Normally I would not have introduced this debate. However, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition requested me, and I fell in with that request, to introduce the debate by making a statement on the matters dealt with in the Potgieter report.

Before dealing with that matter in detail, however, I want to make a few observations for the sake of providing background. In the first instance I want to point out that this report deals with the security of the State; in other words, with a matter which has nothing to do with a government or with a specific political party as such, but has to do exclusively with the security of Africa. I believe that we can afford to differ on many things; in fact, we have differed and will still differ on many things. Hence the fact that we have the different political parties in this House. However, it is also my belief, a belief shared by hon. members on the other side of the House as well, that when it comes to the fundamental security of the State, there can or may be no difference of opinion. For this reason I believe that in conducting a discussion on a matter such as this, we shall do so in that spirit.

By way of background I want to say that hon. members are, of course, aware that the security set-up as such, as far as South Africa is concerned, is a new one, new because in the past, on account of historic associations, we relied not so much on our own security set-up, but on the security set-up of the Commonwealth or of Britain, from which we derived historically. It was only much later that the need was felt to establish a security set-up for South Africa itself. That need only came to the fore strongly in the late forties—in 1947, to be specific. Gradually we then proceeded to develop a system, a system which, on the one hand, had its shortcomings, but, on the other hand, also met with a great deal of success. To everybody who contributed to that success I want to express my gratitude and appreciation.

As I have said, that system also had its shortcomings and failings, and these emerged from time to time. Thus it came about that the Government decided to appoint a judge of appeal whose terms of reference were to inquire into the whole security set-up in South Africa, to compare it with the security set-up in other countries, to spot its shortcomings, if any, and then to make recommendations for the establishment of a security set-up which would meet South Africa’s needs, regard being had to the threat facing South Africa. In the light of these considerations the judge of appeal in question then had to recommend as far as possible the ideal security set-up for South Africa. In my humble opinion this task was carried out by the Hon. Mr. Justice Potgieter with great success. He not only examined the security set-up of South Africa and not only heard the evidence of everybody who wanted to testify, but also made an exhaustive study of the security set-up of comparable countries. On the basis of his findings he recommended, in my humble opinion, a very good system for South Africa. Hon. members will recall that his terms of reference were not only to examine the security set-up of South Africa, but also to recommend legislation, if it appeared that amendments to the law would be necessary. Mr. Justice Potgieter also carried out that part of his terms of reference. We have now received the report.

Before dealing with that report in more detail, I want to take this opportunity to remove certain misconceptions, to put it rather mildly, prevailing in respect of our present security set-up. Hon. members are aware that our security set-up as such has three legs. These are that of the Bureau, that of Defence and that of the Security Police. It is not for me to discuss Defence and the Security Police, because they do not come under me, but as the Bureau comes under me, I want to make a few observations in regard to it. In the first instance— if this was not clear in the past, I hope it will be very clear after what I shall have said here this afternoon—the Bureau for State Security is not a super-Government department which has been instituted over other Government departments. It has never laid any claim to being that, and that is not what it is. It is a Government department just like any of the other Government departments, and the head of that department, Gen. Van den Bergh, is not a super-public servant set in authority over other public servants. He is simply and solely a head of a department, just as every other head of a department is the head of his department. Gen. Van den Bergh is just as much a head of a department which comes under my jurisdiction as Prime Minister, as is Mr. Louis Botha, who is the secretary to my department. A misunderstanding in this regard could possibly have arisen as a result of the fact that Gen. Van den Bergh had the designation of “Security Adviser to the Prime Minister”. The historical reason for this being the case, was that at the time of his appointment there was no department of which he could be the head. He was the announced, designated Commissioner of Police, whom I then asked not to accept that post but, in fact, to accept this post. I want to make it very clear that neither Gen. Van den Bergh nor I am married to any designation. If the designation is causing misunderstanding, or if that designation is not acceptable or is giving people ideas, then I say that I am not married to that designation, and consequently Gen. Van den Bergh will, as far as the future is concerned, merely be known as the Secretary for Security Affairs. This is not the precise wording; the wording is given in the Potgieter report. But I just want to emphasize once again that if there is any idea that Gen. Van den Bergh has been set in authority over other people by virtue of his position in relation to the Prime Minister of the country, that idea is not correct. Gen. Van den Bergh is an officer with whom I co-operated intimately during the most difficult years which South Africa experienced in the time of the Poqo and the A.N.C. and other problems. He is an officer for whom I have the highest regard and respect because of his ability and the manner in which he performs his work.

I want to make it very clear, also to remove any misunderstanding, that this Bureau for State Security has never laid any claim to and has never had certain powers. The Bureau, or its officials, have never had the power—they have never asked for it, nor are they doing so now—of house-search, the power of arrest and the power of detention. To these powers, which are the exclusive prerogative of the police, the Bureau has never laid any claim; the Bureau has never had these powers, nor is it recommended in the Potgieter report that it should have those powers. In that respect it is in the same position in which any ordinary citizen of the State is or has always been. The fears which allegedly existed in the minds of people and the reproach which was levelled at me, amongst others, i.e. that here I had allegedly established a super-police force for myself, are of course devoid of all truth. Of course, a police force which does not have the powers of arrest or of detention or of search can from the nature of the case never be a police force, even if it wants to be. The task and the function of the Bureau is to gather information, information relating to the security of the State. I want to make this very clear.

While dealing with that point, I also want to make it very clear that the Bureau does not consider it to be its task—and once again the Potgieter report makes this very clear—to have anything to do with party-political matters or with the private affairs of individuals, and it has also been instructed not to interfere in such matters. Furthermore, the Bureau for State Security has, ever since its inception, never had anything to do with telephone tapping or with intercepting mail in the post office. Let me deal with this matter at once. In all countries of the world there is, in respect of these two matters, either legislation or a practice—in Britain, for instance, there is no legislation but there is a practice—that postal articles may be intercepted and that telephones may be tapped under given circumstances, which are dealt with in this report. In other countries of Europe there is positive legislation providing what is to be done and how it is to be done. The Potgieter Commission examined this matter as well and recommended that in respect of this matter legislation be submitted to Parliament in order to place this matter on a correct and proper basis. I want to make it very clear that there is no country in the world of which I know or which Mr. Justice Potgieter could find which does not have legislation in regard to this matter or in which an established, recognized practice does not exist in this regard.

In the second place, I want to make it very clear that the Bureau for State Security does not investigate contraventions of the law or crime; that is the function of the Police. If any member of the Bureau comes across crime in the course of his work, it is his task and his function to report the matter to the ordinary police, who will then take the ordinary police steps in that regard, and in practice this is also what he does. For instance, I was astonished to have read in respect of the Rev. Beytagh that the Bureau had taken action in regard to this matter. The Bureau never was involved in such a matter; it never investigated it; it was not involved in the matter in any respect at all. And yet the newspapers sent out into the world the story that it was the activities of the Bureau which came to light in that case. I believe that this statement will remove a great deal of misunderstanding that has prevailed in that regard.

Now I come to the Potgieter report. I have already expressed my gratitude and appreciation to the Judge of appeal, who, in my humble opinion, presented us with a very fine piece of work. My problems in regard to the report are that, regard being had to the enemies that we have, that not only this side of the House has, but that South Africa has, certain problems might arise if this report, as drafted by the Judge, were tabled and published to the world at large. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and I discussed this matter. I stated the problems to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. In our haste I pointed out to him in the report some of the problems with which we shall all be faced. The Leader of the Opposition and I agreed—and I am very pleased that we were able to reach such an agreement— that this report in its Afrikaans form (for the English version will unfortunately remain in abeyance for a long time) be submitted to a committee consisting of an equal number of members of this side of the House and of the Official Opposition, under my chairmanship. On my side the members will be the hon. the Minister of Defence, the hon. the Minister of Justice and the hon. the Minister of Police. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition will announce his members later on. These senior Members of Parliament, of the Government and of the Official Opposition, will examine this report, which I shall make available to the hon. members immediately. They will examine this report in order to see what would be prejudicial to the security of the State if it were published and what would not be prejudicial. I am very grateful for its having been possible for us to reach such an agreement, because I believe that in this way we can render the best possible service to the security of the State.

Now, as regards the recommendations of the Potgieter report, I want to say that the Government has decided that it has no objection to any of the recommendations made by the Potgieter Commission, and that it is prepared to accept those recommendations. In spite of the fact that the report has not been published, I now want to mention some of the recommendations made in that report, and I am doing this, too, in consultation with the Leader of the Opposition.

I have already referred to the recommendation made in regard to telephones and postal articles, but I do not want to go into detail now, as it would take me too long to do so. If and when the legislation recommended by the Potgieter report is submitted to this House, it will be time enough to hold discussions on the matter. The Potgieter report recommended that a body, which I have already established, i.e. a State Security Council, be established by legislation. The report recommends that that State Security Council be constituted as follows: There will be the Prime Minister as chairman, the senior Cabinet Minister, the Minister of Defence, the Minister of Police, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Justice, and then, of course, as is stated here in the report, any other co-opted member who may be required for the ad hoc discussion to be conducted on any particular occasion. In addition there are, of course, the Secretary for Security Information—that is the designation of Gen. Van den Bergh which I could not remember a moment ago—the Commandant-General of the Defence Force, the Commissioner of Police, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, the Secretary for Justice, and then other heads of departments on an ad hoc basis as circumstances may require.

I told hon. members that I had asked Mr. Justice Potgieter in his terms of reference to examine certain legislation. The legislation he had to examine included, inter alia, section 10 and section 29. The Judge heard detailed evidence on these sections. He recommended that both section 10 and section 29 be amended, and he incorporated in this report his proposals for the amendments. I have already told you, Sir, that the Government has decided to accept those recommendations. Thus there are, in respect of the security set-up as a whole, pieces of legislation which are recommended by the Potgieter report. That legislation will be submitted to Parliament in due course. However, hon. members will appreciate that it is impossible to put through this legislation during the current Session. Nor is there any hurry to do so this Session. However, I told the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that, once this committee to which I referred had had the opportunity of studying this report, and if the Opposition, having studied the report, came to the conclusion that they also accept the recommendations made by Mr. Justice Potgieter, as we accept them in respect of section 10 and section 29, and if it were, therefore, an agreed piece of legislation on which there would be no lengthy debate, for which there is no time during this Session, that agreed piece of legislation—the hon. the Leader of the House and I have reached agreement on this matter—would be passed by Parliament during this Session already.

I believe that in furnishing this explanation I have covered the whole matter and have stated clearly the matter of this report, its recommendations, its intention and what it seeks to establish for South Africa.

We are indeed grateful to the Prime Minister for this statement concerning the activities of the Potgieter Commission. This Bureau for State Security came into existence as the result of legislation which we on this side of the House were able to support. It was a new departure and a new field and, therefore, there was no doubt that study and experimentation would be necessary before we could achieve the most efficient type of organization possible. Therefore we on this side of the House welcomed the appointment of this commission. I have no doubt that, after the intensive study that has been made, the recommendations will be worthy of very weighty consideration.

I am particularly glad that the hon. the Prime Minister has used this occasion to make a statement on the actual activities of the Bureau for State Security. I think that that has been a very healthy action and one that has done much to remove uncertainty and misapprehension. The gentleman in charge of that Bureau will now be the Secretary for Security. Of course, he has had other jobs before. He has been engaged in other activities. Therefore it is not surprising that people should have been under a misapprehension and that they should not have understood that his present job is a very different one from what he had before.

We on this side of the House appreciate very fully the security problems which are involved in making this report available to the public. I want to say how pleased I am that it has been possible to reach an agreement whereby this will be studied by a joint committee, which will then recommend what should be released and what not. What I think has worried us most in respect of the mechanics of the working of the Bureau for State Security, has been the manner in which information was channelled to the Bureau from the various—shall I say— “legs” dealing with intelligence and State security in our Public Service and how, having been co-ordinated at that level, it was going to be fed back to the various bodies or organizations which could make use of it. For that reason I am very glad to hear of the possibility of a State Security Council being statutorily recognized and that it will be constituted in the manner indicated by the hon. the Prime Minister. I do not want to promise him, at this stage, unequivocal support for legislation to bring that into existence, without reading the report and studying it. I think however he can take it that this is the sort of recommendation which we have been looking for and which we welcome.

I am also glad that legislation is recommended concerning the much vexed question of the listening in or listening from or tapping of telephones and the question of inspection of other people’s post. I know the problem. It happens in every country in the world. It would be a much more healthy situation if we could have it reduced to legislation, which could be discussed openly in this House, so that everybody knew exactly where we were.

Lastly, may I say that it is gratifying to know that there are recommendations concerning sections 10 and 29 of the General Law Amendment Act, which were a bone of contention between us, something I regretted, because I had hoped that this matter of State security was something in respect of which there could be a bipartisan approach. It is to be hoped that the recommendations which the judge has made will be such that they can be acceptable to both sides of the House and that this matter will disappear from the difficult ones with which we have to deal in our public life.

This I hope will remain a non-contentious subject, but there are other more contentious matters which I want to discuss with the hon. the Prime Minister this afternoon. I want to say that …

You have not asked for the half-hour.

Sir. I shall take the ten minutes if I may and do so afterwards. I think my time has nearly expired. If there has been one characteristic which has typified this Government’s activities in the period since the last election, in this the beginning of what the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development has described as the decade of dynamic development, then I think it has been the uncertainty, the fumbling and the muddling to which we have been subjected by this Government. It is for that reason that I welcome this opportunity of discussing certain subjects with the Prime Minister this afternoon relating to the state of affairs in the country at the present time. I would suggest that perhaps, as a basis for discussion, we should ask ourselves how South Africa stands at the present time. When we do so, I think we find that, while internationally there have been one or two hopeful signs, there is no real reason yet for any smugness or relaxation of our efforts. I think we can say that recent months have seen an improvement in our relations with the United Kingdom, and it seems as though our relations with the United States of America have eased to some extent. It seems that there has been some response to Government overtures to some of the African States. There is, however, a great deal of work left to be done, because South Africa is still very much out on a limb in so far as South Atlantic defence is concerned, and the position in the Indian Ocean could quite easily become pretty unhealthy fairly suddenly.

We have to face up to the fact that there are still many states which are hostile towards us, and that their technique is to direct their appeals to race instincts, or to the sense of justice of our friends. This is a technique which makes it difficult for those who wish to maintain their ties of friendship with us, to defend us. To illustrate the sort of difficulty with which one is faced, I want to deal with two recent speeches made to the South Africa Foundation at the time of its annual general meeting in 1970. The first was made by Dr. P. E. Rousseau, Deputy President of the South Africa Foundation. This is what he said:

En terwyl ons so fundamenteel van mekaar verskil, gaan die magte van die Kommunisme en Maoïsme voort met hulle ondergrawingsbeleid. Hulle werk deur godsdienstige organisasies, die universiteite, vakunies, sportliggame en internasionale verenigings, met ’n meedoënlose sielkundige aanslag wat daarop gemik is om ons aan die een kant te verswak en aan die ander kant ’n wig in te drywe tussen ons en ons tradisionele vriende en bondgenote.

Then he goes on and he refers to the chairman:

Ons wat na u prikkelende toespraak van vanoggend geluister het, en ’n bietjie daaroor nagedink het, moet besef hoe gevaarlik die wêreld daarbuite vir ons geword het, hoe ons tradisionele vriende gekondisioneer word om ons vyande te word, en hoe ons meer en meer geïsoleer word en op ons eie hulpmiddele, en veral op ons eie eensgesindheid, moet terugval.

Then, Sir, there is a reference in the report of the president, Major-General Sir Francis de Guingand. This is what he says:

That, Sir, is the situation at the international level at the present time.

I come now to the national level. Here are three matters to which I want to direct attention this afternoon. The first is sport, the second is race relations, and the third concerns certain aspects of the economic position of the country.! [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would like his half-hour now in order to continue his speech, I should like to afford him the opportunity to do so.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the hon. the Prime Minister’s gesture very much. May I ask for the privilege of the first half-hour?

When one deals with the sport position in South Africa, one is faced with the fact that the list of sports in which we either have difficulty in enjoying international competition, or have been virtually barred from such competition, has been growing tragically fast in the past five or six years. Our invitations are refused. Teams which have contracted to come over to South Africa, for some reason or other find themselves unable to come. Tours are cancelled. Even in those countries with whom we still compete, our friends have often been embarrassed by internal disputes and bickering in respect of visits by our sporting teams or visits to us by their sporting teams. I am afraid we are in the situation that we are gradually becoming almost completely insolated in the sporting world. I have here a long list dealing with various sports and our experiences in regard to those sports during the past few years. I think they are probably familiar to most hon. members of this House, because they were covered by a reply by the hon. the Minister of Sport to a question put by an hon. member on the Opposition side of this House. Suffice it to say that a large number of sporting engagements in the international field have been cancelled or have not been implemented because of prejudice or other reasons in connection with our policies in South Africa.

That brings one, naturally, to a review of the race relations position. Here I should like to tell the hon. the Prime Minister that in so far as that position is developing at present in the Republic, I do not like what is taking place at all. It seems to me that race relations are not improving; they are deteriorating day by day. Many of our non-White people who were prepared to give separate development a trial, have become disillusioned. They cannot hide their impatience. Nothing seems to be happening. This extends from the Federal Party amongst the Coloured people—that party which controls the Coloured Representative Council by virtue of nomination by the Government of a large block of supporters of their party to the council—to the urban Bantu, some of whom are now formulating demands for higher wages. It even involves leaders in the homelands who, while they profess their support of Government policy, are nevertheless complaining of the slowness of development and the lack of action. Indeed, the attitude of some of the latter has been underlined by the dramatic manner in which Chief Kaiser Matanzima of the Transkei presented his recent demands only a few days ago and the bitter manner in which they were rejected by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development when he dealt with them in this House.

Why call it bitter?

Mr. Chairman, I was here when that reply was given. I think bitter is a masterly understatement of the way in which the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development presented his reply.

There are certain aspects of the economic situation which I think, are important. I think I want to say that, desperately though the hon. the Minister of Finance has tried, he has been quite unable to gloss over certain facts. I think the first is that his Budget is immensely unpopular. I think the second is that he has introduced it because the country is facing inflation of worrying proportions. As a result the public has been asked to bear heavy increases in taxation and other burdens which are going to make the entrepreneurs hesitant and nervous and which may easily force up prices contrary to the intentions of the hon. the Minister. This in turn is going to fritter away the earnings of the ordinary man in the street.

The question I want to pose this afternoon is what solutions we must seek for these problems and to the situation in which we find ourselves. I have no doubt that in the international sphere for the sake of our security in a dangerous world and for the sake of our integrity and even for the sake of our national prestige, we must strive to reverse the growing danger of isolation. We must try to convert ostracism into acceptance into the family of nations. We must make it possible for those who wish to defend us and who are kindly disposed towards us to be able to defend us publicly without having to run the risk that the uncommitted nations of the world could reasonably take exception to their defence of us. At the same time I want to say, and I am sure I have the support of the hon. the Prime Minister in this, that we are determined to solve our own problems in our own way and that we will brook no interference from outside.

I said that in the very first speech I made as Prime Minister.

I am glad the hon. the Prime Minister said so, because there is still fresh in my mind the statement which was made by another Prime Minister in this House that he accepted a policy which he did not wish to accept, but did so because of the forces descending upon South Africa.

To whom are you referring?

I am referring to the hon. the Prime Minister’s predecessor and I am referring to the passage which the hon. gentleman knows so well.

I now want to refer to national issues. As far as sport is concerned, our aim should be to make it possible for our people to participate once again in international sport. Once again it should be done without disrupting our traditional way of life. When it comes to race relations, I know that we all agree that provided we can maintain peaceful race relations, South Africa holds enormous promise for the future. It is a promise which can bring security, high standards of living and happiness to all our people. However, this commonly accepted aim is complicated by the peculiar composition of our peoples in this country. We have advanced societies in juxtaposition to primitive ones. Even amongst the primitive ones we have a growing number of persons who, as a result of our education of them, share our civilization at various levels. Some of them share it even to the highest levels. Different groups like the Coloured and the Bantu are at different stages of development. Our problem is complicated by the fact that the haves and the have-nots in South Africa can usually be distinguished from each other because of a basic physical characteristic like colour. While our sense of justice tells us that we should take action in respect of the less advanced people of different colours, the solutions which are advanced are very often hindered by prejudice, fear and even indifference. Against this our non-White people are chafing at the bit. Because of their closer contacts with Western standards, they are beginning to desire those standards for themselves with a sense of urgency so that I think they cannot be denied them very much longer. Their frustration is becoming more marked as even supporters of the Government’s policy realize that the Government’s policy is a policy on paper only and it is impossible to fulfil in its full significance.

When we come to economic affairs, our greatest need is to ensure to all the people of South Africa a high standard of living and freedom from want. Our problem is how to maintain prosperity in South Africa, avoid excessive taxation and escape restrictive Government measures when our economy is being bent and is being dented and is being harmed by continued and desperate attempts to implement an ideology, which I believe is impossible of fulfilment without abandoning sound economic principles.

What is the Government’s answer to these problems at the present time? In the international sphere the Government’s attitude seems to be that the world should accept Government policy as implemented in South Africa. Its attitude is that it is willing to co-operate with the world in many spheres, to assist in the development of neighbouring states, to share its growing trade with those who wish to trade with us, on condition that its internal policies are not condemned or made a bone of contention. This is a perfectly defensible attitude while the people of South Africa keep this Government in power. But in a small world, where the acts of any one nation have repercussions over an extensive area, any government should be ready and able to defend its own policy against international critics. When a government can only defend its own policy by not stating it accurately, or misrepresenting it, it seems to me that it becomes unfit to govern. I believe if we look at this Government’s publicity throughout the world, one finds that even the hon. the Prime Minister and his people over-state the practical virtues of separate development. They ask the world to believe that the development of the Bantustans to independence is going to give the Bantu people a square deal. When they do that, they skim over the fate of the majority of the Bantu people who do not live in the homelands, who cannot be supported by the homelands and who, forever, I believe, inevitably will be with us Whites, working with us to maintain our common standards. All the Government policy seems to offer them at the moment is the hurt and the humiliation of what some people call petty apartheid and others call unnecessary apartheid. I believe the world sees through the fallacy of this argument. They lose confidence in our intentions, and our friends find it impossible to defend us against our enemies. I do not propose to deal with examples of petty apartheid. I have a whole list of them here. I leave it to others to deal with them and argue with the hon. the Prime Minister as regards the differences between petty apartheid, unnecessary apartheid and small apartheid.

I want to say that the Prime Minister himself, in his actions, has done South Africa no favour by some of the things he has said and done. In his own communications to the outside world he seems to me at times to pretend that indefensible aspects of his policy do not exist at all. He skims over the problems of the Coloured and the Indian peoples. He tells international audiences that petty apartheid does not exist, or he does not know what it is; or if he does, it affects the Whites as much as the non-Whites. By indulging in this nonsense, I believe the hon. the Prime Minister undermines his own prestige and earns contempt for South Africa. There was an interview which he gave to the London Sunday Telegraph which was reported in one of the Sunday newspapers which I found very surprising indeed. According to this report—

That is what the hon. gentleman said—

I wonder whether the hon. the Prime Minister has any idea of the harm that is done in the international sphere by the application of what I believe he calls “unnecessary apartheid”, and what certain other people, for purposes of shorthand, call “petty apartheid”. I have said that I do not propose to deal with the examples, but I can assure the hon. the Prime Minister that their impact on world news can be catastrophic for good relations with South Africa, as can some of the actions taken by this Government, actions which they regard as being necessary. When such things are reported overseas, they shatter the good work of our missions, the good work of our friends and destroy the effect of our publicity trying to preserve South Africa’s good name overseas. And it is not only I who say so. Here I have a speech made by a Mr. Loop, who is the chairman or president of an organization called the United Kingdom/South Africa Trade Association. This gentleman, Sir, is a friend of South Africa, doing all he can to maintain good relations for us in the United Kingdom. I want to read one passage from his speech, a passage which I think is significant—

I do not propose to quote any more from this gentleman’s speech and I do not propose to give examples, save to refer to a situation which is presently being reported upon by the Press of a man who cannot live with his own aged mother because they are classified as belonging to different race groups, of a Bantu woman who was repatriated under circumstances which caused even Die Burger to say and certain professors to write that if separate development could not be brought about without cases of that kind then it was necessary to re-examine the whole policy.

Why do you always take the extreme cases?

Sir, I take these extreme cases because of the inestimable harm they do overseas. I am talking about international relations. If only hon. members opposite would try to help to avoid these cases occurring, how much more good would they do for South Africa than sitting back while imagining that they do not know what is going on.

What is the Government’s answer in respect of sport, the first national issue I want to raise? Here, Sir, I find myself in a difficulty straight away in that the Government’s actions have been so inconsistent and have revealed so much fumbling and muddling that I really do not know what their sport policy is. As I understood it, Sir, Dr. Verwoerd in his Loskop speech indicated that Maoris would not be welcome in South Africa. The present Prime Minister, however, decided differently, as I read it, and I welcome it and congratulate him on it. It was most successful. We had the story that D’Oliviera was selected for political reasons even though he was selected as member of a team. The first story we heard about Ashe was that he could not come as an individual but that he could come as member of a team. We had a mess over the Japanese jockey, and we had difficulty over a little Chinese girl playing tennis in a schools competition at Aliwal North. We also have the inexplicable position in regard to the Indian golfer Papwa, who one year played in the Open but could not do so the following year. However, I have learned from the Government press that the hon. the Prime Minister has a new sports policy and I must say that I await his outlining of it with the greatest interest.

I think it right that I should deal with a press report regarding my own statement on our sports policy, a report which I considered to be one of the most disgraceful I have ever come across.

By the way, do you know what your sports policy is?

Mr. Chairman, I am really surprised at the hon. the Prime Minister. If he cannot read, we can always help him. It has been made available to him in writing. However, I want to deal with something which I regard as being very unfortunate. I refer to a report in the newspaper Die Vaderland under the heading: “Sportbaas knoei met Sir Div.” and reads—

Sir, I want to say that this is totally untrue; there is no vestige of truth in it; it is a He, and I hope to report it to the Press Board and challenge that newspaper to prove that it is true. But as I was saying, I welcome any new statement by the hon. the Prime Minister and I reserve my reaction to it until he has made it. I hope, however, that it is not going to be on the lines indicated by some of his newspapers, i.e. to the effect that he will organize our sport or allow it to be organized internally and externally on a multi-national basis on the assumption that we are already separate nations with separate identities although we are all still citizens at the present time of one South Africa.

May I put a question to you, in all sincerity?

Yes, certainly.

Do you not think it will be better if you put your sports policy and I mine?

There is one fundamental difference between the position of the hon. the Prime Minister and mine. That is that he has a copy of my sport policy in his possession; I sent it to him.

But there were so many reports in the Press … [Interjections.]

The hon. gentleman has a copy of my sports policy in his possession. If he would have the kindness to let me have a copy of his sport policy … [interjections.] … I would be happy to compare the one with the other. At this stage I should like to say that, if what the newspapers report about his policy is correct, then there are certain very real dangers—firstly, if he keeps competition on the national level to ethnic groups playing against each other he may be faced with a great deal of excitement and disturbances amongst the crowds that are allowed to watch those performances. Secondly, I want to say that if he is going to allow different ethnic groups and their controlling organizations to negotiate with international sport bodies for recognition, he might find himself in the position that since on the whole they only recognize national bodies, they may recognize some non-White bodies and not White bodies as representing sport in South Africa. Sir, I await the hon. gentleman’s plan and its details with great interest.

Sir, what are the Government’s solutions for this very delicate matter of race relations? Here I want to deal with only three matters. The first concerns a matter on which we warned the Government over the years and in respect of which, to my regret I must say, it seems that our warnings have been realized. It concerns the friction between the Government and leaders of the Bantu in the homelands who support Government policy, the policy of ultimate sovereign independence for the homelands. Because here the Government is beginning to find something of which we warned in the past and that is that it is landing in the same position in which the colonial powers of Europe landed themselves with their African and Asian colonies after World War II. These powers found that development towards political independence has a momentum of its own. Once independence has been promised the developing people do not accept the programme laid down for them by the colonial power, and that power tends to lose control of the time-table. Sir, only last week we had an example of the sort of thing that can so easily happen and seems to be happening here. Here we had Kaiser Matanzima, the Chief Minister of the Transkei, to the great annoyance of the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and apparently weary of pressing his claims in the Minister’s office, making public demands for more rapid progress. These demands will undoubtedly become known to his own people, as I have no doubt he intended they should. They may easily grasp public imagination, as they have done in other states of Africa, and they may then present the Minister with very serious problems indeed. If this happens in one state it is bad enough, but this Minister has already taken powers to develop a number of states to the same stage of development as the Transkei. What is going to happen, Sir, when he is faced with public demands from a number of these states at the same time after they have got tired of talking to him in his office?

Will they make no demands under your policy?

When the hon. the Minister of Community Development starts making interjections, then I know that I am making things difficult for the Government. There will undoubtedly be demands from a number of these states, one more impatient than the other, their leaders probably vying with each other to become the recognized leaders of the non-White people in South Africa. Sir, in the light of the reaction of the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development in this House last week when he dealt with that issue …

He was shaken.

… I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that I wonder whether that hon. Minister is really the man to carry out Government policy in this respect and to guide these people along the lines laid down in respect of the ideas of freedom which this Government is holding out for them. I know that the hon. the Prime Minister said that he is prepared to discuss independence at any time with the government of any homeland which feels that it is ready for it. But, Sir, if the Prime Minister said that, why did the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development get so excited? That statement from the hon. the Prime Minister may prove to be a safety valve, but it may also implant ideas of independence prematurely into the minds of non-White leaders. History has proved that when a government refuses the demands of impatient political leaders in countries fired by the idea of political freedom, then a growing hostility develops between that country and those trying to limit it in any way. It can lead to disastrous consequences. We saw it in Ghana and we saw it in Kenya. We know now that there are other leaders of the non-White people making demands here in South Africa. One has said that his people could not in the jet age be expected to progress towards independence at the rate of the ox-wagon. It seems to me that if the hon. the Prime Minister stays in power with his policies and with this Minister, then we face the prospect of developing confrontations, possible conflicts and even a series of U.D.I.s from these emergent African states, which could have disastrous results for the entire South African community. [Time expired.]

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition touched upon half a dozen matters in his speech. I think that, for the sake of a fruitful discussion, we must not discuss these matters at random. I think we must discuss and dispose of these matters one after the other, and after we have disposed of one, we can go on to the next. I prefer it this way, and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will understand that I prefer that sequence.

I just want to say in passing that it is interesting that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to an interview I had with a British journalist. He discussed petty apartheid, a matter on which I should very much like to have a debate and which I will subsequently debate under this Vote …

A debate on something that does not exist?

I shall also have something to say to the hon. member for Yeoville if he accepts the leadership of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. Sir, I was saying that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to petty apartheid. In the same breath he referred to an interview I had had with a British journalist. He chose one example, i.e. the restaurant example, and charged me with not having done South Africa a service. I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether I was correct in concluding from the way in which he set out the matter that the reproach he levelled at me was related to the fact that it is traditional in South Africa—and I could not conceal this from the British journalist because everyone in South Africa is aware of it—that there are White restaurants for Whites and non-White restaurants for non-Whites. I now want to put this specific question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition across the floor of this House: Since he spoke of petty apartheid, which should be done away with otherwise I am not doing South Africa a service, does he regard the fact that there are separate restaurants for Whites and non-Whites in South Africa as petty apartheid which should be done away with? [Interjections.! In other words, I must understand from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that he agrees with me that it is a good and correct practice that there should be separate restaurants for Whites and non-Whites. Is that correct?

Reply! (Interjections.]

I shall reply.

•The PRIME MINISTER: Mr. Chairman, this is to my mind a cardinal question. My standpoint is that it is a good and correct practice that there should be separate restaurants. It is important to me, since the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has levelled this reproach at me, to know what the standpoint of the Opposition in this regard is, because if the Opposition tells me—and I mean this very seriously: “Look, we agree with you that this should be the case; it is the right thing,” then I shall not take this argument any further; then it will be senseless to take it further. But if the Opposition tells me, “No, you are wrong; you are doing South Africa an injustice; you are harming South Africa abroad because you are saying and doing this,” then we can discuss it to some avail across the floor of this House.

That is not my point at all. [Interjections.]

I think in all honesty that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, since he quoted the example and since the British newspaper has now published an article about it. has an obligation to South Africa, for this is our practice here, our rule and our law, to say whether or not he agrees with that, whether it is right or wrong. Perhaps the hon. the Whip will tell me whether it is right or wrong.

Why do you not deal with the point he made? [Interjections.]

It is very clear to me now. We are not dealing with a minor matter here. [Interjections.] We have here a matter which goes to the heart of population relationships, viz. that there are places of refreshment or restaurants in South Africa for Whites only, to which non-Whites are not admitted. This is an important and serious matter.

Dear me!

If the hon. member for Yeoville says, “Dear me!” why does he not tell me then?

That is not the point my hon. Leader raised at all.

I leave the matter at that.

I shall not leave it at that.

I should be very grateful if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would rise to his feet and tell us what his standpoint is, for I not only stated my standpoint to the journalist, but have stated it again now in this House. I told the journalist that it is the practice and that it is law in South Africa now, although it was not law formerly. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows that it became law after certain incidents here in Cape Town. The journalist put it to me that their not being able to go to these restaurants was an insult to the non-Whites. I then put it to him that it was the position that there were restaurants to which only Whites could go and that there were restaurants to which only non-Whites could go.

Separate but equal, of course.

It is not the State which provides restaurants, but private initiative. But allow me at once to say this: Where the State has erected new station buildings, as it did here in Cape Town, take a look at the type of facilities the State has made available for the non-Whites.

And the J. G. Strydom Tower?

And what about the Nico Malan Theatre?

You can discuss that with me if you want to do so. If you have any charge to make against me in that connection, I shall reply to it. But I maintain that all the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does is to level reproaches. He merely lets it glimmer through that he is on the opposite side, but when you corner him to get him to say where he stands, you do not receive a reply from him.

But I would now prefer to deal immediately with the argument of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the charge against my colleague, the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. The Leader of the Opposition put the question to me, and he insinuated, that the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration was not competent to handle the portfolio he holds. Let me tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that I regard Minister M. C. Botha as being eminently qualified to handle the portfolio held by him. It is my view, and I have personal knowledge of this, that he has over the years done extremely good work in this connection. I regard his handling of delicate race matters as being of the highest calibre. I believe that he is leading the different Bantu peoples, who have been entrusted to his care in his capacity as Minister, along the road of self-realization in a way which can only yield the best results for them and for South Africa. I believe that he is laying the foundations on which it will be possible to build self respecting, eventually prosperous states.

He will make a good aspirant Prime Minister!

I did not interrupt the hon. member’s Leader in that snide fashion when he was speaking. We are dealing with serious matters now, not with point-scoring matters about which jokes can be made.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to the speech made by Kaiser Matanzima, the Chief Minister of the Transkei, at his party congress, and to the reaction to it in this House by the Minister of Bantu Administration. I do not want to repeat everything the Minister said when he participated in the debate here. I just want to emphasize once again that Chief Matanzima was speaking here as a politician before his political congress. The Minister made it very clear that he was opposed to the way in which this had been done, since he had held discussions with him. In spite of the fact that my hon. colleague made it clear, I again want to make it very clear here that it is stated in the Transkei Constitution Act, which was passed by this Parliament in 1963, that certain specified departments may be transferred to the Transkeian Government after discussions between that Government and this Government. What I am going to say here this afternoon about territory, applies not only to the Transkei, but also to all Bantu homelands. In the first place, I want to say in general that all the departments mentioned will of course eventually be transferred to the Transkei in terms of that Act and its provisions. This is stated in the Act, and they will be transferred as and when, after discussions, it is deemed to be practicable and practical to do so. Let there be no misunderstanding in regard to the intention of the Government in that connection. The hon. the Minister referred quite correctly to the fact that one of the departments mentioned is not mentioned in that Act at all, and is therefore entirely outside its ambit. This Government does not have the right to negotiate on that matter with the Transkeian Government, and the Transkeian Government cannot discuss it with this Government, because it is not mentioned in that Act. The Act will first have to be amended before that matter can be discussed. This is the question of defence. The plain truth of the matter is that there has never been a Republican Department of Defence in the Transkei. Consequently, even if it were stated in the Act, there is nothing to take over, because it has never been there. Even if it were there, and even if it could be argued that it was there, it would still not be relevant, because it is not stated in the enabling Act of 1963, and this Government is bound to the provisions of that Act. That is what I want to say in the first instance.

I want to make it very clear that it is the policy of the Government to make the administrations of those homelands conversant with all the departments which are mentioned and which they must eventually take over. There must be no doubt about that. We shall negotiate with them on that score as often as is necessary. The Minister also stated very clearly that in respect of some of the demands which were stated at that party congress, it has been announced in the Opening Address that these would be transferred, and that the others were still in the process of being discussed. Let us, for example, take a matter like postal services. Here we have to deal with an organization in which the services are so closely interwoven that one cannot simply sever them and then say: “Now you have your postal services, and we have ours.” Surely this is a matter in respect of which there must be long, protracted negotiations in order to make possible the smooth functioning of telephone calls, postal traffic and communications.

In that regard we have been reproached with, inter alia, doing nothing to do justice to the Bantu by way of allowing them to run the various departments, despite the fact that they have had self-government for years. If that were true, it would have been a charge of which I would have had to take notice. Consequently, immediately after the charge was made from the opposite side, I called for the figures in order to ascertain whether or not this was true. The reply I received was as follows: On 11th December, 1963, when self-government commenced in the Transkei, there were, as far as public servants are concerned, 2 446 posts. Of those posts 455 were occupied by Whites. In other words, as at that date they comprised 18,6 per cent of the total number of public servants of the Transkei. The present position is that, because expansion has taken place, there are 3 673 posts instead of 2 446, but the number of Whites has decreased from 455 to 292, that is, 7,9 per cent of the total number of servants as against the 18,6 per cent of 1963. This is the position as it has developed. That trend will continue. As the Black officials become available, they will be taken into those positions, for it is the policy of this Government that that entire Public Service shall eventually be Black. We are deliberately working towards this end. As far as I am concerned, the sooner we can achieve it, the better for us, because those Whites who are at present working there we need here in our own area. I therefore want to conclude the matter by saying that it is the Government’s policy, with due regard to good administration—and I want to emphasize the words “good administration”—to maintain close negotiations with these self-governing states in order to make transfer to them as soon as it is practicable. To round off the argument completely, I just want to say that everything which is authorized by that Act will in due course be given to them. It is their right. It has been promised to them, and they will receive it.

Then there is the question of territory. Mr. Chairman, territorial demands are as old as mankind itself. If Noah, in his time, had not been alone but had had a neighbour, even he would have had a territorial dispute with his neighbour. It remains in the nature of mankind to have problems in regard to territory. There are territorial problems throughout the world today. There is the territorial problem between Britain and Spain over Gibraltar. There is the territorial problem of the Falkland Islands as far as the Argentine is concerned. There are problems in regard to territory in the East, between India and Pakistan, as in various other parts of the world. We can also expect to have territorial problems here. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the country outside have the right, if territorial claims are being made, to ask me what my Government’s standpoint is. Then there must be no uncertainty as to what the Government’s standpoint is. Although that standpoint has been stated before, I want to make it very clear again here this afternoon. In the past various Acts were passed dealing with the matter of land. My hon. friend referred to the 1913 Act. There are other laws as well which preceded that. These laws eventually culminated in the 1936 Act. What did that Act provide in essence? In essence that Act provided that what at that stage was Black territory in terms of the various statutory provisions, would remain Black territory in future. It could not be touched. It had to remain in the possession of the Black people of South Africa. The Act further provided that territory which at that juncture was in the possession of the Whites, was in essence White land and could and had to remain their property. That territory is regarded as such. But the United Party, under the leadership of Gen. Hertzog and Gen. Smuts, gave the word of the White man, and embodied it in an Act of this Parliament, that 7¼ million morgen of land had still to be given to the Black people. Seven-and-a-quarter million morgen of land is, if my arithmetic is correct, approximately 17 million acres of land. I think I am correct if I state it in this way for the sake of those who calculate land area in acres. That Act stated that this 7½ million morgen of the land which belonged to the White people, would be transferred to the Black people at the cost of the Whites. This Government will keep the word which the White man gave by way of that Act, and the process of purchasing that 7¼ million morgen of land has continued from 1936 until today. This process will continue until the million morgen of land has been given. However, once that 7¼ million morgen of land has been given, then territorial demands, as far as this Government and I personally are concerned, will have been disposed of.

So history ended in 1936.

It is not only history that ended there, but it is also the promise of the White man to the Black man in South Africa. I have now made the Government’s policy in respect of that promise very clear. I would be interested in the hon. member’s view of the promise the United Party wants to make to the Black man. I have said this now, but it must also be very clearly understood that the 1936 Act did not only say that 7½ million morgen of land should be added. The Act went further in the Schedule and stipulated how much land had to be given in the various provinces. Thus the Act, for example, provided that the Transvaal had to give 4 306 643 morgen of land to the Black man.

I think it was given in hectares.

Yes, I am speaking in terms of morgen, but in terms of the decimal system it has now been converted into hectares. This is applicable to the younger people, but not to us older people. I think we old people will just have to keep on talking in terms of morgen.

What are you talking about now?

I am talking to the young people on the opposite side now, young people like the hon. member, and consequently I am talking in terms of hectares. I repeat, therefore, that the obligation to give 4 306 643 hectares to the Black people was imposed on the Transvaal in terms of the Act. Of that land 3 679 441 hectares had in fact been purchased by December. 1970. That means, in other words, that 627 202 hectares of land are still outstanding in the Transvaal. This land will be added to the various Bantu homelands in the Transvaal. In the Free State the account has already been closed, because the land purchases in terms of that Act have already been disposed of. In terms of the Act the Cape Province had to give the Bantu 1 384 156 hectares of land, of which 739 474 hectares have already been given. This means therefore that there are still 644 682 hectares of land outstanding. In terms of the Act, Natal owes the Bantu 450 536 hectares, of which 383 164 hectares have already been given. This means that there are still 67 372 hectares of land outstanding in Natal. Just as in the case of the Transvaal, this outstanding land in the Cape Province will have to be allocated not only in the Eastern Cape, but there are other Bantu areas as well which also have to be taken into account when the outstanding land is allocated. In due course, as this land is purchased, these territorial claims will also be disposed of, just as they have been disposed of in the Free State. Of course, I am not talking now of any exchange of White spots here and Black spots there, because that is, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will understand, an entirely separate matter. But I want to make it very clear that it is the policy of this Government that we stand by the 1936 Act. We shall purchase that land and add it to those various Bantu areas, as has in fact been the case over the past decades.

I noted to my surprise that questions are now being asked in the outside world as to whether this problem which has now arisen as a result of Chief Matanzima’s speech and the Government’s reaction to it, entails a change in the homelands policy of the Government. I am surprised that these questions have been put to me. However, I want to furnish a specific reply to them today. No, it has brought no change whatsoever in the policy of the Government. The policy of the Government is to lead these Black states to independence. When I use the word “independence” I use it in the ordinary every-day sense of the word.

Sovereignty?

Yes, in the ordinary, every-day sense of the word.

As Blaar uses it?

As Blaar or M. C. or anyone else uses it. There can be no doubt whatsoever about that now.

Does that include defence?

Any independent country is free to create any department it wishes. But let me now tell that hon. member, who wants to make political propaganda out of this, something. Here we have the independent countries Lesotho, Botswana and Swaziland. Is the hon. member aware of the fact that they do not have departments of defence? They do not have departments of defence for the simple reason that there is no one they have to defend themselves against. They have no enemies. They are among the most fortunate people on earth, because they do not have to spend a cent of their Budgets on defence, because they have South Africa for their neighbour and they know that they have nothing to fear from South Africa. If they now put this question in regard to defence to me, it is an academic question which means absolutely nothing, because there will be no need for those people to have such departments. They will be the biggest fools in the world if they do so.

Why then did Matanzima ask for it?

That, the hon. member should go and ask him. I do not know, because it is not relevant. It is not stated in the Act.

Then he is one of the biggest fools one can find?

Let me put it this way now, even though the hon. member now wants to sow disaffection between Matanzima and me with the question he has asked. If Matanzima at this stage asks for a department of defence, and I were to see him tomorrow, I would tell him it is a foolish thing he wants to do, because it is a waste of money and something he does not need. I shall tell him this, and I have the courage of my convictions to do so.

A terrific fuss has now been made over what happened. Let me now inform hon. members, since the reproach has been levelled by my hon. friends opposite, particularly through the Press, that if we want to hold talks with independent States in Africa, why do we not, since charity begins at home, hold talks with our own people, that there has been more consultation with our own people during the past two/three years than in the entire period of South Africa’s existence. This has been made possible by my hon. friend here. I can inform hon. members that since Parliament began sitting, in January, up to the present time I have personally held very long consultations with Coloured Leaders, leaders not only of one party, but of all parties except the Labour Party. I have spent hours in consultation with them and I shall, when the occasion presents itself, report to the House on what happened there. I have also held long consultations with the leaders of the Tswana, the Ciskeian and Shangaan peoples—all of this since Parliament began sitting in January. There has never before been such close consultation as there is at present. I spoke very frankly to those leaders; I spoke to them as I speak in this House. Amongst other things, I said to them—and I want to say it to this House as well—that we will not always agree on all matters; it goes without saying that we are going to disagree, sometimes to a lesser and sometimes to a greater extent, sometimes even heatedly perhaps. But be that as it may, we will settle our differences by discussion around a table; we will settle them. Consequently I foresee that we will in fact have disagreements in future.

But why was the hon. the Minister so angry about this the other day?

Oh please, Sir, that is the most arrant nonsense I have ever heard. After all, I was in the House myself and I heard what the hon. the Minister said. Surely to want to imply that the hon. the Minister swelled with anger is absolute nonsense, and the hon. member knows it. But I do not think we should occupy our time with trivialities of this nature when we are discussing an important matter. As I have said, there will be times when we will not see eye to eye with one another. There will be times when I will not see eye to eye with the Coloured leaders, when I will not see eye to eye with the Bantu leaders, and vice versa. After all, it is only human that this will be the case. I have no doubt that just as we will have the goodwill to iron out matters to the best of our ability despite the differences, they will also have that goodwill. Of course there will be times when they will ask for things I cannot give them. But then we will tell them frankly that we are sorry we cannot give them what they ask, for there is one thing they will always know—where they stand with this Government. However, there is one thing I foresee and against which I want to warn most seriously. In the past people like Mr. Tom Schwartz, Chief Matanzima and other non-White leaders who co-operated with us and who expressed their support to separate development, have been accused of being the stooges of the Government, as being inferior, as being individuals who do not represent their people, as being people of no significance and of whom no notice should be taken. But now, all of a sudden, the English Press as well as certain hon. members on the opposite side have realized that they must adopt a different tactic, that they can no longer accuse these people of being stooges, that they can no longer push these people to one side as being inferior, but that they must blow them up, that they must blow up every possible imagined grievance as much as they can to create the impression that a tremendous dispute is raging between the leaders of these non-White peoples and us.

Sir, I wish to warn as earnestly as I possibly can against this type of thing. If the leaders of the Coloured people and the Bantu are incited against the Whites, surely the consequences will not only affect this Government—surely they are going to affect every person in South Africa, including hon. members opposite; surely they are going to influence the entire future of South Africa; not only are the Whites going to be affected, but the non-Whites will also be affected to a tremendous extent. Sir, I wish with all the authority at my disposal to make an appeal here this afternoon to the editors of the English-language as well as the Afrikaans-language newspapers; I wish with all the authority at my disposal to make an appeal to the directors and chairmen of newspaper companies: “Let us differ on anything we want to differ on; let us foment disputes on all possible fronts; but in Heaven’s name let us not foment a dispute between White and non-White in this manner.” Sir, if that is done, it will be South Africa and the people of South Africa—both Whites and non-Whites—that will suffer. I have recently read articles in newspapers which made me shudder when I thought of the future. I am levelling no accusations at hon. members on the opposite side in this regard, but I am merely saying that I read articles in newspapers which made me shudder when I thought of the future of South Africa, if this pattern is going to be followed in the future. And if I try to do this in the same language and in the same way, you may blame me for it, because it will be wrong of me to do so. I regard the various leaders of the non-White peoples as the leaders of their respective peoples, and I am pleased—this does not apply only to the Black people, but also to the Coloured people—that there are now for the first time authoritative bodies with whom we can discuss matters and negotiate. Previously it was of course very difficult to hold discussions with the Coloured people because you had to talk to individuals, and the same applies to the Bantu, because you had to talk to individuals among them. Now, however, there are authoritative bodies with whom we can hold discussions. The fact of the matter is that there is continual consultation with those authoritative bodies, and that there will be continual consultation with them.

I want to conclude this part of my speech by saying, just by way of summary, that there will be times when we shall differ. But we shall debate those differences. Where we are able to accede to their requests, we shall do so, and where we cannot, we shall have the courage to tell them so. In that way we will lead them to self-realization and make them conversant with the way in which a country is governed in these days. When the time arrives for them to become fully independent, we shall, as the Act provides, come to this Parliament, after the negotiations between them and us have been concluded, and ask Parliament to set its seal on their independence by way of legislation. That is how we see the matter, Sir, and I want to tell you that the discussions I have held with the leaders— and I shall in the course of the year hold discussions with others—have given me a great deal of confidence in the future of South Africa. They have made me feel very confident that the relationships between these people and us will be favourable in future, for these people—I want to make this very clear—are not stooges of this Government. They are leaders in their own right. What is more, they are leaders who have the courage to say to me personally: “We differ with you on this point, and we differ with you on that.” They are not people who merely try to please me; they are people who state their case honestly and frankly as they see it, and I have a great deal of respect for people who act in such a manner. People who act in such a manner, are responsible people and are people to whom greater responsibility may be entrusted in the future. That, Sir, is my reply to the Leader of the Opposition as far as this aspect is concerned.

When we proceed in a moment to the question of the Coloured people, I should like to report to the House on my discussions with the Coloured leaders in regard to the liaison between this Parliament and the Coloured Persons Representative Council, which I said I would hold. But I think I have been speaking for long enough now.

The hon. the Prime Minister, I am afraid, has misunderstood what I said to him. He knows that I am careful about what I say. I said: “I can assure the Prime Minister that their impact” (referring to petty apartheid) “on world news can be catastrophic for good relations with South Africa, as can some of the actions taken by this Government, actions which they regard as necessary.”

Sir, the hon. gentleman has spoken to me about social separation and the question of restaurants. Of course I believe that there should be separate restaurants for Europeans and non-Whites, perhaps for different groups of non-Whites. There is no worry about that. My complaint is a different one and that is, firstly, that the hon. gentleman said, “I am not aware that there can be any annoying elements in apartheid.” I can assure the hon. gentleman that there are a lot. Secondly, by his remark about restaurants he seemed to indicate that there were equal facilities for Whites and non-Whites, and nobody knows better than he does that there are not. [Interjections.] That is the implication. Sir, I want to go further. I believe it is right that there should be restaurants for Whites and restaurants for non-Whites, but I also believe that if we can entertain distinguished non-Whites from overseas in some of our best restaurants in South Africa then there should be facilities whereby a civilized White can entertain a civilized non-White in a restaurant in South Africa as well. It is high time something was done in that regard.

Where do you draw the line?

Where do you draw the line?

Surely you know there is no law against it.

Why did you kick up such a fuss about it then?

Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister is correct.

There is a law against it; what about the Group Areas Act?

Sir, perhaps I can help the hon. the Prime Minister. There were mixed restaurants in Cape Town in the past. There are at present restaurants and cafés in Cape Town where Whites sit down and where non-Whites are allowed to buy food from a hatch at the back, but they do not share the restaurant. I believe the difficulty is the question of what is defined as “occupation” under the Group Areas Act and the necessity of getting a permit if you want a restaurant where two groups of people of different colour may meet.

But, Sir, I want to come back to the hon. the Prime Minister’s reply to me that the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development objected to the manner in which Chief Kaiser Matanzima made his request. We objected to the manner in which the Minister replied and we think that if he is going to go on replying in that manner, he is going to do the very harm to those non-White leaders which the hon. the Prime Minister has been appealing to us not to do. And do not tell me that the method was wrong, because the councils concerned have no power over these departments at the moment. The hon. gentleman knows very well that they can negotiate for a new law. There is nothing to stop that; they would be the body to do so. Our provincial councils continually talk about things over which they have no control. The Prime Minister has said that any Bantu authority which thinks that it is ready for independence can negotiate with him on the subject, and I am glad he said that because that is the right approach. I am glad also that the hon. the Prime Minister has made it clear that independence means unqualified independence, because there have been suggestions from certain of his Ministers, by the things they have said …

That is not so.

… that what some of them envisaged was a negotiated independence, something less than full independence. But I am grateful that the hon. the Prime Minister says that that is not so. I accept that unequivocally. That is what I hoped would be the position.

But I wish to raise a further matter concerning the relationships with the emergent Bantu homelands. I have raised the matter in regard to this question of the control of the time-table, and, with great respect, the hon. the Prime Minister has told me that he would be prepared to negotiate and he would be prepared to say “No” if he does not think the time has come. Sir, he knows as well as I do that that was the exact attitude of the metropolitan powers in Africa. They were prepared to negotiate and they were prepared to say “No”, but time and again they had to give in before they thought that the time had come, because of the difficulties and troubles that were caused them by people in demanding independence and led by promises, and sometimes irresponsible promises, to think that that independence was closer than the metropolitan powers meant it to be.

I want to raise a further matter with the hon. the Prime Minister concerning the homelands. That is that unless the entire South African economy maintains a certain minimum growth rate, we are going to be faced with non-White unemployment. I say that with a full sense of responsibility, because I know there has recently been a statement by Dr. Jan Hupkes, the manager of Federale Volksbeleggings who for years participated in the Stellenbosch economic surveys, in which he pointed out that with the present growth rate in South Africa the White labour force would not be sufficient to sustain the growth even with 30 000 immigrants a year, and that 156 000 non-Whites would remain jobless. He went on to say that even if all new entrants into the White labour market were to join industry and the services, and the economy slowed down to a growth rate of 5 per cent, the White labour market would remain very tight and the number of jobless non-Whites would increase by 11 000 a year. He said that job opportunities would have to be created for non-Whites, but added that the capital cost of creating one job opportunity outside the existing industrialized areas amounted to R4 000. Starting with an initial backlog of 225 000 unemployed, this would mean a capital outlay of R1 000 million, and the White population would be required to service the brunt of this. This would put a tax burden on the White population which would be unacceptable and would destroy the principles of capitalism in South Africa. I doubt whether, after the Budget, we can maintain a growth rate of 5 per cent. I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that the consensus of economists whom it has been my privilege to canvas on the subject, is that the maximum rate will be 5 per cent and the probable rate in the region of 4 per cent.

For when?

For the present growth year of 1971. If that is the situation, the hon. the Prime Minister is going to be faced with unemployment, which is going to lead to endorsing out of non-Whites from the Bantu urban townships to the homelands. I want to recall for the hon. gentleman’s benefit a speech by Mr. J. H. Liebenberg, Chairman of the “Ambagspersoneelvereniging van die Suid-Afrikaanse Spoorweë”, which was reported in this morning’s Burger. He warns today:

Die “afkoeling” van die ekonomie kan egter groot werkloosheid tot gevolg hê, met ernstige politieke en maatskaplike gevolge. Volgens mnr. Liebenberg is werkloosheid erger as die kommunisme. Dit kan lei tot oproer, geweldpleging en selfs pogings om van regerings ontslae te raak.

I raise this matter because it is of vital importance not only in regard to the Bantu in the reserves and our relations with them, but more particularly with regard to the urban Bantu living in our townships. In that regard I want to tell the hon. gentleman that why I have never liked his independent Bantustan policy, in so far as the homelands are concerned, is because of the dangers I believe are involved in them for the whole of South Africa. I believe that almost as dangerous to our security, is the corollary of that policy, namely the homelands policy in so far as it affects the Bantu in our urban areas. In that respect there is going to be an immediate effect on our economy. [Time expired.]

If I may be permitted to do so, I first just want to avail myself of this opportunity to convey my thanks to this House, and particularly to the Leader of the House, for the leave of absence granted to me to be in The Hague in connection with the South-West Africa case being heard before the International Court there.

It is very clear what is happening here for the umpteenth time. For the umpteenth time, and to one’s surprise, we are hearing of all sorts of fears, all sorts of problems and all sorts of objections in regard to certain facets of this Government’s policy. It is almost like a small dog continually barking and growling again, but when we come to the basic aspect of the two broad policies, we are nowhere told precisely what the consequences are going to be of what the Opposition advocates for South Africa and what its ultimate effect on Southern Africa is going to be. We do not find basic aspects of principle being tested. I do not think we on this side of the House ever try to pretend in South Africa or abroad, as is alleged, that there are no problems involved in our policy. In documents of which I am aware, we have explicitly stated that there are problems involved in our policy and that it is not a policy which is perfect in every respect. No state in the world can claim that it has a policy which is perfect in every respect and which will satisfy all people under all circumstances. Such a policy simply does not exist on this earth.

Let us now look at the attacks made on our policy this afternoon, and let us do so from the point of view that there would be dangers inherent in some of our Bantu homelands obtaining independence. In the first place, we are a country on the continent of Africa. Forty-one countries in Africa already have independence. In our midst or on our borders there are the countries the Prime Minister mentioned today, namely Lesotho, Botswana and Swaziland. I now want to put this specific question to the hon. members of the Opposition: In terms of their policy, how are they going to act towards these African states? What do they think they can achieve with a policy which was described to me more than a decade ago by an American diplomat as “that archaic policy”? Are they not aware of all the things that have happened abroad in this regard? The Charter of the United Nations, to which the United Party Government was a signatory, states as one of its main principles “the self-determination of peoples”. How does the United Party want to implement its policy in practice if it wants to grant eight representatives to the Bantu groups in this country? How is it going to apply that in practice? They merely talk about the imagined dangers of our policy, and then they think they will be able to make progress with their policy. Why do they not work out for us what the consequences of their policy would be? As I have said, we do, of course, have our problems. The Prime Minister, too, has again said that we may have problems and differences in connection with our Bantu homelands in future, but we shall try to settle these as well, as we have done in the past. But does the United Party think that in terms of its policy it has any hope of ever being able to give expression to the political and national aspirations of the Bantu national groups here in the Republic? How are they going to achieve this and what are they going to do if these groups are not content with the eight representatives or with the few senators to be added? What will their answer be then?

They are now deriving some joy from the fact that a few Bantu leaders have made certain statements in public, but to what extent would they be able to meet the demands of those leaders in terms of their policy? They would not be able to do so in one single respect. The entire basis and point of departure of their policy is rejected by all 41 states of Africa. If we are experiencing problems in conducting a dialogue with other African states, on what basis do they think they would be able to conduct such a dialogue? How would they be able to do so with their archaic policy in the light of the 1960 declaration on the granting of independence to peoples which were under colonial rule? We continually have to hear from that side of the House how much they would like to fall in with certain standards which are acceptable overseas. We continually have to hear that certain aspects of our policy are irritating to the world, but can they not see that the basis of their policy is not only irritating, but totally unacceptable and obsolete? Nonetheless, they persevere with this old, imperialistic idea which was thrown overboard long ago by the British themselves. Can they not appreciate certain basic things? I cannot put it more strikingly than a lady who has written a fair amount on South Africa, and who has not always been uncritical towards South Africa. She is Mrs. Elspeth Huxley, who, after certain events in Africa, stated categorically:

We are continually being told that nobody overseas ever supports our policies, but I should like to read out the opinions of a few persons who have given some thought to these problems. One is Prof. Manning, who recently received an honorary doctorate in our country and who was a great admirer of Gen. Smuts. This is his opinion:

And then the opinion of the journalist L. Beilby, who wrote the following in the Daily Telegraph of 24th November, 1964:

I can read out similar conclusions ad nauseam from the opinions of people who have thought about this problem. It is easy to attack apartheid in certain minor facets of its application. Let me say today that there are individuals who suffer under our policy. Of course there are, but what is the alternative? Total chaos, disorder and catastrophe. We find the same position in other parts of the world as well, and not only where there is a White-and-Black situation. In Africa one finds situations of Black against Black. There are peoples who have different national aspirations, be it as a result of cultural differences, language differences or religious differences. There is Ireland, for example. We have it in Cyprus between Greeks and Turks. In Pakistan, the Eastern and Western parts, which shared the same religion, are now breaking away for other reasons. Can anyone tell me where on earth a policy of forced integration of people who do not want it, has ever succeeded? This afternoon we have again seen the fear of the Bantu homelands becoming independent. What is the only alternative? The only alternative would be forced integration in the Republic of South Africa in terms of which the national aspirations of different people would have to be satisfied.

I want to appeal to the hon. the Opposition to conduct a debate with us on these basic principles. Let us talk about differences in application. Let us talk about problems of application. We cannot shy away from that. We can discuss it. The hon. the Prime Minister did so very clearly here today. But when matters which irritate the outside world are discussed here, we must obtain more clarity. It may be true that certain things irritate the outside world, but I want to say to the hon. the Opposition with the greatest respect that their policy not only irritates the outside world, but is totally unacceptable and has no long-term ability ever to convince any fair thinker, neither in the outside world nor in this country.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Wonderboom has accused this side of the House of wanting to force integration. Our one complaint has been that you cannot force integration by law as America is trying to do, in the same way as separation cannot be forced by law as this Government tries to do. We had our conventional segregation. It worked well. The trouble started when this Government started legislating for every possible meeting that can take place. That is why the troubles are now arising. That is why we get the objections to little apartheid.

The hon. member for Wonderboom also admits that there are causes for complaint and that everything is not going right. But he refers to these as hard cases. Well, hard cases make bad law. If there are so many hard cases, the laws should be altered to deal with those hard cases.

The hon. member also said that he is worried about whether overseas peoples will accept our policy.

They will not.

They will not, but our hon. Leader said earlier that we must be allowed to solve our own problems. The hon. the Prime Minister agreed with him. What we pointed out is that our trouble started when the late Dr. Verwoerd was forced by overseas opinion to change the traditional policy of this country. Our trouble started when the late Dr. Verwoerd bowed to overseas opinion and started this policy of separate development leading to independence.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition initiated this debate by referring the hon. the Prime Minister to the strained relations which seem to be developing lately internally. We have had speeches of leaders of different race groups in which Government policy has been criticized. We have had leaders who have been regarded as sympathizers of the Government, who accepted the policy of separate development, but who are now criticizing the Government. The hon. the Prime Minister appealed to us not to “sweep die mense op”. We must not incite the different race groups against the Whites, because, he said, it would be just as bad for us as it will be for the Nationalist Party. It would be bad for all the Whites. I quite agree with him. It would be a scandalous thing to do. That is why we have a law to prevent this. There is a law which makes it an offence to build up hostility between the different races. But who is doing the “opsweping”? This is the criticism of my hon. Leader against the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development.

I am really surprised at the hon. the Prime Minister. The hon. the Prime Minister was here the other night when the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development replied to Chief Kaiser Matanzima. The Prime Minister suggests that there was nothing wrong in the reply. Chief Kaiser Matanzima has never come out in open criticism of the Government before. He has made his claims for these very portfolios before, as the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development said, except in regard to defence. I remember once before when he asked for better treatment of the Transkeians living outside the Transkei. He did this when the late Dr. Verwoerd was Prime Minister. He did it in respect of the Bantu living in Soweto. He was fighting an election at that time and he told his people at Soweto not to come back to the Transkei because there was no work for them to do. He also said that they deserved better homes in Soweto and those people who live in Soweto, should own their homes. Dr. Verwoerd reprimanded him, and he said that he was not to poke his nose into matters that did not concern him. That was the first time we had criticism of Government policy. On this occasion Chief Kaiser Matanzima was addressing his congress. How did he start his address? I want to quote from his speech and I would like the hon. the Prime Minister to read his speech again. He said:

Then he referred to resolutions which had been passed during the previous session of their Assembly. He pointed out that it was his duty to report what he had done about it. He said the resolutions passed by the Transkei Assembly were “for the transfer of departments still under the charge of the Republican Government to the Transkeian Government; and transfer of certain land from the Republic to the Transkei”. Then he said: “these are most important matters of policy” and he went on to deal with them. Those resolutions had been passed by the Assembly and he, as the leader of the party, was justified in telling his congress what had happened. He said then that he had made his requests, but the Government of the Republic had not acceded to these requests of his. Now the Minister of Bantu Administration gets up in the House and he says that he is surprised at the way in which Chief Kaiser asked for these things. Chief Kaiser, as I have said, had asked the Minister before for the transfer of this land and of the departments. He was reporting to his congress on what was happening. Now this Minister gets up here and makes his speech. I must say that when one reads Hansard it does not read too badly and Chief Kaiser Matanzima will probably not take exception in reading it, but had he been here to see the Minister’s behaviour he would certainly have taken exception. The Minister’s behaviour here was reminiscent of what has happened in UNO with Kruschev. Had the Minister of Justice not pulled down the Minister of Bantu Administration he would probably have ended up by taking off his shoe and hammering it on the table.

It is not true.

I did not say he did take off his shoe, but I said he was probably stopped from taking off his shoe. [Interjections.]

Order!

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would like a chance to go on. The mere reaction of the hon. members on the other side shows the truth of what I am saying. To get back to the Prime Minister, I want to say that the Prime Minister, in dealing with Chief Kaiser Matanzima’s claims said that these departments for which he is asking are not included in the Constitution of the Transkei to be handed over.

I said one of the departments.

Well, if I might say so, there is more than one, because the Department of Posts and Telegraphs is not included either, in addition to Defence. The point is if they are going to develop to independence, surely he is entitled to ask for these departments to be handed over to him.

Yes, he is entitled to do so.

What I cannot understand is what is wrong with his asking. He tells his congress that he is asking for it and now I want to know what is wrong with it. Why should anybody take exception to what he did? If he is not going to get these departments, how is he eventually going to get his independence? Of course these departments have to be handed to him gradually. When the hon. the Prime Minister said that he was surprised to get the complaint from Chief Kaiser Matanzima that the Black civil servants are not taking over …

I did not refer to Matanzima at all. I referred to criticism on the opposite side when I gave the figures.

The Prime Minister said Matanzima asked for …

I did not refer to Matanzima’s speech at all when I made that point.

Well, I do not know who on this side complained that the positions were not being handed over.

I heard one of your members say that.

What? We on this side did not complain that the civil servant posts were not being handed over. Nobody on this side complained about that. Chief Kaiser complained about one department in which posts has not been handed over and that was the Department of Posts and Telegraphs.

But now, what about the land? The Prime Minister spent some time in giving us the historical development of the handing over of land for African occupation. I moved a private member’s motion a few weeks ago on this very issue. I am sorry that the Prime Minister was not here to take part in that debate. Perhaps we would have got some sense from him, because we got nothing from the hon. the Deputy Minister. We know the law. We know what happened in 1913. We know what happened in 1936. We know the land that is still available. The Prime Minister pointed out that 600 000 hectare of land still has to be bought in the Cape. Now I want to ask the Prime Minister: Where is that land going to be bought? That was part of my motion. We, the public, everybody wants to know where is that land going to be bought. If there was certainty, if the Prime Minister and the Government would tell the country where the boundaries of the reserves are finally going to be, there would not be this type of complaint from Chief Kaiser Matanzima. I want to ask the Prime Minister: Is Chief Kaiser Matanzima of the Transkei going to get any portion of that 600 000 hectare? If so, where is he going to get it? I want to ask him whether he agrees with the hon. the Deputy Minister, Mr. Raubenheimer, who said at Kroon-stad that if Chief Kaiser Matanzima of the Transkei wants more land, they themselves must buy it. Now, where can they buy it? [Time expired.]

Mr.

Speaker, the hon. member for Transkei made mention here of the display by Kruschey of Russia, but I must tell you that his own display sometimes reminds me very strongly of the aforesaid Kruschev, except that it is a little poorer in many respects, particularly if one bears in mind all the allegations he makes here.

We listened here to the so-called question of petty apartheid. We heard the Leader of the Opposition saying that this petty apartheid is the very matter that makes it difficult for us to defend South Africa’s case abroad. But then the Opposition must tell us what measures they want to have abolished here in South Africa, measures which they claim constitute petty apartheid and give offence to the Coloured people of this country. We must basically correct this matter, these so-called petty apartheid stories that are being circulated. How can one claim that offence is given? What are the considerations in the establishment of these separate facilities for various colour and race groups in the country? The impression is being created that because provision is made for separate facilities for people, because there are certain entrances or platforms that may only be used by Whites, and others that may only be used by non-Whites, we thereby want to imply that the Whites are saying they are better than the non-Whites. That is not the truth. It is absolutely untrue. All these arrangements are aimed at specifically ensuring that the human dignity of the Coloureds is not encroached upon. These measures are specifically aimed at eliminating racial friction that may develop. This is specifically because we have respect for the Coloureds in this country. Our policy does not mean that the one race group is saying it is better than the other—not at all. Our entire policy is specifically aimed at recognizing the human dignity of the other race groups and not placing them in a humiliating position. The United Party must then tell us exactly which of those measures they want abolished. What do they want to replace them with in order to eliminate racial incidents?

Read Rapport.

At the moment I do not want to know what Rapport says. I am not arguing with Rapport at the moment. That hon. member must now stand up and say what measures we must remove from the Statute Book. He comes along here complaining all day with a pious face of the so-called humiliating measures this Government adopts. But in the course of my argument I want to prove that if there is any party which is sincere in respect of other race groups in this country, it is the National Party. It is the only policy which does full justice to the human dignity of the other race groups in this country. I want to prove to you that we are the only party prepared to give them full citizenship which they need not be ashamed of. But the Opposition wants to give them a quarter, an eighth, a fortieth of their citizenship in this country. They want to place the Coloured person in an inferior position in the politics of this country.

And the Coloureds?

We are now speaking about the Bantu and shall, in due course, come to the Coloureds. As soon as you are trapped as far as the Bantu are concerned, you jump around to the Coloureds. Let us first argue the case for the Bantu; then we shall argue the case for the Coloureds.

I just want to refer in passing to the argument of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in connection with our growth rate. He says that with the slow growth that is expected, there will be a greater degree of unemployment in the country. I should like to point out to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that South Africa’s economic development programme is planned on the basis of a growth rate of 5d per cent per annum. If we can maintain this we shall, by about 1980, have no unemployment among the non-Whites any more. However, what happened during this 1963 to 1969 period? We evidenced a growth rate of 6 per cent, and that meant that we could absorb an additional quarter of a million non-Whites into the economy. Hon. members opposite must not try to base a growth rate on the trend for one year, because this year we could evidence a growth rate of 3 per cent and next year one of 9 per cent. However, our planning aims at a 5.5 per cent growth rate, based on the population figures for 1960. Before the new figures are available, no-one can make a definite prediction.

There was talk here of the relationship between Whites and non-Whites, and of the road we are travelling. In the Daily News of Tuesday, 20th April, I read however, to my shock and amazement, that an hon. member of this House was so flagrantly irresponsible towards South Africa as to virtually advocate to the Transkei that they should make a unilateral declaration of independence. The hon. member put the words into their mouth. That is the way in which the hon. member wants to define race relations in this country. I am speaking here of the hon. member for Durban Point. Let us listen to what he says—

Is that the language that we as Whites must use while we are emancipating the various Bantu people in South Africa? This is absolutely flagrant agitation, irresponsible political action on your part. You say: “This Government creates a border dispute”. You say you recognize the Bantu homelands. In you election manifesto you say that you are going to develop those homelands. But where are those homelands? How are you going to define the borders of those homelands? You do after all, speak of Bantu homelands. The 1936 Act was passed through this Parliament by your party. That Act provides for the amount of land to be given to the Bantu. You now tell me how you are going to avoid a border dispute with Chief Matanzima? You will surely have to fix a border, not so? Or are you not going to do so? Are you not going to purchase the land that still has to be purchased?

Order! The hon. member must address the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, the Opposition must tell me whether they are going to purchase that land allocated to the Bantu by the 1936 Act. Will the hon. member tell me whether they are going to comply with that obligation, keep the word of honour of the White man? Will the hon. member for Durban Point tell me? He has, after all, spoken about this matter in public.

If you will take your seat, I shall answer your question now.

Will you keep the White man’s word—yes or no?

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member will permit me, I shall answer his question now.

Order! Has the hon. member finished with his speech?

The hon. member is not prepared to tell me whether they are going to keep the word of honour of the White man or not. He only needs to answer “yes” or “no”. He may do so when the occasion presents itself. The difference between the United Party and the National Party is this. The argument in which we are enmeshed, according to the United Party, involves three districts in South Africa. Supposing the United Party were to come into power.

Never!

They will give 14 million people eight representatives in this House to represent them, as against 166 representatives for 4 million Whites and six representatives for two million Coloureds. What are we then going to have agitation in South Africa about, and what are we going to be arguing about then? We shall have a rumpus every day, we shall have demands every day for proportionate representation in this Parliament, based on numbers. And if hon. members opposite want to be honest, the White man is going to lose … [Time expired.]

The hon. the Prime Minister has given his reply here this afternoon in a manner that suggests that he believes that his reply has satisfied everybody on this point. He said he stood by the 1936 legislation and that only land set aside by that legislation will go to the Bantu areas and that when those quotas have been filled, that will be the end of the matter. That is how I understood the hon. gentleman.

You understood me correctly.

He said this in answer to the claims made by Chief Kaiser Matanzima for certain additional areas of land to be added to the Transkei, land which, as Kaiser Matanzima specifically indicated, is certain White districts in Port St. Johns and in East Griqualand.

The reply has been given and that is “No”.

But why does the hon. the Prime Minister regard his answer as satisfying everybody? What has Kaiser Matanzima asked for? He has asked that certain named pieces of land be purchased in terms of the Native Trust and Land Act of 1936 and be added to the Transkei. In other words, all he has asked for is that those specific pieces of land be included in the quota and be bought as land additional to the Cape Province quota. What the hon. the Prime Minister has not said is whether he is against that land being purchased for the Transkei in terms of the 1936 Act.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No. On that point, Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister has remained silent. But what did the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration in contrast to the hon. the Prime Minister say a few nights ago, when he rose up in what we say was his wrath but apparently was his good humour, to deal with this claim by Kaiser Matanzima? The reply of the hon. the Minister was that historically this was White-owned land and that consequently it could not go to the Bantu of the Transkei under any circumstances. What then is the position? All land outside the presently scheduled Native areas is historically White land and, if what the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration says is the position, then no more purchases can be made in terms of the 1936 Act. Then there is the explanation of the hon. the Prime Minister … I am sorry, Sir, that the hon. the Prime Minister should choose this moment to walk out … [Interjections.] I beg your pardon, Sir; I see he is merely changing his position in the House. [Interjections.] Sir, what is the difficulty in regard to this question? From what does it arise? It arises from the promises made by the late Dr. Verwoerd, promises which were never defined, but which were clear in their principle, that the land which was historically Bantu land should be returned to the Bantu. That was the basis of his very philosophy, and ever since he made that statement, Sir, we have had it in all sorts of circles that there has to be a large-scale re-allocation of land to bring about this principle in practice, principally in the question of consolidation. Sir, you get it from all sorts of quarters; you get it from diplomats to whom you talk; you get it from commissioners-general through devious routes; you get it from Bantu leaders through devious routes. One reads it in journals like Woord en Daad, a journal which so far as I know, stands wholeheartedly behind the Prime Minister’s policy, saying not only that consolidation is imperative but making statements of this kind—and here I refer to Woord en Daad of March, 1971—

Sir, what could be clearer in the view of the authors of a document of this kind than that they regard areas of that kind —Richard’s Bay and East London—as being in the existing or eventual Bantu homelands? Sir, this very problem has arisen because what the hon. member for Transskei claimed earlier has never been done. There has never been the slightest clarity from hon. gentlemen opposite as to what their intentions are, either in regard to fulfilling the requirements of the 1936 legislation or to fulfilling the philosophy which was propounded by the late Dr. Verwoerd, or as to the manner and direction in which they propose to bring about this consolidation. Sir, consolidation is the key to the whole policy, and we have never had an indication from the hon. the Prime Minister or from any other Minister as to what the thinking of the Government is in this regard.

You have had it now.

Sir, we have had other statements made, and I would like to know whether they are still binding, to the effect that land purchased under the 1936 legislation would be purchased only in consultation with and with the agreement of the agricultural unions. Does that still stand?

Yes.

It is very nice to hear that. It means, I presume, that we will not have a repetition of Umzimkulu, where written assurances that that area would perpetually remain a White area were simply brushed aside when the time came, and which is now a part of the Transkei. Sir, what is the position so far as State land is concerned? Is the position that the quotas will be made up from State land first and that only thereafter private land is to be taken over, or is State land to be used up in the process of consolidation on the basis of creating viable Bantu states? This is another aspect upon which we require clarity. Sir, it serves no purpose whatsoever for the hon. the Prime Minister simply to say blandly, “1 stand by the 1936 legislation” because it is the manner in which that legislation is going to be executed, put into effect, that is the crux in the whole problem, because, Sir, if you stand by a policy whereby the Bantu areas are to remain part of South Africa, then it matters not that the land which is purchased or the State land which is allocated towards the quotas under the 1936 legislation are in consolidated areas. That land can be bought anywhere under the policy of the United Party, but under the policy of this Government, if they are sincere in what they say—and there have been many people who have believed that they are sincere—consolidation is of the very essence of the exercise, and you simply cannot accept such land as is available from the White community if you are to bring about consolidation. Indeed, Sir, nothing appears more clearly than that from the replies to the questions put by the hon. member for Pinelands to the hon. the Minister the other day, when it was apparently said by the hon. the Minister that the preparation and exhibition of a map to give the public clarity on this point was regarded as quite unnecessary. As I have said, Sir, the difference comes from the basic difference in approach, the basic difference in policy and principle between this side of the House and that side of the House. The 1936 legislation was conceived when the Government, the National Party, believed that the Native areas would remain part of South Africa, as did everybody then in public life in this country. It is only when you approach the problem from a policy of that kind, as we do. that the 1936 legislation can be implemented to the satisfaction of both Whites and Bantu. But, Sir, when you adopt the philosophy that you stand for the creation of independent states, which necessarily means a large degree of consolidation, then the 1936 Act can be used as a measure of considerable hardship against the White community. Sir, that is the fear that we have, and it is of no consequence for the hon. the Prime Minister to say, “I stand by the 1936 legislation and when those quotas are fulfilled, that will be the end of the matter”, nor is it an answer to Chief Kaiser Matanzima, when he claims certain specified White areas, simply to say, “I stand by the 1936 legislation”. [Time expired.]

Last week I was also present in the House when the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development made his reply. I also listened to the reaction from the Opposition last week, and I have listened to their reaction today, and I must tell you, Sir, that I gain the impression that the United Party is on the run. The United Party is panic-stricken. Sir, I remember very well my first year as a student in 1952, three or four years after the National Party came into power. From that time onwards students, particularly students of Bantu Administration and Social Anthropology made a very thorough study of the evolvement of the policy as stated by the National Party, and today I want to tell you very frankly that as the years roll along no person with a proper knowledge of the problematics of the South African population situation has any doubt in his heart about the success being achieved by the National Party year after year in the direction and the course it wants to travel. The United Party now finds itself in an almost impossible situation, having said for more than 20 years that the National Party is dishonest, insincere and impractical in the implementation of its policy, only to find out now that the National Party is, in fact, correct, and that is why I am sorry for an hon. member such as the hon. member for Zululand. From my knowledge of the hon. member in the House, he is a man with very strong arguments about matters, and it amazes me that today even he, in his criticism of the National Party, was arguing from the point of view that the National Party is, to a large extent, succeeding with its policy. That is why they come along today with quotations from scholars in the clerical, cultural and university spheres who have, here and there, points of criticism and who ask questions because they want to obtain clarity. They quote those people, not to Drove that the National Party’s policy is failing, but specifically to prove that the National Party’s policy is succeeding.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say a few words about the manifestation or phenomenon of Japie Basson in South African politics. It is very interesting to follow the political history of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I am sorry that he is not here today; he may perhaps read what I have said here at a later stage. He is an interesting man, this hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who has changed his political ties several times during the past 20 or 30 years. I want to come to him, because he is the man who chiefly speaks of the so-called situation of conscience, the so-called social conscience, those things which a people must come to grips with if it feels them to be wrong … [Interjections.] The Cape Argus of 1960 stated—

These are predictions the hon. gentleman made here years ago, and in the meantime he has held a variety of opinions. He even said the following at the time of the United Party (Hansard, 1959, column 9496)—

He now contrasts this with the policy of the National Party—

That is what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said 10 years ago of that side of the House. At the beginning of the year the hon. member came along here with the so-called “minor apartheid”. I see that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has returned. Then the hon. the Prime Minister argued with him, and it was very clear in the House that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition differed in respect of what petty apartheid really is. The Leader of the Opposition rejected the hon. member for Bezuidenhout’s standpoint.

That is not so.

Well, he did not accept your definition in any case. Let me tell the hon. member for Bezuidenhout this. He is now an oldish man. He is no longer a man of 42. If he, a man with this background, lays down a definition, he must have given the matter some deep thought, if he has thought so deeply that he would go so far—and that is the point that I particularly want to make today—that he quoted the editor of the Burger. I now want to tell the hon. member for Bezuidenhout this. In recent years it has become customary for the Opposition, when they cannot always stick to a principle or a matter with sufficient determination, to be afraid to debate the matter in the House and then they hide behind Nationalists. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout has done so again.

I just replied to the Minister of Labour.

No, the hon. member pushed Mr. Piet Cillié forward, and he wanted to ascribe the interpretation, which he applies, to Mr. Cillié, in the hope that people such as I whom the Sunday Times and hon. members opposite continually say are verkramp and allegedly members of the Hertzog group, will direct their attacks, based on principle, as the hon. the Prime Minister states it, at Mr. Cillié.

I should like you to follow Mr. Cillié.

I wanted to tell you this: You will never succeed in that. The hon. members will never succeed in causing us, on the National Party side, to start fights with the people that they push forward. I want to quote the editor of the Burger himself where he settled accounts with you. He stated (translation)—

And I quite agree with that. You must come to the fore yourself and not push good Nationalists forward to receive the hidings that you should get. The editor concludes by stating—

Sir, I want to say that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout allows himself to be led by the so-called social conscience, which the younger generation in South Africa and in the world today must hear about very frequently. There is probably no party in the world that is as frequently admonished about testing its own conscience as specifically the National Party. The social conscience of the rest of the world at large emanates from liberal thought, while the social conscience of the National Party, as grounded in that White group having its origins in South Africa, rests on these two basic principles, i.e. its Christian religion and its pursuit of freedom. I can tell the House that I cannot think of any single party in the rest of the world, or any single Prime Minister who is led in his human relationships so faithfully and so sincerely by those basic principles which have given substance to his pattern of life. I want to tell you, Sir, that the youth of South Africa ought to be thankful that there is a party such as the National Party, with a Prime Minister like the one we have who, in the midst of the fierciest onslaughts in the world, in a country Which is a very explosive one and which accommodates the largest diversity of population groups, manages to be Prime Minister and maintain a position of leadership with the least population and racial difficulties one could have. [Time expired.]

I want to come back to this whole question of the land issue and the Bantustans. I do not think this has been sufficiently explored yet. I want to say at once that the 1936 Land Act was not designed to provide sufficient land for independent, viable Bantustans, let alone the point made by the hon. member for Zululand. This is an issue on which I and my colleagues in the Progressive Party have very basic differences of opinion with the United Party. We believe that whatever the reason was for the 1936 Act, the promise was made and the promise must be kept, and whether the Government has changed the basic idea of the 1936 Act or not, the promise was made that that amount of land, 174- million morgen, would eventually …

7½ million morgen.

No, there were already 10 million morgen. Everybody forgets that. That was provided under the 1913 Land Act. There were 10 million morgen under the 1913 Land Act and a further 7½ million morgen, were added by the 1936 Act. That is what has to be carried out, whatever else happens regardless, because the White man cannot break his word in this regard. I say that not only must it be carried out, but if the Government has now gone further regarding the whole intention of the 1936 Act, something must be done to see that those Bantustans can in fact become viable. If the ethical background to the whole solution of apartheid has to be maintained, then it must be shown that those areas can be viable; otherwise the Whole thing falls to the ground. That is the point I make. I say the promise was made and the promise must be carried out. But the 1936 Act was never meant as a final quid pro quo to the Africans for the deprivation of all rights of citizenship in the White Republic of South Africa. The 1936 Act was partly a quid pro quo for the deprivation of the common roll rights of the Africans in the Cape in this House, and everybody has forgotten that. The 1936 Act has now become the raison d’être for the Government’s carrying out of independent Bantustans. It was not intended as that. If it is to become that, I say that the amount of land set aside is clearly not enough. If the Government intends to make this its ethical solution, of course more land is required. The 1936 Act was designed not only as a quid pro quo for the deprivation of franchise in this House, of the common roll rights of the Africans in the Cape, but it was also designed to preserve a certain amount of land for African occupation and African ownership, because it was realized that those areas were very quickly all being taken up by the Whites. This is the whole basis of it. We have changed it, and if we have changed it, we must make the necessary adaptations. This is why I say that the hon. the Minister for Bantu Administration should not have become so angery when he dealt with the demands of Chief Matanzima the other day. I have read his speech. Unfortunately I missed the delivery of it, although I came to the House in the last few moments. I could see that the hon. the Minister was purple with rage. That is how he looked to me anyway. [Interjections.] No, that hon. member is misunderstanding my words, but let me not be diverted. The hon. the Minister complains about the way in which the demands were made. In a way he has invented a nice, modern and more acceptable term for “cheeky”. There was a time when we talked of people being “cheeky” when they made such demands. Now the hon. the Minister, I am glad to see, has himself adopted more diplomatic language. I must tell the hon. the Prime Minister that these demands are going to come fast and furious.

How do you know?

Because it is as clear as can be for anyone who has a brain in his head. These demands are not only going to come from Chief Matanzima or Chief Buthelezi, but from each and everyone of the Territorial Authority heads. Chief Buthelezi has complained bitterly that more and more Zulus, the ex-labour tenants of Natal—400 000 of them I think he mentioned—were being pushed back into Zululand. No accommodation was made for them in Zululand, which was already eroded, over-populated and overstocked. So, these demands, as I have said, are going to go on coming. If I remember rightly, there are going to be eight independent Bantustans in the Republic of South Africa and eleven in South-West Africa. I see a sight, Sir: The hon. the Minister sitting in his laager in the Union Buildings, encircled by these demanding chiefs.

Me?

Yes, you!

I am not in the Union Buildings at all.

Well, in that case let us change the venue. Let us make it the Bantu Administration Building in Pretoria. He will be encircled by demanding chiefs asking for what the Government has promised them.

That is what you are hoping for.

It is not what I am hoping for; it is what is going to happen, inevitably. I lay the blame for the development of Black power movements in South Africa, and Brown power movements in South Africa fairly and squarely at the feet of this Government, which has denied the Africans any rights of citizenship in one multi-racial South Africa and has given the Coloureds second-class citizenship in a multi-racial South Africa. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, may I please hear myself speak.

Order!

Thank you very much indeed, Sir.

You are talking nonsense.

Listen to my nonsense for ten minutes, that is all I ask of you. I lay the blame, as I have said, fairly and squarely at the feet of this Government. They have built up Black power. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. member a chance to deliver her speech.

Thank you, Sir. The Government has also built up Brown power by depriving Coloured people of rights as full citizens in a multi-racial South Africa, and Black power by promising Africans possible ultimate independence. That is what is happening. It has nothing to do with agitation, which is the old excuse of the Government. It is either the English-language Press, or Opposition members or it is me, “die agitators”, putting ideas into the heads of the non-White people. That allegation is an insult to the non-White people. It shows the utmost contempt for the non-White people. That allegation assumes that the Africans, Chief Matanzima and Chief Buthelezi, and that the Coloured people cannot think for themselves. The hon. the Prime Minister tells us he has had consultations, and in fact, more than have ever taken place in this country before, with Africans and with Coloured leaders I wonder if his idea of consultation is like that of the hon. the Minister for Bantu Administration. He said that he had had talks with Chief Matanzima, but he did most of the talking. I wonder whether, during these consultations that the Prime Minister has with African, Coloured and Indian leaders, he also does most of the talking as well. I wonder whether it is not a case of telling them rather than consulting them. That is, of course, one way of consulting them.

The Coloured Representative Council is also demonstrating that it is aware of the power that the government has put in its hands. It has become a very valuable forum for the expression of Coloured discontent. I sincerely hope that the hon. the Prime Minister is taking note of the speeches that have been made in the Coloured Representative Council. There have been demands for equal pay for equal work, with which I heartily agree, needless to say. There have been demands for free and compulsory education for their children, with which I heartily agree as well. I did not put those ideas into their heads. They actually thought of them themselves. Believe it or not, the Coloured people have brains and intelligence and they are able to think for themselves. They are now making the demands …

I thought they were stooges?

No. they are not stupid. [Interjections.] The Government is stupid.

You said they were stooges.

Stooges? Yes, but stooges can be clever. Good gracious me, stooges are clever because stooges know how to use the positions which they have attained. How very silly of the hon. the Minister! He should know that stooges can be very clever indeed. The hon. the Prime Minister ought to note that Mr. Tom Swartz (who is by no means a member of the Labour Party, with whom I gather he does not consult) has said sadly: “Whether Government policy is right or wrong, feasible or not, is not the point. The point is that the Government will carry it out regardless of protests.” That is a very sad statement from Mr. Tom Swartz. He realizes that these consultations do not mean a great deal.

The hon. the Prime Minister has made some silly statements in the past. Some of them were mentioned by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition today. I may say that I made exactly the same points during the no-Confidence debate, right at the beginning of the year. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, today the Opposition gave a lot of attention to the Government’s policy in respect of homelands and the image this creates. I want to tell them: The fact that South Africa could succeed in creating its distinctive political composition, which has led to peaceful co-existence in the midst of the diversity of peoples living within its borders, can be regarded as one of the biggest political achievements of modern times. This is the true image of South Africa and it ought to be the prevailing image of South Africa abroad, and this also applies as far as the Opposition is concerned, if their intentions towards South Africa and its people are sincere.

South Africa is traditionally a multinational country. Thereby I do not only mean that there is a national difference between Whites and Blacks. The Black people of South Africa also consist of a diversity of peoples—irrefutably different traditionally, historically and politically. Each has its own language, its own culture and its own traditions. It is also very important to realize that they had no mutual or common desire to eradicate or destroy this perfectly established reality of separate nationhood. Any other concept of Black uniformity or of the existence of one nation consisting of 20 million people, is theoretical wishful thinking.

The fact that the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government must spend a lot of time and energy in eliminating ignorance abroad concerning this truth, I am able to understand, but what I cannot understand is that the Opposition—people living and dwelling here—purposely and deliberately ignore the truth of South Africa’s multi-nationality so that they can make political capital out of confusion abroad and local uncertainty about this fact.

Because this is our position, South Africa more than any other country in the world needs a Prime Minister and a Government that can lead it on the most difficult road imaginable as far as any peoples are concerned. South Africa is fortunate that it does, in fact, have such a Prime Minister and such a Government. That is why we in South Africa find a position of friendly and respectful difference between the various peoples living within its borders. This forms, inter alia, the cornerstone of our peaceful co-existence in contrast with the disturbances in other Western countries, in contrast with insurrection, civil war and chaos in countries of Africa who do not recognize the difference that exists between peoples.

Our position requires that all relationships in which South Africa is involved, on national and international level, be handled with the greatest measure of statesmanship and vision. I want to emphasize that no other country in the world is governed with as much ingenuity and efficiency as specifically South Africa in the exceptional position in which it finds itself and with its distinctive problems. For that I want to extend full credit and pay full tribute to the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government.

The hon. the Prime Minister and the Government carry the image abroad of what South Africa and its people have achieved in respect of peaceful co-existence. It ought to be a proud image for all whose intentions towards South Africa and its people are sincere. Why do I say this? I say it chiefly because the Opposition has, with so much enthusiasm, ranged itself on the side of South Africa’s enemies: the enemies in sport and politics, the enemies of peace and order, the enemies of morality, etc.

But I also say it because I want to draw a comparison between the manner in which the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government handles South Africa’s image and the way in which the Opposition does so, and the latter’s object in doing this.

An image of stability, of peace and order, which is in fact South Africa’s image, creates confidence in the Government, locally and abroad. But confidence in the Government, although it can only be to the benefit of every person living within South Africa’s borders, does not suit the Opposition. That is why we find the Opposition and the English Press trying to create an image of tension, of panic and even of chaos in South Africa. That is how they want our people to see South Africa’s image. That is also how they want countries abroad to see South Africa’s image. Why? There is only one reason for this, i.e. to create an uncomfortable feeling of uncertainty towards the Government. A pent-up rejection mania must be built up abroad against South Africa.

The Opposition works systematically at this distortion process of South Africa’s image so that they can then tell the people at large: Look at South Africa’s image under National Party rule. But what they do not tell the people is that they are the people who want to create that image; that they are the people who are working behind the scenes at a process of distorting South Africa’s image. What they also do not tell the people is that if they were to succeed in this process of distorting South Africa’s image, they do not have a hope of ever restoring it again, even if they were to come into power. What they do not tell the people either is that if sufficient unrest can be created in South Africa and sufficient hostility engineered from outside, it would mean the end of our peaceful and ordered society. That will be the result of this. But that is a result they apparently do not care two hoots about. Neither do they tell the people that the biggest struggle between the Government and the Opposition is not a matter of good administration and fair Government. They are powerless against that.

The essential struggle rages round the image of South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister and the Government are constructing that image with calculation and competence, because a good image of South Africa which there in fact is, can only be to the benefit of every person, White and Black, living within the borders of South Africa. However, such an image does not suit the Opposition. That is why they are working with ceaseless bitterness against that image; with such bitterness that it almost borders on political derangement. They do so, so that unrest from within and hostility from outside can be raised to a clamour against South Africa. I now want to tell them that the eventual price for that will be too high for anyone in South Africa to pay. I can tell them that by those means they will destroy South Africa. That is why we shall leave the members of the Opposition in the hands of the people. The people will see through their dangerous game and they will not allow double-talking milksops without a policy to rule them, because they are intent on destroying South Africa for political gain.

These people put me in mind of a hit-and-run party. If they do not know what that means, I shall tell them. A hit-and-run accident takes place when a pedestrian is run down by a motorist and the motorist then tears off without summoning help. That is what this party is like. They attack the Government with hit-and-run methods and then they tear away without giving a reply or offering assistance with the problems they present. (Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I feel that my hon. friend, the hon. member for Rissik must be feeling very strengthened this evening after the speech he has just heard from the hon. member for Odendaalrus. We on this side of the House miss the great friends we once had here, Oom Albert and Oom Jaap. We now feel that at least their mantles have fallen upon other members of this hon. House. The hon. member who has just sat down is standing right in line for the post which was reserved for the former member for Innesdal, Mr. Jaap Marais, who used to shake with bitterness when he looked at the United Party. He could not even address us in a peaceable kind of fashion. This hon. member is going exactly the same way, but he has not yet worked out a new speech in which to express it. We have heard the sentiments that he has expressed this evening already on a previous occasion. The hon. member for Rissik I think ought to be the last person to cast reflections on the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that he was a person who has belonged to several parties. My hon. friend was one of those who was freely rumoured as being a supporter of the more right-wing elements in the Nationalist Party. I was interested to hear him say this evening that he regarded this hysterical outburst of the hon. the Minister the other day as a fairly reasonable contribution to the debate. Those of us who remember the contributions made by the other members who were here, will understand how it might appear reasonable to that hon. member. To us, what happened here the other night, was a disgraceful exhibition and it was not the way in which the matter should have been handled. It was a case of the Government chickens coming home to roost. Here we have the same old story where the Government is trying to move the tree. Here we have the Chief Minister of a homeland, which is a creature of this Government. He is the creature of this hon. the Minister more than anybody else. He was simply speaking his mind. He just told his people that these are the sort of things which the Government has promised them and on which they now want action. The significance is the following. It is all very well for the hon. the Minister to tick him off, but the Chief Minister has now taken up an attitude and he has adopted a position from which he will never be able to retreat, because he cannot retreat without losing the faith of his own people. That is the spectre that looms over South Africa today, and that is the creature of that hon. Minister. It is even more significant than that, because we have had the statement of Chief Buthelezi of Zululand that he regarded this as an “admirable gesture” on the part of the Chief Minister of the Transkei. We have already had trouble in Natal, as the hon. member for Houghton had mentioned, with certain sections of the Zulu people. We had this trouble when we tried to clear up the squatters. The Chief Executive Officer of the Zululand Territorial Authority made the point that cattle are vital to the Zulu way of life. He made the demand on this Government that they should immediately fulfil the obligations imposed upon the White man in terms of the 1936 legislation. If there is one thing I want to do tonight, it is to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that under the administration of this Minister the whole process of the acquisition of ground in Natal to satisfy the legitimate requests of the Zulu people in terms of the 1936 legislation, is grinding to a halt. I want to say that the farming community in Natal at the outset adopted a most responsible attitude as far as this matter is concerned. The hon. the Deputy Minister just now said that, as far as they are concerned, the agreement with the Natal Agricultural Union would continue to operate. But what has happened, is that due to the absolute failure of this department to do anything, to take action and bring the matter to finality, the Agricultural Union has come to the stage where they are simply completely and absolutely frustrated.

They have two big proposals from me which they are now considering.

They are coming, but the last information that we had was that this Government were not even replying to the letters that were sent to them by the Natal Agricultural Union.

You are talking rot.

I am not talking rot. I checked this up very carefully indeed. There are five cases in Natal with regard to which this department has been dragging its heels. It is becoming serious. There are negotiations between the Natal Agricultural Union and the department over certain ground which is to be excised from the Bantu areas and certain other White farms made available for Bantu settlement, and the ground has been taken by the department in one case for the establishment of a township. But on the compensating ground which was to be excised and handed over to the White farming community, schools and buildings are now being erected as part of the Bantu location from which they were meant to be excised. With regard to the case of Loch Sloy at Estcourt, it was understood that there would be a certain number of farms taken by the department for a township to serve the township of Estcourt. This hon. Minister, however, returned to make a demand for more farms, in spite of the undertaking given by the previous Minister that that was all that was required in that area. I am informed that, when he was asked at that meeting—he can tell me whether I am right or not—at Estcourt why this had to take place, he merely said “times have changed”. I want to know how the farming community in Natal are supposed to go ahead and plan for their future. There are 29 Zulu areas, and if there is going to be any kind of a homeland, if it is going to be a meaningful area, there has to be some measure of consolidation. In the constituency of the hon. Minister of the Interior …

I am listening to you—go on.

That is good. I am glad. I am certain I will have his support, because there are those two locations.

Your people are divided on Lodi Sloy. You know that.

As regards the two locations at the head waters of the Drakensberg, there are ten farmers associations united in asking that they should be cleared up.

Why did they not bring their compensatory land? They had five years to do so.

If the hon. the Minister gets an offer of compensatory land, will he clear them up?

They did not bring it.

If they bring the offer, will he clear them up?

We appointed a committee, and they did not bring any.

I am asking the Minister a simple question. If he gets an offer of compensatory ground, will he accept it and clear up those locations?

Let them bring it.

“Let them bring it”. That is the old story.

How can he give an assurance if he does not know what the compensation is going to be?

The whole record of this department in negotiating with the Natal Agricultural Union has been, one of shilly-shallying, shuffling of papers and backing down on matters that they have undertaken to do. I say this is damaging the relationship between the Zulu people and the White farming community in Natal. The department cannot get away from it. It is primarily the responsibility of that hon. Minister. He was Deputy Minister. In Natal, in my own constituency, in the township of Mpendle, this thing was virtually settled some three years ago, but the whole matter gets thrown back into the melting pot and there are now people settling on ground which was under negotiations with the department, for which White farms have already been surrendered for Bantu settlement. Sir, it is no good the hon. the Minister muttering to himself as though he has some secret.

This is the Prime Minister’s Vote.

Yes, this is the Prime Minister’s Vote, and I am accusing that hon. Minister of not doing his job. If there is one person to whom this should be said it is the hon. the Prime Minister.

You just want to make a little bit of political capital.

Sir, that remark is worthy of the hon. the Minister of Sport; it is not worthy of anybody else.

You had many years of experience.

Sir, I want to say with tremendous emphasis that this attitude of the department is causing the most tremendous ill-feeling to build up. It has been said here before and I want to say again that there is one thing which scares me absolutely stiff and that is the possibility of a dispute arising over land. I have on a previous occasion in this House quoted three cases where revolutions against the White man have broken out over two things—land and freedom. Hon. members opposite believe that they are giving freedom to the Transkei and to the Zulu areas but, Sir, what about the land? Until this department takes this matter in hand and starts doing something about it I do not believe that the future of the White man in Natal can be regarded with any amount of certainty at all. ¡[Time expired.]

Sir, the almost boundless opportunism of the Opposition in regard to this question of land purchases, which could in fact be discussed to far better effect under the Vote of the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development than in this debate, came into sharp focus in this Committee this afternoon. I just want to remind hon. members on the opposite side side of the fact that a congress was held in Bloemfontein and that the United Party, at that congress, adopted the attitude that they were no longer in favour of land purchases under the 1936 Act; that they were no longer in favour of keeping a promise made by the White people to non-White peoples to purchase land under the Bantu Trust Act...

That is not true.

They were no longer prepared to be loyal to a promise they themselves had made, and what happened then? Then the hon. member for Houghton, who also laid a little egg here this afternoon which I shall come to in a moment, adopted the standpoint at that congress that the United Party could not adopt such an attitude, and then she and the Progressives broke away from the United Party. [Interjections.]

Order!

Sir, if your shaft goes home, if you hit the target, that is the way hon. members on that side carry on.

It is your own members who are sitting there making the noise.

I am just mentioning this as an example …

You are distorting.

On a point of order, Sir, is the hon. member for Durban Point allowed to say that the hon. the Deputy Minister is distorting? It is unparliamentary.

Order! Did the hon. member for Durban Point say that?

Yes.

The hon. member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it.

I am just mentioning this as an example of the almost boundless opportunism of the United Party. But, Sir, I now want to discuss another matter seriously. Last year during the sessions we had here, the major theme of the Opposition is attack on this side of the House was the collapse of apartheid. You will remember it, Sir. This session we have not yet heard one word about the collapse of apartheid. Why not? Thanks to this competent Minister, M. C. Botha, thanks to this dynamic third decade and thanks to the rapid political development of each of these Bantu homelands which are there for the entire South Africa to see, it has become quite impossible for the United Party to talk about the collapse of apartheid. It would be ridiculous to do so. Sir, another point I want to make is this.

Who do you not reply to the hon. member for Mooi River?

There is no one in this country who better illustrates how successful the policy of multinational development is being applied by the National Party Government than the Opposition. They are the people who are in reality proving to the country how successful apartheid and multinational development is being applied, and the fact that they have not said a word about the collapse of apartheid, which was such a slogan of theirs only last year, underlines the success of the application of the policy, with a powerful thick stroke. The third point I want to make is this: We on this side of the House are very fair and we do not take it amiss of anyone on that side of the House—including the hon. member for Houghton—if they rise to their feet here and make pleas in the interests of the Bantu peoples or in the interests of the Coloureds, or anything like that. This House is the place for it, and it is right that it should happen here. I even have a secret admiration for people who speak with conviction of the necessity of maintaining good relationships in South Africa, people who often take up the case of the so-called underdog here. I even have a secret admiration for that; it is a fine thing, and they are doing what is right; there is nothing wrong with it. But there is one thing which we on this side of the House despise, which is causing us in this country a great deal of unnecessary difficulty, and that is when a political party mars relationships in South Africa by using the non-Whites for no other purpose than personal political gain, and that is what the Opposition is doing. We take the strongest exception to that. Sir, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has recently been so fond of issuing warnings. I want, in a very humble way this afternoon, to issue a warning to the Leader of the Opposition, as I did the other day to the hon. member for Houghton, arising out of what the hon. the Prime Minister said here this afternoon. We on this side are very sensitive to the importance and the necessity for good relationships between White and non-White. We want our policy to be carried out in a fair, decent and just manner. In my position I avail myself of every opportunity that comes my way to try to eliminate areas of friction and to try to nurture these good relationships, because it is essential that this be done. But what have we had from the Opposition very recently? We have had the most atrocious exploitation of the non-Whites in South Africa for no other purpose than to try to benefit the United Party, and to try to get rid of this Government.

We shall see what the result in Witbank is.

We take the strongest exception to that.

Sir, I now want to come to another point. The hon. member for Houghton also said here that the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development had supposedly been enraged. It is important to know why. Here we see again the atrocious opportunism of the United Party in regard to this matter of Kaiser Matanzima. Sir, the hon. Minister made it very very clear that he was not dissatisfied with the demands Matanzima made. Why should he be dissatisfied with them? All those things he asked for—they were not demands —are things he has asked for before. For us there was nothing new in this entire matter. The Minister took exception to the method which was used; he was not angry about it either. [Interjections.] Sir, I want to expose the atrocious opportunism of those hon. members in this House. For what happened? The hon. the Minister put his case here. He put it calmly and then the Minister became dissatisfied with the hon. member for Newton Park because he questioned the Minister’s word. Then the Minister told him he must not tell an untruth. That is what happened, but what are the hon. members on that side doing? While we are dealing here with Matanzima who made requests in a certain manner, those hon. members now want to make the outside world believe something which is not the truth, i.e. not that the Minister lost his temper because that hon. member did not want to accept his word, but that the Minister was supposedly dissatisfied with this Bantu leader. That I maintain is not fair, because what it amounts to is that that leader is being exploited for the benefit of other people, and that is not right.

I should like to come to a fifth point. We are leading these Bantu peoples to independence. We shall do this under all circumstances, and it is not the easiest process in the world. But now the United Party has a standpoint and a policy in respect of the urban Bantu. We also have one in respect of the urban Bantu, and I want to make this point this afternoon: If these people are being led to independence in the homelands and if the United Party’s policy in respect of the urban Bantu in White South Africa is applied, this United Party will be setting foot on the road leading to the sell-out of White South Africa. [Time expired.]

Before I call on the next member, I want to say that I will not allow this choir practice to go on tonight.

The hon. the Deputy Minister made so many statements which need to be attacked and thrown back at him that I will have hardly any time to deal with my own speech if I deal only with that. But let me immediately say this. The highest duty that this side of the House owes to the country is to continue to expose this dangerous and reckless policy which the opposite side of the House embraced in a moment of impulse. We want to do so sufficiently to cause the scales to fall from people’s eyes and to enable them to see the truth of the matter. If hon. members opposite choose to describe that as a sweeping up of non-Whites in this country, then they have only themselves to blame and that language is completely inappropriate. I want to say that I think that where they felt it to be their duty in the past to effect a change of Government, we know how well they adopted the tactics which certainly helped them to succeed in their policy, the “swart gevaar” tactics. This is a matter which is commonly attributed to them and to them alone, and we reject with contempt any suggestion that this side of the House has done it or will do it. We will continue to do our duty in saving the people of South Africa before it is too late and, let us be quite frank, the hour is already very late.

What did the hon. member for Yeoville do the other day?

I do not want to deal with the question of the land purchases under the 1936 Act, except to say that a United Party Government will buy every morgen of land which was promised under the 1936 settlement and fulfil its promise to the complete utmost in that respect.

Have you changed your policy?

The hon. the Deputy Minister appears to believe that this side no longer thinks that his policy has collapsed and is dead, and he advanced the fact that no one in this debate, or indeed in this session, had made mention of it. But only in winding up of the Budget debate on Monday the hon. member for Yeoville referred to this dying policy. In my own speech in the no-confidence debate I referred to this policy as being as dead as the dodo because our entire economy is based on Black labour. It is the conviction of every member on this side of the House that this policy is either dying or dead or stillborn. You can choose your own word.

I want to diverge once more to deal very briefly with a remark made by the hon. member for Wonderboom. The hon. member for Wonderboom said in this debate, and he has said previously, that the outside world completely rejects United Party policy. I want to make two points in that regard, firstly that this side of the House will be guided by its own conscience entirely in deciding its policy on this matter. But I want to say to him that some of the leading Western powers have in fact indicated an attitude to our policy which is far better than the attitude to their policy. I will merely give one illustration. When the British House of Commons was debating the withdrawal of South Africa from the Commonwealth, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Mr. Macmillan, after rejecting Government policy completely, said that there was a time in the days of those great generals, Gen. Botha and Gen. Smuts, when they had a vision to which they were moving gradually. He ended by saying that he was convinced that in the time that lay ahead that policy would again be followed. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Prime Minister made a very brave speech this afternoon—-a very impressive debating speech perhaps. He very bravely stated that his party’s policy was to move these Bantustans to complete sovereign independence and that they would have defence under their control. I agree that it all sounded extremely good, unless you look at the true criteria as to whether this policy is succeeding. I think you can sum up that speech, Sir, by saying that the hon. the Prime Minister, with great debating fervour, is pressing on regardless. Of course, when this policy was rashly adopted by the other side without any one of their congresses having first had it put to them, it was done on a certain basis of fact. Since that time everything that has happened has just washed that basis of fact away completely from underneath them. I have not time tonight to dwell upon it in any detail, but the population facts and figures and proportions upon which the hon. gentlemen opposite based their hopes have been completely smashed and they are going more and more down the drain as every day passes. The whole basis that they would be able to suck people back to the Bantustans by the work opportunities there, and that there would be fewer and fewer Bantu working in the White areas, has been smashed. They have surrendered and they are on the other path now.

But I want to refer tonight to a further one of the absolute basic requirements of this policy which has failed to be substantiated. I refer to the whole question that, except for the Transkei, the land of these areas is so broken and so unconsolidated that it is practically impossible to found a successful state upon it. Sir, my voice may fail me, but my arguments are sound. I have very little time left. To prove what I have said, I refer to the answer I was given by the hon. the Minister. He said that the territory of the Tswana people is made up of 19 separate pieces of land and the territory of the Zulu people of 29 pieces of land. There are only 67 000 ha. of land still to be bought in Natal. We have 29 Zulu pieces of land. [Interjections.] I will content myself with quoting an authority, whom they will respect in this regard. I give them the authority of Prof. J. H. Moolman. He is an absolute expert in this field. Referring to territories other than the Transkei, he said—

I will conclude by saying that the hon. the Prime Minister made a brave speech, but he did exactly what Prof. Moolman said he should not do, namely to ignore the fact that these areas for the ethnic groups provide no foundation for a true nation state.

I should like to dispose of this aspect of the debate before dinner, so that, as far as I am concerned, we can refer after dinner to the other aspects mentioned by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. In my reply to this part of the debate, I begin with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He expressed his concern at whether our growth will be such as to enable us to accommodate all the workers who have to be accommodated. That is of course a question which is important to all of us. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition stated it to be his conviction that we would not be able, from time to time, to maintain the growth this year. Anyone’s estimate or guess in regard to this matter is of course as good as that of the next. As far as I am concerned, I of course lean very heavily, not only on my hon. colleague on my right, but also on Dr. Riekert, the economic adviser, who has been dealing with these matters for many years now. Not only has he been dealing with these matters for many years, but it is his task, his calling and his work to associate closely with the experts on the entire economic front, to consult with them and to discuss with them plans for the future. Apart from that, we have the economic development programme, which affords a prospect of a certain growth rate. As far as that economic development programme is concerned, we have never said that we are going to grow to precisely such and such an extent every year, because it would be foolish to say that. We have never said that; it would be foolish to do so. What we can in fact say, is that, over a certain period of time, we regard a certain average growth as possible. Hon. members know that we divide it into periods of time, and up to now we have always been right. We are not alone in doing this. It is done throughout the world. With all due respect to my friend on the opposite side, I want to say that he is arguing incorrectly when he says that we are going to collapse because we are not going to maintain a certain growth rate this year.

In the first instance no one has furnished any proof that we are not going to achieve that growth rate this year, but suppose we do not succeed in doing so this year. Even if that is the case, it does not change the problem in any way. Take for example the period we have just gone through. In the past five years we have maintained a very sound average growth rate, which compares very favourably with that of any other comparable part of the world. If we take 1968, however, and concentrate solely on that, we will have to say that everything was a total failure, because in 1968 the growth rate was only 3,6 per cent. If one considered only 1968, one would have to say: “O dear! The whole world is going to collapse”. But immediately afterwards, in 1969, the growth rate was 6,9 per cent again, and in 1970 5,3 per cent. In other words, you cannot simply take one year and then say that we have succeeded or failed. Surely you must take the whole period into account. I have said that I lean on my hon. colleague here on my right, and on the economic adviser, and I, as a non-economist, but as a person with some common sense, am satisfied that our growth programme will run according to the estimates and that it will be satisfactory. I see no reason whatsoever why one should have to feel concerned about the future as far as this matter is concerned. In fact, it is by no means a foregone conclusion that in 1971 we shall not achieve the growth rate the hon. member has in mind. There is no one who can at this juncture say that we shall not achieve that growth rate. There are people with equal authority who say that we shall do so. However, even if we did not achieve it, one year is still not enough to base a judgment on, as the case of 1968 proves. An argument which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition mentioned was that the maximum before the Budget was 5 per cent, and that it is now 4 per cent after the Budget.

No, that is not what I said.

You said that it was probably 4 per cent. You said, “probably 4”. That is what I wrote down here.

I said, “after the Budget we do not expect it to exceed a maximum of 5 per cent”.

“Probably 4?”

Yes.

That is precisely what I said. We speak the same language, Sir. I want, with all due respect, to say to my hon. friend that there is no proof whatsoever which points to that. While we are on this subject, my hon. friend ought to know by this time what reply you will receive if you bring six economists together and ask them: “What about the future?”

I am glad you are the Minister.

Yes. I now want to give the hon. member this advice: The best method is to select two for your purpose, two who are reliable, such as my hon. friend on my right, and Dr. Rieckert. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Zululand and Pinelands presented a valid argument. I want to concede very clearly that they are right on that score. The argument they put forward was that there should be maximum consolidation. I agree wholeheartedly with them, particularly at this stage, because we no longer have very much land left in terms of the 1936 Act. I was pleased to learn from the hon. member for Pinelands that they still stand by the 1936 Act. I do not know what happened at Bloemfontein. I was not there. At that time listening-in was not yet all the rage. I therefore cannot tell the hon. member what happened there. I can only repeat what the hon. member for Houghton said in this House.

But it was wrong.

If it is a lie the hon. member on that side of the House decided in 1959 that they no longer adhered to that Act, then it is not I who am lying, but the hon. member for Houghton, because that is what she says in this House. Those hon. members must now sort out amongst themselves who is telling the truth and who is not telling the truth. I do not want to be the arbiter in this matter. In fact, I want nothing whatsoever to do with that family quarrel.

But, as I have said, the hon. members put forward a valid argument. They must accept it now when I say that they are not the only ones who are concerned about this. I personally am also concerned about it. The same applies to my colleague the hon. the Minister and his department. The simple reason for the concern in regard to this matter is the fact that we have little land, and that the maximum consolidation must be achieved with what we have. I now want to give hon. members the assurance that I devoted an entire day— and my days are not many—to looking into the question of the homeland areas with the hon. the Minister and the senior officials of his department. I was really impressed by the systematic approach and the dedication in respect of this matter and the realization that maximum consolidation must be brought about. I want to inform hon. members that active attention is being given to this matter. Hon members will hear more about this later because we are in earnest about achieving maximum consolidation.

The question of the Transkei has been raised. The hon. member is aware of the fact that the Transkei received a great deal of land. The Transkei is still to get those 26 towns with their commonages. I do not know precisely where these are, but I take it the hon. member for Transkei does. I am told that these towns, together with their commonages, comprise 50 000 morgen. This land, for example, will be transferred to the Transkei. I do not want to say here today, in respect of the remainder of the land, that the Transkei will receive so many morgen or that it will receive nothing. This is something which, from the nature of the case, I cannot tell hon. members under my Vote today. Hon. members will also understand that it is impossible to do so. I have already said in passing that there are other areas. The hon. member for Zululand has now taken amiss of me what I and the hon. member over there said about those three districts. Surely the hon. member can appreciate that the farmers are very sensitive about this. He as a Natalian ought to know, better than anyone else, how sensitive White farmers are about this matter. It is not only the Bantu who are sensitive about land, but the Whites as well. Surely he can appreciate now that stating the matter as it was stated must cause feelings to run high. It must stir up feelings. It is obvious that one will have to allay those feelings. That is all that has been done in this case. The reaction which followed was merely a reaction to the way in which this took place.

I listened to the hon. member for Houghton. She has said in the past that she and I have grown old together in this House …

You got older than I did.

… but I have learnt something in this time. I want, in all humility, to ask the hon. member for Houghton where she is heading. What are the hon. member’s friends doing to South Africa?

Trying to stop you.

By speaking as she did here this afternoon of “Black power and Brown power movements”, she is forcing me to address a request to her. The hon. member has friends who are actively engaged in this kind of thing.

My friends are from the Progressive Party and they do not do what you are insinuating they do.

I am saying the hon. member has friends who are engaged in this kind of thing. I take it—in fact, I now want to ask her to state—that she is not a supporter of “Black power” and “Brown power” in South Africa.

No, I am not.

I am grateful to hear that from the hon. member. Now I want to ask her, who came to this House at the same time I did and who has grown old with me in this House, to do her best to discourage her friends from doing these things they are doing at the moment.

May I ask what things you are referring to, because you know them and I do not?

The hon. member knows very well what I mean in this regard.

No, I do not know what your insinuations mean.

Then the hon. member went further and she referred to the discussions I had with the various groups, with the leaders, who came to see me. Let me give the hon. member the assurance that we have free discussions, that I do not dictate to them and that I do not tell them what to do. They are leaders and people in their own right; they think for themselves and they make no bones about the fact that they support the policy of separate development. They make no bones about that, but they have also told me, and that is what I like about them, that they will, whenever they differ with me, tell me so.

Do you take any notice of them?

Yes, I do take notice of people who are honest and sincere. I do take notice of people who do not have ulterior motives when they talk to me or when they talk in public or when they set about things.

Say what you mean instead of insinuating.

I think, according to my notes, that I have replied to all the matters raised by hon. members opposite in regard to this specific matter. I intend to proceed to another matter after dinner.

I have listened with great interest to the hon. the Prime Minister and his advice to me to choose two reliable economists and base my calculations on them. I want to tell him that he and I are both old enough to remember the gold standard controversy and the differences there were between reliable economists as to what the situation was. I think that there are many of us who over the years have learned to get a consensus of opinion. I believe that if one gets a consensus of opinion of many of the leading economists in the country today, that opinion does not coincide with that of the Minister of Finance.

But what is the situation? Let us suppose that in 1971 we do drop to 4 per cent growth. Let us suppose that my advisers are right and we do drop to a 4 per cent growth. The hon. the Prime Minister says it does not matter in the long run, because you judge your growth over a period of time.

In 1963 it was just over 3 per cent.

Yes, Sir, but business is extremely sensitive. When there is a dropping off of that kind, people are put off. People become unemployed. People are looking for work. You get trouble with the non-Whites that you are endorsing back to the Bantu homelands. You have difficulty with your Bantu in the urban townships and in the reserves. Then what happens, is that you have to reflate the economy. Once you start reflating the economy, you are faced with all that that means—higher prices and labour problems once again. This is exactly one of my complaints against this Government, that we are circling around in a stop-start process. We are not getting on one line with adequate growth for South Africa to make the most of the assets available to us at the present time. I am worried about this position because of its effect, first of all, on the Bantu in the homelands, and secondly on the Bantu in our urban townships, which I want to deal with later, probably after dinner.

The hon. the Prime Minister said he is thinking of moving on to another subject. I believe there are still speakers who want to deal with the subject with which he has dealt before we move further on. I would suggest that perhaps we give them an opportunity before we take the matter any further.

We have lots of time.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.05 p.m.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Prime Minister who is unfortunately not with us now …

He will be here in a minute.

I know he will be here. The hon. the Prime Minister was a little premature in closing off the debate on something that is fundamental to the future of South African race relations. The hon. the Prime Minister wishes to end the discussion on what I believe is the absolute foundation of the whole of Nationalist party policy and one on which we have received no satisfactory answer throughout this afternoon’s debate.

I want to deal, firstly, with one point which the hon. the Prime Minister and the back-bencher from Lydenburg, I think, made. It is that of the question of the policy of the United Party in regard to the purchase of land for Bantu Reserves. The hon. the Prime Minister admitted this afternoon that as Prime Minister of South Africa he was unaware of a fundamental policy decision taken by the United Party and due to which a separate political party formed itself. Either the hon. the Prime Minister was unaware of that resolution or he pretended to be unaware of that resolution.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, is the hon. member allowed to refer to me as the “backbencher” of Lydenburg, or should he refer to me as the hon. member for Lydenburg?

Mr. Chairman, the United Party at its congress took a clear specific and unequivocal resolution, namely that we upheld, abided by and undertook to honour the 1936 pledge to buy 7½ million morgen of land for Bantu Reserves. That is point 1. Point 2 is that we refuse to support the purchase of any further land for the purpose of creating separate sovereign independent Black states. In other words, we are in favour and will honour the purchase of land to form part of South Africa, under the sovereignty of the South African Parliament, under the control of the South African Government and Parliament and with a common loyalty to South Africa. But we are not prepared to sell South Africa to foreign states. We will uphold the pledge to give to the Bantu for settlement as part of the structure of South Africa the land which was pledged to them. The hon. the Prime Minister ought to know that. If he does not I hope that I have added to his political education.

*I want to deal now with the second accusation levelled at us, i.e. that we are inciting the non-White leaders of South Africa. [Interjections.] There it comes. I want to refer here to the Hansards which are filled with the things said by the hon. the Minister and Deputy Minister and the hon. the Minister of Community Development and in which they quoted in this House speeches made by non-White leaders in order to prove to what extent their policy is accepted by the non-Whites. In other words, the Government is allowed to quote a non-White leader when it suits them. But if that same leader, the same person who has been quoted repeatedly by the hon. the Minister, says something they do not like, it is unpatriotic of us to refer those words back to the creators of those Bantu leaders.

†Sir, this is what the Prime Minister has not accepted and what he is trying to evade. The hon. the Prime Minister and his Government are the creators of the Bantu homelands whose leaders are today quoted by themselves when it suits them—and by us when they state things which we have warned against ever since this policy was adumbrated. I want to say finally and without any equivocation that the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government will not silence us when we quote issues which we believe could be a danger to the future of the whole of South Africa, White and non-White together. This is not “swart gevaar”; this is the future of the White man, the Black man and the Brown man at stake. We believe that the future of every population group is endangered by this impractical policy which this Government cannot carry out.

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

No, I am not prepared to answer a question by that hon. member who has refused on three occasions to answer questions of mine. The hon. the Prime Minister spoke this afternoon with deep feeling about consolidation, and I accept his sincerity. But the whole of the Bantustan policy flows from the Tomlinson Report, which came to the following conclusion on page 180, paragraph 13—

That was the finding of the Government’s own commission. They felt that as the Bantu homelands exist, without consolidation, they will be nothing but an extra appendage of the White areas.

The hon. the Prime Minister said that he spent a whole day of his life, one day of his life, one stolen day from his responsibilities, dealing with an issue fundamental to the whole political argument in South Africa. I hope he has looked at the map of Natal. Natal has 29 separate blocks and not one single town or village is more than five miles from Bantu Reserve areas. Sir, if you look at this map of Natal, you find that it is physically impossible, with the amount of land still available under the 1936 Act, to create anything less than seven or eight non-contiguous, unconnected blocks of Bantu areas. Now I think we are entitled to ask how you consolidate and form an independent state with that sort of scattered area. I have no time to quote the many appeals and the evidence produced by Bantu leaders that the promise to give back to them what was historically theirs is considered by them to be a promise to give what was theirs in history, and not what was there on a specific date in 1936.

The hon. the Prime Minister said today that he was prepared to give to these unconnected bits of land total independence. I interjected, and he confirmed that this would include defence, but he added: “Hulle sal gek wees”. His examples, his comparisons, were landlocked areas with no exit to the sea. They do not need defence forces. He is now giving or offering independence to the black areas on the White coast-land of South Africa, the east coast facing the Indian Ocean, and he says that they have no need of a defence force. Sir, I believe that we have the right to ask: “What is the strategic importance, what is the strategic meaning in terms of manpower, of money, of vehicles and of aircraft which will be needed to defend these Bantu independent states scattered along the coastline of South Africa from the very north to the south of our boundaries.” [Time expired.]

Sir, I listened attentively to the hon. member for Durban Point. This evening he again gave a wonderful demonstration here of how the United Party blows hot and cold when it comes to this very important matter. Sir, when it comes to the question of the acquisition of land so as to give those Bantu homelands the quota under the 1936 Act which the Whites of this country promised to them, we on this side adhere to it. But what happened here the other day? No less a person than the Leader of the Opposition levelled this accusation at the Government: “Look what is happening here; you want to give these people their own independent homelands, but only 13 per cent of the surface area of this country belongs to these people”. Hon. members of the Opposition object to the fact that we adhere to the 1936 Act. I want to allege that there are people sitting in the United Party tonight who agreed wholeheartedly with the hon. member for Houghton that more land than that 13 per cent which the Bantu own, should be purchased for the Bantu of South Africa. There are hon. gentlemen on that side who say that this is not enough land for the Bantu homelands.

The hon. member for Kensington as well.

And so too, the hon. member for Hillbrow.

Who said so? May I ask a question?

That hon. member may as well sit down. I am not prepared to waste my time. The hon. member for Kensington is one of the people …

Will the hon. member please name the member on this side who said that?

The hon. member for Mooi River is another person who is not satisfied with this 13 per cent. I think the hon. member for Kensington is a kindred spirit of his. We are not afraid to state our standpoint. Before business was suspended the hon. the Prime Minister said that we must proceed to deal with another point; we did not run away. The hon. the Prime Minister is not afraid to take this debate further. We can argue about this subject for the full three days which have been set aside for this debate, but the United Party will run away from that, as the hon. member for Durban Point ran away from it this evening. We will have a subsequent opportunity to debate Bantu administration, and then we will challenge hon. members of the Opposition to state the policy of the United Party on this matter. No, the hon. member said that we accused them of inciting the non-Whites in South Africa, but if one has listened to the speeches made by those hon. members here recently and to the speeches made by them outside then they are discussing the working conditions of the non-Whites and things of that kind, is that not incitement? When they speak as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout spoke here, where he took exception to petty apartheid and that kind of thing, is that not putting words in the mouths of these people? When the hon. the Leader of the Opposition discusses grievances here which do not exist for these people, although he knows what the situation in South Africa is, i.e. that it is not the responsibility of this Government to create café’s and facilities of that nature for these people,—that must be done by private initiative—is that not putting words in their mouth? Sir, cannot that also be regarded as incitement?

Sir, the hon. member for Durban Point mentioned the Tomlinson report, but he was adept enough, as a sly politician, only to read out to us the findings of the Tomlinson commission.

I have the White Paper here too.

Why· did the hon. member not go further and tell us what the recommendations of the Tomlinson commission were? They are recommendations with which we on this side are in full agreement; we agree that those areas should be consolidated. The hon. the Prime Minister went out of his way this afternoon to tell us how he had spent an entire day with the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development to get the whole picture of what must be done.

After 16 years.

Sir, I am sorry that I do not have the figures here. The hon. member for Pinelands has said something about how we have been busy with this matter for 16 years here. Sir, we are not ashamed of the record of the National Party. We are not ashamed of what we have done to purchase land since 1948 in order to expand these areas according to the 1936 Act. The figures and the facts prove that the United Party Government, between 1936 and 1948, the time when they were in power, spent a minimal amount in purchasing additional land. Of the 7,25 morgen which had to be purchased, there are only plus-minus 1,3 million hectares which still have to be purchased, as the hon. the Prime Minister indicated here this afternoon. This is truly an achievement, an achievement under circumstances in which it was difficult to make capital funds available for the purchase of land. The hon. member knows very well that you cannot purchase a piece of land for the homelands with the same ease as you are able to walk into the O.K. Bazaars and buy a pound of sugar. Sir, very thorough preparatory work has to be done beforehand and inspections have to be made. I take my hat off to the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and his Department, and I want to mention with praise and appreciation what they have done since 1948 towards purchasing land. This is no easy matter. The most difficult matter to clinch, was in Natal. I want to inform the hon. member for Mooi River, who spoke here, that it was a difficult matter to clinch to get the Natal Agricultural Union to co-operate in making this land available. I want to say here this evening —and I am not ashamed to say this—that we can say with great praise and appreciation that the Natal Agricultural Union is today co-operating cordially with the Department to make land available for the consolidation of Zululand. Sir, we were afforded an opportunity of attending a few of those inspections. The hon. member for Mooi River was present in Weenen when we held the inspection there. That inspection which was held in Weenen, which the hon. member for Mooi River mentioned, took place with the most cordial co-operation of the farming community there. That community is supporting us in our attempt to solve this problem. The hon. member produced a map of Zululand here to indicate how fragmented it is. I want to agree wholeheartedly with him that it is difficult under such circumstances to declare a homeland, but these are not the last words on the matter. We are taking steps to consolidate Zululand.

They are making our task more difficult.

We are doing that …

You have not even started.

Oh, Sir, the hon. member is talking without his notes. He will have to be informed. He should be prepared to listen to the facts we are giving him here, and we shall give him all the facts here. We are working on this matter, but, as I have said, we are not merely buying a pound of sugar in the O.K. Bazaars; it is a complicated process and a lengthy procedure. The officials of the Department are people who have an extremely difficult task to perform, and in view of the manpower shortage in South Africa today, and particularly in this Department, I still take off my hat to them for what they are doing. [Time expired.]

In the course of his half-hour and the other time he had the hon. the Leader of the Opposition raised various matters with me. I told him I would reply to these matters one by one, and consequently I am now going to proceed to another matter, since, as far as I am concerned, I have replied to all the other matters which he mentioned and which were raised on his side of the House. I want to touch upon another matter which I regard as being very urgent, and which I believe not only I regard as being urgent, but also all hon. members on both sides of the House will regard as being important, and which is worth discussing here.

The hon. the Leader rightly pointed out that in recent times relations with Britain had improved. I am in complete agreement with him.

†l completely agree with him where he said that relations with the United States had eased. Then he also referred to the African states, and that is the point I want to discuss now.

Hon. members will recall that previously in Parliament, I stated, referring to Zambia, that when my Vote comes up for discussion, I would take this opportunity to expose President Kaunda of Zambia as a double-talker, and that is in fact what I want to do tonight. I think it must be done, not only in the interests of South Africa, but also in the interests of Zambia, and I think it must be done also in the interests of Southern Africa and of Africa as a whole.

Ever since 1965 it was felt by the South African Government, by my late predecessor, that it was of the utmost importance for the peace and stability and the progress of Southern Africa that there should be a good understanding and cooperation between the states of Southern Africa. Because my predecessor felt that way he sent out feelers, as far as Zambia was concerned, in an effort to create a better understanding as between Zambia and South Africa. When I took over I was of the same opinion and I want to say tonight—and I think here I speak on behalf of my friends on the opposite side as well as on behalf of my friends on this side— that it is in fact very important that an understanding with Zambia should be arrived at if it is humanly possible to do so. We are all of Southern Africa; we are all of Africa; and as far as Zambia is concerned, it holds a key position in Southern Africa.

*I say I continued along that course, and to the best of my ability tried to induce Zambia to change its attitude and to make contact with this African state on a proper level. Eventually our attempts met with success, and in April, 1968, an envoy of the President of Zambia came to South Africa. He came here for two purposes: in the first instance, to ask for information and, in the second instance, to put to me Zambia’s charge, if I may put it that way, against South Africa. That was done by letter by President Kaunda. Consequently I am going to read out to the House certain quotations taken from that letter. It is a lengthy letter which deals with human rights and human dignity, etc., a general philosophy, but this is not relevant for the purposes of the debate this evening. What is in fact relevant for the purposes of this debate, is the charge which Zambia formulated against South Africa at that stage and the reasons why the relations between us were the way they were. In fact, he said to me—

†Well, as far as I am concerned, Sir, I am a frank man myself and I do not mind anybody being frank with me. President Kaunda was in fact very frank in his letter and I was equally frank in my reply to him. This is the gravamen of his charge against South Africa—

After moralizing further, he said—

As I have said, it is a long letter, but that is the gravamen of the charge levelled against South Africa by President Kaunda in very frank terms. In the letter he uses some harsh words.

I then replied to him and in my letter I was as frank as he had been. I want to quote relevant portions from my letter. I wrote back to him and said—

If I may interrupt the quotation here, hon. members will recall that I made this speech at Rustenburg in 1967 after a threat by President Kaunda that he and his associates will do this, that and the other to South Africa. Hon. members and the Leader of the Opposition will remember that warlike speech he made against South Africa. In my letter I said—

Hon. members will appreciate that there is a vast difference between the accusations levelled at me and the actual words I used as a result of the threats that Zambia levelled against South Africa. I then went on to say:

You conveniently chose to omit the first part of my statement.

I went further and said to him—

Hon. members will see that from his side it was a frank statement and that it was an equally frank statement from my side.

*Now, hon. members must remember what threats were levelled against South Africa. I have here with me a whole file filled with such threats, but I do not think it necessary for me to read them out here. There is not one single hon. member on that side of the House who does not know what threats were levelled against South Africa, who does not know that we in South Africa were called colonialists, that South Africa had to be boycotted, that South Africa had to be blockaded, in fact, that South Africa had to be squashed here on the southernmost tip of Africa. These threats were regularly levelled by Zambia. Then I received this astonishing letter from him in August, 1968, in reply to that very frank letter of mine—

Then he made this surprising statement—

Hon. members should now listen to the following—

Then he goes on to say—

Then I shall omit other matters which are not of importance in this debate. He went on to say—

I think I have now quoted sufficiently from that correspondence. Along with this letter, the courier who conveyed this letter, also conveyed a message to the effect that instead of continuing to write to each other, we should proceed to making further arrangements for a meeting between envoys. I was pleased at this being the case. I arranged for an envoy of mine to go to Zambia. That was after the first letter had been disposed of. An appointment was in fact arranged for 25th May, 1968, but just before that meeting was to take place, President Kaunda made a speech in Botswana in which he—and I am sure hon. members will remember that speech—publicly made very vicious remarks against South Africa. I then sent him word that I was astonished at the fact that he had requested me to send an envoy, that he had said he would not use force against South Africa and did not lump South Africa together with the “minority régimes”, but had done everything but that in the speech he had made in Botswana. I then told him that to my mind it was a waste of time to hold discussions under those circumstances. He subsequently informed me that I was not to take that speech too seriously, that it was intended for the consumption of other people and that we should proceed with the discussions in spite of that speech. I replied to him that under those circumstances I was prepared to proceed with the discussions, and, as he had requested, I sent a delegate of high standing to discuss matters with him. That appointment was honoured on 22nd June, 1968. and it followed on the correspondence that had taken place.

I now personally, not as a quotation from a letter, want to furnish hon. members with the charges levelled against South Africa. He said that his problem with South Africa was the following: (a) The South African Government’s policy of apartheid in general; (b) the fact that the South African Government supports the rebel Government in Rhodesia; (c) the fact that the South African Government refuses to respond to the United Nations’ resolution and appeals in regard to South-West Africa; (d) South Africa’s defence agreement with the two Portuguese territories and Rhodesia, and the fact that White Southern Africa is hostile to the Black African States; and (e) the South African Government’s policy in respect of its own Black people locally. My delegate discussed each of these objections with him, and reported back to me that he was able to satisfy the President of Zambia on every charge. He also told me that the president of Zambia had in fact told him that he understood very well the position prevailing in Southern Africa at present. In particular my delegate pointed out to him very clearly that we had no defence agreement whatsoever with Rhodesia and the Portuguese territories and that he was aware that this was in fact the case. Nevertheless, be that as it may, on that occasion he stated that he was satisfied with the replies he had received. On that occasion it was agreed that envoys would no longer be used, but that a personal meeting between President Kaunda and myself would take place. I had informed him that I was agreeable to such a meeting, that, for the sake of the interests of Southern Africa and for the sake of the interests of both his country and mine, I should like to see him personally in order that we might come to an agreement and settle matters. Subsequently it was agreed on that date that such a meeting would in fact take place. He said that it would be difficult for him to get away, as at that stage he was not keen to broadcast the fact of having had talks with me, but that he would like to do so in secret. I then sent him word that I appreciated his circumstances and that I was waiting for the opportunity to hold talks with him. I made inquiries from time to time, but there was always some excuse for its not being possible for the talks to take place. Eventually, because nothing materialized from these enquiries, I once again sent the same highranking envoy to Lusaka, on 21st January, 1969, to find out what the position was. I informed the President of Zambia that this story about meeting in secret would not work out. He had been battling for so long to bring it about, but it would not work. He was to arrange a public meeting with me somewhere, and I would be prepared to hold talks with him at an agreed venue. I invited him to come to Pretoria, if it would suit him, or to any other place on which we could agree. It was then agreed that such a dialogue would be a public one.

Attempts were then made to arrange for this dialogue to take place. Once again I waited, and in March, 1969, his envoy came to South Africa and contacted mine. Now, hon. members must keep this well in mind: The accusation was now being levelled against us that we, according to him and many people in the world outside, wanted to attack Zambia, that we wanted to destroy Zambia. In March, 1969, his envoy, in hot haste, came to South Africa with a major problem. His problem at that stage was that the President of Zambia had received information that Rhodesia and Portugal were on the point of invading Zambia and going to war against them. As I had influence with them, would I not be so kind as to use my influence in order to call off that war against him? I told his envoy—and I am repeating this word for word—“Go back to your country, tell your President he and your people must go on with your work. There is no such thing as anybody wanting to attack you from any side. If there were such a thing, surely I would at least have been aware of it, because I know what is going on in Southern Africa. I am not even prepared to speak to those two countries about it, for it is absolute nonsense and the source from which you obtained it, is a mendacious one, to put it very mildly”. Then he left, and hon. members know, of course, that no war ever took place, for no war against anybody was being envisaged at all.

On that occasion the question of a meeting was again discussed. In spite of the fact that it had again been discussed, there was always some excuse for its being impossible for the meeting to take place. This went on, and I was still waiting all the time, until in May, 1970, my envoy again had personal talks with the President of Zambia and again raised this question. And on that occasion it was definitely agreed, without any doubt, that he would keep a public appointment with me in November, 1970, so that we might discuss the problems of Southern Africa as well as those of our own two countries. At that stage there was no longer any doubt about the matter. There was a definite appointment for November, 1970. During all that time all the problems were discussed openly and full reports were drawn up on them. What is very important, is that notwithstanding the fact that the President of Zambia was duly aware that South Africa did not bear him any malice, that South Africa had no intention of attacking him, that South Africa stood to gain nothing from any attack on him, and notwithstanding the fact that he had asked South Africa to prevent the war which he thought other people wanted to make against him, the President of Zambia made, in December, 1970— having failed to keep his appointment in November—a very strong attack on South Africa. I shall now quote from the Times of Zambia, which is more or less the official mouthpiece of the President of Zambia. He said at the time—

He said this in spite of the fact that in his own letter he had written to me that he did not regard me in that light. Furthermore, he said this in spite of the fact that when he himself had had to confront me, he had said that he did not lump me together with Rhodesia and the Portuguese territories. The report went on to say—

This happened after everything I told you, Sir, had taken place. Can hon. members understand now why, on a certain occasion, I called him a double-talker?

But then I said during the no-confidence debate that I would on a subsequent occasion expose the President of Zambia to the world as a double-talker. Immediately after that the President of Zambia contacted me and said that I had to send an envoy to him again. I then sent my envoy to him. My envoy met him personally on 27th March, 1971, and said to him, “Now we are completely baffled. Why do you adopt one kind of attitude in public and another in private? Surely this is an untenable position. The Prime Minister of South Africa now has no alternative other than exposing the whole matter to the world.” His reply to that was that he would decide on this matter in June or July, for at that stage he was not only President of Zambia; he was also chairman of the Organization for African Unity.

I have now dealt fully with this matter because tonight I want to repeat this with all the power and emphasis at my command: It is absolutely essential for we states in Southern Africa, in view of the threat facing us and the fact that many of these states are underdeveloped, that we should understand one another, in spite of our differences in domestic policy. It is essential for proper co-operation to exist between us as states. In respect of his double-talking it is important for me to say this not only to South Africa, but also to all states in Africa: Here one has the president of a country who, on the one hand, tells the African states—and there are many witnesses to this—“Under no circumstances must you have a dialogue with South Africa. They are not people with whom one should have a dialogue.” But ever since 1968 he himself has been having a dialogue with us. Here one has the president of a country saying, “It is pernicious to trade with South Africa, and you may not do so.” But he himself trades with South Africa. Here one has a man who, on the one hand, presents us to the outside world in a suspicious light, and there are people who believe him. He says that we want to attack him and that we want to destroy him. But in the same breath he tells us that others want to destroy him and that we must please help him. Here one has a man who, on the one hand, tells the world outside that we are colonialists and, on the other hand, tells me that he has never said this about us. Here one has a man who, on the one hand, advocates the use of force against us morning, noon and night, and then tells me, “Nobody, at least in this part of the world, has ever said such a thing.” I believe that it is and has become in the interests of Southern Africa for this exposure of the President of Zambia to take place for the good of Southern Africa. It must take place for the sake of a better understanding in Africa.

Having said all these things, I want to make it very clear that I am making many allowances for the President of Zambia. I know his circumstances and his problems. That he has been acting against South Africa in the way I have described to the House, does not matter now. It is still in the interests of Southern Africa and all of us that we should reach an understanding. In spite of all these considerations, President Kaunda is the ruler and the leader of Zambia. I now want to state openly that I am still prepared to hold talks with him, and I think I am doing so not only on behalf of my side of the House, but also on behalf of hon. members on the opposite side of the House. I am still prepared to meet him at any venue on which we may agree. I am prepared to receive him in Pretoria, as I would receive any head of state of any country, in spite of everything that has happened, because I set more value on the interests of Southern Africa, of the states in this part of the world, than I do on the interests of the person of President Kaunda and the interests of my own person, because even the interests of our two countries are, as far as the leaders are concerned, secondary to the interests and the good of Southern Africa as a whole. I am, as I have said, quite prepared to hold those talks, and whereas we have now done everything in our power in the way I have described to the House, I now extend this open invitation to the President of Zambia to honour that promise of talks and to discuss with me the venue and the date, because I believe that it is in the highest interests of Southern Africa that such talks will in fact take place.

There is, of course—and I must say this just in passing—the so-called Lusaka Manifesto. That so-called Lusaka Manifesto, on which many people in the world take their stand and on which President Kaunda takes his stand, was never sent to us by them. There has never been any attempt on their part to negotiate with us on the basis of that so-called manifesto. Of course, I totally reject the allegations in that manifesto as being devoid of any truth. But, be that as it may, for the sake of Southern Africa I am prepared to hold those talks, and I hope and trust that this double standard, this double-talking, will now stop once and for all.

Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister will not be unaware of the fact that I myself have friends both in Africa and elsewhere whose job it has been to try to negotiate with leaders of certain of these emergent states. May I say, Sir, that while the hon. gentleman has all my sympathy, I am not in the least surprised to hear the tale he has unfolded. It is such a typical tale; it is such a typical course of action adopted by people who still do not know where they are and who are more afraid of people in their own homes than they are of people outside. There is no point, Sir, in debating this statement. We are grateful to the hon. the Prime Minister of having given it in this House, as is correct and proper. Anything that we say may simply exacerbate the situation. We can only say to the hon. gentleman: Persevere, try and try again. Perhaps he will have better luck next time. I think it is in the interests of peace in Southern Africa and better relations that we should go on trying, no matter what the disappointments and no matter how much we feel that our intentions are not understood. As far as we on this side of the House are concerned, the hon. the Prime Minister can be assured of our support in doing his best to open and to maintain negotiations. I think apart from that, Sir, it is not wise to debate this matter any further.

That being so, Sir, I think we must go back to the subjects which we were discussing before the hon. the Prime Minister raised this issue and in order to maintain continuity, I feel it is right that we should go from the Bantu in the homelands to the position of the Bantu in our own country in their own urban townships. Sir, I indicated before business was suspended that I was worried about the rate of economic development and the possibility of unemployment both in the homelands and in these Bantu townships. I want to say that as far as I am concerned, my difficulty is that the Government refuses to regard the inhabitants of our Bantu townships as permanent inhabitants, even those Bantu who have given up their tribal affiliations and who have lived their whole lives in our Bantu townships. In the name of consistency and to give meaning to the fiction of their own Bantustan policy, the Government continues to regard these people as temporary sojourners in our White areas with no permanent rights, not even the right to own property and, all too often, not the right either to have the comfort of family life. Yet, Sir, these are the people on whom our domestic comfort depends and on whose industry and aid a large part of our industrial effort in South Africa depends. Quite clearly, unhappiness and dissatisfaction amongst them can and does have immediate repercussions in the daily lives of the White people in South Africa.

It is for that reason, Sir, that I raise this issue at this time because I want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister that his policies just are not working with these people in our own country. There is a growing frustration amongst them; there is a growing bitterness and a deterioration in their relations with us. Sir, this is a situation, as I have said before, which can easily become explosive, and it is small wonder that the problem of how these people should be treated and where they fit into the scheme of things in South Africa, is more and more a subject for discussion and is more and more being written and talked about by intellectuals in South Africa. We have outlined our ideas in this House before, and I am quite prepared to do so again in this debate; I will do so later on, but I cannot urge on the Prime Minister strongly enough that this is a matter in which new thinking from his side is necessary. Sir, it is not only I who say so. I want to refer again to the report of the President of the South African Foundation, on pages 2 and 3. He says—

I know. Sir, that this is not Government policy, but I have always found it difficult to understand why there should not have been some say for them prior to the independence of the homelands.

But be that as it may, let me remind the Prime Minister that this is a group of people with no security of tenure in the White areas, with no home ownership in most areas, in most cases with no secure family life, with no elective institutions with any real administrative or executive functions in the areas in which they live, with enormous transport problems in most cases, and with very little chance of earning wages above the bare minimum needed to keep themselves going. There can be no doubt whatever that there is unhappiness and restiveness amongst them. The signs are there. The hon. the Prime Minister knows what the reactions have been to those train accidents in which Bantu lives have been lost. It is no accident that the Mayor of Johannesburg, at the request of his Bantu administrators, went to address the crowds at the scene of the last accident. There have been too many warnings from Bantu administrators, dedicated men throughout South Africa, as to the situation that is developing. Now an important group among them is demanding a minimum wage of R100 a month and trying to make out a case to justify it. I wonder what the position is going to be if we cannot maintain an adequate growth rate and if unemployment appears of the kind against which Dr. Hupkes has warned. I note that where he talks about R4 000 being necessary to create a job in the decentralized industries in the border areas, the latest report of the Commission for the Decentralization of Industry estimates that it will probably cost today R6 200 per employee. Well, where are we going from there?

Here is a problem which is becoming more and more serious daily, which is building up and which can become explosive at any time because of the political situation, the developing economic situation and the socio-economic conditions under which these people live. It seems to me that this is one of the matters which deserve the hon. the Prime Minister’s attention. I am prepared to debate the virtues of my policy as against his, but it seems to me that with his present policy he is heading for disaster. Unless there is new thinking and a new approach, I must say that I fear for the future of these people and for peaceful race relations with them in South Africa.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has now raised a very important matter here on which we should very much like to cross swords with him. Our policy in regard to the urban Bantu and the Bantu in the White areas of South Africa is very clear. By way of summary I want to repeat it briefly and, in the few minutes at my disposal, contrast it with the declared policy of the United Party in this regard.

In the first place, our standpoint is that the numbers of the Bantu in the White area of South Africa must be limited to the minimum by means of influx control and a system of contractual labour, and that in the Bantu homelands the numbers of the Bantu should grow to the maximum by means of the general development of the homelands and the provision of work at the most rapid rate possible. Secondly, we state very clearly that our policy in respect of the urban Bantu is that in the first place we regard the Bantu as belonging to a national group and as being a member of a people, regardless of where he is living. If he is a Zulu living in Soweto, he belongs to the Zulu people, and if he is a Venda living in Soweto, he belongs to the Venda people. For that reason, our policy in respect of the urban Bantu is based on the premise that the Bantu must of course be considered as an individual, but that he belongs primarily to a people. For that reason our policy states very clearly that the Bantu can obtain no rights of citizenship and no proprietary rights in White South Africa, in the same way as the Whites cannot obtain such rights in the Bantu homelands. You must take careful note of this, because it is extremely important that in terms of our policy, and it is applied in this way, the Whites can obtain no rights of citizenship or proprietary rights in any homeland. We therefore say that the Bantu, who is a member of a Bantu people, cannot obtain proprietary rights in White South Africa, and on that basis he cannot obtain rights of citizenship either.

Our policy in this regard is very clear and for that reason, in White South Africa, which is controlled by the White Government. we welcome the Bantu in the sense that he is here to offer his labour. Working from the premise that he is a member of a people and is getting all his rights of citizenship and proprietary rights and everything that follows on that in his homeland, we want to give him the fairest possible modus vivendi in White South Africa while he is here. Since, like the Whites in the homelands, he has no proprietary rights in White South Africa and exercises no rights of citizenship here, we want him to exercise his rights as a member of the people to which he belongs, and which we are leading to independence. But while he is here in White South Africa, we want to give him a very fair modus vivendi. We should like him to be happy here and we shall go out of our way to make it as pleasant as possible for him. We say that he must be treated with human dignity, with fairness and with justice under all circumstances.

Furthermore, I want to say that, while he is in White South Africa, where he receives no rights of citizenship, we must reward him properly for his labour according to its value. In addition, we say that all levels of friction must be eliminated as far as possible. We say, too, that the channels must be kept open for him so that he may also progress in life. In other words, in terms of our policy we say that we want to be as humane and fair as possible towards him in White South Africa, while he has no rights of citizenship here, but has and can exercise his rights of citizenship in his homeland.

But, Sir, now you must take very careful note of the invidious position in which the United Party is involving itself. This is that it can no longer be denied that this homelands policy is succeeding at a very dynamic rate. [Interjections.] Sir, unfortunately I do not have the time to read to you from New Nation how the Leader of the Progressive Party recently made speeches in which he came very close to saying that we should recognize the policy of developing the Bantu homelands. I can show you how the United Party as well as the Progressive Party have been warned in New Nation and how some United Party front-benchers have come as close as “dammit” to admitting that this multinational policy is the only policy which can succeed. New Nation, and other people whom I can quote, say that the United Party should be extremely careful that it does not find itself in a position here where it will be minced between two nationalisms and will be pushed out into the cold. I do not have time to indicate how, in the numerous discussions which are taking place and which have take place in the past 1½ years between Minister M. C. Botha and myself and these leaders, the United Party has had no part; it is already out in the cold. This is the dilemma in which it is going to find itself and in which it is being caught up. That dilemma is this: if the Bantu homelands policy succeeded and led to independent homelands, what would the implication of that be? The implication would be that in each of these homelands the Bantu people in that homeland would be sovereign; in other words, would be in charge there. In terms of our policy, the Whites in White South Africa have the sovereign authority, while the Bantu have no rights of citizenship here. To use a word I do not like using, the White will also be the ruler or boss in his own country, just as every Bantu people would be the sovereign boss in its own territory. But if we were to accept the United Party’s policy, the Bantu would be elevated to the position that they would not only be the sovereign power in their own homeland, but would also be placed on the road to eventual sovereignty in White South Africa by virtue of their numerical superiority and the implications involved in that. I say this is the dilemma in which the United Party is going to find itself to an increasing extent and from which it will not be able to escape, even if it stands on its head a hundred times. I therefore want to repeat what I said in conclusion earlier this afternoon, because I did not have the time then to develop the point further, i.e. that the United Party’s policy in respect of the Bantu in White South Africa would place the Bantu in the whole of South Africa on the road to total domination of the Whites in their own homeland, the Republic of South Africa. This is what I have now tried to prove to hon. members. The United Party will have to take this into account to an increasing extent and I say that they will not be able to escape it.

I do not have time to go into details now, but the United Party states very explicitly in its pamphlet that in White South Africa “Bantu labour”—and this means both men and women—“will therefore be permanently employed and will permanently live within reasonable distance from the White farms, factories, businesses and homes in which they are employed”. Furthermore, they guarantee in this pamphlet that they will make it possible for Bantu, who will settle here permanently to obtain controlled proprietary rights in the large urban Bantu townships. I quote once more—

I therefore say that the United Party’s policy would place these people on the road to total domination in the Republic of South Africa. In conclusion I want to say that, in terms of our policy we must and do take into account the Bantu students, who are coming to the fore in increasing numbers. We on this side of this House realize that in White South Africa, and throughout South Africa as well, we must create and must keep open, opportunities for the increasing number of Bantu students, so that they may realize their ideals as well. Many hon. members were students and know what I am talking about. However, these students will be able to realize their ideals only within their own national context in the South African set-up, and therefore within the framework of the policy of the National Party Government.

Mr. Chairman, I have never doubted the sincerity and integrity of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education. I know he believes every word of what he said here this evening. But I have seldom had the experience of having to listen to someone living in such a complete dream-world as that hon. Deputy Minister. What he said is completely divorced from the real and true state of affairs in South Africa. The theory of separate development that the Bantu of South Africa will live in their own homelands, develop to sovereign independence and maintain friendly relations with the Republic of South Africa, is a beautiful one. I have said this before. In the old Dagbreek, a Sunday newspaper, I also wrote that, if the policy could be carried out and if one could see signs that the Government was carrying it out, all of us would have to consider very seriously whether we should subscribe to that policy or not.

I remember Prof. Pistorius of Pretoria, who is a Progressive, in fact accusing me of seeking a coalition with the Nationalist Government. I think I am stating it fairly if I say that what the Deputy Minister means is that, if the Bantu become independent in their own areas and enjoy all the rights and privileges there that we enjoy in the White areas, we will have a fair and just solution to our problems in South Africa as far as the Bantu are concerned. I think it is fair to put it in this way. Now we must ask ourselves the question, and to this we have not yet received a reply from hon. members opposite, what prospect … [Interjections.] I have only ten minutes at my disposal. The hon. member can rise to his feet in a moment and put questions to me for ten minutes. I think they are entitled to that, and the hon. member for Benoni … [Interjection.]

Langlaagte.

I beg your pardon; I apologize to the hon. member for Benoni. The hon. member for Langlaagte can now give me his reply to this. What prospects are there, and what scientific grounds exist for such prospects, of this dream being realized in our lifetime or in the lifetime of our children or our grandchildren? What prospects are there of this dream being transformed into a situation where the Bantu of South Africa will actually be living in their own areas and enjoying the same rights and privileges there as those of the Whites? What prospects are there of even the majority of the Bantu working in White areas today, being able to die in their own homelands? What scientific basis is there for any forecast of when that will happen? The United Party says that if one wants to devise a Bantu policy for South Africa, it cannot be based on unrealities and on illusions and fallacies. It can be based only on reality, on inescapable reality, which is that, whether we like it or not, history has brought the Bantu and the Whites together in South Africa and has made the one dependent on the other. The best proof one can …

Do you want to sit together here?

The best proof we have of that is that this Government, in spite of its theory, realizes that the Whites and the Bantu cannot be separate in South Africa, because …

Here in Parliament?

I am not dealing with that point now. Why must the hon. member for Benoni now, because he knows what I am saying here is true …

Langlaagte.

Yes, the outcast of Benoni, just as I am the outcast of Vereeniging. Why must this hon. member now try to distract the attention from the reality, the facts which the supporters of the National Party cannot escape? They cannot escape the realization that we cannot exist separately in South Africa. They realize it to such an extent that for the purpose of implementing their so-called policy of separate development, they have accepted the policy of border industries, and what is the policy of border industries?

It is a good policy.

It may be good or bad, but what is it in reality? I do not think it is a good policy, but I do not want to argue with the hon. the Minister about that now. What does this policy mean in reality? It means that our economy must bend itself and that our cities must be bent so as to make it possible for the industries to which South Africa’s future prosperity must be linked, to be established on the borders of the Bantu homelands. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister must give me a chance. If he is not careful, he will say the wrong things again, and then he will again have to furnish explanations of what he said. The Nationalist Party realizes that if it wants to promote industry, on which our future rests, the industries must be located at a place where they can conveniently make use of Bantu labour. This is the basis of the policy of moving factories to the border areas—to make Bantu labour easily and readily available to those factories. It is an admission that real economic segregation is not possible and that economic integration has progressed so far that not even only the economy of the country, but also the policy of separate development must be bent to adjust to the fact that we are inter-dependent. These are hard facts, and hon. members opposite cannot escape them. What is not all being done in the name of this impossibility? What future scourges are we not creating for ourselves by striving to carry out this impossibility? In the name of this impossibility our Bantu workers in the existing industrial areas of South Africa may not own any property. They must remain rootless as long as South Africa exists.

In the name of this impossible policy, this unreal policy, this fallacious policy, these people may not enjoy the benefit of family life either. The two most important factors which bring stability and attachment to law and order into the lives of any population are being refused to four or five million of the Bantu in South Africa in the name of a policy which cannot be implemented and which is not being implemented. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education may say dynamic progress is being made with this policy, but I say there is nothing of the kind. Just look at the Transkei. The Transkei is the only geographically consolidated homeland for Bantu in South Africa. I now ask: What percentage of the natural population increase of the Transkei has been provided with employment by all the industries established there since the Government came into power and since the Tomlinson Commission published its report?

A small percentage.

Oh, it is an extremely small percentage. The Transkei is the political display-window of the Government’s policy. May I ask how many industries have been established on the borders of the Transkei? I shall tell the hon. members how many. Hon. members will find it unbelievable if I say that not one has been established. Every industry established on the border of a so-called homeland for the promotion of the policy of separate development, is an industry which was established in an expanded and somewhat remote suburb of an existing White city. The fiction has been created that the small black spot at Rosslyn, for example, is a homeland. When I asked the Prime Minister a few months ago whether that Bantu area at Rosslyn would ever be incorporated with Tswanaland, he said it was unpractical and that I could not expect the Government to do unpractical things. That is recorded in Hansard. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in the first place the hon. member for Yeoville must please excuse me if I do not immediately reply to his speech. I think that this evening is such an historic one that I as a newcomer in this House, cannot stop myself from saying that the hon. the Prime Minister made a speech here this evening with respect to certain matters that very intimately concern us, in a country such as South Africa, because we are realistic and realize that we are a part of Africa. I think that if a White country on the continent of Africa realizes that it is a part of Africa, and if any White political group on the continent of Africa realizes that it is a part of Africa and that Africa is part of the world, we would perhaps have a great deal more realism with respect to matters such as human relationships. Let us state this evening, without sounding excessively prudish about the matter, that human relationships are a matter of utmost importance in the world. In fact, this matter is so important that six of the 10 Commandments deal with how I should conduct myself towards my fellow men.

Having now said that, I want to come back to what the hon. member for Yeoville said. I want to make one general remark about the hon. Opposition in respect of our relationships where the Bantu are concerned, and what the National Party is doing in respect of the Bantu. If we only take into account the debates of the present session, we can see that when the Opposition speaks about our relationships, whether in respect of the Bantu in the homeland or in respect of the Bantu in our Bantu residential areas within the White land, there is evidence of only one single attitude, and that is fear. I do not want to elaborate on that, because the Prime Minister did so very effectively this evening. The hon. the Prime Minister dealt very effectively with the fear of the hon. members and the agitation that goes along with that. I see unfortunately that the hon. member for Transkei is not present at the moment. The hon. members opposite made a great fuss here this evening about not being people who say such things, about not being the people who cause agitation, but what did the hon. member for Transkei say when the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development introduced the Bantu Homelands Constitution Bill this year? The hon. member for Transkei made a speech here in which he said, inter alia:

He continues by saying—

So what?

Well yes, I do not blame the hon. member for saying “so what” to us. Let me just tell him that I do not even see the necessity for answering this hon. member when he says “so what”. He will never understand this matter anyway. He will never understand it, and I shall tell him why he will never understand it. Before anything else has happened with respect to independent Bantu states in the geographic unit of South Africa, the hon. member for Transkei comes along and becomes the first man to say “they may in fact be hostile”. Is that not agitation? Before we have even come along with the possibility of independence for those relevant Bantu states, since we are still only implementing that policy and extending it, that hon. member for Transkei says, “They may in fact be hostile”. Let us link up that reply from the hon. member for Transkei to the hon. member for Zululand who deliberately dragged the whole question of Chief Kaiser Matanzima into this House, notwithstanding the fact that the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development had said that he would deal with the matter under his vote. They must do so, because they must follow up on what the hon. member for Transkei said, i.e. “They may in fact be hostile”. If Kaiser Matanzima says, what he has already said a long time ago, that he wants to discuss this matter again, they now say that it is “hostility”. That is what the hon. Opposition says. I shall be making another speech in which I shall indicate to this House that this Opposition continually says that they have nothing to say against the principle of our policy, but that they do have something to say against the method. Now the hon. member for Yeoville comes along and says that the hon. the Minister did, in fact, say that he has nothing against what Chief Matanzima asked, but “look at his method!” He said that the hon. the Minister was aggressive, and the hon. member for Houghton said that he was purple with rage. If any man has been responsible for purple rage in this House, it is this very hon. member for Yeoville. Before the hon. member for Yeoville spoke, there was no “hostility” on the part of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. The only man in this House who has yet seen “hostility” on the part of the Bantu territorial authorities, is the hon. member for Transkei. But I want to leave the matter at that.

I want to come back to the hon. member for Yeoville. He spoke about the decentralization of industries. I now respectfully want to tell the hon. member that he must not again try to speak about decentralization of industries in this House. In my constituency we are dealing with a future growth point in respect of the decentralization of industries. If we approach this matter on a positive basis, we shall see that the decentralization of industries means, as far as this Government is concerned, not only decentralization in order to implement our policy. The hon. Opposition must tell us whether they are opposed to the principle of decentralization.

No.

The hon. member for Turffontein says “No”; but I cannot listen to him, because he knows nothing about industries. As far as industries are concerned I must listen to what the hon. member for Hillbrow and the hon. member for Yeoville say. Now the hon. member for Yeoville attacks us and says that we cannot decentralize industries on a proper basis. What I now want to state here categorically is something the Opposition cannot refute, no matter what they do. The Opposition in South Africa—I include both Opposition parties—are only interested in the Bantu, in the reserves and in the White area, in the Bantu townships, for the sake of their labour. They merely regard the Bantu as a reservoir for labour. They have no further interest whatsoever in the Bantu as a person, with all his other needs. The hon. member for Yeoville now says—and this illustrates his standpoint—that the Bantu must be able to sell his labour in the best market. If this Government now creates a good market for the Bantu in the border industry areas which are near his home, where he can retain his family ties, where all the infrastructure can be supplied about which the hon. member for Hillbrow can wax lyrical, I should like to know from the hon. member for Yeoville what is wrong with us enabling the Bantu to sell his labour on that good market? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman it is always a pleasure in the House to follow a member of the legal profession, especially when he has given us an argument in such liberal and unemotional terms. One is pleased that he has been able to listen to the arguments that have been offered from this side of the House.

He talks about the hon. member for Transkei having said that it is folly to divide South Africa into eight parts, and that they may be hostile. Indeed, what he should be worrying about is if—which is not possible—it was possible to divide South Africa into eight Black states and one White state, whether those that are left, those that are there now, that will multiply and be there for ever, will be hostile. That is the question he should ask.

We did not deny it.

Yes, you did not deny it. I am not talking about the Bantus-tans—I am talking about the Bantu in the urban areas who are here now, who will multiply and will remain here forever. The hon. the Deputy Minister, who is not here at the moment, said that if the United Party policy were applied to the urban Bantu, it would mean the end of the White man. Sir, if it is not applied, it will be the end of the White man. Have you ever heard anything like the statement made by the Deputy Minister in so far as the Bantu in the White areas are concerned, “We welcome their labour here”? Mr. Chairman, what on earth would we do without their labour? What on earth do you imagine would happen here without their labour? It would be the end of our economy. It would be the end of our technology: it would be the end of the difference between us and any other state on this Continent, and the hon. the Prime Minister knows that. He knows this better than anybody else. When the hon. the Prime Minister spoke this afternoon, he said that before the advent of the last three years one had to talk to individuals: one could not talk to representative organizations, but now these were representative organizations for the Bantu. Sir, what are the representative organizations for the urban Bantu? You can talk to the tribal chiefs, but what has happened in the urban areas is that this great mass of increasing sophisticated Africans—the most sophisticated Africans in Africa, I dare say —‘have lost their contact with their tribal affinity. as my hon. Leader has said, and they are here to stay. Sir. as long as we are different in Africa, we are different because of our know-how, our economy and our civilization. And our economy is based upon the urban African. Sir, even if this concept was implemented, we would still have the same number of Bantu. How would our farms operate; how would the factories operate; how would industry operate; how would the hon. the Minister of Transport operate without Bantu labour?

We have been listening to those arguments for years.

I know the hon. the Minister has been listening to them, and he is going to go on listening to them and gradually they will sink into his thick skull.

Then, Sir, we have this nonsense spoken by the hon. the Deputy Minister who made a comparison here between the Italian workers in Germany and our own Bantu labour in the White areas; it is all going to be fine when the Bantu states are independent because the urban Bantu working here are going to be citizens of a foreign country. Therefore it will not matter; we can treat them differently. Do we not have foreign workers now, Sir? We have foreign workers now and we will have then. Do we not have a lot of foreign workers from many European countries coming here on permit? Sir, are you going to tell me that when the Bantustans become independent those workers who form the majority in our area, are then going to be treated in the same way as the foreign European workers who are here? Of course they are not. You are going to treat them in exactly the same way as you treat them now because they are black, and you are going to have White workers here as well.

Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister is aware of security; he spoke about it this afternoon. He has boasted that he knows more about security in South Africa than anyone else. I give him credit for that; perhaps he does, but surely then he must appreciate the importance of security to the White man, the importance of security to our economy and the importance of security for the survival of this country, even security for the survival of what he would like to have—a White country with a majority of Bantu in it. Surely he knows exactly what he is going to lead himself into if he is in fact going to create these foreign states and have a majority of Bantu in our urban areas. Sir, he does not have to look back very far to remember some of the contentious legislation that we had in this House. He does not have to look back very far to remember Poqo, an organization which grew up in our urban areas.

Who stamped out Poqo?

It does not matter who exterminated the movement; the point is why this happened. Sir, let me say this immediately: The hon. the Prime Minister knows better than anyone else that if you are to avoid the attraction of organizations such as Poqo, the PAC, ect., then you have to avoid it by giving the people a reason for avoiding it, by giving them a material stake in the community in which they live and of which they are a part. In their own areas, as my hon. Leader has said, you must give them ownership of their own houses; you must give them a family life; you must give them that security that will produce the emergence of an urban African middle class. You have to give them a stake in this country. I am glad to see that the hon. the Minister of Defence is listening; he will know this too. You have to give them a stake against incursion and insurrection. They will then have something at stake, in fact, their all; they will not then run the risk of losing the future that they built for themselves and their families. When you have something to lose you have a reason to fight against that thing which might take it from you, or that thing which might induce you to stake it all. People like this do not make common cause with ideologies which thrive on hopeless, rootless and rightless masses. The only common factor is disability without any hope.

The whole system of Bantu Authorities, tribal ambassadors and the whole concept which has been outlined here again by the hon. the Deputy Minister, was destroyed by the economy which the White man brought to South Africa. In so far as these people are concerned it is destroyed. They look for their leadership not to the tribal chiefs but to the leaders, to that emergent middle class which is growing more strongly than ever in our urban areas. It is growing all the time. You have the situation in Durban where you can have a homeland in Umlazi which is on the border of Durban and part of Durban. Then you have a place like Kwa Mashu which is also part of Durban and is administered by the Corporation in Durban which will become a homeland. But it is said that a place like Soweto will never become a homeland. The Bantu will never be able to have home ownership in Soweto. Surely the simple question that one must ask is: Are you ever going to get rid of the Bantu in Soweto? There are one million people there upon whom the whole of the economy of the Reef depends. Are you ever going to get rid of them? The answer is “No”. [Time expired.]

Both the hon. member for Durban North and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition began extensively to discuss the Bantu in the urban areas. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Durban North implied that an explosive situation was in the making in these urban Bantu areas. I should very much like to know where those hon. members get that from. The hon. member for Houghton came up with similar claims. I have here the publication of the hon. member for Houghton’s party, and also of the Opposition, i.e. New Nation. It is the issue of April 1971. The publication contains illuminating figures about the section of the population these hon. members have just spoken about. The following question is put in this publication of that side of the House, not of this side of the House: “In which of the following countries is the Black man the happiest in your opinion? Please number your answers I to 6 in order of preference”. Then the following are given, i.e. Zambia, the United States, Malawi, Nigeria, Rhodesia and South Africa. And what is the reply? Of those who answered this question, 4,84 choose to live in South Africa. Rhodesia is second with 4,45; Nigeria is third with 3,16; then Malawi with 2.85; and last of all the haven of integration, the United States with 2,70. The urban Bantu chooses to live where he is.

The following question is just as interesting. It reads: “If you had the choice, in which country, including South Africa, would you like to live?”. The 10 most popular countries are then mentioned, i.e. South Africa, the United States, Zambia, Botswana, Britain, Swaziland, etc. Again 21,46 per cent of those “oppressed” South African Bantu who were questioned, voted that they would choose to remain in South Africa. For the United States the figure was 18,45 per cent; strangely enough for Zambia it was 13,73 per cent and for Botswana, 7,73 per cent. Again the country in which they are persecuted, where they cannot breathe and where “petty” apartheid prevails, according to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, is nevertheless the country these people choose. But these hon. members create the impression that we are dealing with the Bantu Administration and Development Vote.

I should very much like to come back for a moment to the hon. the Prime Minister’s Vote. While I was sitting here listening to this debate this afternoon, I could not resist drawing up a table of the differences between the hon. the Prime Minister on this side of the House, the leader of the National Party, and the Leader of that side of the House. If one looks at characteristics of leadership, those characteristics that must carry a people through fire and must bring them to a point of peace and prosperity, where our country is today, one must in the very first instance make a comparison with respect to faith, the first in this series of leadership characteristics. In Hansard, Volume I of this year, column 389, my hon. Leader expressed himself as follows:

With that my hon. Leader concluded his speech. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition was the next to speak and he referred to this speech as follows:

When my hon. Leader emphasizes his faith-without-fear policy in this hon. House, the Leader of that hon. side of the House says that it is an extremely disappointing speech. Since we are emphasizing a matter of faith, which is the guiding principle of the entire people, let us see what the guiding principles of the hon. the Leader of the other side are for us in this country. In column 399 of the same Hansard he said what he has repeated here this evening in connection with “the haves and have nots”, i.e.:

There lies the basic difference between the Leader of this side of the House and the Leader of that side of the House. When we are discussing the Prime Minister’s Vote, this is a matter of cardinal importance, because faith in one’s country, oneself and one’s people, is necessary for the welfare of a good state and good statesmanship. In connection with a point of faith, for which one seeks vainly on that side of the House, I want to take a look at that side and say that their only faith is a faith in materialism. I want to look at the following elements and characteristics of leadership in a state such as ours, or those of any other well-ordered state. I am referring to the factor of local stability. What do we find in this country under the leadership of the hon. the Prime Minister, despite the agitation forthcoming from that side? That side denies that it is inciting the people, even though this is proven point for point. We have local stability under the hon. the Prime Minister. Except for the agitators our entire population is peaceful, because this hon. Prime Minister’s policy is a very clear one, as we have heard again this evening in respect of President Kaunda. No-one can have any doubts about what the policy is of this Prime Minister and this side of the House. This country and all its population groups are peaceful. Even the terrorists know exactly where they stand with this hon. Prime Minister. Let us now compare the picture of local stability with that reflected by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in his speeches and abo by other hon. members on that side of the House who took part in the debate today. Do the speeches of hon. members opposite create any confidence whatsoever in anyone? I say a definite “No”. Irresponsibility radiates from every speech from that side of the Home, opportunism from beginning to end. Let us take the question of good race relations, which one hon. member stated as being of cardinal importance for peace and welfare in this country. The whole evening the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has told us on what an “explosive” powder keg we are sitting. Are absolute honesty and integrity not characteristic of the hon. the Prime Minister’s policy and his dealings with the peoples in this country? As he himself said, he is “frank”, and therefore every population group knows exactly where he stands. This is an honesty based on a fundamental respect for human nature because people, creatures of God, are being dealt with here and not cheap labour machines in the service of magnates and adherents of that party, as the hon. member for Christiana pointed out. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just sat down made three points. He quoted certain people who were asked in which country of the world they would wish to live and that a significant proportion chose South Africa. It is significant that those people chose South Africa as we know it today. There was no indication by any of those people he quoted that they wanted to go and live in the Transkei or in any one of the emerging areas which are being developed here in South Africa. They wanted to live in South Africa as it is now, a country on which the hand of the White man rests in guidance and in leadership. That is the choice they made and I fail to see what the hon. member was trying to achieve by telling us that. He tried to draw a comparison between the ideal of my hon. leader and the ideal of the hon. the Prime Minister. The United Party’s ideal, the one which my Leader exemplified, is the belief that the White man can lead all the people in South Africa by inspiration, by association and by giving them an ideal which can be equalled nowhere else in the whole Continent of Africa but only here in South Africa because the White people are here. This is what shines through the policy of the United Party, namely that we believe that the White man has a mission to perform here in South Africa. This is something which is completely lost on the Government and the party on the other side: they fail to recognize it at all.

The hon. member went on to talk about stability. This is precisely the point that my hon Leader is talking about, namely that stability in South Africa rests upon the close co-operation between White South Africa and Black South Africa. No-where else is this more closely exemplified than in the urban areas, in the daily lives of the urban Bantu where Black South Africans living in the cities and the White South Africans co-operate together to create something in this country which is the only thing that can provide a safe and secure future for all of us, namely the economy of South Africa. Not the hon. the Deputy Minister or anybody else has come with any suggestion that there can be any other kind of future for White South Africa and Black South Africa other than in the closest possible co-operation.

What about the Coloureds?

Yes, there we hear the hollow cry from the hon. the Minister of Health: What about the Coloureds? We are still waiting and we will wait throughout this debate, but we will hear nothing from that side of the House in this regard.

I should like to ask whether it is not true that the Bantu population of this country living in the urban areas, cling to their rights as though their lives depended upon it? In fact, they do. What is the alternative offered by that Nationalist Party to any Bantu living today in an urban area in secure industrial employment? If that Bantu loses his job in that urban area, where does he go? He is endorsed to an area like the Transkei whose own Chief Minister has said that there is nothing there for such a Bantu to do and whose own Parliament has said that it is no longer prepared to make a contribution to funds to bear the burden of supplying food and homing to those kind of people. What do we have from the hon. members on that side of the House? The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education got up and went into orbit again. We again saw the old psychedelic cloud of the Nationalist Party. The hon. the Deputy Minister went on a trip. He told us what a fabulous life the Bantu will have one day when they get independence. But we are talking about South Africa as it is now today. The hon. the Deputy Minister himself, the other day, was forced to give a warning to the people in the Western Cape who are employing illegal Bantu.

Why not?

Mr. Chairman, there is no reason why in terms of Government policy, the hon. the Deputy Minister should not issue a warning. But there are two factors that should be taken into consideration. One is that the White industrialists are so absolutely desperate for labour that they are prepared wittingly to employ illegal labour. They know it is illegal, but they simply cannot keep going and do their daily business without having to employ labour they know is illegal. There are Bantu people in the White areas of South Africa who have come here to work. We know how they get here. They know they are here illegally. But they know that where they come from, there is absolutely nothing for them to do. This is the condition to which this Government has reduced the industrialist in the Western Cape, namely that the whole of industry is based today on illegal employment of people who are here illegally.

The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education, some time ago, had a refreshing experience. The hon. the Deputy Minister took out his big stick and tried to dragoon the housewives of Randburg. He will remember what a shocking time he had by the time the housewives of Randburg had finished with him. He was mopped out of Randburg. That is what happened to him. People were being employed there illegally. These people were desperate for work and they were employed by people who were desperate to employ them. This is the sort of basis on which this Nationalist Party is building their dream of the future. It simply does not exist. The reality of South Africa is Bantu people in the urban areas in industrial employment, creating the wealth which is the stability of the future for White South Africa and for Black South Africa.

When we mention White leadership, it sounds as if it is a swear word in the mouths of hon. members on that side of the House. White leadership is the only hope that the Black people have to reach any kind of civilized standard of living in this century. That party on the other side has rejected the whole idea of White leadership. It is only the United Party which believes in that. We say that we will take these people by the hand, we will reach out to their imaginations, we will create an ideal for them, we will give them a chance to see what Western Christian civilization can mean. Having shown them what Western Christian civilization can mean, we will give them the means to attain it by the co-operation between Black South Africa and White South Africa that takes place in the urban areas. The Nationalist Party, at its peril, at the peril of all of South Africa, White as well as Black, will fiddle around with the established stable Bantu population in those urban areas. I believe the Nationalist Party is attempting by its policy of endorsing out Bantu labour, to upset the stable pattern that has developed over the past few years. I say this is something which is endangering everything which has been created in South Africa. The hon. member for Durban North mentioned the question of security. The greatest defence you can have against riot, against Communist infiltration and against any kind of indoctrination, is a body of people which has something of its own to protect. What we need is people who will turn out into the streets to beat up the rioters if their own windows are going to be broken. This is the sort of body of people which the United Party has seen created in South Africa. It is not a question that they are being created; they are here today. It is a measure of the blindness, the ignorance and the stupidity of the Nationalist Party that they can persist with and go ahead with a policy which will not succeed, that they can sit in the green benches and dream about the green pastures that will be coming over the hill, when we are today facing the reality of what is happening at this moment in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Mooi River, who has just resumed his seat, raised the same argument here as the hon. member for Durban Point. What the argument amounts to. and the hon. member for Durban Point said this.is that the United Party believes in one common loyalty in the whole of South Africa.

And authority.

Now the hon. member even adds authority as well. In other words, the United Party believes in permanent White domination for South Africa.

Nonsense!

It is true that the United Party believes in permanent White domination in South Africa. If it is not permanent White domination, then it is total integration. It is one of the two. After I had listened attentively to the hon. member for Mooi River … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Umlazi must give the hon. member a chance.

After I had listened attentively to the hon. member for Mooi River, I believe it to be the second, i.e. total integration. I say this, because the hon. member for Mooi River made the point that the Bantu would always remain in the White areas. In addition he said that he must be educated, that he must co-operate, that he must be economically integrated with the Whites and that he must remain in the White areas. I say that the United Party believes, in the first place, in permanent domination, because they do not believe that their policy, when they implement it, will result in total integration.

Come out of orbit!

I shall do so, and I shall not go where the hon. member is going. The United Party kicked up a tremendous racket here about the demands that Chief Matanzima made to the Government. It is true, Chief Matanzima did do so, but we on this side of the House have always recognized the standpoint that if anything in the reserves were to go wrong it would only be restricted to the reserve where it was developed. In this case the demand was made by the Transkei, but when the United Party’s policy has to be implemented, and those eight White representatives are active in this House, pressure is going to be exercised on the members to state the demands of the Bantu states in this House. Then it will not only come from the Transkei, as is the case at present. That is the difference. Such pressure will be exercised on those eight White representatives of the Black man in this House that they will be replaced, in the course of time, by the Blacks. When they are replaced by eight Black representatives, it will only be a short time before the figure stands at 25. Not long after that it will be 30. 50 and 150, and eventually this will contribute to the political downfall of the Whites in South Africa.

As is happening in the case of Port St. Johns, Mount Currie and Matatiele?

Order! The hon. member for Durban Point must cease interjecting.

Mr. Chairman, the other day I told the hon. member for Durban Point that he reminded me of an evening flower. Tonight he has opened up. We shall therefore not blame him.

Then there is also the argument here about the land areas. Today the Bantu have only 13 per cent of South Africa’s surface area. What is the true situation? After consolidation the Bantu are surely going to have a bit more than 19 per cent of South Africa’s land, which is quite a bit more than 13 per cent. If we compare the potential of that 19 per cent proportionately with that of the White areas South Africa controls, the agricultural potential of that 19 per cent is certainly no less than 60 or 65 per cent of the potential of the White land in South Africa, since large portions of the land area owned by the Whites are desert areas. The land areas occupied by the Black man are high rainfall areas. That more than 19 per cent which the Black man owns, consists of the best agricultural areas in South Africa.

Go and tell that to Kaiser Matanzima.

Who is boss in White South Africa, we or any Black leader? Why does the hon. member want to force me to do something by saying, “Go and tell that to this or that person”?

What of White leadership?

We have White leadership. In any case, that is the position with respect to White and Bantu land in South Africa.

But we can take the matter back further. Before the advent of Union, Lesotho, Botswana and Swaziland were a part of Southern Africa. Those were already areas that the Whites had to relinquish in respect of Southern Africa. When one adds those parts to this more than 19 per cent allocated to the Black man in South Africa and which belonged to them originally, we have a good 50 per cent belonging to the Black people of Southern Africa, which is a large portion. That is why our consciences are clear as far as the Black man is concerned.

You have an easy conscience.

This hon. member knows as much about the matters we are discussing as my boot. His only task is to make interjections here, and then his interjections are so simple that he himself does not understand them. It is said that the Black man is walking off the reserves. I could walk off my own farm as well, if I did not want to work. Those parts alongside the Transkei have a high productivity. On the one hand 75 bags per morgen are produced, while on the other hand there are not even three bags per morgen. Whose fault is that? Is it our fault, as Whites? No, I agree with what the late Dr. Verwoerd said, i.e. that the Transkei could easily carry 12 to 15 million people.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.