Bill now envisages and as this Minister wants! They want the White man out without any rights in those states. It is the same thing. No wonder we see in the Transkei that even a Black “Broederbond” has emerged. I believe they call themselves “The Sons of the Transkei”. It is not an insignificant development. We find language as used by the hon. member for Germiston, who said that all that this is, is “kultuureiendomlikheid”. Sir. I have looked in the dictionary, I have racked my brains, but I do not know what “kultuureiendomlikheid” is. Does the hon. the Minister know? Will he tell us? Is he also one of the great protagonists of Black Power in the Transkei? In the United States the Black world boxing champion, Cassius Clay, changed his name to Muhammad Ali. Well, Sir, we might even see the day that we find that, instead of an M. C. Botha, we have a Dingaan Dinges, and instead of a Piet Koornhof, a Cha Cha Chaka.

The demands which are being made from the Transkei are ominous for the future. We find the Chief Minister in the Transkei saying “Independence is not far off and nothing will stop you from getting it.” In that same speech, a congress speech—the Black nationalists with their congresses are very much like the White nationalists and their congresses, “kragdadigheid” flows from them—he repeated that “the Government demands the transfer to the Transkei of the White areas in the district of Port St. Johns, Mount Currie, Matatiele, Maclear and Elliot, amongst others”. Now hon. members on the other side will say “no, we shall never give up those areas”. I am telling them that, if the Transkei is going to be independent, they are going to have an enormous amount of difficulty with these demands which will then come, backed by Black Power.

There has been an interesting development during the past couple of days. The left-wing group in this country, the Progressive Party, is holding a congress. According to what I read in the papers, there is a very strong movement amongst them to accept this idea of the Bantustans. Why is it? That party’s policy is to have a Black government in the whole of South Africa. They probably see no better way of obtaining it than by carving South Africa into these eight independent, dangerous Black states, dangerous to the White rule in South Africa and the White leadership principle in the rest of the country.

The hon. the Minister cannot tell us that the parliamentary system, those regional authorities that he has established is succeeding in the Transkei. You cannot have a successful parliamentary system when you have an emergency regulation like Proclamation 400 in the Transkei as you have at the moment. Would we have parliamentary democracy here in this House if we had that regulation hanging over us? No. Sir, I can see what is going to happen. With the first proclamation of a new regional authority, or an authority with the same power as the Transkei, under this Bill, you will find the very next day proclamation 400 being applied to that “freedom-loving” new little Bantustan, without any reference to Parliament whatsoever. You will find an increase in the subsidies paid to the chieftains in those Bantustans, which now amount to R200,000 in the Transkei under the Chief Minister’s Vote, which he is responsible for paying out. Is that parliamentary democracy? Is that what is being asked for in this particular Bill? No, Sir. There may be a few blessings. One of the few that I can see is that the Ovambuland Free State, if I may call it that, will have television before we have it in South Africa.

What about the Bushmen?

Yes, even in Bushmanland.

Now you are being ridiculous.

Sir, this Bill, as has been stressed, undermines the sovereignty of our own Parliament in the so-called White areas of South Africa. These Bantustans envisaged in the Bill will be able to make laws and regulations for their citizens living in the White areas. Sir, can you imagine a law being made in Umtata giving the whole vast labour force which is essential to our industry and our commerce and our mines in this country the right to instruct the citizens of the Transkei or of Tswanaland or of any other homeland to go on a general strike, paralyzing our economy? It is not impossible. I sincerely hope that they will not do it. Why are strikes held? They are held for more pay and for better conditions.

Now you are seeing spectres.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill cuts up the very roots of the sovereignty of our Parliament.

Why are they not striking on the mines at the moment?

Because at the moment they are governed by South African laws under White leadership, but if you allow mine workers from the Transkei to be governed by a Transkeian law made in Umtata, then you certainly will have strikes in the mines. Sir, if this Bill is not undermining the sovereignty of Parliament, why is the Government going to hold a joint sitting to change our Constitution so that these contemplated Bantustans can conform with his ideas and his policy? Obviously it is proof that our sovereignty is being undermined.

Sir, this is not a policy that the other side of the House has. It is a form of escapism, of fear, of trying to get rid of the monkey on their backs. What the Bantu areas need is agricultural development, further educational facilities, industrial development by private enterprise and strict control to prevent exploitation. That is what they need. The Bantu areas need bread. And the Government is giving them caviar. I am not sure that they can appreciate caviar. It reminds me, Sir, of the American colonel who gave a New Year’s party for his troops. I can well believe that in the American army one can do that sort of thing. As the first course for that New Year’s dinner he ordered the best caviar from the Caspian Sea, from Iran and southern Russia, but hardly had the first course, caviar, been put on the table when one of his soldiers, a sergeant, came along and said: “Sir, I am sorry, the troops are complaining.” He asked, “Why are they complaining?” The reply was, “Sir, they are complaining that the blackcurrant jam tastes of fish.” Sir, that is the sort of thing that can happen when you give them caviar when they need bread.

*Sir, we have had arguments from that side to which we have replied so often that I do not want to repeat the replies. But some of the things said here can perhaps be repeated. The hon. member for Winburg said the independent states in the rest of Africa represented the United Party’s kind of policy. Where did he get that idea? Is it not in fact true that each of those states which are being governed so badly today, and into which communism is infiltrating to such an extent, is a small Bantustan? Is there White leadership—the United Party’s policy—in one of them? Does the hon. member for Winburg want even more of those states, when he says that one of the reasons for the trouble in those Black states in Africa, is to be found in the fact that there are internal difficulties due to the fact that more than one race or one tribe is living in those states. Does he want to carve Nigeria into two or three states more; just more representatives to vote against us at the United Nations? Is that their policy? That side of this House maintains that their policy is going to lead to greater peace for us in South Africa.

Hear, hear!

“Greater peace!” Take the United States of America as an example. There are 50 states in one great state, under one leadership, under one central Congress or Parliament, but in Europe, where small states existed—dozens of them at one stage—one has found war and lack of peace. In recent years there has not been civil war in South Africa, but when these states obtain independence, then there will be the danger of major conflict.

You have run out of points.

Sir, I can reply to that hon. Minister for an hour and even longer. He should attend one of my meetings and at such a meeting I shall have further discussions with him on the matter. There is a much greater danger to peace when one creates undeveloped independent countries within one’s present, existing borders; where one allows them to obtain arms from any other country in the world. There will be few countries that will refuse to deliver of the most modern arms to an independent Bantustan.

You have not read the Bill.

I have read it. It is the logical conclusion of the policy of that side of this House. As against that, we state our policy clearly. Let me again put it to that side. In the first place we stand for one South Africa, for one individed South Africa, for the present South Africa which our predecessors established.

Without petty apartheid.

We stand for one South Africa, without the carving out and tearing away of these independent dangerous Black states. We stand for that one South Africa with White leadership over the whole of South Africa. Is there one hon. member on that side who can say that they will support something like this? Sir, that side maintains that it is impossible, but since 1948 up to this day, we have had White leadership over the whole of South Africa. Has the country collapsed over the past 23 years as a result of that? They maintain that White leadership over the whole of South Africa is impossible. But we have had it over the past 23 years, no matter how badly, how poorly and how miserably it has been executed by that Government. They have not produced any alternative as yet, and still they maintain that the present situation is not possible. Simply let them look around them to see whether it is possible or not. Sir, under their policy, they will never again in future have the opportunity to sing those verses of our National Anthem which read: “That the heritage they gave us for our children yet may be.” Not when one gives away parts of one’s country, not when one undermines the sovereignty of one’s Parliament as is being done here, not when one extends an invitation to the powers which want to destroy us by presenting them with a weapon which will make that destruction easier than ever before.

Mr. Speaker, when we say that we believe in White leadership, we do not imply that it is a form of compulsion; we do not imply that it is a form of supremacy. We believe that it is a system of balance between the two races, a system which will also be able to give much more to the non-White than that which he will be able to obtain under the system of this Government. It is a system which may be infinitely advantageous to the White and the non-White, simply because they will be able to supplement each other in the economy, in the growth of South Africa. It is the concept of holism of Gen. Smuts. If one adds two factors such as these, the factor one obtains is not the sum of the two; it is something larger than the sum of the two, and if one adds all the powers and talents and the energies and the labour of all our large national groups in South Africa, one obtains a larger whole and a greater South Africa. That, Sir, is the policy of the United Party. That policy, as we still see it as far as White leadership is concerned, is the only one which can work in South Africa, and a person who wants to follow a policy for the fragmentation of South Africa is a person who is, wittingly or unwittingly, causing enormous and everlasting harm, injury and damage to be done to our beloved country.

I can understand that that hon. member, who cannot understand a word, is sitting on the other side. He referred here to “Black nationalism”. Sir, is it not much better to have Black nationalism here than to have the “Black Power” here? What gave rise to the Black Power in America? The very fact that the Black man did not have any rights over there. They could not realize themselves and they could not make any progress, and that is why one had the rise of “Black Power”. [Interjections.] This is the first time I have ever heard that Black Power is apartheid, because there is no such thing as apartheid in America; only a moment ago the hon. member referred to the harmony in America, where there is one head for a large country instead of the demarcated countries in Europe—he is contradicting himself. If we had proceeded here in that manner with the large number of Blacks in this country, the danger of the rise of a Black Power movement would have been much greater than is the case in America, for here the Blacks are very much in the majority.

It is being said that they do not understand why this legislation is being introduced. The approach of the United Party and that of the National Party differ as far as the colour question is concerned. The United Party wants to make the Black man a White man. But one cannot do that. The Black man’s approach is quite different from that of the White man. His views on the franchise are of little importance; he has no interest in the franchise. It has been said here: Grant him the franchise, then it will bring him economic progress.

Who said that?

Oh, Sir, what is the use of having the franchise when one is suffering economically? It is for that reason that the Black man is not interested in the franchise, but in what he can obtain, and, surely, in order that the Black man may be afforded the opportunity of advancing in his own way and in accordance with his own background, it is much better for him to be afforded the opportunity of being governed in his own way. It has now been said that this legislation makes it possible for this House to be disregarded in the creation of a new homeland or the granting of self-government to such a homeland. To me as a layman it is very obvious that an instrument is being created here for granting such freedom when the opportunity occurs, when such freedom is asked for and when the circumstances are such that it can be granted. But, in any case, on that occasion there must, after all, be an instrument enabling us to grant that freedom to that particular people or national group. That is the way I understand it. I cannot attach any other interpretation to it. That is why the United Party comes here and wants to concentrate on this matter, i.e. the franchise that has to be granted to the Black man. We know that if we were to grant, in the White area, the franchise to the Black man in this country, he would dominate us, and it is for that reason that the franchise is being granted to him in his own homeland. He is being afforded every opportunity of exercising his franchise there, even if he is working in the White area. One grants him all those privileges in his own country but one cannot grant them to him in the White area. This is the case in view of the fact that he has no respect for the White man’s approach, i.e. that of making him a White man as well; that is why he does not want that franchise here in the White area either. But if these people are governed in accordance with their own ways and their own cultural background and in their own language, they will be able to accept these things and have a better understanding of them. But now we are faced with this major problem: We have the position at present that there is talk of oppression and that subversive stories are being spread, and we do have such a great deal of this in our ranks today. One has witnessed these things being hinted at in the course of this debate, but this has been going on for a long time, and the pity of it all is that we have so many clergymen who, as far as the Black man is concerned, are interfering in order to confuse him by suggesting to him that justice is not being done to him. In considering this matter, one finds that this sort of thing is even being done by a leading clergyman—and I am not going to mention his name, for there are certain other cases which are pending; I am merely going to quote a passage here. An Anglican priest in Johannesburg has discouraged the members of his congregation from presenting South Africa in a favourable light in their letters to friends abroad. It amounts to our being presented in an unfavourable light by even suggesting to the Blacks that they are being oppressed and undermined. Then this report goes on to say—

Under the heading “Fools and hypocrites” the dean wrote the following in the latest edition—

Now, Mr. Speaker, it is this type of thing which causes us so many problems. This is not only being broadcast to the people overseas, but also amongst the Blacks in this country. It serves as an encouragement to the Blacks to offer resistance. They believe that we have cheated them and are not giving them their rightful place in the country. When all these stories are being spread and it is being suggested that we are doing them an injustice, I ask myself this question: Are we doing the right thing in making such a fuss, knowing that we are acting correctly and honestly towards the Black people by granting them a niche in their own area? We are affording them the privilege and the opportunity of availing themselves there of everything of which the Whites are availing themselves in the White area. We are protecting them and we are training them. That is the Christian task entrusted to us, and we are doing it. But people do not want to accept this. On the contrary, we are being opposed as far as this is concerned. However, if we offer the Bantu the opportunity of having their own national homelands, a Black Power movement will not develop in our own White area.

Mention was made of America and its liberalistic bias. But how often does one not see these publications of the American Ambassador in which he boasts about what they are doing for the Blacks in America and how they have succeeded in bringing about integration. The praises of these things are being sung because integration has already proved to be a failure in America. It is for that reason that they want to convey that liberalistic method of theirs to us, a method in terms of which the Black people have never been granted their rightful share and place in America. They re volt because they want to be afforded their rightful place and justice to be done to them. By way of this measure, these things are being afforded to the Bantu. The instrument which has now been created, is being opposed vehemently by the Opposition. Whereas this opportunity is now being afforded and whereas we are acting towards these people in a just and Christian-like manner, by affording them the opportunity of developing in accordance with their own views and wishes, I am of the opinion that we are doing our Christian duty in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to criticize the hon. member for Waterberg. On the contrary, I want to congratulate him, because it must indeed be an art to say as little as he said in as many words as he used. The hon. member said that the United Party now wanted to make a White man out of the Black man. I do not understand what that means. I do not know of anybody who said it either. Neither do I know that we are going to give him the franchise on an equal footing in this country. I think the hon. member for Waterberg is not on the right wavelength. I agree with one thing he said, and that is that if one lives in a dream world, one is really on the brink of insanity. I think it is very fitting and generally known that someone who builds castles in the air is regarded as being quite normal. There is nothing wrong with that. Every normal human being builds castles in the air, but he is neurotic if he starts moving into them. With the statutory provision which is now before us, I think the hon. the Minister is moving in.

The principle in this Bill is the independence of these Bantustans. This is indeed the core of the Nationalist Party’s policy. In truth, it is the whole raison d’être of the Nationalist Party. This principle has been consistently opposed by members on this side of the House.

Previous speakers on this side of the House have indisputably proved the catastrophic consequences this Bill would have in practice. I do not want to go into these any further, but I would like to examine the principle more closely.

The Bill emanates from a declared philosophy of life based on the concept of multi-nationalism, which is an extremely vague term, as we have seen. There is no clear definition of what a people or a nation actually is. In any normal terminology the Whites are, after all, multi-national themselves—yet nobody proposes to have more than one political unit for the Whites. I concede that the word “race” poses exactly the same problem. There are many races within the White group itself. Therefore South Africa is actually multi-national, because, as I have said, there is more than one people among the Whites. Thus South Africa is multi-national, but it is also multiracial. South Africa is definitely multi-racial, unless that hon. Minister would undertake to affirm that, should he walk down Adderley Street in Cape Town, every person he would encounter would belong to the same race as he does. I definitely cannot say this myself. As I say, there are many peoples among the Whites and many races among the Whites, but they are nevertheless a political unit. This fact automatically leads to the question whether multi-nationalism or multi-racialism is really politically relevant. If we talk about races or peoples in South Africa, it is probably because within the South African milieu we all know what we are talking about. We are in fact talking about the same entity. I think there is only one solution, and that is that one must be more pragmatic in this respect.

However, I posed the question whether it is politically relevant. Is it not rather politically relevant that we are multi-cultural and that these cultures are at such different levels of development that our nation may in fact be described as a heterogeneous one? The difference among the population groups is not only a quantitative one, but indeed a qualitative one as well, to such an extent that the groups are quite unassimilable. Therefore multi-nationalism is hardly relevant politically.

This Bill envisages a system of government cast in the same mould as our own system of government. It is a system which has developed after many years of social evolution. After all, a political system does not exist in a politico-socio-economic vacuum. There is an absolutely direct relationship between the political system of a people and its politico-socio-economic state of development at that stage; otherwise it would never be able to exist independently. I submit that this is one of the main reasons why so many of the African states are unstable after Western systems of government have been imposed upon them. But in the modern, international world this Western system of government is the only one with which a state can maintain the right to exist as an independent unit. Therefore the only conclusion one can draw is that the independence of the Bantu population groups is a self-destructive process.

The tribal context with which the Bantu’s politico-socio-economic development is largely tied up today, is not something unknown in the history of Western civilization. It is not unique in the world. We have seen it ourselves among the Whites. The Whites have to a large extent remained within the same sort of tribal context with the same sort of socio-economic setup. If I remember my history correctly, our ancestors had much the same type of system when Julius Caesar attacked the Franks and the Germans. Then there still followed the Middle Ages, the feudal system, the Industrial Revolution and only subsequently the modern state which we have today. This is nothing new, but that side of the House has not yet taken cognisance of it. The Whites have gone through this entire process. Therefore they are the natural leaders of the Bantu. Therefore they are the only ones who can lead the Bantu. And indeed, the Bantu have always accepted White leadership for the past 300 years.

The Nationalist Party’s problem at the moment is that they are seeking a final solution. They are therefore seeking a Utopia. They are now going to solve the matter finally for us. Then there will be no further problems. Then we will have a Utopia. But I wonder whether history has not taught them that in such a complicated matter as human relationships one can never reach a final solution there is no such thing as a Utopia. Nevertheless the Nationalist Party goes and creates a final and permanent blue-print for a solution —the blue-print for Utopia. The entire developing South African society now has to be forced into a static pattern. It now has to be forced into a certain little box of limitations which are imposed on it. It cannot get out of that little box. If it breaks out of it, we will all be in trouble.

Over against that the federal plan of the United Party does not presumptuously pose as the final solution, as the Nationalist Party’s policy does, but claims to be a channel for further development. Above all, the United Party wants to see a consolidation of the status quo on the basis of fairness and justice, and after that channelled politico-socio-economic evolution and not revolution, as the Nationalist Party wants. A federation is the only channel through which each population group can preserve its identity without being economically or politically dominated by another population group, and can continue developing into a greater and more powerful unit in the Republic of South Africa.

Accordingly I want to say that we on this side of the House cannot support the Bill, and consequently I support the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say something to the hon. member who sat down a moment ago, because I feel I must set him right immediately. The hon. member who has just spoken, is my neighbour as regards constituencies. He sits in a constituency of which I am really the political consultant. Therefore I now want to give him a piece of fatherly advice. I do not think the two of us should join issue across the floor of this House too soon. The hon. member has undoubtedly had to read a great deal since he became involved in politics. He must please go and read up a good deal more about the difference between a race and a people.

I did not say they were the same.

Oh no, I wrote down what the hon. member said. He said: “With races and peoples we are talking about the same thing”. This is what the hon. member said.

I meant we were referring to the same entity.

Yes, the hon. member sat down too soon as well. He did not express himself clearly. He should express himself clearly or not express himself at all.

You are playing with words.

That hon. member says that I am playing with words, but the hon. member for Florida is the one who played with words here. He has an enormous repertoire of fine-sounding words which he tossed about left, right and centre here like a man playing with little balls and tossing them from one hand to the other. They were clichés without any substance. Amongst other things the hon. member spoke of multi-culturalism. He called it the main matter which should receive attention. Does the hon. member not know that multi-culturalism is related to multi-nationalism and not to multiracialism? The hon. member said a flagrant thing regarding his party’s standpoint. The hon. member should go and read up what his own colleague the hon. member for East London City said here last year. That hon. member said here last year that there was no such thing as multi-nationalism in South Africa and that there was only one nation in South Africa. In the same session, however, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said something different, and I can read it out to the hon. members, because I have the Hansard here with me. I have already put it on record and I can do so again now, if the hon. members want me to. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout, in his turn, said that he acknowledged the existence of multi-nationalism in South Africa, and that he did so on the same basis as we acknowledged it, i.e. a White people as against the various non-White peoples. Now the hon. member for Florida comes along and says that if we walk down Adderley Street we shall see that there is multi-nationalism among the Whites here in South Africa.

No, that is not exactly what I said.

Oh no, Mr. Speaker, I made a note of it. I expressly made a note of it because it was the first point.

Here are my notes.

It does not matter here are my notes. The hon. member should not become so anxious now because I am setting him right. I told him we had better not join issue in this Chamber too soon. I would now like to ask the hon. member whether there is also multi-nationalism among the Whites in this country? The hon. member nods, but then the hon. member should settle his differences with his Leader, because it is an idea which clashes with that party’s multi-racialism complex and the policy which they advocate. I think I have devoted enough valuable time to this hon. member. The hon. member should just go and do what I asked him to, and then it will do him good. That is, he should go and read up more about the difference among race, people and culture.

Now I want to start where we started the debate. But before doing so I would like to say something in general about the assistance which came from this side of the House. In the long time set aside for this debate, I found it refreshing to listen to the speeches which came from this side of the House. In many respects my work has been taken off my hands by members on this side of the House. They have made it unnecessary for me to reply to points which came from the opposite side. For this I want to praise and thank my colleagues on this side of the House. Now I also owe it to the hon. members on the opposite side of the House, to reply to a number of the points which came from the opposite side and to go into them more closely. I now want to go down the row. I shall start with the hon. member for Transkei. The hon. member was concerned with the preamble, in which the word “independence” occurs. I wanted to assist the hon. member by setting him right during his speech, because in a certain sense I am still well-disposed towards the hon. member. I do not, after all, want him to cut such a sorry figure in front of lawyers on the opposite side, since he is a kind of lawyer himself.

What kind?

An attorney is one kind and an advocate another, not so? In that bench in which the hon. member and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition are sitting, there are two kinds; one is an advocate and the other an attorney. What is wrong with that?

Multiformity (veelsoortigheid).

Yes, the hon. member is right. It is a multiform profession. I tried to assist the hon. member for Transkei by setting him right. I gave him the hint, but he did not take it. He cast it in our teeth that the word “independence” did not occur in the preamble to the Transkei Constitution Act. I then asked the hon. member, “What about the other Act?” He then asked me: “Which Act?” I then told him which Act, but he still did not catch the point. Apparently the hon. member has never read the Act which we passed here in 1968. I am referring to the Development of Self-government for Native Nations in South-West Africa Act. [Interjections]. The hon. member had sufficient opportunity to speak. The hon. member should go and look at the preamble to that Act and then he will see that the word “independence” appears there already, with a view to the road towards it.

What has that to do with the Transkei?

Now the hon. member sees what a blunder he made. Is this not correct and logical and in line with what we have always said, namely that our policy can lead to independence for them? Secondly, is this Bill not logically in line too with the one we passed in connection with South-West Africa? After all, it is not only their independence which we recognize. In making laws here we are, after all, dealing with an evolutionary process; surely it would be a quite unthinkable, unnatural and illogical state of affairs if we should, after the Act of 1968, introduce a similar measure and then deliberately omit the word “independence” from the preamble.

Are the circumstances not different?

It is precisely on account of the circumstances that we include the word. The hon. member’s thinking is very confused now. If the hon. member for Transkei would compare the Bill which is now before us very intensively with the the Development of Self-government for Native Peoples in South-West Africa Act, he would see how many of the provisions of that Act that have been duplicated in this Bill. The South-West Africa Act and the Transkei Act are the two sources of the provisions contained in this Bill. It seems to me the hon. member for Transkei has never read that Act. He has now had this hint from me and might as well go and do so. Surely the hon. member does not want us to omit certain provisions of that Act from this Bill?

The hon. member for Transkei also said that if all the Bantu in South Africa are not settled in the homelands, the homelands, and even independent homelands which may come into being, are no solution, because the Bantu who remain in the White areas are too important. This is also a point which the hon. member for Durban North made here this afternoon and therefore I want to reply to it right away. I cannot accept that view at all. The hon. member for Durban North said that no solution had been found for the Bantu who are in the White areas. Surely the hon. member should know what the position is with the best example we have in this connection, namely that of the Transkei? What is the position in terms of the latest general registration which took place in South Africa before the second general election of the Transkei in 1968? Does the hon. member know that a total number of more than 900,000 Transkeian voters were registered, more than the previous time? Does the hon. member know that we registered approximately 250,000 people outside the Transkei as voters? Does he know, too, that they voted in large numbers? Does this not show the hon. member that those Transkeian citizens …

You frightened them.

Frightened them? It is rather strange that one moment the Bantu are frightened of me in their hundreds of thousands, according to that hon. member, and the next moment I am frightened of them, according to that hon. member. This really is an absolutely feeble argument which the hon. member is adopting.

I shall read your speech to you again one day.

But who is speaking now? The hon. member or I? After all, the hour has not yet passed. Why did the hon. member not put up more speakers on the other side? I granted an hour and it has not even passed! Now the hon. member wants to speak. After all, he cannot have two turns in one debate.

The same political context is the inherent solution in our policy for all the Bantu peoples of these Bantu homelands. But the hon. member very, very badly misrepresented matters by implying that, as he says, the majority of all the Bantu in South Africa are in the White areas. This is only a correct statement if he regards all the Bantu in South Africa as being one ethnic unit. But does the hon. member know that of the 7 national units which at present have territorial authorities and can therefore advance on the road mapped out by this legislation, there are four which already have more than half of their members within their own homelands today?

De jure or de facto?

Really there. De facto they are all there. The hon. member for Hillbrow over there should not try to scoff at the words de jure and de facto. He, who always presents such a learned façade in this House, should not fight shy of those two words; they are generally known concepts in Bantology as well as in the economy of South Africa as far as it concerns the Bantu areas. The sooner that hon. member realizes it, the sooner he will prevent himself from being disgraced.

The homeland of the Xhosa, the homeland of the Zulu, the homeland of the North-Sotho and the homeland of the Venda have far more than half of their own citizens settled in those homelands, with the Vendas leading. As far as they are concerned, the figure in respect of those who are settled within the homeland is more than 70 per cent.

Yes, but in places like Mdantsane and Umlazi.

So what? After all, that is their homeland! [Interjections.] I cannot make myself heard above that noise. What about Umlazi? What is wrong with Umlazi? Umlazi was also mentioned here this afternoon. The Umlazi area has never been anything but a Native reserve. It is true that this Parliament added Mdantsane to the reserve as an additional released area, and what is funny about that?

But it is a suburb of Durban.

Good heavens, Sir, may two countries not have two cities near each other?

But they are continuous.

Go and see what the Ruhr area in Europe looks like. Go and see what Holland, Germany, Italy near the Alps look like. Has the hon. member never been to other parts of the world to see how two countries have large cities situated right next to each other? What is funny about that?

Do you want to make Soweto a homeland as well?

The hon. member for Hillbrow is being absolutely stupid by saying that Soweto can become a homeland. He is just as stupid as the hon. member for Kensington was three years ago when he wrote as a journalist that Langa here in Cape Town could be made a homeland. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. the Minister a chance to reply.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Why don’t you want Johannesburg to become a border area?

Order!

Of course, we know that hon. members on the opposite side talk about the Natives in South Africa as if they are one unit. They go even further, of course, and treat the Natives and the Whites in South Africa as one unit, one people. This the hon. member for Florida has not discovered yet, as I said here a while ago.

The hon. member for Transkei, of course, also put forward another gross inaccuracy when he said that there was no such thing as a general desire among the different Bantu people to obtain a political form of development comparable to that of the Transkei. Then he said that Chapter 1 of this Bill was consequently unnecessary.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23 and debate adjourned.