Before returning to a discussion of the position of the urban Bantu, there are one or two remarks I would like to make in connection with the hon. the Prime Minister’s sports policy. One has now had an opportunity of thinking deeply over it since it was released yesterday afternoon, and I must say that the more one thinks of it, the more complicated it seems. I can understand the problem of the hon. the Prime Minister. He has to try to satisfy his own people, for whom this is a very new departure and a big change, and at the same time he has to consider the interests of sportsmen in South Africa. My fear, quite frankly, is that he may fall between two stools and find that he has satisfied neither his own people nor sporting bodies overseas. I cannot help but think how much simpler it would have been if we could have persuaded the hon. the Prime Minister to accept the sports policy of this side of the House. Because of its simplicity and lack of complications, it would have been easily understood, and I believe would have solved most of the problems for him.

We are in the position that under the Prime Minister’s policy, as I understand it, although they are not called mixed trials, there will in fact be what amounts to mixed trials in a very large number of sports. And also in those sports mixed teams will be allowed to represent us overseas and will be allowed to represent us here in South Africa when the Olympic Games take place in South Africa, if they do. Sir, the two sports that seem to be left out in the cold are rugby and cricket. Rugby has its own plans, and certain concessions have been made to it. I leave it there. It is possible that their position will not be unduly affected.

But the sport that seems to come off worst is cricket, strangely enough the sport at which we stand out most brilliantly in the sporting world today, compared with all other sports. We stand out in cricket perhaps even more than in rugby.

No.

It is a matter of opinion, Sir. Perhaps the time will come when that hon. member will support me in this regard, if the present cricket tour is allowed to take place. Although certain concessions are made to cricket, my worry is that cricket may never be put in the position to enjoy it. He said that overseas teams will play games against non-White sides in South Africa, and they will be allowed to do so, but I wonder whether they will tour under those conditions. The hon. the Prime Minister mentioned yesterday the question of the Cricket Council. There are two bodies. There is the English Cricket Council which controls the sport in England, and there is the International, or is it the Commonwealth, Cricket Conference to which the various members who play international cricket are affiliated but to which I do not believe we belong at the moment, although they do lay down rules for their members. The English Cricket Council, through its secretary, Billy Griffiths, said that the final decision “op ’n perskonferensie in die be-roemde ‘Long Room’ van Lords bekend ge-maak is en het daaraan toegevoeg dat die raad die Suid-Afrikaanse Krieketvereniging in kennis gestel het dat geen verdere toets-reekse tussen Engeland en Suid-Afrika sal plaasvind nie tensy Suid-Afrikaanse krieket voortaan op veelrassige grondslag gespeel en sy spanne op dié grondslag gekies word”. Now I do not know what that means, Sir.

I know exactly. I discussed it with the cricket authorities.

The hon. the Prime Minister is better informed than I am in that regard. But it does seem that on that basis there is not much chance of another visit by an M.C.C. side to South Africa and I do not know whether there is a chance of a South African side touring England. Therefore I want to conclude my remarks on the subject of sport by saying to the hon. the Prime Minister that no legislation is necessary to bring about changes which might be acceptable or which might offer a plan which would make it possible for us to continue in the field of international cricket. It is an administrative matter, a departmental matter in which he has the final say, and I would urge him very earnestly to give this matter further consideration. He tells me he consults with the cricket authorities concerned. I accept that. Perhaps further discussions may reveal some method by which it is possible that these very valuable connections could be retained.

To sum up this sports matter now—I take it the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has finished with it—there are certain observations I want to make. In the first place, representations for the establishment of a board of sport have been made to me by many sportsmen. I want to say at once that I like the idea, but I do not want to commit myself at this stage. What I want to say at this stage, is that I shall continue receiving representations on the matter. I shall think the matter over and I shall consider it very seriously. It seems to me the appointment of such a board of sport, would have obvious advantages. The sportsmen who submitted the representations to me may be assured that they will be very seriously considered by the Government.

In the second place, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and I will just have to differ on this. He says he does not like my plan; he thinks it is going to cause many problems and solve few, if I understand him correctly. We will just have to differ on that. I have no illusions whatsoever about the fact that, whatever plan you adopt, you will encounter problems in the future. That goes without saying. Whether we adopt my hon. friend’s plan or mine, we shall encounter a multitude of problems in the future, because we have a very complex situation to deal with here. The problems will be legion, but that does not mean that we should not do this. I on my part believe that my plan is based on principles. I believe that my point of departure is right. I on my part think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition spoke too hastily. He put forward a half-baked thing which he had not considered in all its implications. I do not think he consulted about it, while I on my part consulted about it very widely. But I leave it at that now. It does not matter what he thinks of my plan, or what I think of his. What is important, however, is whether we want to do what is best for sport in South Africa, and I do not think there is a single hon. member opposite who will ever accuse me of not wanting to do my best, in the light that I have, for sport in South Africa. I want to give the hon. members the assurance that I see it in that light and that I shall act in that way. I want to tell hon. members that my door, as well as that of my colleague, the Minister of Sport, is open to sportsmen at all times. I want to tell hon. members that I very frequently consult with sportsmen. They know that they can come to me. The cricket people, the tennis people and the rugby people have been to see me. Since this Parliament commenced, all kinds of sports people have been to see me. They know that they will get a sympathetic hearing from me when they come to discuss their problems with me. We do not always see eye to eye, but we tell each other frankly where we differ with each other. All of us accept that we want to act in the best interests of sport.

The difference between the hon. member, sports people and me is just that I bear the responsibility for good order and peace in South Africa. I am responsible for handling the racial situation in South Africa. I have to take that responsibility into account in making decisions. With regard to my policy, my hon. friend said that I was not going to satisfy sports people abroad. We must understand each other very clearly on one thing. My point of departure is that I am not adopting a policy to appease the world, but that I am adopting a policy for the people of South Africa and for the situation as it develops in South Africa. I am not insensitive to the attitude of the outside world. I am perfectly prepared to take it into consideration, because only a fool would not take it into consideration. However, I am not prepared to lay down a policy which would satisfy the Anti-Apartheid Movement. I cannot and do not want to lay down a policy which would satisfy the Sports Council of Africa. I am not prepared to lay down a policy which would satisfy the communists. After all, my hon. friend knows what happens there. Western countries tell us that they have no objection to playing against us, or to our attending this or that sports meeting of theirs. They say their problem is that, if we attend, the communists say that they are not coming. Therefore they cancel our invitations. I can do nothing to prevent that. In cases where we have been kicked out, it has not, except in isolated instances, been the Western countries which took the initiative or which were in favour of it. It has been blatant blackmail by the communists. In the case of tennis, for instance, it was blatant blackmail, by the communists. I could mention so many examples of this.

But you have strengthened their hand.

Yes, I want to strengthen the hand of our friends, but heaven knows, sometimes it takes a lot of strengthening to get their hand to lift.

Take the question of the Olympic Games. We were back in the Olympic Games. We had met all the requirements put to us by the managing body of the Olympic Games. We had complied with all the rules of that organization. We were back in the Olympic Games, because we had received an invitation to take part in Mexico. Then they cancelled our invitation and said we could not come because they could not guarantee the safety of our people. I can do nothing to prevent that. If the people of the West are so weak that they yield to these threats, I can do nothing about it, except to deplore it and to hope that the day will come that people will take a stand and will be prepared to take a stand.

Sir, let us now look at the Australian situation objectively. I have already mentioned the Gallup Poll figures. Eighty-five per cent of the people of Australia are prepared to play against a White South African cricket team. Nine per cent are not prepared to play against us. Are the 85 per cent going to yield to the 9 per cent? Are we reaching the stage where a handful of people are going to dictate to the vast majority what they are to do and what they are not to do? This is the question facing the Western world.

The vast majority of the British want to play rugby and cricket against us. Are they going to yield to the small group of trouble-makers? Sir, I do not want to criticize those countries. It is their own affair. They must decide whether they want to deny their law-abiding citizens those privileges or not. It is their own affair, but I want to make it very clear that if South Africa allows any sporting group to come to this country. I shall regard them as the guests of South Africa and I shall not allow any Dick, Tom and Harry to molest them.

Hear, hear!

In my opinion this is the course of action to be followed in that connection. I am grateful that, as far as this matter is concerned, I can also speak on behalf of my hon. friend opposite. This is a choice that has to be made by the Western world. Must we return to the jungle, and are individuals and vocal minorities to dictate what is to be done by the masses? If the majority of the Australians or the British say they want nothing to do with us, then I say: “Very well. That is your business. You are free to decide that you do not want relationships with me.” But the majority do want those relationships. My hon. friend says we must strengthen their hand. I want to strengthen their hand, because people have the idea, as I said yesterday, that our non-Whites are hemmed in here and that only our Whites enjoy the privilege of taking part in international sport. I want to make it quite clear that I wish the non-Whites of South Africa to have the same opportunity of taking part in sport on an international level.

When it comes to those people who are really interested in sport and who are not prepared to be intimidated by individuals like Hain and others, and those people who really have the interests of sport at heart, I believe that not only abroad, but locally as well, they are co-operating with me to make a success of this dispensation which I have announced, in spite of the problems I foresee.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that cricket was worse off than rugby. That is not so. They are in exactly the same boat. What applies to the one, applies to the other. Where cricket is worse off. is where it comes to the decision referred to by my hon. friend, a decision taken under pressure from the Wilson Government.

†I want to put it very clearly to the hon. member that I discussed this very point with Mr. Jack Cheetham. I asked him: “Does this decision of the Cricket Council” —to which the Leader of the Opposition referred—“mean that you must play interracial cricket?” He replied: “I am afraid not. Sir. I went into that question and they do not want inter-racial cricket. They want multi-racial cricket.”

Col. 5063: Lines 11-12: For “Mr. J. O. N. THOMPSON: But you have strengthened their hand”, read “Mr. J. O. N. THOMPSON: But you must strengthen the hand of our friends”.

May I ask the hon. the Prime Minister a question? Would he indicate whether Mr. Cheetham stated at what level this requirement that there should be multi-racial cricket had to be met?

Sir, this does not refer to the team that is to play against Britain. It refers to the playing of cricket in South Africa. They have taken the liberty of dictating to us how we are to play in South Africa. The decision does not apply only to the team which is to play against them. Does the hon. member see the point? I think it is presumption of the worst kind to dictate to us and to say: “Before you do this, that and the other in South Africa, we shall not play with you. We shall pick up our marbles and go then”—just like children. Surely this is the purest nonsense. I do not believe that giving way to people who take such presumptuous decisions is going to serve sport in any respect whatsoever. I want to repeat that cricket is not in a worse position than rugby as far as this is concerned. I trust that the Cricket Council will alter that decision which they took under pressure from the Wilson Government. I hope that the policy which has been announced, i.e. that, if the British come to this country, they will be able to play cricket against the Coloured people and the Bantu, will help them to reach that decision, but “you can lead a horse to the water, but you cannot make him drink; you can give a man a policy, but you cannot make him think”. I therefore do not know what will become of it.

I now want to leave this point at that. In the light that I have, I have laid down certain guide-lines which can lead to the preservation of our traditional sport relationships. In spite of the problems existing in this connection, these may clear the air in future. I just want to put it very clearly once more, because the hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to it, that every branch of sport has its own distinctive character. What is valid for one, is not valid for the other, and we shall have to proceed within the framework of the guidelines I have laid down. We shall have to iron out the problems as we go along.

Sir, may I put a question in connection with the Sport Advisory Board mentioned by the Prime Minister? What is the proposal regarding the election or appointment of members?

I do not have a clear proposal in front of me. All I have in front of me is that a board of sport should be established. One is, of course, faced with the immediate problem that there are about 100 different branches of sport, from clay-pigeon shooting to darts, and it will naturally be no easy task to compose such a board. However, I want to examine that aspect and receive representations. The details and the principle still have to be considered. All I can say about the principle is that the Government is sympathetically disposed towards it.

I was very interested to hear this further statement by the hon. the Prime Minister, but we understand that this is to be the end of the discussion on the question of sport. In regard to the question of a sport advisory board, my leader asked the hon. the Prime Minister how this board would be constituted. In our party we have discussed the question of such a board to advise the Government on difficulties in connection with international sport, difficulties which are cropping up so frequently. One of the questions now is how this board would be constituted. In our view such a board ought to be constituted out of representatives of the separate sports associations and not merely be appointed by the Government. Consequently we shall be interested to learn what further information the hon. the Prime Minister can give us on this question once he has given it further consideration.

The hon. the Prime Minister also said that it was a pity that my leader came out with his sports policy and said it was “onbekook”. But I want to say that even the horn the Prime Minister has to admit that our policy is a simple one. [Interjections.] It is very simple to understand. Against that no person who has so far expressed a view on the Prime Minister’s policy, with the exception perhaps of the tennis spokesmen, could say that the Prime Minister’s policy satisfied them and whether it is going to assist them to get into international sport. Everyone has to give it further consideration, because it is very complicated. For instance, let me raise one point. The English rugby team coming out here will be allowed to play a game against the Coloureds and against the Bantu. But which Bantu? Which Bantu nation is it going to play against?

They are at the present moment organized only in one body.

The policy of the Prime Minister is based on the concept of different nations. That is why the hon. member for Houghton interjected and said “22 of them”. The Prime Minister cannot get away from this. These are some of the difficulties we see facing us under the Prime Minister’s policy. However, the Prime Minister has now stated his policy, we have stated ours and there is nothing further we can say about it now.

A matter I should like to get back to is a matter …

Before you do that, would you just sit down so that I could clarify the point you raised?

How would that affect my time?

You can get another ten minutes. But I should just like to clarify immediately this point the hon. member raised. The position is that there are only three rugby bodies in South Africa and that nobody can play rugby unless constituted as a rugby body.

May I ask the hon. the Prime Minister a question?

Let me explain first. As I was saying, there are only three rugby bodies at present: The White Rugby Board the Coloured Rugby Board, and the Bantu Rugby Board. These are the only three rugby bodies existing in South Africa at the moment. Consequently arrangements will have to be made with the Coloured Rugby Board or with the Bantu Rugby Board, as the case may be. There are not, as has been suggested, 22 Bantu rugby boards, but only one.

Then there is another small matter, if the hon. member will allow me to raise it. Yesterday evening I had to leave before the time, and I informed the hon. the Leader of the Opposition accordingly. I want to express my regret about the words used in my absence by the hon. member for Pinelands, as reported to me by the Minister of Sport. I am sorry that the hon. member for Pinelands used those words, because in doing so he did not, in my opinion, serve the cause of sport or of anyone.

Which words?

Concerning the question of “dirty play” and the fact that in my absence he reported the hon. the Minister to me on that matter. I do not think that was fair, and therefore the hon. member for Pinelands will understand if I express my profound displeasure with him in this regard.

The hon. the Prime Minister said there were only three rugby boards in South Africa at present. But what will happen if the Transkei, as has already been suggested, forms its own rugby board?

At the present moment there is only one Bantu Rugby Board. It stands to reason that once the Transkei becomes independent, they are out of this altogether. Even if they want to form their own board before the time, that is their privilege. But at present I still have to deal with the situation as it is now. I do not think for one moment that the Transkei will form its own board; they will have nothing to gain at this stage by doing so.

The Prime Minister has explained that there are only three rugby boards at present. I raised this question because he might have seen that a prominent man in the rugby world has recommended that the Transkei should form its own union and as such play against international sides. He was surprised at the quality of the rugby in the Transkei. Mr. George Matanzima, the Minister of Justice of the Transkei, in the discussion last week in the Legislative Assembly said they wanted to have their own sports body. But they are not independent yet.

If they want it, they can have it.

That is the point. They are not independent and they might start asking for it and who is then going to play who? Are you going to have international matches being played all over the country? That is the problem I want to raise with the hon. the Prime Minister.

May I reply to you now? You can get another chance to speak after this. Let us look at it from a practical point of view and let us suppose the Transkei forms its own rugby board. In that event we shall have two Bantu rugby boards. If the White Rugby Board should then invite a team to come over, all other rugby boards will have to negotiate with the White Rugby Board if they want a game and it is up to the White Rugby Board to say whether such a game can be fitted into the tour. In other words, it will be an arrangement entirely between themselves. If the Transkei forms it own rugby board and they want to go and play anywhere in the world, it is their right to do so. There is nothing in their way.

Mr. Chairman, we cannot go on in this way, by putting questions and answering them. I want to go over to another matter in regard to which we have not had any satisfactory reply. By this I do not suggest that the Prime Minister’s reply in regard to sport has been satisfactory. However, I should like to go back to the problems we raised in connection with the Bantu policy of the Government, especially in regard to the urban Bantu. [Interjections.] We have not had any reply. I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister certain other questions which only he can answer. It is not only with the urban African I want to deal but I want to put certain other questions which only the hon. the Prime Minister can answer. I just want to say in reply to the Deputy Minister and other speakers on the Government side that it is no good saying that their policy has a moral content which satisfies the outside world. The outside world is not satisfied with a policy which may only satisfy a minority of the Africans. What the outside world is concerned with is the majority of the Africans living outside of the reserves who have no rights. Sir, Chief Kaiser Matanzima, in his speech before his Congress the other day, mentioned that they were no longer going to be satisfied with second class citizenship, and that is all that the Africans living in the reserves have—second class citizenship. They have not got proper citizenship. It is no good the hon. the Prime Minister saying to us on the advice of his Ministers that there are no unemployed in the Transkei. Chief Matanzima himself in the same address referred to the unemployment in the Transkei and expressed his dissatisfaction with the labour position.

Sir, whether it is justified or not, the Prime Minister knows that there has been a clash between the Chief Minister of the Transkei and the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, and that does affect relations in the reserves. The continued presence of the White entrepreneur in the reserves is important. The Prime Minister has invited entrepreneurs to go to the reserves and to invest money there on an agency basis. But, Sir, after the speech of Chief Kaiser Matanzima, and in the light of what was almost an invitation extended by the hon. the Prime Minister last year to the Bantu reserve leaders to approach him and to negotiate for independence, there is a feeling that the pace towards independence is being quickened.

It is an open invitation.

Yes, I said that it was an open invitation. I do not know why the Prime Minister has to stress it again. It will only make people more concerned. With the news in this morning’s Burger that the Ciskei body yesterday passed a unanimous resolution to ask the Government to give them independence by 1973 …

No such resolution was passed whatsoever.

I read it in Die Burger.

It appeared in the Cape Times too but no such resolution was passed and a statement to that effect will be issued by the Authority concerned.

Well, Sir, it shows what is happening these days when you get these confusing reports about independence and as to what the Government’s intentions are.

That report has no foundation whatsoever.

The mere fact that the report has appeared gives uncertainty to the people living in the area. The Prime Minister last year made a special announcement in this House in which he indemnified industrialists who established themselves in the homelands on an agency basis against any loss suffered by them as a result of a Black homeland becoming independent and taking political action against such industrialists before the expiry of their agency contract. That was done in order to encourage industrialists to go into the reserves. With this feeling that there is now a quickening in the pace towards independence, those traders and industrialists who are already established in the reserves, not on an agency basis but on their own account, are worrying as to what their position will be. I want to ask the Prime Minister if he will not give the same assurance to the people who are already established there and who have remained in the reserves, especially in the Transkei, without offering their businesses to the Government, that if they stay on and suffer any loss through any political action by an independent homeland Government, they will be indemnified in the same way as a White entrepreneur who goes there on an agency basis. Sir, this is important because if they do not get an assurance of this nature, they may have to consider the advisability of offering their businesses to the Government now, as they can do in terms of the White Paper issued some years ago. They can offer their businesses to the Adjustment Committee. All they seek, Sir, is some assurance, some guarantee, from the Prime Minister in the same terms as the assurance which he gave to industrialists who go in on the agency basis. The hon. the Prime Minister was quite definite in his statement as to the persons to whom indemnity would be given and I would like him to give the same assurance to these other people.

Sir, the Whites in the Transkei are naturally very concerned about the relations between the Government of the Republic and the Transkeian Government because relations have always been good between the Whites and the Blacks Outsiders visiting the Transkei have often remarked upon the peaceful nature of the country and the manner in which the different races have co-operated. This has been due largely to the good understanding between the traders and the Bantu over the years gone by and also the good understanding between the administrators and the Bantu. If there is any rift in these good relations, Sir, it will be the responsibility of this Government.

The task of maintaining these good relations will now fall on the shoulders of the few traders who are left there but mainly on the officials of the civil service, of the Railways, of the Post Office, of the Department of Road Motor Transport and especially the Police. All these officials will now have to be more careful in carrying out their duties, more especially since there has now been a complaint from Chief Matanzima about the discourtesy shown to his people by some officials. I am sure that they are in the minority but I am also just as sure that there are probably some grounds for complaint. As I say, the attitude of these officials is most important from the point of view of maintaining good relations. The ordinary administrative officials, generally known as the civil servants, in the Departments of Justice, Education and Roads and the other departments handed over to the Transkeian Government—have an inducement to stay on in the Transkei and to carry out their duties there to the advantage of the Republic as a whole in that they are given a special territorial allowance and also a housing allowance. As I say, this is an inducement to other civil servants outside the Transkei to go there. But, Sir, the officials of the Police, the Railway Administration, Road Motor Transport and the Post Office, do not have this inducement, and I submit that they come into more direct contact with the Bantu. They serve the Bantu more directly and they have more onerous duties, and I say it is wrong that they are not put on the same footing as the other officials. Sir, I have raised this question with different Ministers on various occasions, but it seems to me that the Minister of Transport in charge of Railways dominates the Cabinet on this issue because the Minister of Finance was very sympathetic and he in fact did pay this allowance to his audit officials.

The Cabinet has decided time and again that that unfortunately cannot be done.

Sir, I make another appeal to the Prime Minister to appreciate the position there.

We appreciate the position and we have fully discussed it from all angles; it cannot be done.

I say it is most unfair and that there is no justification for it. If Railway officials who go to South-West Africa get a special allowance—and I think the Police also get a territorial allowance—and if Railway officials transferred from the rest of the Republic to Natal can get a special territorial allowance, why can the same consideration not be shown to these officials in the Transkei, especially in view of the delicate nature of the duties and the importance of the functions they have to perform there? Sir, I am sorry to hear from the hon. the Prime Minister that this matter has been dealt with time and again and that that is the decision of the Cabinet, but I want to ask him please to reconsider this matter with his Cabinet. [Time expired.]

Sir, the hon. member who has just sat down, received a reply to certain of the matters he touched upon here, and it is not necessary for me to follow up on what he said in that connection. Sir, the attitude of the Opposition is an interesting one. They want to create a general psychosis of uncertainty in regard to a variety of subjects, but particularly in regard to the Bantu policy of the Government. What emerged clearly here this morning, is something I can describe as the obvious disappointment of the hon. member for Transkei when he found that a report in the newspapers, which was important to him, was incorrect. He suddenly saw certain possibilities in the fact that this incorrect report was published. Sir, the leadership of the National Party in this country and of this country is clear and certain, and the attempts of the United Party to create a psychosis of uncertainty will always remain stillborn. On 9th February the hon. member for Transkei made a speech on the non-White policy of the United Party in which he made certain remarks, and other speakers have spoken along similar lines. I should like to contrast it with the speech made yesterday or the day before yesterday by the hon. member for Yeoville, when he discussed the Bantu policy of the Government. On that occasion the hon. member for Yeoville said that the Government’s policy of separate development could be a good policy if it was feasible. He said that if it had been possible to carry it out in practice, the United Party would have had to take a second look at it. He said that in principle—this is the message his words conveyed to me—he had nothing against that policy; the problem he had with the policy was that it simply could not work out in practice. In other words, as I understood the hon. member for Yeoville, if it were possible for the policy of the National Party to work in practice, and if he could believe that it could work, hon. members on that side of the House would have been in favour of that policy. This is a point of departure which is in conflict with the standpoint of the hon. member for Transkei, as it appears from his Hansard of 9th February, where he said in regard to the Bantu Homelands Constitution Bill—

In other words, he objected to this policy on principle, and the hon. member for Yeoville had a practical objection to the policy. I wonder whether hon. members opposite would not perhaps like to thrash out the matter among themselves, and tell us whether their objection to the National Party policy is one of principle or whether their objection is merely because they believe it to be impracticable.

In this House we have on various occasions now debated the matter of the urban Bantu, and the Leader of the Opposition, so it would seem to me, would like the House to return time and again to the position of the urban Bantu. It would seem to me that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has suddenly overnight begun to have confidence in this policy in regard to the urban Bantu. The United Party’s policy in regard to the urban Bantu is quite definitely one of the weakest points in the United Party programme of policies. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition feels that he can successfully satisfy the urban Bantu with a few things. He says: “We must give them a stake in the country,” so that they can feel that they have something to lose if things go wrong. And he feels that he can solve this problem by giving the Bantu proprietary rights in the first place, and a better family life in the second. Now I have no doubt whatsoever that the United Party has the wrong impression altogether if it thinks that there is any temporary solution, even in that direction.

The United Party has no solution to the problem of the urban Bantu if it thinks that that is the solution. The United Party denies that the non-Whites as well will one day ask: We want to develop to our full potential; our full national consciousness must be developed; we also want what everyone else in the world has; we also want the right to vote and to be able to elect a government on an equal basis. [Interjection.] I must interrupt what I am saying to inform the hon. member for Turffontein, who is putting a question to me in regard to the Coloureds, that he has already had an invitation from this side of the House to discuss the Coloureds. When the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants to discuss the Coloureds we will do so but we are now discussing the Bantu. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition denies that the non-Whites will want the franchise. The perfectly simple question is just this: Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition think that it is possible for the United Party to keep on denying the national aspirations of the non-White peoples of South Africa?

There are two basic differences in intention between the National Party and the United Party in regard to our policy towards the non-Whites. The National Party policy is geared to continual differentiation, to making distinctions since we want, on a long-term basis, to afford the non-Whites every possible opportunity. The United Party policy is geared to continual discrimination. I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition on what grounds, practical or moral, he is able to say that it is right to give the Bantu eight White representatives in the House of Assembly and six senators in the Senate? On what grounds can this be practically and morally justified? On what grounds does he think that it will in the short term be able to satisfy the non-Whites. Every non-White who comes to this Government and asks this Government to be allowed to develop to the full as a citizen of the country, will not receive a reprimand from this Government, a slap in the face, but the United Party wants to give the non-Whites a slap in the face and they want to keep on doing so in years to come.

In this House we have heard of the Black Power and Brown Power movements which are developing, and I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition this? Does he not think that with his policy, which will be placing an airtight lid on the non-White peoples of South Africa, the only way in which the non-Whites will be able to make any progress under his policy will be to organize themselves into a Black Power movement? I want to ask hon. members on that side of the House whether they have ever considered whether their policy will not only be the breeding ground, if that policy is to be put into operation, for non-Whites to organize themselves into Black Power movements. Surely it is very clear that this is in fact precisely where it must lead to. But we know the United Party. They are people who give in easily; they are people who are unable to adhere to any principles, because that Party is not based on any principle. Now we have this problem with that Party: We definitely believe that that Party has already established the basis of something the end of which can only be a Black government over the whole of South Africa. We note in this yellow booklet of the United Party: “The answer, you want it we have it” …

Have you read it? It will do you a world of good.

Sir, I want to say to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana that it should really read: “The answer—you want it, we have had it.” [Time expired.]

We have now, since yesterday, heard so much about multiracialism in this country that I am now becoming afraid to talk about multi-nationalism. In regard to the sports policy, so much was said about multi-racialism that we kept as far away from multi-nationalism as the devil from holy water. The hon. member for Pretoria Central said here that we were actually most disappointed when we heard that there were no grounds for the Press statement that the Ciskei had said that they wanted their independence in two years’ time. Allegations of that kind are scandalous. Does the hon. member not know that ours is the Party that does not want the Bantu to ask for independence? Does he not know that we are opposed both in principle and in practice to the attainment of sovereign independence and the fragmentation of South Africa? I am surprised that the hon. member could make such an allegation.

I do not want to focus the attention of the hon. the Prime Minister on the urban Bantu in the White areas, but on the cities which are being established under the leadership of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration within the Bantu areas. I want to come back to the Ciskei, which the hon. member for Transkei was discussing a moment ago. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether this Government is able to supply, under the policy which it has established, the many un-employed people who are at this stage in the Ciskei area with work. This would apply to the Transkei area as well. We know that Chief Matanzima said in this regard that the Government must stop sending people, who have no work, out of the Republic and settling them in the Transkei. This could be said even more emphatically of the Ciskei.

I do not know whether the hon. the Prime Minister has full knowledge of the position there. I do not know whether the hon. the Prime Minister knows that the target of Mdantsane is a quarter million, while at the moment there are officially 80 000 or 90 000 people there, and unofficially 125 000. Does the hon. the Prime Minister know that the target at Dimbaza. which is the place to which Bantu from the Coloured area are being transferred and which is situated on the line between Humansdorp and Burgersdorp is 40 000? Does he know that a new township is being laid out at Gulu, the target of which is also 40 000? This great concentration of Bantu, many of whom are entirely without work, creates a very great problem. Many of them have been moved across the line of the Coloured area to that division.

There is something else I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Prime Minister. I then want to suggest what could be done there. The East London harbour has been neglected to such an extent over the years, and particularly in recent years, that it is difficult to credit it. I should like to quote to the hon. the Prime Minister a few statistics in regard to the harbour. I shall be brief. In 1955 the East London harbour handled one million tons. Up to 1969 this increased to 7 million tons. In 1969-’70 it dropped again to H million tons. The decrease of one million tons handled there is due to the failure to export maize which should have gone through that harbour. Durban, on the contrary, has increased its total from seven million tons in 1955 to 24 million tons in 1970. Apart from that there are always a lot of ships lying outside Durban harbour, just as is the case in Cape Town, while only approximately 60 per cent of the capacity of the East London harbour is being utilized. In addition, Durban handles 57 per cent of all the shipments, while all the other harbours handle so much less. I want to point out that the Ciskei-Transkei complex, which has to be the show-window of the Bantustans the Government is establishing, is dependent upon the East London harbour. We have made repeated representations to the hon. the Minister of Transport to make the tariff between East London and the Witwatersrand equal to that which applies between Durban and the Witwatersrand, to such an extent that East London will also be able to attract additional shipping. I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Prime Minister to the fact that one of the best suppliers of labour for the Bantu one can find is perhaps a harbour and rail system which will bring a great deal more material to the East London harbour and will result in larger imports and exports at East London. Since the new Iscor was not established at East London, I should like the hon. the Prime Minister to give particular attention to the question of whether it is not worthwhile having a completely new harbour at East London with better facilities for dry docks, tankers and everything pertaining to that.

We spent a whole week conducting the Railway debate.

Mr. Chairman, I am not talking about the Railway debate. I am talking about the supply of work to the Bantu within their areas, which we are now discussing at this stage. I am talking about the supply of work to Bantu who are idle in the Transkei with its population of more than two million. I am also talking about those who are idle in the Ciskei and of the large areas which are being established by the Department of Bantu Administration with a view to development. I do not know whether the hon. the Prime Minister knows what the situation is in regard to the employment of Bantu in the urban areas which are being established within the Bantu areas. I do not know whether he is aware that a large proportion of these people have not been employed. The position is simply being allowed to continue. This is due to the policy in terms of which Bantu are being removed from the Western Cape with a view to the Black-Brown ratio. As long as this policy is continued there will be an excess of Bantu labour in that division, dissatisfaction among the Bantu in this connection, and the endless and boundless incidence of cattle and other theft. I want to draw the specific attention of the hon. the Prime Minister to this matter and ask them to go into it.

Mr. Chairman, what I want to say now, I am not saying out of discourtesy. Hon. members know that I do not do that kind of thing. However, I want to make an appeal to hon. members not to discuss local matters with me under this Vote. I shall listen to what they have to say. It is my duty to do so while my Vote is being discussed. Local matters may be discussed thoroughly under other Votes, where they really belong I am just saying this in general.

As far as the Eastern Cape is concerned, I may just mention that I am from the Eastern Cape. To tell the truth, I think the best people in South Africa come from there. Be that as it may, I have a very soft spot for East London. Hon. members know that with the establishment of the third Iscor, I personally felt very strongly that if it was in any way economically possible, it should be established there. As a matter of fact, I called for a special investigation. This special investigation was instituted in order to determine whether, in spite of everything, it was not possible to establish it there. That is how strongly I felt about the matter. But the economic considerations were overwhelmingly against this. Consequently I had to allow myself to be guided by them. The hon. member is aware of the fact that in the Berlin complex and other complexes in East London a great deal has been done, as regards both water supply and the provision of an infrastructure, to encourage industries there. I want to state it as my standpoint here, a standpoint of which my colleagues are aware, and which is in fact the standpoint of the Government, that optimal development of that area must take place. But one is restricted by certain factors. It is not necessary to discuss those factors now. I want to state it as my standpoint here that if it is economic, and all things being equal—even if they are not altogether equal—preference should be given to the East London area. This is essential, for very good reasons.

The hon. member for Transkei put a question to me in regard to the White traders in the Transkei. He wanted to know whether I would give them certain undertakings. It is not necessary for me to give them certain undertakings. The hon. member for Transkei is aware of the fact that they are afforded adequate protection in the White Paper dealing with them.

I am talking about after independence.

If that position develops after independence, I will be prepared to discuss the matter with them. The hon. member knows that it has been made possible for them to sell. They have not been left high and dry. They know precisely what their problems in that connection are. Their case is covered in the White Paper. The hon. member is aware of the fact that a special adjustment committee has been appointed to take over the interests of the Whites there. This is the so-called adjustment committee of which the hon. member is aware. At this juncture it is not necessary to go further than is necessary. If problems crop up in future, I am prepared to discuss those problems with these people and give a decision. However, I see no need whatsoever at this stage to take any further decision in that regard. These people are organized and if they want to make representations to the Government in any connection, they can make them through my colleague, the hon. the Minister, and those representations will receive my closest attention.

Arising out of what I said by way of an interjection, I am just pointing out again that, according to a report in all the newspapers this morning, the Ciskei have asked for their independence in 1973. I have been informed that no such resolution was adopted in the Ciskei. What the Ciskei did in fact resolve was to request representative government as the Transkei has at present. That is something entirely different to independence. A statement in that regard, so I have been informed, will be made in the course of the day.

While I am on my feet, there are a few matters I want to deal with. In passing I want to refer to the press reports by unnamed persons which have emanated from Zambia. Of course, I do not feel myself called upon to reply to press reports by unnamed persons. If the unnamed person has said that what I said here was a fabrication, it is obvious that the letters from which I quoted must have been written by Father Christmas. Then I do not know either how it came about that my envoy, a few Saturdays ago, met the President of Zambia, on invitation, at Chipata, not even in Lusaka. Then I do not know either how it came about that my envoy was invited to go to Lusaka. Then I cannot understand that. In any case, I do not want to react to what unnamed persons have said. I shall give my considered reaction if and when the President of Zambia himself discusses this matter.

I just want to refer to another press report which appeared this morning, according to which I allegedly committed a breach of confidence. I want to make it very clear that this is by no means a confidential matter. I committed no breach of confidence whatsoever. I have knowledge of many confidential matters in regard to Africa and the world. I have never yet, nor do I intend doing so in my public career, committed any breach of confidence whatsoever. I have never yet been guilty of that. Nor do I intend doing so. Those people, wherever they may be in the world, whose secrets have been entrusted to me, may be certain that these secrets are absolutely safe and that I shall commit no breach of such confidence. This matter concerns the particularly important interests of Southern Africa. I think all hon. members will agree with me that it was necessary for me to handle this matter in the way I did.

While I am on my feet, I also want to say that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred during the course of this debate to the urban Bantu. I furnished him with certain replies. We have, over the years, debated this matter across the floor of this House. It seems to me now that we will have to go on debating this matter across the floor of this House for many years to come. If we were to devote too much time to debating this matter under my Vote, I think we would run the risk of subsequently being forced to ask the Chairman to put the Vote of my colleague, the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, and my Vote simultaneously. Then we would simply deal with the two Votes simultaneously.

But we get no satisfaction from him.

If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that he gets no satisfaction, I can tell him that he does. The difference of course is that my hon. friend is on the Opposition side and my colleague and I are of the Government. The two of us agree on these matters. We will simply have to agree to differ on this score, for please note, this Government is not there to satisfy the Opposition. It would of course be the wrong approach for my hon. friend to adopt that attitude.

But in that connection I just want to make certain observations. I have already told the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that, as far as local facilities are concerned, we are, to the best of our ability and taking into consideration the finances at our disposal, meeting the needs of those people. I have not yet had the opportunity of seeing these things for myself, but I have heard a great deal about them. I have heard, not only from my own people, but also from foreign visitors who visited me in my office, that the facilities which have been provided in the Bantu areas for recreational and other purposes, are unique. I have heard from eminent people in the world that they have seen facilities in Soweto, Umlazi and other places which they envy and which they would like to see in their own countries for their own people. We are aware that these people must have those facilities and that it is a good thing to give them those facilities. We shall, as I have said, taking into account the circumstances and the finances at our disposal, provide those facilities. To sum up again, if what my friend has in mind for these people are political rights in Parliament, that possibility can be ruled out. We have argued this matter time and again, and therefore I do not want to use the time of the House for that purpose again now. When it comes to rights, those people are entitled to local authority rights, and that they already have. Prior to 1961 these people had local authority rights in the form of advisory committees, committees which were partially elected and partially appointed. But my hon. friend is also aware of the fact that in 1961 the then Prime Minister, Dr. Verwoerd, felt that they should be given something more than mere advisory committees. Thus the 1961 Act made provision for Bantu urban councils which consisted entirely of elected members, elected therefore by the inhabitants, to function within the area of the local authority in question, and to which certain powers could be entrusted or delegated by the local authority in question—in other words, a statutory body which, in my humble opinion, satisfies the need existing among the Bantu for local government. City or town councils may, as I have said, transfer certain powers of a local nature to these councils. This is in fact being done.

[Inaudible.]

That depends upon the local authorities. Many of these local authorities are controlled by the United Party. Johannesburg is one of them. It seems to me the hon. member does not think much of them; nor do I.

Johannesburg is an exception.

On a local level, as I say, these people therefore have representation. That is the position as it is today. If hon. members want to argue that this is insufficient and that something more should be put in its place, my advice to them is that they should argue the matter when the hon. the Minister’s Vote comes up for discussion. I shall listen to what they have to say then.

In passing I also want to draw attention to the standpoint which is often adopted by hon. members opposite in regard to the so-called detribalized Bantu, the Bantu who are supposedly suspended in mid-air. I do not pretend to be an authority in this field. But I grew up on the borders of the Transkei; I have been interested in these people, in the Bantu in general, all my life. I have discussed this matter widely with authorities on the Bantu and with the Bantu themselves as far as it was possible to do so. I was told that there is no such thing in South Africa as a detribalized Bantu. In fact, it is from the nature of the case not possible for a Bantu to become detribalized. To tell the truth, I do not know one who has not remained loyal to their language; I do not know one who has not remained loyal to his particular tradition.

What about the son of a Zulu and a Xhosa?

He will, according to their customs, become a member of one of those two groups. Surely the hon. member knows that as well as I do. But in this connection I also want to refer to the Bantu Citizenship Act. These people are not, therefore, suspended in mid-air, but are citizens of some or other homeland. One need only talk to these people to find that even if they have never yet seen their chief, they know precisely who he is; they may not have seen him, but they know who he is and they speak of him with great appreciation. This has been my experience, and I have no doubt that it has also been the experience of those hon. members opposite who know the Bantu.

Let us now consider the reproach which is levelled in regard to consultation. On local authority level there is already the closest consultation between the Bantu advisory councils and the local authorities. On the national level there is also the widest consultation between the hon. the Minister and the leaders of the various Bantu peoples; there is also consultation with me. The opposite side has on occasion levelled the reproach that we speak only of consultation with foreign Bantu; in fact, one of the English language newspapers published an article in which the question was asked, “What about our own Bantu?” Let me say it again: During the past three/four years there has been far more consultation, on a high level, with the actual leaders of the Bantu than there was for decades prior to that. Do you know why hon. members opposite are annoyed with us in this connection? They are annoyed because we do not want to consult with some or other avowed leftist. They are angry at us because we talk to the real, the natural, the proper leaders of the Bantu. That is what it is all about. [Interjections.] This applies in particular to my hon. friend, the member for Houghton, who has grown old together with me in this House.

It seems to bother you that we have grown old together. Well, do not take it so hard; you do not look that bad.

The relationship between the hon. member for Houghton and myself is the same as that of the lift attendant who behaved rather grumpily towards an old lady in the lift. When she asked him whether he always behaved grumpily towards ladies, he replied: “No, only towards young ladies”. In any case, the Citizenship Act ensures that no one need be suspended in mid-air. On a local level, as I have said, there is consultation with the local authorities, while on the national level there is all the necessary consultation which should take place from time to time.

Let us now take the case of the Transkei when it comes to exercising political rights. Hon. members are aware that Transkeian Bantu living and working outside the Transkei are able to participate in elections in the Transkei; they can be registered there in order to participate in elections there. The question is of course, because they must have themselves registered before they can vote there, whether or not they are interested. It was a matter of great importance to me whether or not these people attached value to the fact that they could be registered in the Transkei, in spite of the fact that they do not live or work there. Consequently I called for the figures, and these indicate to me that within the Transkei, in round figures, 661 000 voters are registered, and outside the Transkei, 246 000.

You can realize for yourself why this is the case.

Yes, it is because they are interested.

They want work.

They also want to vote there.

Registration on the voters’ roll has nothing to do with that aspect. They want to vote for their candidates in those elections.

What did the Minister say? They receive preferential treatment if they are registered.

These people register, and they definitely do so in order to be able to exercise their rights of citizenship there.

But now we come to the question of land, and in dealing with the question of land, I want to leave a problem in the lap of my hon. friend, the Leader of the Opposition, for him to solve. I think he owes it to his party and to the country to adopt a standpoint in regard to this matter. I have said that I am not, from the point of view of principle, prepared to concede that Black people can get land-ownership rights in White areas, and that Whites can get proprietary rights in Black areas. This to me is a matter of principle. I want the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to repeat that statement he made in haste, if he meant it, for to my mind it was an outrageous thing to say. If it was a mistake, I am prepared to accept it as such. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said by way of interjection that he saw no objection to any foreign worker who comes to work here, purchasing land in White South Africa. [Interjection.] Yes, he said it by way of interjection. I do now know whether he was over hasty in saying that. I should like to give him an opportunity of expressing a well-considered opinion in that regard, because as it stands now, the Rhodesian Bantu, the Malawians and any foreign worker can purchase land here.

You know what he meant.

I now want to give the hon. the Leader of the Opposition a chance to say something about that. That is why I am leaving the problem in his lap.

Go and call the hon. member for Yeoville.

I want to lay a second problem in the lap of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. We know that General Botha, as Minister of Bantu Administration in 1913, when the Bantu Land Act was introduced, provided in that Act that Whites were not allowed to have land-ownership rights in the Bantu areas.

They have in the Transkei.

But they had it before that time, and it was transferred from time to time. That Act was passed in 1913. I now want to know whether it is the policy of that side of the House that Whites should be given land-ownership rights in Bantu areas indiscriminately. It is important to know this.

But, Sir, I want to leave a third problem in the lap of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The Bantu (Urban Areas) Act of 1923, which was handled by General Smuts personally in this House, initially contained a provision which would have granted Bantu proprietary rights in the White areas. That provision appeared in the original Urban Areas Act of 1923.

President Kruger also allowed it.

I am talking about General Smuts now. In 1923 General Smuts provided in that Act that Bantu would be granted proprietary rights in White areas. There was fierce opposition from General Hertzog and his people. General Smuts then deleted that provision from the Bantu (Urban Areas) Act of 1923 and accepted that Bantu would not be granted land-ownership rights in White areas. I should like to know from the Opposition whether they want to return to the standpoint adopted by General Smuts in 1923 before General Hertzog convinced him that it was wrong. I think we can conduct a fruitful debate on these aspects.

The hon. the Prime Minister put certain questions to the Leader of the Opposition in regard to the right of the Bantu to purchase land. What I find strange is that the hon. gentleman puts this question and at the same time refers to what happened previously, as part of the history of South Africa. But, Sir, I do not really want to refer to South African history; I want to refer to what happened only last week. I want to refer to a speech made by the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development. He made a speech in Kroonstad, and what did he say on that occasion? He said that if someone like Chief Kaiser Matanzima, or any other Bantu, wanted additional land in South Africa, after we had met our obligations under the 1936 settlement in terms of which a certain quantity of land had to be given to the Bantu, they would have to purchase that land themselves. I should immediately like to put this question to the hon. the Prime Minister: If he is so opposed to the idea that certain responsible Bantu, as the Opposition put it, should in fact have the right to own property in White areas, why does the hon. the Deputy Minister then say that if those people want additional land, they will have to purchase it in South Africa? I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether he differs with his Deputy Minister. Was the Deputy Minister speaking without his permission? Did he not have the Prime Minister’s approval? But the hon. the Prime Minister put these questions to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and I think the right thing would be for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, who has the replies to them, to furnish those replies himself.

Sir, the hon. gentleman is also concerned about the question of land. The party on that side accepts the permanency of the Bantu in our urban areas. They are setting aside separate residential areas for them here. But if one has set aside separate residential areas for these people—and this will remain the position in South Africa ad infinitum—and if they are living in those areas as a group, as they lived near Johannesburg under President Kruger at one time where they were given proprietary rights, then I cannot understand the logic of hon. members on the opposite side if they are not prepared to give those rights to certain responsible Bantu who are permanent residents in our White urban areas.

But the hon. the Prime Minister has already intimated in his speech that he is going to give this House some information in regard to certain new developments in connection with the Coloured population. The Prime Minister promised that he was going to tell us what forms of contact there would be between us and the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council. You see, Sir, there is no other matter in this country in regard to which there is greater confusion than the political future of the Coloureds in our political constellation. The multi-national principle can only be of significance if every race group is entirely separate, and as we see it, it is impossible to have every race group entirely separate. Then, too, it is essential even if they are entirely separate, to have contact between the various races. But it seems to us that, even if they are entirely separate and there is that contact, it does not necessarily mean the end of discrimination under the policy of the National Party. The greatest danger we see in this principle of multinationalism is that it has inherent in itself the furtherance of conflicting nationalisms.

South Africa has over the years, conventionally, developed another approach to the Coloured population, and has done so in a natural way. That approach can be summed up by saying that we, the Whites, want the Coloureds as close as possible to the White group. But it does not in any way mean that we expect the Coloureds to lose their identity, or we ours, under those circumstances. So, when the circumstances of South Africa are looked into, it is very clear that we cannot allow a separate Coloured state to be established in this country. But we should like to know from the hon. the Prime Minister this afternoon whether he agrees with some people in his Cabinet, and whether he agrees with certain elements outside this House that are well disposed to his party, whether he agrees with that idea that a separate Coloured state should be established in South Africa. I want to refer the hon. the Prime Minister to speeches which he himself made. The hon. gentleman said on a previous occasion that he was not in favour of it, and that it was not practical politics to establish a separate Coloured state in South Africa. The hon. gentleman reiterated in 1966 that the roads of the Coloureds and the Whites should be divergent ones. At a later stage he intimated that the Whites and the Coloureds should enter the future together, as the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs also said last year. But last year, at the National Party congress, the hon. the Minister of Defence made it very clear that he was not in favour of a policy of a separate state for the Coloureds. The reasons he mentioned were that we had progressed too far along the road of pluralism, that we had the Coloureds with us, near us in their own residential areas, and that it was impossible for them to establish a state for them. Thereupon the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development made the next speech when he addressed a conference of his own party on the Rand, and what did he say on that occasion? He said: Recognize the Coloureds as an inherent, separate nation-in-the-making, and then you realize that they also have a course and a destination of their own, not closer to that of the Whites, but away from it. Then the hon. the Minister said that the consequences of multi-nationalism help us to see clearly the own separate destinations of the Bantu peoples. And the motivation for these statements of his was that there were numerous peoples who spoke the same language and adhered to the same faith, but who were nevertheless separate peoples, such as the Germans, the Austrians, the Spanish-speaking people in South America, and the English-speaking people of Australia and New Zealand. The obvious deduction one must make from that is that these people do not have a separate existence either, unless they have their own separate territory. Now I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration whether he means that although the Coloureds speak Afrikaans and English, although in their traditions and conventions they remain as close as possible to those of the Whites, they will not be able to occupy their full-fledged place in South Africa unless we give them a separate state? And if that is not his attitude, what is the hon. gentleman’s attitude then? And while I am dealing with him, I also want to ask the hon. the Minister of Information something. [Time expired.]

We have an interesting phenomenon here. In all fairness the Prime Minister asked questions in regard to the subject the Opposition itself elected to argue about all morning. He put fair questions to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, but the Leader did not rise to reply. The hon. member for Newton Park rose and floundered about for a while and eventually, after spending five minutes in an attempt to reply to the Prime Minister, said that he could not go any further because the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had not replied; but the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not rise to give the replies. Sir, I am afraid that something has been left in his lap which he cannot get rid of.

As with all the other population groups, we also gave the Coloured population group a new dispensation in South Africa. I think that, with what we have given them, we have also given back to them their self-respect and their sense of human worth. Today the Coloureds are no longer the political foundlings of the Whites. We have set them on their own feet to do those things which people must do for themselves and their people. We have given them political rights for the first time in history. For the first time in history the Coloureds in South Africa have been given work to do for their own people. Today the Coloured population is to a very large extent being governed by its own people. They are governing their own rural area. They are responsible for the social services for their own people. Today it is the Coloured Persons’ Council which is responsible for Coloured pensions, and no longer the White Government. It is the Coloured Persons’ Council itself which is responsible for education in every sphere. If there was one sphere in which the Coloureds were bitterly neglected, it was the sphere of education, particularly by that Party in all the years they were in power. In the Provincial Council of the Cape, they were in power from 1910 to 1954. They are the people who neglected the Coloureds in that sphere. Today the Coloureds are, on all levels, controlling their own education.

I want to say that there is little which will not, in due course, be transferred to the Coloureds. I can think of scarcely any department which they will not, in due course, take over. There are a few exceptions. It does not seem to me that they will be able to take over the Departments of Defence or of Foreign Affairs. I think that these are the only two they will not be able to take over. As far as those matters are concerned, links will be established. I do not want to anticipate the hon. the Prime Minister, because he gave us an undertaking at the outset that he was going to speak about these links and to inform us as to the extent to which progress has been made with these links. From time to time there will have to be talks, and there will have to be round-table talks, because we are dealing here with people. The problem of human relationships cannot be solved, because it is a perpetual problem which one has to deal with from day to day and from time to time.

Normally we talk about separate development, for the Coloureds as well. It is not the policy of the National Party to give the Coloureds a separate state. They are not going to get one. The hon. member wants to make a case of this. A statement was issued by the Cabinet to the effect that the policy of the National Party did not include a separate state for Coloureds. That is why I want to suggest this morning that we do not in future talk about separate development for the Coloureds. We shall talk about parallel development. Because the Coloureds are never going to get a separate state, the development we envisage for the Coloureds is in fact parallel development.

I want to lay it at the door of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in particular that there is no such thing as petty apartheid.

Do not tell me. Tell your own people.

All steps which have been taken and are being taken, are taken to preserve good relationships. It is a fact that there are vandals on both sides of the colour line. It is the duty of the State to protect those vandals against themselves. The decent and civilized people on both sides of the colour line will not clash, because people who have self-respect, respect one another. These steps are therefore being taken to protect the vandals against themselves. As I have said, we have created a new dispensation for the Coloureds.

What is the United Party doing? What prospects are they holding out for the Coloureds with the representation they want to give the Coloureds in this Parliament? The United Party are holding out to them the prospect of what we have already had for 100 years in this country, i.e. integration. There used to be political integration between Whites and Coloureds. There used to be no separate residential areas, and no Immorality Act. I want to tell hon. members today that integration has failed. The Coloureds made no progress, they retrogressed. They are the most neglected group of people in this country. That is what became of them under the system of integration. Do you know where they ended up? They were only given recognition on polling day, and after the election no further mention of them was made. They ended up in the backward areas and the slums of South Africa. It is this National Party Government which fetched them out of there, under the new dispensation. We still have one striking example of those slum conditions. We are still sitting with District Six. This is another example of integration over a period of 100 years between Coloureds and Whites. I say that integration has failed. Physical integration has also failed. Although there are people who try to imply that there was movement back and forth across the dividing line between Whites and Coloureds on a large scale, it is an interesting fact that a census was held at the Cape in 1795. At that time there were 3 000 more slaves than Whites at the settlement, apart from the Hottentots and other non-White races here in South Africa. Integration was not prohibited by law. In 1853 integration was a normal occurrence, when the then English Colonial Government placed the Coloureds on the same voter’s roll as the Whites. I repeat that it has failed. The United Party, with the policy of race federation which it now advocates, and in terms of which it wants to allow six Coloured representatives into this House, wants to lead the Coloureds back to a state of affairs which has already proved to be a failure. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Malmesbury tried to make a case out of the fact that I, instead of the Leader of the Opposition, spoke just after the Prime Minister. I just want to tell the hon. member that the reason why I did it is because the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was kind enough to allow me to do so because I cannot be here this afternoon. That is the only reason why I am doing so. My hon. Leader will still have an opportunity to speak.

Sir, what did the hon. member for Malmesbury say in this debate? He said that we must not speak about separate development or about separate freedom in respect of the Coloureds, but that we now again have to use a new name, i.e. parallel development.

You have already heard that often.

Yes. but if we now have the term “separate freedom” in respect of the Bantu, why do we then have the term “parallel development” in respect of the Coloureds? Why is there not separate freedom in respect of the Coloureds as well? Is it because we must again observe the spectacle of a Nationalist Party which, in the course of time, makes a twist and a turn in the direction it is heading? These are the same people who at one stage said “The sky is the limit” for the Coloureds. Then they had the idea of separate freedom for everyone. Now it is again a question of parallel development. The hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs says that the roads of the Coloured and the White man must go together and that they must work out the future themselves. That is what he said last year. Now that hon. member speaks of parallel development. If one draws two lines, the one next to the other, it means that they will never meet. What is the hon. member for Malmesbury’s intention? He says that the integration we had 50 or 60 years ago in respect of the Coloureds, failed because we had no legal separation in this country. Those are the people who have, throughout the years, told us how dangerous integration is. From the hon. member himself we must now hear that integration failed. The hon. member is, of course, quite correct. Why was integration such a failure? It failed because certain conventions had been built up in this country that no-one could do anything about, conventions that will remain unchanged. Every group likes being among its own people. Shortly and to the point, those are the circumstances of this country.

I should like to come back to the hon. the Minister of Information. According to the Star in December last year that gentleman made a speech which was reported as follows:

Surely this means very clearly that if the hon. gentleman’s philosophy for the Coloureds is interpreted correctly, he advocates that they should have a land area of their own where they can have a Parliament that will not be subordinate to ours, and which would be exactly the same as ours. Subsequently a statement is issued on behalf of the Cabinet in which the Government rejects integration as well as a homeland for the Coloureds.

It is about this statement that I should like to say a few things. The hon. gentlemen made this statement after they realized that there was disunity in their own ranks. Then they said that they rejected a separate homeland and also integration. Sir, if you read carefully what is contained in that statement of the Cabinet, what do you find? There it is stated (translation)—

That is the first point. That is why they do not advocate integration or a separate Colouredstan, Then they continue—

The verb is used in its dual form. They “will” “have to” liaise with the local authorities. They reject integration, but if one has a link between the Whites and the Coloureds, this can surely not take place independently. It takes place, as the hon. member for Malmesbury said, at a round table. I now want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister: Is this a policy that will not result in a form of integration? I do not differ with the hon. gentleman about this. I think it is a good and a sound state of affairs. There is nothing wrong with that. But how can this Government make a statement in which they say that they reject both a Coloured homeland and integration. The report continues—

They suggest that here should be liaison at every point and that there will be a form of integration between the Whites and the Coloureds and their bodies. The report continues—

The hon. the Minister of Defence suggested on this point that the representatives of the Coloureds with a seat in the Other Place should form the link, that they should form the core of the link that they want between, this Parliament and that body.

I said that that was one of the ways.

Yes, I acknowledge that the hon. the Minister is correct. He said that that was one of the ways, and that there could perhaps be other methods that might be as good or even better. If the Government is then thinking along those lines, why is it so wrong for representatives of the Coloureds to be in this House where there can also be liaison with their own body, the Coloured Persons Representative Council. I think the hon. the Prime Minister ought to state clearly to us what this form of contact is that they have in mind. He must tell us whether it will be a permanent committee of which the Senators will form the core. Or does the hon. the Prime Minister have something else in view with this contact he speaks about? If that is so, did it take place after consultation with the Coloureds, or must the consultations between the Cabinet and the Coloured Persons Representative Council still take place?

But I have said that the consultations have already been held. I shall refer to that in the House this afternoon.

Mr. Chairman, we would welcome it if the hon. the Prime Minister would tell us what his plans are.

In spite of what the hon. Ministers of Information and Bantu Administration and Development say, and also in spite of the Cabinet statement, it is very clear to me that this Government has not only rejected the homeland idea, but that its policy requires a form of integration between Whites and non-Whites. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, a Government which wants to discharge its calling in this country must, in the first place, be orientated towards maintaining racial peace between the various population groups in this country. It is probably its primary task to ensure that there is harmonious co-existence among the various population groups in our country. When the hon. member for Newton Park now asks questions about how Liaison will take place between the Coloured body and this White Parliament, and asks whether this should take place inside or outside Parliament, these questions must be answered from certain basic standpoints. When one is confronted with a problem of possible levels of friction that may exist between the various population groups one must, in the first place, orientate oneself in respect of what one’s basic standpoint is in relation to this matter. One cannot simply enter upon a situation haphazardly and make a rule that now fits the case, but will not do so in a year or more. One must adopt a basic standpoint. With reference to that I want to remark that if there is one party in this country which is equipped to maintain racial peace between Whites and Coloureds, between Whites and Bantu and even between Coloureds and Bantu, then it is the National Party. This is because the National Party takes into account certain realities of the population set-up of South Africa. The National Party has a basic policy which gives us a code of conduct according to which we can lead our people, a code of conduct which will result in good relationships being maintained, not only between one population group and another, but also between one person and another in our fatherland.

Give us the code.

I shall come to that. The hon. member for Maitland must just display a little patience. We say, and hon. members opposite know it, that by their natures people form groups on an ethnic basis—for cultural reasons, or because they belong together. It is a basic fact that has been encountered throughout the world since the time when they wanted to build the Tower of Babel. The need for people to group in a national context is a basic reality that we in the National Party take into account. But I fear that it is something the United Party does not take much notice of. I shall come back to this viewpoint at a later stage. Let me take as an example the Basques of Spain. After centuries of living together, they still have a longing for their own identity, for their own interests, which could not be destroyed throughout the years and which drove them to insurrection last year. This feeling of personal identity was never destroyed, although they have, for a very long time, been a minority group in Spain. Where a group, whether it be a majority or minority group, has the longing for a personal identity, it is natural that that identity should be protected. Under its policy the National Party gives every group the opportunity to protect its own identity.

What do you say about the U.S.A.?

In America we find that in spite of the policy of integration the Blacks there are at present already beginning to agitate for recognition of an identity of their own, and together with that a state in the south of America where they can establish themselves.

Can you give us a definition of integration?

The hon. member will also have an opportunity to make a speech. I say that within the framework of the National Party we give recognition to the identity of majority and minority groups. One of these minority groups is specifically the Coloureds. We accept that they are able to identify themselves as such, and we are creating an opportunity for them to develop their own group pride. That is the foundation on which we base our code of conduct, a code of conduct which applies not only between one group and another, but also as between one individual and another. According to this we do not begrudge any group and any person the right to maintain individual self-respect and at the same time to evidence mutual respect for others. We in the National Party undertake to develop that sound basis in national relationships in South Africa, and we also carry this code to our people for the furtherance of sound relationships between one person and another and mutual respect between Brown and White, and vice versa.

My problem is to determine where the United Party stands in this situation. It apparently does not accept that the Coloureds are a separate people or a separate people in the making. It apparently does not accept that there is a group feeling and a feeling of identity on the part of the Coloureds, that they want to develop to eventual nationhood. In their political language they sometimes speak of a “race” and sometimes of a “class”. It is now not very clear to me whether they see the Coloured nation of South Africa as a separate race with an individual identity, or merely as a separate class, a class which at the moment still falls under the guidance of the Whites, which is a mere follower of the Whites and which will, in the course of time, be integrated or assimilated piecemeal.

You are making a mistake.

No, I am not making any mistake. In one of the issues of the Cape Times of the past week there was an introductory article in which the expressions “race prejudice” and “class prejudice” are used interchangeably. The United Party is not able to give us a concept of racial peace unless they begin to think fundamentally about how exactly they view the Coloureds, i.e., whether they regard them as a people in the making or merely as a separate class, such as an economic class, which will in the course of time, as their circumstances improve, be able to penetrate the White group, the White privileged class which we have.

Would you say that the Coloureds were a nation in the making?

I am convinced of that. We are dealing here with the Coloureds as a group which, with the opportunities we are creating for them, are finding an individual identity, and they are a people in the making, in such measure as they have not yet achieved this. I am convinced that this is so. And I am sure that if we lead them further along this path to self realization, by means of the administration of their affairs by themselves and the acceptance of responsibility for their own people, a responsibility which they will also have to exercise over the economically poor sections of the population. [Time expired.]

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Chairman, may I ask for the privilege of the second half hour. Earlier in this debate I raised the matter of the urban Bantu with the hon. the Prime Minister and outlined to him my conviction that in order to have a satisfactory relationship with them, it was necessary that they should have a measure of security in their family lives; that it was right that the responsible Bantu who are South Africans should be permitted under certain circumstances to have home ownership in those Bantu townships; that we should strive for the emergence of a Bantu middle class; and that there should be institutions whereby they have executive and administrative responsibilities cast upon these bodies which I hope would be wholly elected. The hon. the Prime Minister has indicated that in his view there is no such thing as a detribalized Bantu. Well, Sir, it is rather typical of the Nationalist Party that when it is faced with a problem it says that the problem does not exist and acts as though it is not there at all. I am afraid the hon. gentleman is going to find, as indeed the Fagan Commission found nearly 24 years ago, that there is a permanent urban Bantu population. Sir, when you have a permanent urban Bantu population then you require policies to deal with that permanent urban Bantu population and it is no good trying to treat them as though they are temporary sojourners or visitors from a foreign state. I believe that this is the fundamental mistake this Government is making in its dealings with that section of the community.

The hon. the Prime Minister has suggested that Gen. Smuts was not in favour of giving these people home ownership in the Bantu townships in 1923. Well, Sir, 1923 is a long time ago; it is nearly half a century ago and, as you know, Sir, in that time there have been developments. One of the most fundamental developments was noted by the Fagan Commission when they found—

Sir, I wish this Government had learned the lesson of the wisdom of that statement before it started promising that from the year 1978, or some such time, they would reverse the flow. It went on to say—

In dealing with this the United Party gave very real consideration to the problem, and it gave consideration to the problem in the year 1954 when it first issued its statement in connection with home ownership for Bantu in the Bantu townships. In that statement it said—

The third was “deur die gekontroleerde reg om grond te besit”—

Then it goes on—

That, Sir, is the approach of the United Party in this regard. I believe it was the approach in the days of the old South African Republic, because certain of the townships created by them provided for ownership rights by the Bantu in those townships. I think we today face a situation in which the need for such home ownership is far greater than it has been at any time in our history.

Now the hon. the Prime Minister comes back at me and says: “If you are going to give the Bantu rights of home ownership in the White areas, what about giving the White man the right to ownership in the Black areas?” What about it, Sir? There is not an awfully large area set aside for the Bantu. I believe that it is right and proper that we should protect their ownership rights in those areas. We know what the dangers are if the Europeans are allowed to go in there and buy and speculate in land. Therefore I am not in favour of changing the law in that regard unless it is absolutely essential for the establishment of industries for the economic development of those particular areas. I want to say that as far as we are concerned, we believe that the right to home ownership of Bantu of South African origin who have become permanently urbanized and have, I believe, in most cases lost their tribal affiliations, is a very necessary guarantee against the agitator, and it is a guarantee for stability in the maintenance of law and order in those areas.

As I have indicated, I believe that at the same time an undisturbed family life plays a very big role in that regard as well, and I deplore the manner in which the Prime Minister’s present Minister is doing his best to move people of that kind back to the Bantu areas. I believe that it is vital that there should be opportunities for consultation for those people. The hon. the Prime Minister has outlined the existing machinery. Let me tell him, although I do not want to go into details, that that machinery has just not worked. Virtually no powers have been delegated to these Bantu urban councils, and they exercise virtually no executive or administrative authority.

We believe that what is necessary is a fundamentally new approach by many South Africans to the question of race relations. One must remember that when we talk of the urban Bantu, we are talking of nearly 4 million people. We are talking about a very large section of the South African population. We are talking about perhaps the biggest problem which affects our day to day lives in our homes, on our farms and in our industries. If things go wrong there, things will go wrong for the whole economy of South Africa. That is why I have raised this issue again and why I have pressed for some new thinking on this subject. I was most interested to read what the editor of one of the newspapers supporting the Prime Minister, Die Burger, said in an article published on 27th March this year. He called for a revival and a renewal of thinking inside the Nationalist Party. They want matters such as the Coloured policy and the position of the urban Bantu, and the economic priorities of the future, to be extensively studied by strong commissions on policy because solutions once sought were not working out as they had been expected to. I wonder what solutions sought were not working as they were expected to? If I had my guess, I would say that one of them is the question of the urban Bantu. I believe that in the new approach the Government would have to be prepared to bury many of yesterday’s ideas. And I think they deserve a formal death. This Nationalist thinker feared that the Nationalist Party was exhausting its intellectual reserves because they had been in power so long. I hope the Prime Minister will not take it amiss that he has a frank critic within his own ranks in this regard. Sir, the hon. gentleman likes straight speaking. Let me tell him that as far as I am concerned …

I am at least thankful that I have such a critic on my side, because I do not have one on the opposite side.

Sir, if that is the sort of thing that passes for wit in the Nationalist ranks, then, quite frankly, I must say that the editor of that paper has all my sympathy. It seems that after the last Prime Minister went, who was a thinking machine in himself, they have not had a single new idea since.

One of the things they spoke about was the urban Natives and the other was the Cape Coloured people. This was raised by the hon. member who spoke before lunch and who unfortunately cannot be with us this afternoon. I want to say that as far as we are concerned, the Prime Minister’s dispensation for the Cape Coloured people seems to give them the worst of two worlds. They no longer have representation in Parliament. They have been given their own Council, a large portion of which is nominated by the Government. Because they have no homeland, the hon. the Prime Minister says blandly that he cannot see the end of the road for them, but infers that they must press on meanwhile, hoping that something will turn up. In the meantime individual members of the Cabinet seem to have arrogated to themselves the right to air their personal views. We had a number of those views outlined before lunch. We have heard about the views of Dr. Connie Mulder, the Minister of Social Welfare and of Information. He appears to be in favour of a Colouredstan. The Prime Minister said firmly that that was not practical politics. Then we had the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Dr. Hilgard Muller. He concedes that the Coloured people could develop politically only to a limited extent under the Government’s present policy and that in this respect they had less freedom than the Bantu people, despite being the most developed section of our non-White population. Then we had the hon. the Minister of Defence, who in a thoughtful speech to his own congress suggested the canton system for the Coloured people, apparently on the Swiss basis, and indicated that the liaison between Parliament and these people might be through the Senators nominated for their knowledge of non-European affairs as the nucleus. There was a statement by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, a purist in Nationalist thinking, who believes that their development should be away from the White people of South Africa. Indeed, the hon. the Prime Minister himself is on record as indicating that the Coloured people’s development should be away from the White people. Then finally we have the statement of the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs, Mr. Jannie Loots, who said with the authority of the Cabinet that any policy or lack of one which could lead to integration, on whatever basis, as between Whites and Coloureds is rejected. On the other hand the idea of a specific homeland for the Coloured people is impracticable, firstly because such a homeland is not available in the historical context, and secondly because the policy of providing urban and rural areas for Coloureds in the various parts of the Republic has already progressed too far. He apparently concluded his statement by saying what the hon. member for Malmesbury said this morning, that the Government is firmly committed to the principle of parallel development and indicated that the work ahead, with the best will in the world, could occupy a lifetime to fulfil the plans they already had.

Sir, that is all very well, but what is parallel development? Quite clearly, the Coloured people present the Government with a riddle they cannot solve. From that side of the House we have always heard that there are only two alternatives, complete integration or complete separation. Now, integration is out and a Colouredstan with complete separation is out, and now we are going to have parallel development. How does that fit into the Government’s philosophy? It does not seem to me that they have room in their philosophy for the Cape Ooloured people. It seems to me that as far as the Government is concerned, the Coloured people seem to be destined to remain suspended between heaven and earth, and since their development is parallel they can go neither up nor down. Yet we have the hon. member for Moorreesburg indicating that they must come into fuller partnership with the White people of South Africa. He was immediately attacked by Dr. Treurnicht of Hoofstad, and there are various statements made indicating disapproval of that approach. We now find certain representatives on the Coloured Council again talking about the possibilities of an independent Colouredstan. Finally, we have an interesting statement made by Prof. Rhoodie. He said—

It is all very well for people to talk like that. In the meantime there are a couple of million of Coloured people. The question of their future is something which is exercising their minds; a sense of dissatisfaction is developing amongst them. It is developing even amongst those Coloureds who support the policy of the present Government. They are becoming very vocal indeed on the injustice to them, as they see it, of work reservation, disparity of wages for the same jobs, housing shortages, general lack of facilities and the failure to enforce compulsory education. They have had to bear the brunt of replanning under the Group Areas Act. Many more thousands of Coloured families have been moved than have White families. Some, I will concede, have been moved to better homes than they had before, but a great many have been moved to areas where they are very unhappy indeed, and where they do not feel they are in the right surroundings at all. They do not find those areas congenial. Those people, too, are the section of our community, with the urban Bantu, who feel the full weight of the hurts, the stupidities and the indignities of what some people call petty apartheid and others call unnecessary apartheid.

Let me tell the hon. the Prime Minister too that even those who are supporting him on the Coloured Representative Council are dissatisfied with the Government’s treatment of this Coloured Representative Council. They are very conscious of the fact that, although they are the most developed group amongst the non-European population, they can in fact not develop as far as the Bantu people can. Some of their leaders are already seeking liaison with the Bantu leaders. Others are warning of dissatisfaction and frustration. There was a statement published concerning Mr. Tom Swartz, who is Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Coloured Representative Council. I see that he says that he did the Government a favour by taking office. The article says:

Then he goes on to warn of their dissatisfaction and to speak about the difficulties that they have and the things about which they are unhappy. I believe that at the moment we are in the position that there are many thinkers on the Nationalist side and many White intellectuals, who feel that the time has come for a new deal. I think what we want to know this afternoon is whether the Prime Minister has any answer. He has indicated across the floor that he has an answer to the problem of liaison with that council. I would be interested to hear what it is. He knows my views on the Coloured people. He knows, in outline, the policy that we on this side have put across. I am prepared to match my policy against his at any time.

I would like to hear yours.

The ignorance of the Prime Minister horrifies me. He says that he would like to hear it, but he has heard it so often. We do not change our policy daily. I think what we want to know is whether there are adaptations and changes envisaged because we, too, feel that the present road, which the Government is following, can only lead to disaster in the relations between White and non-White in South Africa.

I indicated to the hon. gentleman earlier that, as far as we are concerned, there are certain economic aspects bound up with this issue as well. I indicated that there are certain economic aspects which are worrying us. We are in this position that the Government’s difficulty in seeking solutions to our economic problem is bound up with the fact that it cannot divorce economic policy from its ideological approach to the problems with which we are faced. The result is that they persist in emphasizing and concentrating upon the negative aspects of their policy while our economic problems get worse. As long as the use of labour is restricted, they will have to restrict spending and investment and reduce the growth rate. They will have to apply hurtful taxes and restrict credit. They will have to throttle back the economy because they dare not stimulate it by using the human resources that are at our disposal, to a fuller extent. The problem is that they dare not concentrate upon the positive aspects of their policy.

What nonsense!

The hon. gentleman says “what nonsense!” I have challenged the hon. the Prime Minister before and I challenge him now again to let his Economic Advisory Council work out for us what it will cost to develop those homelands up to a point where they can provide a future, not only for the natural increase in the reserves, but for those whom he wishes to send there. Let us tell the public of South Africa what it will cost. I challenged the hon. gentleman before to give us an idea of that. What is the reply we received? The reply was that it would be done, no matter what it cost. But the public has never been told what it will cost. The result is that the flow-out from the reserves continues just as it did in the past. If only those figures were available, the public of South Africa would realize how impossible a fulfilment this pipe-dream of Government policy is.

The crucial fact that this Government has to face is that if we rely to such an exaggerated extent only on our White human resources, even if supplemented by the Coloureds and the Indians, we cannot sustain a rate of growth in our economy to absorb the total increase in our population adequately. That means trouble and the hon. the Prime Minister knows it.

In the Budget before this one the hon. the Minister of Finance mentioned the possibility of dialogue with industrial leaders on the subject of the use of our manpower resources and the more effective use of the labour that is available to us at the present time. That offer was made meaningless by the activities of the terrible twins, the hon. the Minister of Labour and the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. What happened then? We had the Riekert Commission on manpower, the recommendations and findings of which are not before us. The need for dialogue is now more urgent than ever it was before. I was very interested to note that in opening the Rand Easter Show, the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs hinted that there was something afoot. He said:

What we would like to know is what is that common ground? Where is it going to come in? Will it be the Government dictating to the industrialists that they move into border areas and then will get labour? And, in the meantime, are our existing industrial complexes going to be throttled through shortage of labour? There are many of us who do not believe that the growth rate under this Budget will reach a level which will keep unemployment from reaching dangerous proportions. I think the time has come for the hon. the Prime Minister to take a hand and give us his views. We have the views of the hon. the Minister of Finance. We have had the views of the two hon. the terrible twins on the labour issue and we have had a statement from the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, but we are not much wiser. I have no doubt whatsoever that this problem goes to the root of our economic development and the well-being of our people in South Africa at the present time. I believe the hon. the Prime Minister owes us an answer on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, after I had put some questions on Bantu affairs to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, we found the hon. member for Newton Park discussing Coloured affairs. Now, at the start of this debate the hon. the Leader referred to Coloured affairs, and as this is such an important matter, I did at least expect the hon. the Leader, having asked for the privilege of the half-hour, to discuss this matter. But for a few references made in passing, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had nothing to say about this matter. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition simply used an endless flow of words, and he referred in passing to a “new deal” which would have to be introduced. Then, of course, I pricked up my ears to hear what this “new deal” actually was that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was envisaging for the Coloureds. Apart from these words, however, nothing was said by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

Don’t you understand English?

If the hon. member for Zululand would tell us at a later stage in the debate what the “new deal” is, I should very gladly listen to him.

Don’t you understand English?

No, I cannot understand something if it is not stated. If the hon. member wants to state it, I shall be very pleased. In the course of his half-hour speech the hon. the Leader of the Opposition read out to us a lot of words and referred, inter alia, to the “negative aspect” of our policy. I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in all seriousness, and I am prepared to debate this matter with him for days, to tell us what the Coloured population of South Africa has which is of real significance and which has not been given to them by the National Party Government. Then my hon. friend refers to the “negative aspect”. I want to put the question to him in a different way. If they were in power in South Africa, what would the Coloured population of South Africa have had today? Furthermore, I want to ask the hon. members what they did in respect of the Coloured population during the years when they were in power. What did they give them? What were they prepared to give them, apart from making a football of them every five years when elections were held? What thing of lasting value did the hon. members opposite ever do for the Coloured population of South Africa? If there is one thing we must not do, and this is something the hon. members on the other side of the House have been doing all these years, it is to blow hot and cold when it comes to the Coloured population of South Africa. They must not hold things in prospect when it suits them and make insinuations and promises which they do not intend carrying out, and which they know only too well they will not be able to carry out.

They are doing what Suzman does.

I shall come to that. When it suits them, they say that the dividing walls between the Coloureds and the Whites must be broken down. Then they wax lyrical about it, as is done by the hon. member for Wynberg and others on that side of the House. Then they make statements of this nature. But when one asks them, or when it is election time, they propagate quite a different story. Hon. members need merely think of their own changes in policy and the role they played in regard to the Coloureds and the voter’s list to appreciate to what extent they have been blowing hot and cold in this regard.

I want to phrase the question like this. We have a large number of thinking and educated Coloured people in South Africa today. Can hon. members on the other side of the House name me one single Coloured or Bantu leader who supports the policy of that side of the House?

That is an old, old story.

It is old; that is true. I shall give him a reply to that question. I do not know of any Coloured or Bantu leader of significance who supports the policy of those hon. gentlemen opposite. But I know that the policy of separate development is supported by the leaders of the majority of the Coloured people.

[Inaudible.]

I shall come to that in a moment. I know that the policy of separate development is supported by the leaders of the Bantu peoples.

The Coloured people are, as has been said, a nation in the making. I once again want to state my standpoint very clearly here today, namely that they are people in their own right. I want to reject the standpoint of the Opposition in this House once again, namely that the Coloured people are an appendage to the Whites.

Gen. Hertzog said that.

It is immaterial to me who said it; I say I want to reject it, for they are not an appendage to anybody. They are people in their own right. They have the right to be treated as such. This side of the House wants to treat them as such. What are hon. members opposite offering the Coloured people? They are offering them six representatives in this House, representatives who can be elected on a separate voter’s list and may be either Whites or Coloured persons. Politically that is the grand total of what they are offering the Coloured people. It was this side of the House which, for the first time, granted political rights to all Coloured people in South Africa in all the provinces, something which they never had before, in the form of the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council.

What are they worth?

They are worth more than is the hon. member who has made the interjection, for he is worth nothing whatsoever. They are worth much more than that hon. member is. In fact, that is what the voters of Queenstown told him when they chased him right into East London. Here, for the first time, the Coloured people were given a representative council. For the first time they were given a budget on which they could decide. For the first time executive powers were conferred on them in respect of such matters as have been delegated to them. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, who makes such a fuss here, will remember very well that two years ago, if my memory serves me correctly, I said in this House that the leaders of the Coloured population had requested that local authorities be transferred to them. At that time I stated very clearly the attitude adopted by this side of the House. It stands recorded in Hansard that when I had asked the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to state his attitude on the matter, he said that he first wanted to study the documents, and that he would then give his reply. To this day he has not yet given a reply. To this day he has not yet taken a stand on this matter. I am still waiting for him to give us his standpoint after studying the matter for so long. In respect of Bantu affairs he was at least able to find a standpoint between one and two o’clock, but in respect of this matter we are still waiting for the hon. the Leader to give us a reply. Today I again want to ask him what his standpoint is. A meeting was held in the City Hall of Cape Town, and I know that some of his members were present there. However, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has not yet taken up a standpoint in this regard. Our standpoint was very clear. We said that it was a reasonable request on the part of the Coloured leaders, i.e. that local authorities be transferred to them to an increasing extent. That is our policy and we shall do it. We shall do so not only because it is right, but also because we know that those local authorities can be entrusted to the Coloured leaders as they have the necessary responsibility to carry out that task. As far as provincial councils are concerned, hon. members know that attention is being paid to this matter. However, I want to know where the United Party stands in this regard.

When will they take over municipal government?

I am arguing with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, who probably has a better understanding of this matter than the hon. member for Transkei has. It will be transferred to them when the necessary ordinance is passed.

Next year?

I have told the hon. member that the ordinance will be passed and that it will be transferred after that.

When?

When the ordinance has been passed this year. We have this important matter to deal with, but the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has not yet taken up a standpoint in this regard.

Don’t you ever read?

I read, but I have never read that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition took up a standpoint in this regard. If he did say it, he did so softly in the hope that nobody would hear it and, in any case, that I should not hear it. I gave the hon. members the undertaking that if and when the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council had been elected, I would consult with the leaders in order to establish liaison between Parliament and them. I honoured that undertaking. Immediately after the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council had been constituted, I had talks with their Executive Committee. But I did not only have talks with the Executive Committee; I also considered it my duty to have talks with the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Arendse, on this matter and other general matters concerning the Coloured people. Since the establishment of the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council I have had talks with the Executive Committee and the leaders of the Coloured community on three occasions. My hon. friend the Minister has had many more talks with them. We invited the leaders of the Coloured community—not only one political party, but all of them—to establish a committee which could deliberate with us on this matter of liaison. All the leaders of the various political parties were agreeable to this, with the exception of the leaders of the Labour Party. They did not want to take part in such talks. The others did meet. I told them they had to consult with one another prior to those talks in order that they could then approach me with proposals in that regard. I want to repeat here what I said on a previous occasion. Our dilemma in South Africa is that, on the one hand, one is dealing here with the Whites and, on the other hand, with the Coloured population, the Coloured nation, and that those two have to live together in one geographic area. One’s dilemma in this regard is that, on the one hand, one has this Parliament and, on the other hand, the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council. The situation with which one is faced, is that the two have to develop on lines running parallel to each other. That is not always easy. But irrespective of whether or not it is easy, one has to face up to the situation. We, on our part, have not only stated our standpoint in theory, but also implemented it in practice. We have implemented our standpoint from top to bottom. Educationally, socially and in all the various spheres we have implemented and followed through our standpoint in practice. But a fundamental problem which we must face is that, on the one side, we have the Whites and their Parliament, which has control over matters relating exclusively to the Whites, and, on the other hand, the Parliament of the Coloured people, which has control over matters relating exclusively to the Coloured people. Under no circumstances am I trying to run away from that. Furthermore, there are the broader issues which affect both of them and on which deliberations take place and laws are made in this Parliament. That is the position. I cannot escape from it even if I wanted to do so, and that is where the question arises. This is not only a question which I have asked myself, but we are seeking liaison in that regard. It is a question on which we have asked the Coloured leaders to deliberate, for it is, after all, a matter which affects them very intimately. They met and considered various alternatives. They did this on their own, without my presence or that of the Minister. They thrashed out the matter for themselves. The result was that when, a month or two ago, the Minister, the Deputy Minister and I met the members of the Executive Committee and the leaders of the other political parties, excluding the Labour Party, they had already decided unanimously on a standpoint. They had rejected the alternative possibilities of committees, select committees and even representation in the Senate, and had arrived at the unanimous decision that the link between this Parliament and the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council was to be the Executive Committee. On that occasion I put a question to those members of the deputation who were not members of the Federal Party. I asked them, “As non-members of the Federal Party, what is your standpoint in respect of this matter? Are you in agreement with it?” Their standpoint, just as that of the others, was that they were all in agreement with it, because they adopted the attitude that nothing was to be done to disparage the status of the Executive Committee. In the second instance, those leaders who were not members of the Federal Party said that they were sufficiently confident that the Executive Committee would present the case of the Coloured people in general and would look after their interests in general, although they themselves were not members of that party.

What about the Labour Party, seeing they were not there?

I beg your pardon?

The Labour Party was excluded and …

No, they were invited, but somebody influenced them against taking part in it … [Interjections] … and I believe the hon. member for Houghton knows much more about it than I do.

I wish I were as influential as you think I am.

Their standpoint was that the Executive Committee was to be the link. I then proceeded to ask them in what way they thought liaison should be effected, and their unanimous finding was that in the beginning of the year, after the opening of Parliament, the Executive Committee and such other leaders as may be co-opted by them were to have a formal meeting with the Prime Minister in order that general matters might be discussed with him. Later on there could, if necessary, be more meetings. I agreed to that. They went on to say that, as additional liaison, they envisaged a meeting every two months with the Minister of Coloured Affairs and his Deputy, with an agenda, in order that matters of general interest may be discussed with them. They requested that if and when it might be necessary, another Minister whom they would request to attend, should be present at that meeting. That request was acceded to as well. The hon. the Minister has already had such a meeting in terms of that agreement, and further meetings are to be held, and then the Minister of Community Development will also be present since his presence has been requested in order that Coloured housing matters may be discussed with him.

That is the Coloureds’ own standpoint in respect of the liaison they want to have. Not for one single moment do I want to say—in fact, I do not think the members of the Coloured community can say this conclusively at the moment—that this will be the liaison for all time, because times and circumstances change. But I told hon. members that if and when there was a representative Coloured opinion, I would settle this matter with them. The recommendation that was made by them, was accepted by me just as it was. I believe it will work very satisfactorily in practice. I believe it will work in practice for many years, but as is the case with any agreement, if any of the parties to it feel that the time has arrived for it to be reviewed, they will be free to review it, and then it will be done. I do not have the slightest doubt that over the years it will be reviewed from time to time, until one will have found the ideal formula and a fixed formula. That is what I meant when I said that I could not at the moment say what the end of the road would be. Of course, at that time hon. members seized upon it, and I see the members of the Labour Party, Mr. Curry and others, are also taking up the standpoint from time to time that I had allegedly said that I did not have a solution to the Coloured problem, that our children had to solve it. But surely this is not what I said. I am pleased the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not say it here today, but this has been said on occasion by some of his members. I said that in respect of this liaison which exists, in respect of this reciprocity which, must exist, I did not see the end of the road, and that nobody could see it. I said the final stamp would be placed on it by our children. That is the way it was recorded in Hansard, and you can read it for yourselves. But I made it very clear that I was laying the foundations on which we were to build in future, and hon. members will remember very well that when we debated the matter in this House, their standpoint was that the Coloured people and the Whites had to be interwoven. That was their standpoint. My standpoint was that we were not to be interwoven, but that we were to develop away from each other. My standpoint was that each had to develop along his own course, parallel to each other. That was our standpoint. Our standpoint was not “closer to each other”, as hon. members said at that time, but “each standing on his own legs in his own right”. As I have said, the liaison machinery existing for the moment, is not my creation. It has developed as a result of the suggestions and the standpoint of the Coloured people themselves and, as I have said, it will have to be reviewed from time to time, as time passes on. For the moment this solves that problem for me. It solves for me not only that problem, but also the fundamental question posed in connection with it, i.e. the co-operation in respect of the broader terrain over which the Coloured people have no authority, i.e. their own views on this co-operation and on how it is to be implemented in practice. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout wants to put a question to me.

I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether the alternatives submitted to the Coloured Council came from the Government.

No, I did not submit any alternatives to them. The alternatives which were discussed, were alternatives they themselves discussed. In public, of course, several alternatives were suggested by both this side and that side of this House and by other people who are not involved in politics. There were alternatives of select committees, standing committees, etc.

Were no formal proposals put forward by the Government?

No, I did not put forward to those members any proposal whatever. Nor did my hon. colleague the Minister of Coloured Affairs put forward any formal proposal to them. The proposal, as it reached us, is one on which they themselves deliberated and which they submitted to us as the result of their deliberations. I believe that Coloured interests will be served best along those lines.

Now I want to make a few general comments on a matter which affects White-Coloured relations, Coloured-White relations, White-Bantu relations, i.e. all the people in South Africa, irrespective of their race or colour, the matter to which the hon. member for Transkei referred when he used the word “discourtesy”. I am not saying this in a reproachful sense. There is no reason for the hon. member for Transkei to raise his eyebrows. I want to agree wholeheartedly with him. One sees in certain letters in newspapers that blatant examples of rudeness on the part of one person to another are called apartheid. I now want to put a stop to this once and for all. No White person has the right to be rude to any other White person or to any other person. No Coloured person has the right to be rude to any Coloured person, any White person or any other person. I am not quarrelling with the hon. the Opposition about it, but I honestly think that the attitude should emanate from this Parliament that all people are entitled to respect, that all people are entitled to their human dignity being taken into consideration and that rudeness to one another should be squashed. Rudeness does not come from one side only. In reading certain English newspapers, one would fully believe that the Whites are the only people acting in this manner. But it comes from all sides. The sooner a campaign is launched against rudeness on the part of anybody to any other person whatsoever, the better it will be for our society here in South Africa.

Now, if I honestly and frankly tell not only the Coloured people, but also the Bantu that I believe in apartheid, that I believe that I should have my facilities and that you are entitled to yours, that I believe that I should have my residential area and you should have yours, that I believe that I should have my recreation facilities and that you should have yours, it is so easily construed that I am insulting them by saying these things. It is so easily construed as an insult when I adopt the attitude that I want my own and at the same time grant them their own. In my time I have had many talks with Black leaders. Similarly, I have in my time had many talks with Coloured leaders. But I now want to make it very clear that on all those occasions I never hesitated to state my policy and my standpoint. I have never seen one of them who felt insulted because I took up such a standpoint. I have never come across one of them who told me that I had insulted him by taking up such a standpoint. I have always adopted the attitude that we are different from them. The hon. member for Simonstown, who has just mumbled a comment on this matter, is one of the “veldskoen brigade”, as Die Burger calls them, who spreads stories about the National Party at by-elections, stories to the effect that the National Parts is enamoured of the Coloured people, and then comes to the House of Assembly with pious stories.

When did I make any comment?

Now, while I was speaking.

I did not say anything.

I am, after all, sitting right opposite the hon. member. [Interjections.]

Order!

As far as this matter of relations is concerned, it is the National Party which has stated its standpoint very clearly so that every Coloured person living in South Africa today as well as every Coloured leader may know precisely where he stands with the National Party. The uncertainty which prevailed amongst hon. members opposite on the question of whether or not the Coloured people were to be absorbed into the ranks of the Whites, that day-to-day standpoint taken up by hon. members opposite in respect of the Coloured people, is something of the past now. Today the Coloured people know what is in store for them. They know precisely what course they must follow. They know precisely what course the Whites are following. They know that the Government is in earnest about providing them with the necessary facilities. They have a backlog as regards the amenities that are to be provided by the Government, and they have a backlog as regards amenities owed to them by the local authorities. However, they also know that those matters are being attended to. They know that economically and in other spheres there is a historical difference between them and the Whites, but they also know that it is our policy to eliminate that difference gradually, depending on the circumstances and the amount of money available. One thing I want to make very clear. The leaders of the majority of the Coloured people who accept and support separate development, are not “stooges” of this Government; they are leaders of their people in their own right. They accept that policy not because they think they can gain something for themselves by doing so, but because they know that by doing so they can achieve the maximum for their people and that they can do best for their people by adopting that attitude. They know that they have permanently left behind them the time when they brought up the rear, when they were only consulted under certain circumstances and When only some of them were allowed to enter through a certain door.

Now nobody can enter through that door.

It has now been changed so that everybody can enter through the same door. It is that old, imperialist concept which existed in the minds of the hon. member’s forebears in respect of my own people, namely that only certain people were good enough and not so the others. After all, we know that.

Let me now tell the hon. member for Transkei myself that there was, after all, a time in our history when only the Cloetes and the Van der Byls were good enough, but when the Van Rensburgs and the Venters were not good enough. After all we know that. [Interjection.] Now it seems to me as though only the Bronkhorsts are good enough. After all, we know, and the hon. member for North Rand himself knows, that there was such a time in our history in the distant past. They have not learnt anything from history. Incredible as it may seem, they are still playing the same game with the Coloured people today. Since we are arguing about Coloured affairs today, there is one argument which I want to reject with all the emphasis at my command. It is the so-called argument which one often hears from so-called intelligentsia in this country. Their argument is that as far as the Coloured people are concerned, the cream is to be skimmed off the top and taken for oneself.

Who says that?

No, I am not accusing the hon. member of that, but I say that there are intellectuals in this country who are saying that. There may even be people on the other side who support such an argument. I say I want to reject that argument with all the emphasis at my command. It reminds me that in the past the same standpoint was adopted in respect of my own people. Our policy should be aimed at doing everything in our power to uplift the Coloured people socio-economically and at ensuring them a better existence worthy of a human being. On the one hand this requires action on the part of the Government, and this Government has never lagged behind in taking such action. On the other hand it requires action to be taken by the Coloured leaders and the Coloured people themselves. One cannot uplift a person if he does not want to be uplifted, or if he does not want to lend his co-operation. One cannot uplift him if he does not have leaders helping him to improve his position. I am very grateful for the knowledge that as a very result of the policy of this Government, there have emerged today Coloured leaders who have the real interests of the Coloured people at heart, who realize that this has to be done and who are also doing it in practice. I am very grateful for the knowledge that there are competent Coloured leaders who can carry out this task for their people. But we must not make their task any more difficult for them than it already is. We must not make their task any more difficult for them by driving in a wedge between them and their people. We must make it possible for them to do that unliftment work for their people with the means placed at their disposal. That this must be done for the benefit of not only the Coloured population, but also the whole of South Africa, is certain and clear. But if we bring about discord in the minds of people, if we hold up to a population group promises which we know we cannot carry out in practice and, what is more, do not intend carrying out, then, surely, we are not acting justly towards that population group; then we are committing a crime against it.

In conclusion I want to make it clear that we on this side know what our duty towards the Coloured people is. We know the backlog, the circumstances under which they are living. The will is not lacking on our part; on the contrary, we can say with great pride that what has been established for them here, from their schools to their university, has been established by us, under this policy of separate development. Under that policy we shall continue to do our share for the Coloured people. As far as this matter is concerned, there is no need for anybody, either inside or outside this House, to read us a sermon on how we are to act towards the Coloured people.

Mr. Chairman, this has been a most interesting statement from the hon. the Prime Minister. Apart from the issue of the liaison between Parliament and the Coloured Representatives’ Council, it is quite clear that no progress has been made at all. That is quite clear, because the hon. the Prime Minister in his statement has completely failed to recognize the conflict in philosophies which exists among the members of his own Cabinet on the issue of the Coloured’s future. There is nothing whatever as to what their future will be. Quite clearly, he is not able at this stage to reconcile those philosophies.

Now we are faced with a position where there is liaison between the Coloured Representative Council and Parliament through the Executive of that Council. But that Executive is elected by a majority which owes its existence to those members nominated by this Government. What has happened, is that the Government has nominated its people to the Council, its people have chosen the Executive, and this is now the liaison between the Executive and Parliament. May I say at once that I do not regard any liaison with a Minister or a Prime Minister as being liaison with Parliament. That is liaison with the Executive, not with Parliament. The only proper liaison with Parliament there can be is (when there is liaison between members of the governing party, members of the Opposition in this House and members of the majority and minority parties in that Council. Are we ever going to hear through this hon. Minister of Coloured Affairs what the views of the minority party, the Opposition in the Coloured Representative Council, are? Are their views going to be put here and fought for as they should be if there was proper liaison, if they carried the support of a large proportion of their members? This is making a farce of the whole thing. What have we had from the hon. the Prime Minister in respect of the future of the Coloured people? He tells us that he is giving this council powers, that they are getting a Budget and they are going to get more and more powers. The one thing that was recommended by the Select Committee was that they should have the power of taxation. That has been turned down by the Government. The hon. the Prime Minister cheerfully turns round and asks “What would their position be if you had been in power?”

You may well ask.

I will tell you what their position would have been. They would have had a communal council which was wholly elected and not partly nominated. They would have a communal council which had powers of taxation. They would have had a communal council which had meaningful powers and they would have known that there were six representatives in this House of the Cape Coloured people, who could be White or could be Coloured, and who would put the views of minority and majority in that council. They would have known something more, namely that they had representation in the Other Place as well. The hon. the Prime Minister asked “What Coloured leaders support you?” Where was this Nationalist Party in the elections that were held for this House and the provincial council before they deprived them of the franchise? I will tell you. They forfeited their deposits in almost every constituency. Then the hon. the Prime Minister turns around and says “Who supports your policy?”. He nominates the leaders today. The Chairman is a man who lost his own election but was then nominated by the Government. He is now the mouthpiece for the Coloured people. What is their position today? The hon. the Prime Minister says that they have given them political rights all over South Africa. What are those political rights worth compared with the political rights we want to give them?

Yes, what are they worth?

The popular vote is overshadowed by the nominated members. Control is taken by an executive consisting largely of nominated members and which has liaison with the Cabinet and the hon. the Prime Minister. What opportunity do these people have to put their points of view and to express views contrary to those of the Government? The hon. the Prime Minister then made a “bohaai”, a lot of talk about what my attitude is to the deprivation of the Coloured people of the existing municipal franchise which they have in the Cape Province. Surely he knows that that was one of the big issues of the provincial election last year? Surely he saw statement after statement issued by the party in that regard?

When did you make a statement about that?

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF: I issued it on behalf of the party …

When?

Heaven knows how many times I answered it on platforms and made it available to newspapers. The leader of the party in the provincial council was also authorized to make a statement, as well as the hon. member who fought in Maitland. I will certainly repeat it with great pleasure now. I will repeat it in my way, which is this: I want to remind this House that the Nationalist Party Congress of 1959 in the Cape was not prepared to accept the parliamentary role for municipal franchise purposes. They considered it would be doing an injustice to the Cape Coloured people, and the gentleman who became Administrator of the Cape before the present one, was one of those most deeply opposed to it. And then, Sir, what happened in 1963? In 1963 a Cape Provincial Ordinance was passed and it was provided under that Ordinance that Coloureds entitled to register as municipal voters in other local authority areas would not be entitled, as and when they became registered voters in the Coloured local authorities, to retain their right to vote in the municipal areas when those new local authorities created under the Ordinance became management committees and not just consultative committees; in other words, when there was a meaningful alternative. But what does the hon. the Prime Minister propose now, Sir? How many of these management committees are there? I do not believe that there are more than six in the whole of the Cape Province.

In the whole of South Africa.

There is one in Bellville South. There is not one within the municipal area of the Cape Town Municipality.

How many are there in Natal?

There are six in the whole Republic.

No, in Natal.

That is quite a different thing and the hon. the Minister of the Interior knows it. These are not created under the Municipal Ordinance here.

Which party is in power in the City of Cape Town?

What has that got to do with it? Sir, I want to challenge that hon. Minister who lives in Cape Town or who did live in Cape Town to say when there was a municipal election on party lines in Cape Town.

United Party people are in control in Cape Town and they are the ones who do not want to assist in implementing this.

Sir, I will tell you what the trouble is. There is not one management committee in the municipality of Cape Town. What about the other municipalities where the Nationalists are in power; how many have they got? Sir, this is controlled by the provincial councils, not by the municipalities. The attitude of this party is perfectly simple; we say that we are perfectly prepared to see the Coloureds removed from the existing municipal franchise when they have a meaningful alternative in their own areas —preferably municipalities of their own.

They will get those.

When? In the meantime the Government takes their rights away, and another injustice is done to them but the Prime Minister sits back and say, “Look what I am doing for the Coloureds.” Sir, he knows very well what the policy of this party is in that regard. This is one of the more disgraceful things done to the Coloured people. It is another one of the long line of instances of deprivation by this Government of the rights that the Cape Coloured people had in the past, and this, Sir, is the trouble. You now have the existing body with no really meaningful powers yet; you have a nominated group inside it which helps to form the majority; you have liaison through a Minister, a Deputy Minister and the Prime Minister at certain times, but what do we know about the feelings of the Opposition or the vast mass of the Coloured people who elected 26 of the elected members of that Coloured Council? Sir, the hurts of the Coloured people continue; that is the point. The way in which job reservation is applied to them, the way in which they are discriminated against in wages when they are doing the same work and taking the same responsibility—those are the things that worry them. There is the general lack of facilities which the Prime Minister recognizes. He came a long way today towards admitting that the heaviest yoke of the Group Areas Act has fallen on the Cape Coloured people here in the Cape. One of the big reasons for the shortage of housing among the Coloured people today is the fact that housing has had to be provided for those whom they have moved out of White areas and who already had houses at the time. l[Time expired.]

If there is one thing to which I want to take exception with everything in my power, it is the accusation with which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has now concluded, i.e. that “the heaviest yoke” has now fallen on the Coloured people in respect of housing.

As a result of the application of the Group Areas Act.

Sir, I ask the hon. member, who grew up in this part of the world, who was born here in Milnerton, what the housing conditions of the Coloured people were in their time. What did the Windermeres look like at that time; what did the other slum conditions look like? What did the Akkers at Goodwood look like; how many Coloured people for whom they had made no provision at all, were lying under the bushes?

How many are lying under the bushes now?

Just look at what we are doing to solve the problem.

Has the hon. the Leader of the Opposition ever asked himself just once how many houses have been erected, how many decent residential areas have been established, how many millions have been spent in this connection, and what facilities have been provided for the Coloured people by this Government? It does not become the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to make this accusation. But let the Leader of the Opposition go and ask the Coloured people themselves what they now have as opposed to what they had in his time.

Not the members you yourself have appointed.

No, he can go and ask anyone. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition now comes forward with the following absurd standpoint: Yes, they want to deliberate with him on their housing problems. It is their right to do so, just as the Whites may deliberate with him on that. Then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition comes forward and says: “What about the standpoint of the Opposition in the Coloured Council?” Sir, surely he knows what the facts are. Why does he level this accusation at me while he knows what the facts are? Surely he knows that I invited the Opposition in that Council to come forward and put their standpoint, and that they refused to do so.

And you also know that when evidence was given before the commission, they wanted representation in this House.

A section of those Coloured people asked for that, but who are in the majority?

The majority asked for that.

The facts are simple: When this Coloured Persons’ Representative Council was elected, the majority of Coloured people voted for the policy of separate development.

No.

But the figures are there; surely the hon. the Leader of the Opposition can add them up himself. Surely it is absurd for him to come forward here and ask me, “What about the views of the Opposition?”, when I invited them to come forward and put their standpoint and they have refused to do so? They refuse to give their co-operation and I am not going to beg them to do so. I shall be glad if they give their co-operation. They will be very welcome if they want to give their co-operation, but I am not going to beg them to co-operate in their own interests if they refuse to do so; then they must go their own way.

Sir, the constitution of that Council was passed by this Parliament and that Executive Committee was chosen in terms of that Constitution. I honestly do not think it becomes the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to refer to the Chairman, Mr. Tom Swartz, in such a cutting way as he did here. I do not think he achieves anything by that. He is not doing the Coloured people a favour by doing so. I honestly do not think so. Whether he has been elected or appointed, the fact remains.

He was nominated.

Whether he has been elected or nominated, the fact remains that he is the leader, elected by the majority in that Council. Sir, what do we achieve by that? Let me ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: What do we achieve by belittling him in the eyes of the Coloured people? What interest can the hon. the Leader of the Opposition or I have in making his position more difficult for him?

It is the principle.

We may debate the principle of whether people are to be appointed or elected, but when a man holds that important public position, I want to tell the Leader of the Opposition that it becomes no-one to disparage that man personally. [Interjections.]

Order! I shall give the hon. member for Transkei an opportunity of addressing the Committee presently.

Sir, I want to make it very clear that my experience of Mr. Tom Swartz is that he is equipped for the task he has to carry out. I also want to make it very clear once again that he is not a “stooge” of mine or of anyone else, but that he is a person who thinks for himself, that he has and will have the courage of his convictions to tell me when he differs with me, that he will submit the needs of his people to this Government irrespective of personalities, and that we shall deliberate on them. As I said the other day, I now want to repeat that there will be times when I shall not agree with the Executive Committee, or when they will not agree with me, and that we may differ with each other in private or in public, but that is not important. What is important, is that they and we are co-operating for the good of the Coloured people, and that they and we are deliberating together in order to achieve the best for the Coloured people here in South Africa.

Then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition tried to make political capital out of so-called different standpoints among National Party leaders. I have stated my standpoint in respect of these matters very often. The Government, the National Party, Minister M. C. Botha, Minister P. W. Botha, Minister Connie Mulder, Minister Jan Loots and all of us have one standpoint, and that is the standpoint put forward by the hon. the Minister in respect of this matter on 4th December, 1970. That is the official standpoint of the National Party.

Mr. Chairman, if I get the opportunity to do so, I should like to come back later to the question of relations between the Coloured people and the Whites, because it is very clear to me that the Prime Minister makes the mistake of confusing two aspects of this matter. In the first place, there is the relationship between person and person, which we have always said can be free. Nobody should be forced to do anything together with another person which he does not want to do. However, when it comes to the question of petty apartheid, the State is implicated, because then it is the State which is discriminating against a section of its own citizens. There are two completely separate problems, but as I have said, I shall come to that.

In the first place, I want to refer to the question of liaison. Let me say at once that if a mountain has ever brought forth a mouse, we have seen it here this afternoon. I am saying this with all due respect to the Prime Minister, but it was one of the most disappointing statements I have ever heard. After we had been hearing for two to three years of a liaison which was to be instituted between the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council and Parliament, absolutely nothing happened this afternoon. The Coloured Persons’ Representative Council has always had the right of coming to see the Prime Minister. He has sat in conference with them already. They have always had the right of consulting with the Minister of Coloured Affairs. All the Prime Minister said was that they were now again going to get the right to come and see them. What he gave them this afternoon, is not liaison between the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council and Parliament; it is contact between the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council and the Government, something which already exists.

May I put a question to you? While this is their standpoint and their view, do you want me to force another view on them?

No. If the hon. the Prime Minister is so keen to follow their view, I shall tell him now what he should do. He should accept the decisions of the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council. Look, Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister will be fair enough to admit that when this matter was discussed here when the Coloured representatives were removed from the House of Assembly, the hon. the Prime Minister said that as compensation for the removal of their representatives in Parliament, there would subsequently be liaison between the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council and Parliament. And this was our impression.

I said I would deliberate on the matter with them, and now they have decided.

Yes, but now you must bear in mind that they have lost an important right. I do not want to go into detail on this now, but the council they are getting is one which from the nature of the circumstances has never had and never can have any real or fundamental powers. Now the position is this. The Coloured Persons’ Representative Council has stated very clearly what kind of liaison it wants with Parliament. The Coloured Persons’ Representative Council decided unanimously—and this includes Mr. Tom Swartz—that the only sound liaison with Parliament is representation in this Parliament. This is what it has said, and we should now view the Prime Minister’s offer against that background. They have made their first choice. Now, I know it is not the policy of that side; it is our policy that this would be the only proper liaison. I listened to the hon. member for Malmesbury today. He spoke about a round table. Why is the Prime Minister or the Minister of Coloured Affairs going to sit around a round table with the Coloured people? What is this Parliament but a round table? What is the difference? If he may sit there, why may they not come and sit here? Let us hear the reply to that. What is the real objection? We have not yet heard one good objection why the Coloured population cannot get direct representation here at the round table of this Parliament. This was rejected, and what have we received in its place? Ordinary contact between the Executive Committee and the Government, something which already exists. We cannot object to there being contact between the Government and the Executive Committee, but if it were to mean anything, I think the Government should have given them certain guidance. If the Prime Minister were to get up today and tell the Coloured Council, or only the committee, the people who had met him: “Look, people, over and above the liaison you have by means of the contact with the Government, I am prepared to give you liaison by means of a Select Committee of Parliament”, I am convinced they would not reject it.

But they have rejected it. I have just told you.

No, and we do not have the correspondence, of course, but I am certain that what was rejected was liaison by the Coloured Council as a council. If I were sitting in the Coloured Council, leaving aside its composition now, I would be able to appreciate that there could not be liaison between the Coloured Council as a council and Parliament over the heads of the Executive Committee. I can understand that, but my point is this. The crux of what they said to the Prime Minister—and this is very clear to me from what he said here —is that the Executive Committee should be the mouthpiece of the liaison. One can understand this; it is not unreasonable, because it would be an impossible position if persons not sitting on the Executive Committee were to come and liaise with Parliament. But I am convinced that if he were to make the offer that that executive committee should liaise with a Select Committee of this Parliament, they would accept it. I would be astounded if they rejected it; and if they rejected it, I am convinced they would not at all be reflecting the view of the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council. Therefore, I must say that we are extremely disappointed with what has been offered here this afternoon and with the way in which the hon. the Prime Minister now says that this is what the Coloured people want. I want to repeat that this is not what they want. It is only what they are prepared to accept in their tragic circumstances. What the Federal Party and all the other parties want, is liaison …

Are you insinuating that I have not given the correct version to Parliament?

No, you have given your opinion, I am not disputing your version, but it was an opinion and I am entitled to my opinion.

I gave the facts.

My opinion is based on the other facts, i.e. that they formally decided that the liaison they want is representation in Parliament, and I do not think there can be any dispute about that.

However, I just want to raise a few other points with the hon. the Prime Minister now. These are in connection with the arguments he put forward this afternoon. He again put forward the same story, i.e. what has been given to the Coloured people which has not been given by the National Party? Sir, I want to put it in this way to the hon. the Prime Minister. If he were to hold a referendum today among all the Coloured people and ask all of them in South Africa whether they wanted to revert to the old dispensation with the power of growth they believed it had and which it did have, as opposed to the apartheid dispensation of today, the mass, the large majority, would reject apartheid. I want to state very clearly today that there is not one single Coloured leader who accepts apartheid in principle —not one. When the Government says every time that they support parallel development or separate development, they support it because it is the best they can do under the circumstances. In other words, they are prepared to accept it a-s long as this Government is in power, but this is not support. I dispute it, and Mr. Tom Swartz himself has said so in speeches. There is no Coloured leader who accepts the principle of apartheid. They are prepared—and this applies to the Bantu as well—to co-operate with the Government within the existing framework, Which they cannot change. I think this is probably the most sensible thing they can do under the circumstances. But if they were to vote to choose between the old dispensation and the present one, they would reject the present one.

The hon. the Minister said here that they did not regard the Coloured people as an appendage. Who regards them as an appendage? We certainly do not.

You have said it so often.

No, let me say that the term “appendage” was used in the old days, but we do not regard the Coloured people as an appendage. Does the hon. the Prime Minister regard the English-speaking people as an appendage of the Afrikaners? Certainly not, but the English-speaking and the Afrikaans-speaking people are prepared to co-operate. When we say we want to cooperate, we are not rejecting the identity of the Coloured people. We are not regarding them as an appendage. We maintain that, because we have been thrown together in a political unit which cannot be changed, there should be co-operation between the White and the Coloured people.

On what basis?

On the basis that we should sit together here and co-operate. Where laws are made which apply to a man, he should have the right to be consulted. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition gave quite a bit of attention to the liaison of the Coloured Persons Representative Council with Parliament or the Government. They implied that this afternoon they were actually surprised at what was announced by the Prime Minister. I should like to point out that we must take note that here we have, in the first place, the selection of the Executive Committee of the Coloured Persons Representative Council itself. I want to emphasize that it is clear that the members of the Coloured Council’s Executive Committee insisted that they do not again want an intermediary between themselves and the Government, but that as representatives of the Coloured Council and of the Coloured population, they themselves prefer to consult with the responsible Minister and with the Government, to present their own problems and to state their viewpoint directly on behalf of their own people. I think it is a sensible choice. I am convinced that by these means the Coloured Persons Representative Council can continuously, as it has been stated here, and periodically conduct direct discussions with the Government.

It amazes me that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition can think that instead of this direct liaison, these people will be satisfied with a Select Committee, which will supposedly have more power or give them a better opportunity to state their case. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition- pointed out that members of the Coloured Persons Representative Council do not have an opportunity of stating a viewpoint as representatives of the standpoint of a minority group. But liaision with Parliament or with the Government is very definitely not an opportunity for them to state minority viewpoints. That is what the Coloured Persons Representative Council is there for. It is not a body that convenes in secret, it is a body that does so in public and whose proceedings are reported. It enjoys wide publicity in our public Press. In other words, there is sufficient opportunity for members of the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council, who would like to state minority viewpoints and who would not be represented by members of the Executive Committee, to state those viewpoints. There is sufficient opportunity to make that standpoint known to their own people through the Press, as is the case. That is why it is an argument which, in my opinion-, does not hold good. We are convinced that this liaison, as announced by the hon. the Prime Minister and preferred by the Executive Committee itself, will be one that will show itself to be very profitable in the future because provision is being made, one may almost say, for a meeting-programme, a programme of direct discussions with the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs and with other Ministers dealing with other Departments. For example, the hon. the Minister of Community Development deals with a matter affecting the lives of these people. They can liaise with him directly. As was already apparent, when the members of the Executive Committee want to speak to the person with the highest executive political authority in the country, the Prime Minister, they can do so directly. Therefore time will again teach us that not only have the Coloured leaders made a sensible choice here, but practise will also indicate that a profitable channel has been opened here for the development and the promotion of the interests of the Coloured population.

I want to point out that in the past the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party tried to serve the interests of the Coloured population, so easily by saying that they also advocate apartheid; but their policy is based on the principle of voluntary apartheid. (If we look at what the Coloureds possessed in the past, where they stood and what social position they occupied, we see that in the platteland certain areas were reserved for them as areas which, through the agency of certain missionary societies, were reserved for the Coloured population in co-operation with the Government. We find that they had limited proprietary rights in cities and towns, but that the overall majority of the Coloured population in cities and towns were people who lived in rented houses, in back yards and in slums. The hon. the Prime Minister referred to that, and I do not want to go into it in detail. If we now take into account that the Coloured population has doubled during the past 30 years, if we bear in mind that in the Peninsula, for example, the Coloured population has trebled and probably increased four-fold in the past 30 years, and since we want to serve the Coloured population, I ask myself what would have happened to them and what would their social position have been if they had to realize themselves by means of voluntary apartheid? What would have happened to them if they had to find housing in terms of voluntary apartheid? Mr. Chairman, we cannot get away from the fact that not only would we have had an untenable housing situation in the Cape Peninsula, but that many thousands more Coloureds would have found themselves in corrugated iron shanties. If the United Party were in power Windermere and many other Windermeres would still be in existence today under voluntary apartheid. Where would the Coloured population have obtained the money to provide for their housing needs with the present economic set-up? Where would they get the money to obtain land, because on the open market the land is sold to the best buyer, to the man offering the best price? In this set-up the Coloured population simply could not realize themselves, maintain themselves or grow and develop. I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to give us an account of this matter. What would happen to the Coloured population’s housing needs under his policy of voluntary apartheid? There is one fact that protects the United Party and that is the fact that for 22 years they have not been in power. If they had been in power the Coloured population would today have been pointing a finger at them. If they were to have allowed these conditions to develop under their policy of voluntary apartheid, the Peninsula would have been one of the most appalling places in South Africa. That would have happened if the Coloureds had to buy places for themselves on their own initiative.

Who established Athlone?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is a land-owner, and I want to ask him whether he would have sold to those people on the open market at the prices they could pay?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has enough time in which to reply, and therefore I want to ask him another question. They want to give the Bantu proprietary rights in our cities. They want to grant the Bantu the right to bring his family to the place where he lives and works. With respect to the Coloured population I now want to ask the hon. member what protection he would then offer the Coloured population of the Western Cape? I could even reduce the distance and speak of the Peninsula. Do hon. members know what it would mean if this policy of his is carried through, the policy of voluntary apartheid, where people obtain proprietary rights on a voluntary basis, where Bantu obtain proprietary rights and where they will be able to bring their families to the cities? It would mean that about half a million Bantu must live within the smaller Western Cape area, in other words from Swellendam to the Olifants River. Was it not for the fact that my time is up I should have liked to ask another question. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat spoke of slums and of tremendously poor conditions that would develop if we were to be in charge of affairs. My hon. Leader has just asked him who created Athlone here in the Cape. That hon. member then remains silent and does not reply to the question. It becomes quite clear to me that this Nationalist Party Government, in its process of philosophical development, has philosophized itself into a corner. This Government’s philosophic development, from apartheid to White supremacy, further to separate or parallel development and eventually to multinational development and the newest multinationalism, has reached a breaking point. This great ideology and this great philosophy which the Government members present with so much vigour and feeling, and which they ostensibly want to apply to the Bantu, should, for just one moment, be applied to the Coloureds of South Africa. In so doing they would see the joke of it. When the Nationalist Party has to make practical politics of these philosophical terms in South Africa, I take it that this philosophy must be made applicable to all South Africa’s people. This means that it will have to be made applicable to the Whites, the Coloureds, the Indians and the Bantu. We know that every Nationalist Party Prime Minister has had, and still has, a slogan. Thus we know that the present Prime Minister spelled out “fulfil your calling” as his slogan. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, however, could not wait long enough, and he came along with a slogan “carry out your national task”. Therefore one can perhaps accept the fact that this hon. Minister finds himself in such deep water. Now the hon. the Prime Minister could possibly throw more light on the matter in connection with what the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development had to say in the House. We know him to be an outspoken person, and we have frequently heard him, here and outside, philosophizing high up in the clouds about the concept, the philosophy, of separate development. In this House he said, inter alia—

Now, Sir, arising from this fine philosophy one may just ask them—can the Coloureds of South Africa, in terms of the Government’s policy, rise to the top without coming up against a strong, thick ceiling that is held over them? Or does the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development adhere to his statement: “We do not want to share our independence with the Coloureds, in case that little hon. member does not know it yet.” In the course of that Session I presented this statement to the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs. His reply was—

In other words, the Coloureds do not have a separate homeland. That is also what the hon. the Prime Minister said this afternoon. South Africa is also the homeland of the Coloureds of South Africa, “one undivided South Africa, this great South Africa”, they tell the Coloureds “is also your country, with one love and loyalty towards South Africa”.

But if I begin talking like this, these words seem very familiar to me. At one stage last year the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs also waxed philosophical here about the concept of separate development. He said the following—

The question now is, is that the offer the Government is making to the Coloureds of South Africa? What does the hon. the Minister say are the privileges?—

Is that what the Government offers the Coloureds of South Africa? What does the Minister say goes hand in hand with that citizenship?—

Are those the privileges the Government presents to the Colourds of South Africa? Or is there a thick, strong ceiling over the Coloureds so that they cannot get to the top? Is that the approach? Is this Government’s policy a policy of security or an explosive policy, in terms of the question the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development asked us? Where is the morality of this policy? The Nationalist Party preaches one philosophy in respect of the Bantu and then they apply another philosophy in respect of the Coloureds in South Africa. But they call both philosophies multi-national development, or multi-nationalism. White supremacy, Sir, the beginning of the philosophy of the Nationalist Party policy, has remained behind, stuck to the Coloureds, while multinationalism is being applied to the Bantu of South Africa. The joint Cabinet decision. through the mouth of the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs, is surely a strange one. Both integration and separate homelands for the Coloureds are rejected. In other words, the golden mean is being followed. Not integration, nor segregation —in-between a way out has to be sought. How many times has the United Party not been told in this House that there are only two roads in South Africa—either integration or segregation. Now they reject both and parade the golden mean before us. Perhaps the hon. the Prime Minister could shed more light on this matter for us.

The entire philosophy of multi-national development, of multi-nationalism, crumbles to its very foundations when it is made applicable to the Coloureds of South Africa. There was frank recognition from the hon. the Minister of Information when he spoke of the position of the Coloured Persons Representative Council as an “outstanding, temporary stage”, i.e. that it could not offer permanent satisfaction without geographic content being given to it. The hon. the Minister accepts that it is not practical politics, and he said as much in this House. However, he said that a separate Coloured State remains his ideal. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development says that he does not want to share our independence with that of the Coloureds in South Africa. As far as the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs is concerned, South Africa obtained its independence and its freedom for the Whites and for the Coloureds. The hon. member for Moorreesburg, and I am sorry that he is not here now, adheres to his standpoint that there should be a fuller and more efficient partnership between the Brown people and the White people of South Africa. The hon. the Minister of Defence advocates a narrower and closer movement, and even speaks of the canton system. The Cabinet says: “Neither integration, nor segregation”. The closest the hon. the Prime Minister came to the matter was in 1966 when he also adopted the approach of the more right-wing groups by saying that he sees the future of the Coloureds as apart from that of the Whites. The words of a well-known Coloured leader sum the matter up for me very well: “No Nat clear thinking.” Obsessed with the concept of multi-national development and the extension of multi-nationalism, this entire philosophy of the Nationalist Party nevertheless remains the biggest of farces when one wants to apply it to the Coloureds of South Africa. Last year the hon. the Deputy Minister of Coloured Affairs also said something in this House which does not make sense to me in terms of Government policy. He said: “First things first. First the socio-economic aspect, then the political.” That was the viewpoint of the hon. the Deputy Minister. I now find it strange with respect to Coloureds of South Africa on the one hand and the Bantu on the other, that the Government has conflicting priorities. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not know who wrote out that speech for the hon. member, but it seems to me as if it was written out before the hon. the Prime Minister spoke this afternoon, and that the hon. member then did not have the sense to adapt his speech to the information which the hon. the Prime Minister gave repeatedly to the House. The hon. member for Turffontein is too young in years and too new to politics to know what the conditions were under which the Coloureds had to live when his party was in power. I want to accuse the United Party of a gross political swindle of the Coloured people in the years when they were governing. I want to add that this National Government and the National Party are not ashamed or afraid to also believe in an ideology as far as the Coloureds are concerned.

This afternoon it was very clear to me from the speeches of hon. members opposite that they saw an evil in the fact that the Afrikaner has the political power in South Africa. They begrudge the Afrikaner political authority in this country. They told us a lot about the six M.P.s who would sit in this House under their policy. They have been told many times that it would form a political bloc in this House. Now they deny this, but I want to remind them of the position in America. There are 12 Negro members in the House of Representatives. Recently these 12 formed a bloc in the American House of Representatives. At first President Nixon would not give them a hearing, but now he has given way. I just want to quote a few sentences in this connection from the Argus of 24th February, 1971—

That is what it is called—

One of those 12 said—

Sir, that takes place in a country like America where integration is forced on the people. I want to predict that if six Coloureds or Whites come to this House to represent the Coloureds, one would have a repetition—no, much worse—of what we had in the past when these people were used and abused. Sir, in this yellow booklet.

Who wrote that speech?

I myself. I do not use other people to write out my ideas for me. In this yellow booklet the United Party says with respect to its Colour policy—

Sir, can a party be so naïve as to say that these I million people, who have their own aspirations and who are being helped by this Government to realize their aspirations, are no problem to them? They state further—

Sir, those are fine words, but what do they mean? Do they mean assimilation by and through the Whites? Hon. members on that side must please reply to this question. Does it mean social and political integration? They must tell us what it means. The hon. member for Newton Park says that he advocates the preservation of Coloured identity; the hon. member for Transkei says that the non-Whites and the Whites are fellow-citizens of South Africa. Sir, fellow-citizens must surely enjoy full and equal rights in all spheres, and if the United Party brings the Coloured in here under their policy, they must surely give him full and equal rights in all spheres. But the hon. member for Hillbrow also says, in setting out his party’s policy—

Sir, again fine words, but this afternoon I have not heard a single word from that side of the House about the meaning of these things. Who is now right? If hon. members on that side tell me that they believe in the maintenance and development of the identity of the Coloureds, then surely they cannot integrate with him socially and politically. Sir, this is typical of the double-talk of the United Party about Which the Rand Daily Mail wrote that it is this cheap opportunism which, more than anything else, gives the United Party such a dilapidated appearance on broken-down idealism and intrigue. There I agree with the Rand Daily Mail, for once in my life. Sir, in the past the Coloured was a political punnet. I still remember the time when U.P. supporters drove the Coloureds in their cars, on election day, to the polls where they were given a cup of tea and embraced; I saw it, and subsequently the United Party forgot them for five years and never thought that these people also have aspirations and ideals and, what is more, also have needs. The Opposition blames this Government for the fact that there is a backlog in housing and other things.

In 1948 this Government not only had to break down a cracked house to its very foundations, but it also had to start building from scratch on this sturdy foundation of separate development. This Government had to clear up the Windermeres, the Kensingtons and the slums in which the people lived, even in the face of the fiercest opposition from city councils that were in United Party hands. Sir, as the hon. member said this morning, it cannot be denied that the United Party ruled in the Cape Provincial Council from 1910 to 1954. Most of the big city councils were also in their hands at that time. What did they do in that period? What was the picture at that time? As a young boy I remember the rioting and the dissatisfaction of the Coloureds.

Where?

In the towns where I lived and grew up. The hon. member for Maitland cannot take part in the conversation. His eyes are closed, politically speaking. At that time he was still in the Ossewa Brandwag. I saw how Coloureds came up in revolt. I shall mention the town where it happened. It happened in 1936 in my home town, Robertson. I saw how the police of that Government were given orders to use the sjambok to scatter those people in the streets. I saw it with my own eyes.

What about Port Elizabeth in 1971?

I shall come to Port Elizabeth in a moment. Sir, has this Government ever ordered its police to scatter the Coloureds by beating them with a sjambok?

What happened in Port Elizabeth?

The basic reason for the dissatisfaction in Port Elizabeth was the increase in the bus fares.

And the English clergymen.

Yes. Twelve of them walked out when the hon. the Minister spoke to them there and was opening a building. Sir, those are the agitators who are misleading this United Party and who are misusing them. [Interjections.]

Sir, on a point of order …

No, I am not prepared to reply to a question. The hon. member may make his speech at a later stage. [Time expired.]

*The PRIME MINISTER. Mr. Chairman, if I understood the hon. member for Bezuidenhout correctly, he said that Mr. Tom Swartz and the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council had adopted a unanimous resolution to be represented in this Home. Of course, that is not so. No such resolution was adopted by the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council or Mr. Tom Swartz at any time. What the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has in mind, is something quite different. In the old days there was a Union Coloured Council.

Tom Swartz was chairman of that body.

Yes, but it was not the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council.

It was the same people.

It was an old, meaningless council, and at that stage the Coloured people were still being represented in this House by four Whites. The motivation of that Union Coloured Council for their resolution was as follows: “If we are to be represented in this Parliament, we do not want second-hand representation by four Whites. In that case we want to be here ourselves.” I do not blame them for having adopted such a resolution. I find it quite logical that any person with self-respect would argue that way. Surely, if one is to be represented on a council, one can represent oneself much more effectively. Why should one be represented by other people? That is in fact the weak point in the United Party’s policy, for they say that they will grant the Bantu representation by Whites in this House. Surely the Bantu can represent themselves much more effectively here than Whites would be able to do on a second-hand basis. After all, there are enough well-equipped Bantu to do this. If one decides in principle that the Bantu or the Coloured people have the right to be represented in this Parliament, it is morally no more than correct to say that in that case they should be here themselves. Then they should not be represented here by other people, on a second-hand basis.

That hon. member made such a fuss about petty apartheid, but what did he say in his definition of “petty apartheid”? He said:

That is only one part of the definition.

Very well. There is no “or”; it consists of paragraphs, but I shall now read out everything to the hon. member—

1. (2) Which is enforced by a White authority by means of penalties without recognizing the wishes of the non-White population groups affected by it.

The “rider” which he then has between brackets, does not apply. The hon. member will grant me that I need not read it—

1. (3) Which is commonly humiliating to some group of people or other and has virtually nothing to do with honest development.

I shall now take all three of them and come to the policy which the hon. member endorses, i.e. that the Black people should be represented here in this Parliament. Now he makes a law and says that in spite of the fact that the Black people can be represented here, they may not be here, but must be represented by Whites. Now he discriminates against that person because his skin is black. Then there is the second point. The fact that the Bantu may not enter through this door, is enforced by him with penalties. Does he now want to tell me that it is not humiliating to the Black man if one says he may be represented but he may not do so himself; he must have it done here by a White person? [Interjections.] Would the hon. member now grant me that this by itself knocks the bottom out of his whole definition?

I shall reply to that.

But I want to proceed. I want to put forward a more pertinent example in respect of these three conditions laid down by him. The law provides that a child who has a black skin, must go to a certain school. If the non-Whites could choose, they would all want to go to the same school; they would want to go to our schools. That is obvious, but because their skins are black, they may not go to a White school. Is that petty apartheid?

It is not humiliating to have one’s own school.

Surely then it is not humiliating to have a cinema of one’s own either. Then it is not humiliating to have one’s own entrance to a building. Then it is not humiliating to have one’s own facilities in every respect. But when it suits the hon. member, he applies humiliation in this way, and when it does not suit him, he applies it differently. The hon. member says it is not humiliating to say a White person should attend his White school and a Coloured person should attend his Coloured school, but if one says a White person is only to get married to another White person and a Coloured person is only to get married to another Coloured person, it amounts to the crudest form of petty apartheid that exists. What logic or morality is there in that in regard to this matter? It is easy to indulge in fine-sounding words when discussing things of this nature, but it is a different matter when one has to apply them in practice.

But I am now coming back to what the hon. member said. The hon. member said he was amazed at this resolution which was passed by the leaders of the Coloured Council. Sir, surely it is their own handiwork which they are now laying before us here. But what is the history of this matter? The history of this matter is that the Coloured Persons Representative Council, both appointed and elected members, unanimously decided, by way of a motion in that Council, that the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs was to appoint a committee from their ranks to negotiate with the Government on this matter. The Labour Party, still under the leadership of Arendse at the time, unanimously agreed to this motion. The Minister demurred by saying that it was not his function to appoint such a committee. However, they told him that that was the resolution they had passed. The committee which the Minister subsequently appointed, consisted of the five members of the Executive, the chairman of the Council, a member of the Republican Party, a member of the National People’s Party and two members of the Labour Party, who themselves unanimously requested the Minister to appoint such a committee. When the Minister also nominated the two members of the Labour Party, they said that they no longer saw their way clear to participating in these negotiations. In other words, the committee was appointed on a motion agreed to unanimously by the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council, by both elected and appointed members. They deliberated inter alia on a select committee, a standing committee and representation in the Senate by Coloured persons. Such a motion was introduced. However, they rejected all those motions and passed this resolution unanimously. As this is not what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout wanted, he says that the mountain has brought forth a mouse. Now he blames me for the fact that, having said that liaison would be established and subsequent to the responsible leaders having said that this was the type of liaison they wanted, I accepted it. What would the hon. member have done in my position? He would probably have told these people that their motion was absurd and that they had to go back and seek another link, whereas they, as adults who had deliberated on the matter, had said that this was in fact what they wanted. After all, I have been in politics long enough to know— and that is why I said it to this House today—that even if it is good enough and satisfactory at the present moment, I anticipate that a time will come when it will not be good enough. Then we shall deliberate on it once again and establish other liaison machinery in order to keep up with the times, with due regard to the wishes and desires of those people. Why must we disparage it now? Why must we censure and condemn it?

The hon. member also said that, if we were to hold a referendum amongst the Coloured people, the large majority of them would reject separate development. If we were to hold a referendum amongst the Coloured people and if we were to ask them whether they wanted the right to live wherever they pleased, including Milnerton, I want to assume that the majority would say that they did of course want to live there. But would the hon. member for Bezuidenhout be prepared to allow that? I want to return to his definition. Not only the Act of this Parliament, but also the Act which Mr. Japie Basson, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, helped to pass when he was sitting in these benches, namely the Group Areas Act …

That was before I came here, but it does not matter.

Very well, the Act was passed before I had any share in it, but at that time the hon. member had a share in passing the Group Areas Act. The hon. member wrote into that Group Areas Act the provision that Whites were to have their own residential areas and that Coloured people and Bantu were to have their own residential areas.

And Indians, too.

And the Indians were to have their own areas. In other words, to come back to his definition, the hon. member said that, if a person had a certain skin colour, he was to live at a certain place. The hon. member also said that, if, contrary to the Act, any person were living where he was not allowed to live, he would enforce this provision by means of penalties. However, now the hon. member says himself that it is humiliating for them to have to live like that.

That is not true.

I find this interesting. In other words, now the hon. member agrees that the Act should provide that a person who has a certain skin colour should be compelled to live at a certain place. Does the hon. member agree with that?

I shall reply to you in a moment.

I should like to hear that from the hon. member. Natuarally, if it were possible, nobody would want these laws and provisions. Surely that is obvious. But everybody realizes that for the sake of good order, for the sake of the development of every group, for the sake of the future of every group, for the sake of the facilities which every group must have, it is necessary that there should be different groups and that there should be legislation to make this possible.

To the hon. member for Bezuidenhout I just want to say that those principles on which I am building at the moment, were adopted in this House by the hon. member even before I had come to this House.

Mr. Chairman, unfortunately 10 minutes is too short a time in which to deal with all the points raised by the hon. the Prime Minister. I just want to refer quickly to the decision of the Coloured Council at the time. In any event, that was not the last decision concerning representation in this Parliament. Mr. Tom Swartz and his party were in control of the Union Coloured Council at that time as well, and that decision was taken just before the Council adjourned in order to take on the appearance of the new Council. Subsequently, all the political parties of the Coloureds in the new Council decided time and again that they were in favour of representation in this House.

When did they decide this?

It was decided. It is recorded in their manifestos and in their speeches.

When did they decide this? For there have been only two sessions?

But I am saying now that it is contained in their political speeches and has been decided time and again in their manifestos. If the hon. the Minister does not believe me, why does he not ask the various parties whether it is correct that it is their policy that they want representation in this House? If he were to ask Mr. Tom Swartz, he would tell him so personally.

In regard to the question of petty apartheid, I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that, like the Burger, he has now taken a section from a definition. This definition was not a statement of policy. I am just saying this in passing. It was a description of my opinion of petty apartheid as it is debated in the National Party.

Oh no, that is absolute nonsense.

In the no-confidence debate I made a speech and pointed out the difference of opinion existing in the governing party. I said at the time that there were two schools of thought. I then mentioned petty apartheid. After that I was asked how I would describe the concept of petty apartheid in the National Party.

No, I merely asked you how you would define petty apartheid.

It does not matter. I am not running away from something. But how did it originate? The point is that this definition which I have given, originated when I was asked with reference to the speech I made on the difference of opinion in the National Party, what people who debated petty apartheid, meant by it. This is my definition of it.

You said a newspaperman had asked you.

That is correct. A newspaper man asked me, whereupon I drafted it. But he asked me to do so in pursuance of my speech. It is not of importance. I am not running away from it.

It is of great importance.

No, its origin is not of such importance.

And what you said here in this House?

I just want to make it clear that it was not a statement of policy of mine. But in my opinion and as far as I am concerned, it is a description of petty apartheid. Every now and then extracts are made from that definition. The definition is very simple. It concerns colour. All apartheid concerns colour. It concerns coercion. All apartheid is coercion. How can one define petty apartheid without saying first what apartheid is? Apartheid is colour separation, enforced separation, and in addition to this, if there is humiliation for the people and no development (to distinguish it from separate development) petty apartheid arises. I must tell hon. members that in my opinion this is a good definition.

It was not only Die Burger and I who came forward with petty apartheid. I can quote people sitting on the hon. the Prime Minister’s side in Parliament who have spoken about it. Now the hon. the Prime Minister is refusing to reply to the question I put to him. I have already replied to the questions he put to me. Now I want to reply to him another time. I want to tell him that there are important people sitting in his party who are saying this sort of thing, namely that there are forms of petty apartheid which should be abolished. For instance, there is the hon. the new Minister of the Interior, who said the following in a statement of which I have the report of the Sunday Tribune—

Now I am asking the hon. the Prime Minister what his hon. Minister meant? In an interview with Dagbreek the hon. member for Pretoria Central said (translation)—

He went on to say that there were aspects of apartheid which had to disappear. Even the hon. member for Bellville, Mr. L. A. Pienaar, said when he was a member of the provincial council that there were aspects of colour separation which had to disappear. The hon. member for Moorreesburg said the greatest dilemma of the Government in this country was colour discrimination. In the same way I can quote what Mr. Paul Sauer, an important man in the National Party, said. He said the following in an interview with the Argus—

In the same way I can quote Adv. Dawid de Villiers as well and one important man after the other. He should simply consult his own newspapers, because for a few weeks already an extensive debate has been conducted in them about forms of offensive apartheid which should be abolished. I was pleasantly surprised, and I am saying this to the credit of the hon. the Prime Minister, when the hon. the Prime Minister said in Stellenbosch that there were measures which passed for apartheid, but which were unnecessary measures. I do not want to misquote him, and for that reason I shall quote his words as they appeared in Die Burger. He said (translation)—

Of course.

Would the hon. the Prime Minister then be so kind as to rise and tell us what forms he thinks are the unnecessary ones and do not have the right of existence? However, we simply receive no reply.

I want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister that there is a very easy way of doing this. I am not asking him to accept my definition, because it concerns the difference of opinion on the side of the Government. I want to put the matter to the hon. the Prime Minister in the following way. All he need do in order to establish what is humiliating and offensive in the apartheid set-up, is to put himself in the place of a Coloured or non-White. The hon. the Prime Minister said this afternoon that the ancestors of the English-speaking people had been in power in South Africa. Suppose the Afrikaner is playing second fiddle and an English government is in power here. The English government then decides that an Afrikaans teacher may not be paid the same salary as an English teacher. Would it not be humiliating? That this was being done merely because he was an Afrikaner? Those of us in this House who are Afrikaners may ask ourselves this question. In addition the English Government decides that Afrikaners should sit on the top deck of busses in spite of the fact that an Afrikaner’s foot may be in plaster of Paris. He may not sit on the lower deck because the English-speaking people sit there. If the English government decides that an Afrikaner may not use the same entrance as the English-speaking person in order to buy a stamp at the post office, is that not humiliating? He may not buy a stamp at the same counter at which the English-speaking people buy theirs. He may not sit on the same bench. He must sit behind a partition when he attends a symphony concert in the Cape Town City Hall. I want to put it like this. Let an Afrikaner place himself in that position where notices are displayed everywhere which read, “You, Afrikaner, may not enter by this door”, or “You may not do this or that together with an English-speaking person”. If this had taken place under an English government in the olden days, there would have been a revolution, and I should have liked to have taken part in that revolution.

I want to ask the hon. member whether he will admit that it was Mr. Sturrock who made the notices to indicate that Coloureds should travel in coaches separate from those of the Whites.

I have nothing to do with Mr. Sturrock. I am not at all interested in Mr. Sturrock. What is our complaint? I have repeatedly said in this House that these customs cannot be changed overnight. I am not charging the Government with this either. Nobody sitting on this side maintains that we should abolish everything overnight. Our complaint against the Government is that the Government and the Prime Minister are taking no trouble to see where they can start removing things which give unnecessary offence. This is all we want to say about that.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has now advanced the argument that we should put ourselves in the position of the Afrikaner under the English régime, using this to ¡Illustrate his definition of “petty apartheid”, and asked how humiliating the Afrikaner would find it to be told: “You are not allowed to live here, but an English-speaking person is allowed to live there. You are not allowed to attend this or that.”

I did not use the example of residential areas.

I want to come to the example of residential areas. Is it the policy of the United Party that Coloured people and Whites must live apart, in their own residential areas?

Yes.

But it is not humiliating to tell the Coloured people: “You are not allowed to live with the Whites”; “You are not good enough to live with the Whites”, or whatever motive you may care to advance.

That is not the motive.

But suddenly it is humiliating to tell them: “You may not go to the same cinema or opera house as the Whites”. But it is not humiliating to tell them that they are not allowed to live in the same residential area. It is not humiliating to tell them that their children are not allowed to attend the same school. It is not humiliating to tell them that they are not allowed to use the same swimming bath. But suddenly, when it suits the United Party, it is quite in order to say they must live in a separate residential area.

Do you mean there is nothing humiliating in the apartheid policy?

No, I am now referring to the United Party’s policy. It has now become highly moral, it is the height of morality to say there must be separate areas. It is quite acceptable.

But on a consulting basis.

No consultations have ever been held about that. It is impossible to consult about that, in any case.

I just want to put one matter very frankly to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. This definition he gave, which was repudiated by his Leader, he is now trying to …

It was not repudiated.

Has his Leader accepted it now?

No, but he did not have an opportunity to see it.

The hon. member gave me this definition across the floor of this House on 5th February. I gave it to his Leader at the same time, with his permission. His Leader has had it in his possession from 5th February up to now, and when I asked the hon. member a moment ago whether his Leader subscribed to it, his defence was that he had not had an opportunity to study it.

No, I am talking about the time when it was raised.

Sir, this is very amusing. The hon. member is trying to wriggle out of it now. The hon. member came along here and told us with perfect composure that it was not really his definition; it was only what was being said in the National Party, as he saw it.

I endorse that.

Now the hon. member is chopping and changing again.

I said it was my opinion.

No, it is not even his opinion. I shall tell him what stands recorded in Hansard. I asked him what his definition was; the entire debate was about that, and then the hon. member for Bezuidenhout stood up boldly and said—

In consequence of my speech in the no-confidence debate.

“My definition”—

A further exchange then followed between the Speaker and myself and then the hon. member for Bezuidenhout continued—

It is no use his trying to get away from it now by suggesting that it was not his definition.

I am not trying to get away from it at all. I was merely explaining to you how it had originated.

The hon. member wants to create the impression that it is not his definition.

It is mine.

Very well; then we have progressed this far at least. Has the hon. member’s definition now become his Leader’s as well?

My Leader gave his choice of a definition.

Has the hon. member’s definition now become his Leader’s definition as well, or does the Leader of the Opposition have his own view of petty apartheid, and the hon. member his?

There are 20 views on that side; what is your view?

I have given my view. If necessary, I shall give it to the hon. member again when I have finished with him. But I want to put the question to the hon. member in this way: If they were to come into power, petty apartheid would have to be abolished; it dare not remain a moment longer?

No one has said that.

What do you want?

I am afraid I cannot argue with the hon. member any further if that is his line of escape.

Hypocritical.

Order! The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development must withdraw that word.

I did not apply it to anyone, Sir, but I withdraw it.

Order! The hon. the Prime Minister may proceed.

Sir, it is a waste of time to continue arguing with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout when he keeps on running away like this.

You do not listen when I speak; that is the trouble.

I said at Stellenbosch that I do not know of a minor or a major principle; I only know principles. There are things which go by the name of apartheid which have nothing to do with apartheid. I again emphasized in this House this afternoon that if a White happens to be rude to a non-White, it is called apartheid.

Who says that?

One reads it in the newspapers all day. That is then alleged to be apartheid, while it has nothing to do with apartheid. I also said there may be measures which have nothing to do with the protection of identity and with preventing friction, and that such measures have no right to exist.

Would you tell us which?

No, I am not aware of a single measure adopted by this Government, whether in the days when the hon. member was sitting on this side before I came here, in the days when the hon. member and I were sitting on this side together up to 1958, or in the days since 1958, which has that effect. If there are such measures I am not aware of, then any man is free to bring them to my notice and to say: “I think this measure falls in that category; do something about it”. If I am convinced that it has nothing to do with the protection of identity and with preventing friction, I shall have the courage of my convictions, and I need not illustrate that to this hon. House; I shall then abolish it. Does the hon. member not think my taking up that attitude at Stellenbosch was the ideal opportunity for him, as a student of these matters and as a man who helped to create these things, who, together with me at public meetings, prided himself on the fact that we created these things …

I was always opposed to petty apartheid and you know it.

But the hon. member voted for it nevertheless.

I spoke against it in the caucus on many occasions.

But the hon. member nevertheless voted for it here in the House of Assembly.

Sometimes it forms part of a greater law.

Then he voted for it in the House of Assembly. Very well, let us take the things which the hon. member was always opposed to, but which he nevertheless voted in the House of Assembly. Does the hon. member not think it was his duty, if he wanted to promote healthy race relations, to stand up in the debate on my Vote and to say to me: “Look, Mr. Prime Minister, this is what you said at Stellenbosch; here are some of your measures; I want you to abolish them”?

Your own newspapers can give you a long list of those measures at this moment.

Surely the hon. member has a positive duty as a member of this House. After all, he wants to rectify these matters; he wants to maintain the best race relations here in South Africa, just as I want to do. Why does he not do his duty in that connection then; why does he beat the air, why does he bandy words? Why does he not come along and tell me in this House: “Look, I want to discuss the abolition of this or that measure with you”? Then we can conduct a fruitful debate on this matter. Why does the hon. member not set about it in this way?

Why don’t you conduct the fruitful debate then?

I am waiting for the hon. member. He is making the accusation that there are such measures falling within his definition. Why does he not tell me which measures they are?

How many times have I not mentioned them?

He is afraid of his Leader.

All he has mentioned up to now as having to be abolished, is the law relating to immorality and mixed marriages. He has said that these measures must be abolished. I know of nothing else mentioned by the hon. member in that connection. It is easy to talk, but it is something else again when one has to take a stand on a specific matter and if one can be called to account for it.

Sir, a very clear question was put to the hon. the Prime Minister. He said at Stellenbosch, if I am not mistaken, that there were things which were passing for apartheid which had nothing to do with apartheid.

Which were labelled as such and had nothing to do with it.

Yes, which were labelled as such but had nothing to do with it. All we are asking of the hon. the Prime Minister is to give us a series of examples so that we may know what, in his opinion, can in fact be abolished.

One of these is rudeness; I have told you so.

I agree with him. Rudeness is something which does not necessarily have something to do with the policy, and I agree 100 per cent that rudeness between races and people is indefensible. Under his Government’s policy, however, there are things which are not based on rudeness as such. For example, there are matters such as the fact that a Coloured person, a White person and a Bantu person may sit together in the same aircraft of the South African Airways, but when they enter the hall of Jan Smuts Airport, they are segregated; the one group must go to one side and the other group to the other side. In addition, there is the case of the separate swearing-in boxes in the courts which revolted certain of our Judges to such an extent that they decided to abolish them. For all I know, those separate swearing-in boxes may still be an institution in other parts of the country. There is another ridiculous matter, and that is the train bridge at Hutchinson. Whites and non-Whites must go up and down the bridge separately, but on top of the bridge they are together again. Who can defend that? Surely it is completely impossible to defend.

What bridge?

The bridge at Hutchinson. I listened with interest to the hon. the Minister of Finance when he spoke about what Confucius had allegedly said about this and that. At the time the question occurred to me whether it had occurred to the Government that if Confucius ever had to apply for a visa to visit South Africa or if he had tried to come and live here in South Africa, they would have kicked him out and would have treated him like other members of his own race.

Where we are approaching the end of this debate, it is clear to me that there is a decline and collapse in the party on the opposite side. We witnessed this in connection with their Coloured policy, as we have just heard it. There are indisputable differences of personal opinion in that party about the future of the Coloured people. The hon. the Minister of Information told me across the floor of this House that it was his personal opinion that there should be a separate homeland for the Coloured people in the future. He knows he said it. Is it true? The hon. the Minister is admitting it. Therefore there is a difference of opinion. I admit that the official opinion is one opinion now. The hon. the Minister of Information wants to eat cake, the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs wants sweets, and the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development wants to eat bread, but the hon. the Prime Minister says: “No, we must all eat wormwood together.” Very well, let them all eat wormwood together, but that is not the personal wishes of those hon. members. We witnessed the same thing in regard to the Native policy which was discussed here. As yet there has been no conclusive answer regarding the future of the Bantu in our urban areas in South Africa. They are detribalized people, who are becoming more detribalized and presenting a growing problem to us year after year. There will come a stage when they will belong to a homeland as little as that hon. member belongs to the homeland of the Dutch and I to that of the French.

†In regard to sport we really had a strange spectacle. But let us agree that at least in the statement made by the hon. the Prime Minister there was a change, and a change for the better, in the attitude on the Government side. I sincerely regret that we did not have an opportunity of hearing more from the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation.

You will hear me under my Vote.

I am quite serious, because I believe that he had something to contribute to this debate, and I am very sorry that he did not have the opportunity of doing so. I am sure that he knows why he did not have an opportunity of doing so. I say this seriously.

I am glad that there has been this step forward in regard to sport, but it is such a complicated step that, frankly, I cannot understand a great deal of it. I suggest that the hon. the Prime Minister should erect a computer in the Lobby. That computer should be programmed first of all for the 102 nations of the world; secondly, for the 92 different types of sport; thirdly for the eight different races in our country: the Bantu, Coloured, White, Asiatic, Malay, Chinese and honorary Whites. Then it should be programmed for the seven or eight different types of group areas we have in this country, including the new group area known as the International Stadium. It should also be programmed for two types of international sport, that on the Olympic level and that on ordinary level. It should also be programmed for controlling bodies which are White, which are non-White and which are mixed. With that variation a poor person such as myself who cannot understand all the finer points of this policy, will simply be able to press one of the buttons in the computer and get an answer on whether a certain sporting event would be permissible. With all these variations, I have calculated that there are 45 million different answers.

I now come to the vacillation on the part of the Government, which I only want to mention in passing. It would not be a speech of mine, if I did not mention this matter, as hon. members will agree. This Government has had in its possession the report of the Television Commission for months and months. Why has the hon. the Prime Minister not taken this opportunity of giving us an indication of what the plans of the Government are in this regard? Why is he leaving it to a junior Minister, whose Vote he knows will only be discussed in many weeks’ time? And why is he thereby delaying the matter further, and possibly deliberately? I ask him please to give us a reply, or is it the case that at this late stage they have not yet decided whether television should be introduced in South Africa?

*All the same. Sir, I do not want to say that there was dissension about all matters in this debate. There was one matter on which all of us on that side and on this side agreed. We were all very satisfied with the result of the Witbank by-election. I want to congratulate that side on their joy about the retrogression which took place in Witbank as far as they were concerned. They expected a catastrophe, and now they are satisfied with a tremendous set-back instead of a catastrophe. Let us analyse the facts now. This time there was a larger percentage of votes in Witbank than in October. If that increased percentage were to be applied to their majority, they really ought to have had a majority of 3 700. Instead of that, they had a majority of only 2 500. Their majority dropped from 4 300 in April last year to 3 000 in October, and to 2 500 now. I know that this is an extreme case, but let them calculate the following figures on a piece of paper for each of their constituencies: In Witbank, the Nationalist Party’s number of votes dropped by 1 000 in one year … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, we already know from experience that if nothing new can be said in a debate, the hon. members for Durban Point and Orange Grove are brought into the debate. Yesterday afternoon the hon. member for Yeoville made a terrible fuss because the hon. the Prime Minister had introduced certain highlights point by point into the debate. The member for Yeoville was the one who reproached us for jumping from one thing to another, but when have we seen more of that than this afternoon? The hon. member who has just spoken, discussed seven subjects within a matter of nine minutes. I just want to ask him whether they won Witbank with that reduced number of votes? According to yesterday’s newspapers, their people had predicted they would. North Rand has not even been dragged into this debate, but at least the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has received a word of congratulations in this regard.

Sir, I want to come back to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. This afternoon he took up the standpoint that if we were to hold a referendum among the Coloured people, they would reject separate development like one man, or overwhelmingly. He spoke sneeringly about Mr. Tom Swartz’s standpoint. If I may not say that, I withdraw it, but that is how it struck me.

It is untrue.

Is this untrue as well? In that case, what did the hon. member say?

I did not refer sneeringly to him.

But you stand by what you said? Very well. Now I want to tell the hon. member what Mr. Tom Swartz said. The question was put to him: “Where is the Coloured heading?” He replied: “As far as I can see the road which is being opened up here, it is the road ahead towards our becoming a nation”— and he said this after he had made two other very important statements. He said—

Is this not an acceptance of the policy of separate development? He went on to say—

What was the result of the Coloured election? The result was that the vast majority of the votes cast were in favour of the idea of apartheid or separate development, admittedly in different parties, but parties which had all openly expressed themselves as being in favour of separate development.

The hon. member has a particular way of thinking. In all his debates on the Coloureds, the hon. member tries to create the impression that there is tremendous humiliation in the way in which the Coloured people are being treated by the Government, but surely this is not true. If the hon. member would look around him, he would see this. Let us just take the question of the clothing of the Coloureds and their general appearance. Take one example where we have the best exhibition of what is being done for the Coloured, namely the publication Alpha, and look at the photographs which appear in it. Does it really create an impression of humiliation?

The hon. member tries to do something else as well. He tries to create the impression here that the time has arrived for us to “re-build” some things. But what has this Government broken down? Of what has this Government deprived the Coloured people without its having given something in place of that? Sir, we shall come back to this under the Vote of the hon. the Minister. I just want to read one small paragraph to him in which the member of the Executive, Mr. Bergins, said the following—

He jumped from that date to 1964 and said—

Here we have many examples of admission from the mouth of the Coloured person that this Government is treating him well. I could mention many figures in the field of welfare. In addition, the Government has gradually guided the Coloureds from the stage of common voters’ rolls to separate voters’ rolls, to the Union Coloured Council, to their representatives in this Parliament, and now eventually the Coloured Persons Representative Council, the council in which political leaders of the Coloured people are brought together. It is true that differences exist. If one read the debates of the Coloured Persons Representative Council, one would see that there are sharp differences, but the governing group, the people who gained the majority of the votes cast, are convinced, as Mr. Tom Swartz has said in this, that this Government is guiding the Coloured person along the road of separate development and that he supports this wholeheartedly.

Listening to the hon. member for Westdene on the subject of Witbank, he reminded me of a man who thought he was dead, but woke up to find that he was only dying.

In the course of this debate the hon. the Prime Minister and I indicated an agreement to examine the terms of the BOSS Commission to decide what should not be published for security reasons. He indicated who his members would be on that committee. I would like to inform the Committee that, with myself, there will serve the hon. member for Durban Point, Mr. Vause Raw, and the member for Durban North, Mr. Michael Mitchell.

The hon. the Prime Minister accused me of having attempted to denigrate Mr. Tom Swartz, the Chairman of the Coloured Representative Council. Let me give him the assurance that there was no intention of that kind whatever. I do not think that there is any denigration whatever in saying that a man is nominated as opposed to saying that he was elected.

The hon. gentleman has indicated that in so far as coloured affairs were concerned, his Cabinet had only one policy, which has been stated by the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs, Mr. Jannie Loots, That is not my trouble. My trouble is what it means. He talks of parallel development and of hard work for a lifetime. Nowhere does he tell us where he is going. That is the difficulty we are faced with.

Then the hon. gentleman has criticized very strongly rudeness or “onbeskoftheid” on the part of one race to another and one human being to another. He said that that is often connected with apartheid. I agree with him. I am very glad indeed that he has given that warning. Let it at least go out from this House that there is agreement between both sides that every human being in South Africa, regardless of his race or colour, should be treated with proper regard for his person and his dignity.

I think we have reached the stage where this debate has come to an end. The hon. the Prime Minister and I have agreed to disagree on whether or not he is controlling the timetable to independence adequately in the Bantu homelands; we have agreed to disagree on one of the most important questions in South Africa, namely his policy in respect of the urban Bantu, about which I am still extremely unhappy; we have agreed to disagree on the question of sport and I am afraid that only time will show who has had the correct approach. I think we have also agreed to disagree on the question of the proper use of labour and manpower, which I believe is of such vital importance in our economy at the present time and we have agreed that we have different approaches towards the Cape Coloured people. I think that the discussion has been a fruitful one and I hope that, in disagreeing, we have at least from each side been able to put our views and put them in a manner which will reflect well on this Committee to the public outside.

My sole purpose in rising is to refer, with your leave, Mr. Chairman, to certain formal matters. In the first instance, the House will permit me to refer to a report in an editorial in the British newspaper The Guardian, which is an influential publication in some circles in Britain. In that article the statement is made that I intentionally chose this debate at this stage to make these disclosures about President Ruanda, because I want to influence President Houphouet-Boigny of the Ivory Coast in regard to the press conference which he intends holding next week. For the sake of the record I just want to point out formally that I stated in the course of the Budget debate that I would take this opportunity to make these disclosures, and that at that stage there was no talk of a press conference being held by President Houphouet-Boigny at all. This is therefore a deliberate false report which is being sent into the world by The Guardian, because they are also aware of these facts.

The second fact which I just want to put straight for the sake of the record, is that on 12th and 13th November last year the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council discussed a motion introduced by Mr. Arendse in which he proposed that a judicial commission be called for to give consideration to the restitution of full political rights to the Coloured people. That motion was voted down and an amendment introduced by the Federal Coloured People’s Party was accepted, an amendment requesting that the Coloured people avail themselves of all the opportunities afforded to them for self-advancement. That was the view taken by the Coloured Council.

With reference to what my hon. friend said in respect of Witbank, I want to state formally here that, in view of the circumstances under which the election was fought, in view of the fact that it was a provincial by-election, I as the Leader of the National Party am very proud of the Nationalist voters of Witbank.

Then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that he himself, the hon. member for Durban Point and the hon. member for Durban North would be members of the Committee. I shall make the report available to those three hon. members on Monday so that they may study it.

Then the hon the Leader of the Opposition concluded by saying that we had now conducted a very fruitful debate. I want to agree with him. That there are many matters on which we did not agree, is also true. There will still be many opportunities for debating them, for my hon. friend will still be sitting in the Opposition benches for years.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer the hon. the Deputy Minister to the question of airports. We were pleased to note the very substantial increase in the amount voted under subhead H—Purchase and Installation of navigational aid equipment and purchase of equipment and tools. This amount was increased by R2 570 000 to R3 842 000. Unfortunately we do not have much detail as to where this navigational aid equipment will be installed. But we do know that there are some of our airports if, I remember correctly, particularly the Schoeman airport in East London, which has been waiting a number of years for additional navigational equipment to be installed. We are pleased to see that the amount voted for the installation of safety aids at our airports, has been increased. I would like to go on to deal with the very divided control which we have at our airports. We find that the planes belong to the Airways, but the airports themselves are conducted and managed by the Department of Transport. While we have the highest praise for the way the hon. the Minister of Transport runs his Railways and Airways, I am afraid to say we cannot say the same about the airports. We take one example which is very close at hand, the D. F. Malan Airport. We have warned the Minister over the years about the necessity of adding to this airport the necessary facilities to bring it up to international airport standards and we have told the Government to accept the fact that this must become an international airport. Today we still have these very out-of-date facilities.

Chaos.

And at times we have there, as my hon. friend says, chaos. At the present moment passengers coming to Cape Town are directed to the international hall and their friends cannot meet them. Elderly people have to carry their bags themselves. I was there one day when a very senior member of the Other Place arrived there, but he was not able to go in himself to meet a friend. That is not my only complaint. The general facilities leave much to be desired and I do not think that there is any excuse for this because the hon. the Minister has been warned over the years by this side of the House. It is therefore no good coming to this House and saying that passenger traffic and air travel have suddenly grown, overnight. It did not. We have warned the Minister over the years that something has to be done to our airports.

Hon. members know what happened at Jan Smuts Airport. It was this side of the House which had to jog the Government into activity to do something at Jan Smuts Airport. Today, after many years, we are going to see an airport of the size and with the conveniences which would be suitable for the passengers there. However, they are taking so long that that may even be out of date by the time it has been finished I know, from my own experiences, that whenever I visit Jan Smuts I am always greeted by red dust and corrugated iron. Wherever you go you find barbed wire, corrugated iron, dirt and dust and nothing which is really very pleasant. This has been going on for years. The increase in the number of passengers did not happen overnight. The Government knew this.

This shows a terrible lack of planning. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Transport laughs now. but we would like to hear from him, by way of a statement, what the future plans are for say the next ten years. We will say ten years, because we know air travel is such and it is expanding so fast that you cannot take longer periods. We would like to hear what the hon. the Minister is planning to take care of the very modern planes we will have and the enormous inflow of passengers and tourists which we will have to handle at these airports.

I want to refer to the D. F. Malan Airport again. There are people who say that it will not grow much bigger than it is and that it can take the 707. I predict that the 747s will be landing there. I also predict that other international airlines will be using that airport. Then we will feel ashamed when we have to ask our visitors to land at a second-rate airport. After all, we would like to see an airport here at the tip of South Africa which is up to full international standards and which has adequate runways and adequate facilities to cope with the passengers at this particular airport.

Then let us hear from the hon. the Minister what happened at D. F. Malan Airport when they started building and then suddenly had to dismantle half the building. What went wrong there? Who is to blame for that? What about the terrific cost? What are we going to write it off to? Surely that shows up a lack of planning. I want to come back to the old hobby-horse of mine. Is it not time for the hon. the Minister of Transport to have a good look at this position, and is it not time for him to take over the airports which his aeroplanes are using, because the ground services are being run inefficiently by the Department of Transport. Surely, the whole position shows up a terrible lack of planning. I know my colleagues here, who have travelled backwards and forwards, can tell you that. Naturally we get it, because we are Cape members. They ask “can you not do anything about the facilities we have at D. F. Malan?” It is a disgrace. Every time I go out there and I look at it, I am ashamed of the D. F. Malan Airport. I see the paltry bit of building that is going on there. It is a disgrace to think that they had to put un a prefabricated building to meet international standards. I ask the Minister to give us a report about exactly what he is doing. Let us get a complete report as to what he expects to do. He is planning a new airport in Durban. Let us hear about it. Let him make a statement in his Vote as to what his plans are to improve our airports in this country. Do not let us just have intermittent laughs from him. In that very thick pile of his he must have the answers. If he does not have the answers, it is time we asked the Government or the hon. the Minister of Transport, to replace him.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think the hon. member for Salt River really expects me to follow up on the arguments he advanced. The speech the hon. member made was typical of a Friday afternoon speech. If one does not have a subject on which to make a speech on a Friday, one simply speaks about lack of planning and one notices everything that is bad. I prefer dealing with something of a different nature. This concerns a matter which received considerable publicity in our daily newspapers recently, i.e. the transport services which cater for our Coloured resettlement areas. This matter enjoyed publicity for various reasons in recent times—and in Port Elizabeth for one particular reason. When speaking about Port Elizabeth, I trust that the United Party representatives of the City of Port Elizabeth will certainly discuss this matter in this debate. I hope in particular that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central will again find someone to prepare a speech for him in this connection. It is a fact that people wrote about and reports were published on this matter recently in the Cape Peninsula as well. Allow me, by way of stating the background to this matter, to say that the major resettlement areas in the Cape Peninsula are actually situated in my own constituency. For that reason I am intimately associated with this problem. On 25th March of this year a report was published in the Argus under banner headlines reading as follows: “Poor transport blamed for man-hour loss”. This report, in fact, dealt with a speech made by Prof. S. P. Cilliers of Stellenbosch at the monthly meeting of the South African Institute of the Boot and Shoe Industry. I now want to quote a few extracts from this report in order to show that learned people who are often recognized as experts in other spheres can make a slip in this practical field when speaking on a matter such as this. In this report Prof. Cilliers was reported to have said the following—

He went on to say—

The crux of this statement is that the position of the manpower shortage is even further being deteriorated as a result of poor transport services. The learned professor thereupon offered a very simple solution for this problem according to the report concerned. He is reported to have said—

I want to say today that the time has possibly arrived for us to be frank in our discussions on matters of this nature. It is particularly essential for us to start being frank with our industrialists in the Western Cape in regard to this matter. I definitely cannot be accused of being unsympathetic towards industries in the Western Cape. As a matter of fact, I try to plead their cause on every occasion, as I have done during the Railway Budget debate. The crux of the matter as presented in the report I quoted, is naturally not one of poor and inadequate transport services. It is much rather a case of the existing transport services being utilized most ineffectively. If the position is deteriorating at present as is being alleged, it is actually the industrialists in the Western Cape themselves who are in no small way responsible for this state of affairs. They are responsible in that all their business undertakings have to start working at the same time in the mornings. They have constantly refused to make any changes as to the time their factories have to open in the mornings and close at night. The majority of these industries—and I want to say almost all of them—are organized in local associations, where matters of common interest are discussed from time to time. In this way, an association exists in the Epping industrial area which caters for that area alone. This applies to Paardeneiland as well and possibly also to the other parts of the Cape Peninsula. If these industries in specific zones could come to an agreement for some of their factories to begin work earlier while others begin work later, we would find that our transport services, our buses and our trains, could be utilized much more effectively. If the industries could come to such an arrangement, it would not only mean a considerable saving in travelling time, but it might also influence the passenger fare structure. It would also have the desired effect that full use could be made of manpower. From an economic point of view, it is unthinkable that when 70 additional passengers want to use public transport, there should be a capital outlay to the tune of R17 000 in each case for the purpose of purchasing a bus. Such bus will only be used for 40 minutes during the peak hours in the morning and will have to stand idle for the rest of the day until the peak period of 40 minutes in the afternoon. Surely, hon. members will admit that it is too much to expect that additional vehicles should be acquired only to be used economically for 1½ hours per day out of the 24 hours. The position is that hundreds of thousands of our people want to use transport services simultaneously only twice a day. This is attributable to the fact that all our industries, our ¡business undertakings, office organizations and often our schools start at the same time in the mornings. For the rest of the day there is a surplus of buses standing idle. Not only that, also the crews of such buses are idle during slack periods. In other words, whereas we want to save manpower with additional bus services on the one hand, we want to waste it through the slack period during the day. My status probably does not permit me to appeal to our industrialists today to assist by taking active steps in adjusting the closing times of their business undertakings. However, I want to ask whether the hon. the Deputy Minister cannot make such an appeal. Would it not even be better if Prof. Cilliers himself could make such an appeal instead of trying to solve the problem by simply suggesting to industrialists “to approach the authorities concerned”. Sir, there are many more associated practical problems which time does not allow me to deal with, problems such as the traffic congestion we have to cope with to an increasing extent as a result of bus services during peak hours, the safety aspects associated with those problems as well as many other aspects which time does not allow me to deal with now. Sir, these are problems which exist at the moment and which will not be alleviated, but which, in fact, will be aggravated incalculably when a large-scale expansion of those services is asked for. If the hon. member for Simonstown thinks that I am pleading the cause of the bus services here because I am a shareholder of one of those bus companies, I want to save him the trouble of looking up the share registers by telling him that I do not have any shares in a public bus company.

Sir, the hon. member for Tygervallei has raised a very interesting question. There are two aspects of this matter that I wish to deal with because it involves the operation of the Road Transportation Board and its activities and determinations in regard to the granting of permits and licences. I want to make an appeal through the hon. the Deputy Minister to the hon. the Minister to have a look at the local Road Transportation Board and its functioning under the Act and to see whether that Act should not be reviewed in some respects. In doing that, Sir, I want to bring two instances to the attention of the hon. the Minister to illustrate my point. I do not think there is any question that in the Cape Peninsula, as in other areas, there is a grave shortage of bricks needed for housing schemes undertaken not only by Government agencies and local authority agencies, but also by private enterprise. Sir, there is a certain brick manufacturing company in the Cape, whose name I will not mention, that has been before the local Transportation Board, and was able to convince the Department of Bantu Administration of the urgency of increasing its staff and of increasing its functioning. It was accordingly allowed to recruit a labour force of 210 Bantu from the Transkei and to bring them down into the Cape area. These Bantu were to be housed at the company’s expense at Nyanga Bantu township. The company operates some miles away from that particular Bantu housing scheme. The company was then faced with the problem of transport. It wished to work three shifts during the 24 hours. It also had different types of shifts working at different hours, and it then investigated the question of transport from the factory area, which was at Killarney, to Nyanga. It found that it could itself establish its own bus service so as to keep the labour force in a happy and contented state. There would be no hanging around for public transport; as soon as the shifts were over the Bantu were to be taken back to Nyanga. This company found that it could provide transport for these employees at a cost to itself, which it found economic, of R18 720 a year or R1 440 per four week month. It was prepared to do this. But the company, as the Minister will know, had to go to the local Road Transportation Board. Before doing that, however, application was made to one of the licensed bus companies. As against a cost of R18 720 a year to the brick-making company, this company quoted R58 608 a year for the installation of a bus service. Sir, that figure was more than three times as much as it would have cost the manufacturer to provide his own service. It was estimated that this R58 608 a year would be appreciably higher because there would have to be additional trips because of the nature of the undertaking, and in any case, certain additional employees would have to be employed by the bus company at a further cost to themselves. Eventually when this brickmaking company decided that this was an unreasonable figure, it had further negotiations and the passenger transport company was then prepared to come down to a figure which was only twice as much as it would have cost the brick-making company itself. This company’s application for a licence to transport its own employees was refused. Sir, there may be some explanation, but for the life of me I cannot see and no industrialist in Cape Town can see why this application should have been refused. Sir, I am mentioning this to the hon. the Minister because I think the hon. the Minister should give further consideration to the question as to whether this system is working correctly.

I now want to go on to another matter and that is the recent increase of bus fares in the Cape Peninsula. As you will be aware, Mr. Chairman, if a company makes application for an increase, it notifies the local Transportation Board; the board then advertises that it has received such an application and then sits to hear the application. The parties in this application are the bus company concerned, the board which is to determine the application and what I might term the amorphous mass of the general travelling public, which is not an organized body or a particular person who can be cited “you are going to be charged more unless you come and appear before this particular tribunal and show why you should not be charged more”. Well, what happened was that on the 1st July, 1970, City Tramways Ltd. which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Tollgate Holdings Limited, lodged an application for increased bus fares. On the 17th July, 1970, a notice was published in the Press to the effect that the application could be considered on the 31st July, 14 days later. Ratepayers’ associations, even if they wanted to do something about it, could hardly call the necessary meetings within 14 days. This application was heard on the 31st July and on that day an ex parte schedule was put in by the company, setting out the reasons why it thought that there should be an increase. There were one or two members of the public who inarticulately tried to express their objections, and on that very same day approval was granted for the bus fares to be increased. The fares varied from one cent to two cents per stage and there were various alterations in the stages in the Cape Town municipal area. The company which made this application was involved in something like 100 million passenger journeys per annum. There were some reductions of fares in certain areas but on the whole the fares were increased, and an increase of one cent on each of the 100 million passenger journeys netted an extra R1 000 000 per annum for the company. Sir, my point is that this decision was made on the same day on ex parte statements put in by the accountant of the company concerned. The case of City Tramways, in brief was that it was facing an increase in its wage bill of approximately R600 000 per annum. Sir, to cover that, an increase of less than one cent per passenger journey was sufficient. It seems from the record—and I will quote portions of the record to you, Sir— that this was a very hurried decision and that the Board, apparently quite correct legally, did not deem it its duty to analyse the accounts of the company concerned to satisfy itself as to the necessity for these increases. An appeal was noted in that matter on the 4th September, 1970, by a ratepeayers’ association and by one of the persons concerned in one portion of the area affected by these increases. That appeal was heard five months later, on the 1st February, 1971. Sir, the board gave its reasons for the increases, as it had to do for the purpose of the appeal, and it gave the following reasons—

The board then went on to record certain other factors, which brought the total to roughly R600 000. Then the board gave as another reason for its decision “that the company will not be able to meet the additional expenditure and provide an adequate return on capital unless the fares are increased”. With all respect to the members of the board, one wants to know how they applied their minds to a question of this nature, affecting almost every bus route in the Peninsula, on the same day that they received a memorandum. No detailed, audited or company accounts were placed before the board, and yet on that very same day they found that the company would not be able to meet this additional expenditure. (Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Salt River spoke about certain facilities at airports. We had the same old story again to the effect that the planning was inadequate, and so forth. If the hon. member had done his homework properly, he would have been much more satisfied with what this side of the House and our Ministers had done to bring about an improvement in this matter. I think I may fruitfully leave this matter in the hands of the hon. the Minister, because there are other matters in which I am interested and which I would like to discuss. The same applies to the hon. member for Green Point.

In regard to planning, there is one matter which has interested me a great deal and with which I was closely associated in the past. This concerns the civil aviation subsidy scheme, which was introduced on 1st September, 1954. I was one of the first applicants who was able to make use of this scheme. I think that I would be failing in my duty this afternoon if I did not say a few words about this scheme and also indicate what progress has been made in this field. I also want to indicate of what value this scheme is. This scheme is being administered by the Department of Transport in conjunction with the Department of Defence, the Aero Club of South Africa, the Commercial Aviation Association of South Africa and the Aeroplane Owners’ Association and the Pilots’ Association of South Africa, of which I had the honour to be a founder member. During the first five years of its existence, since 1954, the intention was to train pilots and since then it was established on a three-year basis, which means that it has been in existence for an uninterrupted period from 1954 up till the present. The scheme provides for the training of private pilots, for the initial issuing of private pilots’ licences, the renewal of licences after advanced training, for commercial pilots’ licences and diplomas for instrumentation and for instructors as well as the subsidization of the purchase of glider aircraft and parachute equipment. These grants are made on a certain basis. The conditions vary, but I have no fault to find with these conditions, and owing to lack of time I shall not discuss this matter in great detail.

However, I just want to mention that these grants for the subsidies for the 1970-’71 financial year have already been made. 370 candidates are benefiting a great deal through these grants. Provision has been made for training at 46 different training institutions. Private pilots’ licences have been issued to 101 persons for the first time. 232 persons are having their private pilots’ licences renewed, 24 persons will receive their commercial pilots’ licences, seven persons will receive their instructors’ diplomas and six will receive diplomas for instrumentation. Furthermore, seven clubs have been selected for parachute subsidies, while one club has been selected for a glider craft subsidy. The last mentioned two awards were made on the recommendation of the Aero Club of South Africa. Sir, I say that when one considers these awards that have been made and the particularly important position that flying occupies in South Africa, and also the high demands that will be made on pilots in future when flying and the aeroplane as we know it in South Africa will gain full recognition, you will appreciate that planning did, in fact, take place in this field. I should like to mention that up to the present the substantial amount of R523 835 was made available for this purpose, 1 940 candidates were trained for their private flying licences, 2118 were able to renew their private licences during this period and that 234 persons were able to obtain commercial licences and diplomas through this scheme. I say this is one of the methods that has been employed within the Department to bring about the necessary planning in order to cope with this great need which is going to arise in the Republic of South Africa as far as pilots are concerned.

I am very glad that the hon. the Minister announced during the previous Parliamentary session that an inter-departmental committee of inquiry into the planning of airports in South Africa would be appointed. This does not include State-owned airports. As far as I understand, this committee has been appointed. The Departments of Transport, of Finance, the Treasury, of Planning, of Community Development and of Defence and all the provincial administrations are represented on this committee. In other words, by giving representation to all these bodies on this inter-departmental committee, matters pertaining to airports in the country are being thoroughly investigated. The first meeting has taken place and it is recommended that interested parties should submit their representations. We are aware of the fact that there is a great need for civil aviation airports, particularly in our major cities, but also in the rural areas. This matter will be properly investigated by this committee, which will also determine the priorities in order to plan this whole question of airports also as far as South Africa is concerned. We are aware of the fact that there are major problems particularly in our major cities such as Cape Town, where only Rondevlei is available for this purpose, which is not very suitable and, in addition, Fisantekraal, which is situated approximately 25 miles from Cape Town and you know Sir, that private pilots, when using these airports, want them to be within easy reach. We know that on the Rand the smog at certain of our airports, such as Rand Central and Germiston, is so thick that it actually constitutes a danger to private pilots. We do not want to discourage those private pilots who are not capable of doing instrument flying as yet, and since land is becoming so expensive around our cities and since these airports should actually serve the purpose of satellite airports for our State-owned airports, we are very glad that the necessary planning is being undertaken in this field as well and that the Department of Transport has appointed this Committee to go into the whole question of airports in the Republic. One of its major tasks will be to make the necessary arrangements in regard to finance. According to the report of the Marais Commission local authorities will be responsible for the finance. This will naturally place a heavy burden on local authorities, particularly on our smaller local authorities. For that reason I would really appreciate it if the hon. the Minister could tell us something more about the financial aspect of this matter. I do not know what progress has been made in the matter; these are important matters. I should be glad if the hon. the Minister could give us an indication of what progress has been made in regard to these services as well as those other services as far as civil aviation is concerned.

I trust that the hon. member for Heilbron will forgive me if I do not follow his subject. I wish to complete what I was saying to the hon. the Minister with regard to the application of the City Tramway Company of Cape Town for increased fares. As I have indicated, when the local Transportation Board met, they had no accounts of the company before them. The City Tramways Company is a company within a group of companies known as Tollgate Holdings. I have been furnished with an analysis of the groups, accounts, which includes the accounts of the City Tramways. I might also mention for the information of the hon. the Minister, that at the hearing for the appeal, the attorney appearing for the Ratepayers’ Association asked whether he could have the audited accounts of the company to see that the increase was justified. His request was refused. The accounts were never produced and they never appeared before the National Transport Commission in dealing with the appeal. I sent an analysis of these accounts to the hon. the Minister last year. As he correctly indicated to me at that stage, the matter was sub judice and consequently he could not comment on the figures at that stage, as he was awaiting the outcome of the appeal. The appeal has, however, since been concluded.

What does the analysis of the accounts of this group of companies, which would be in such dire stress if it did not get the substantial increase in tariff in the City of Cape Town, show? I will quote some brief extracts from the analysis of the accounts. Firstly, I want to deal with the question of wages. This group has progressed with the development of Cape Town and, naturally, its passenger journeys have increased. One finds that, whereas in 1962 salaries and wages represented 60,4 per cent of the general expenditure, by 1969 salaries only represented 50 per cent of expenditure. There were other undertakings within this group. The group carries its own insurance, houses its own vehicles and tends to its own garaging. All this is done on an inter-company basis. When one looks at the company’s profits, the net profit in 1962, after tax had been deducted, was R774 000. In 1969 the net profit was R1 654 000.

On what tariff is that?

I will give you the figures percentagewise. If one looks at the net earnings of the ordinary shares in cents the figure was 14 cents in 1962 and 27,4 cents in 1969. The dividends per ordinary share in 1962 was 4,8 cents and in 1969 10 cents per share.

What is the value of a share?

The shares have been split. I will come to that in a moment. Originally they were R2 shares. They have since been divided into R1 shares and certain capitalization shares were issued as well. On a percentage basis, the figures are 4,8 cents in 1962 and 10 cents in 1969.

4,8 cent or 4,8 per cent?

It was 4,8 cents to 10 cents per share between 1962 and 1969. I want to give you the net worth of the ordinary shares too. It was 83 cents in 1962 and 193 cents in 1969. This is an analysis done by an outside, chartered accountant. He has drawn attention to these factors and I draw attention to them, because I believe that they are factors which should be regarded as material by the Road Transportation Board in considering whether or not an increase of the tariffs is justified.

You have not said what percentage of the capital the net profit is.

Yes, I will get to that. What I am getting at is that whatever the figures, are, the figures here indicate that the company has progressed over these years. Whatever they were, neither the local Transportation Board itself nor the National Transport Commission sitting as a board of appeal considered these accounts. They accepted the ex parte statements which had been presented by the accountants on behalf of this company.

What proof does the hon. member have that they have never considered the accounts?

I myself was sitting in the court when they refused to produce the accounts for the appellant so that he could look at them.

That is no proof that they did not consider it.

The hon. the Minister can ask me one other question, and that is whether any accountant in Cape Town or in South Africa can look at these group accounts and analyse them on the same day as the application is heard and then also grant the application on the same day. Let me go further. The networth of the ordinary shares improved from 83 cents in 1962 to 193 in 1969. That indicates a growth factor of 132 per cent, or 19 per cent per year. Compare this with the economic growth rate of 5 per cent per annum. I will give hon. members some other figures. I have mentioned the deficit already. In 1966 there was a free capitalization issue of 5 for 7, which was made to shareholders in this company. Under the trackless tram system this company had to pay 7 per cent of their profits to the Cape Town City Council. That has gone; this figure does not allow for that figure any more since the company now runs diesel buses. The Cape Provincial Administration, as the hon. the Minister is aware, made a grant of R320 000 to this company to assist in the financing of the changeover into separate White and non-White buses. To my mind, and to the mind of the public of Cape Town, it seems quite apparent from the above that there was no justification for these increases. However, if one goes further, and if one wants to know what the chairman of the company has said in presenting the annual accounts, I read more or less what he has said since I have not the exact words at hand, one finds that the City Tramways made a substantial contribution to the profits of this company. The chairman said so himself in presenting his annual report. As I said, I sent this information to the hon. the Minister and at the time he replied to me and he said that the matter was sub judice. In this letter from his private secretary, dated the 2nd November, 1970, there is a paragraph which reads—

That is correct; that is the correct state of the legal position. However, if that is so, then I believe it is our duty to the travelling public to see that there is machinery whereby they are properly represented to deal with applications for increases. If the board is going to sit purely in judgment and if it does not act as a auditing scrutineering body, then there must be some other means whereby the general public can be represented. It is wrong that the general public should be expected, somehow or another, to get together in 14 days, brief counsel, engage attorneys and arrange representation in order to have their case properly argued.

I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister. This has happened before. In this particular case there were one or two persons present. When the appeal came before the National Transport Commission, the matter was dealt with in the best way it could be dealt with on the information which was before the commission. However, I still want to know …

They could still ask for an extension of time.

The hon. the Minister is not getting my point. When an application is made for an increase of bus fares, it affects the general public. If I am going to ask a certain group of persons or a certain lessee to pay more rent, he knows that it affects him directly. Is the pensioner in Green Point constituency, who is struggling enough as it is, to go to an attorney, say that he would like to be represented before the Transportation Board? Another point is that there is a break in the procedure whereby there is no adequate representation of the general public as such who will be affected by any decision of the board. I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister. This has happened before. He may find that a similar position has occurred elsewhere. I do not know because that matter is still sub judice and therefore I am not sure of the position. There is no formal representation, some public accountant for instance, to deal with the matter on behalf of the public, to see that the case before the Transportation Board is properly considered.

Now I want to come to the final conclusion. the most extraordinary one in this record of proceedings. I quote:

In other words, because one group of users had appealed, they must be penalized because the other groups in other parts of the municipality did not appeal. Perhaps the hon. the Minister could look into this matter. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Green Point will understand if I do not folllow up on what he said, not because I am not interested in the matter he has raised but because I want to use all my time to discuss this particular matter I am about to raise.

This question of road safety is one which was dealt with during a discussion of a motion in this House earlier this year. However, I regard road safety as of such great national importance that I am taking the liberty of raising this matter once again this afternoon in the knowledge that the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister also have this matter at heart. In the course of my address I shall try to focus attention on two matters, i.e. that there is a fundamental need for knowledge of this matter and, secondly, that there is a fundamental need to make motorists aware of their responsibilities towards society. May I once more remind hon. members of the serious nature of this matter. The C.S.I.R. estimated in 1968 that road accidents are costing us R96 million per year, 37 per cent of which represents costs in respect of victims alone. The annual cost is equal to five disasters of the magnitude we had at Ceres. In addition, we must take into account the fact, for example, that it was found by one insurance company that the toll of human lives is the highest in the age group 16 to 30 years and represented 60 per cent of all claims dealt with by that company. According to the finding, the number of deaths as a result of motor accidents is four times the number of deaths as a result of other causes. In spite of this, road accidents receive very little attention and it matters very little when people are killed in the prime of their lives. It matters very little when intimate friends may be involved in road accidents, because we have not made people conscious of their responsibilities.

For that reason the second object of my address constitutes a dynamic campaign on a national level. We are aware of the fact that there are co-ordinating committees and that a certain amount of liaison is taking place between the provinces in those committees in regard to this matter. We are also aware of the important work which is being undertaken by the South African Road Safety Council. Notwithstanding all this I suggest that there is a need for a dynamic road safety campaign to be launched on a national level such as, for example, the Water Year. If we could conceive of the ideal of an accident free situation, it would have to have the following components: a perfect traffic communication system, control measures in respect of the flow of traffic, perfection of the ability to drive a motor vehicle and perfection in regard to the control of the standardization of motor vehicles and their roadworthiness. The construction of roads and safety factors in regard to roads, for example, flexible lamp posts and traffic signs, should also be perfect. However, we realize that all these components I have mentioned can only be obtained in the long term through planning and great expenditure. I suggest that, as far as the driver of motor vehicles is concerned, we are able to obtain material results in the short term. Surely, one can make a better driver of a person by appealing to his conscience. Surely, we can affect better control of a person’s emotions by applying spiritual therapy. We can obtain material results in the short term. We can obtain these results at the least possible cost. I am asking myself the question: How can a campaign such as this be launched? The campaign will probably have to be launched by a sub-committee of the Department of Transport. This will also have to be done with the co-operation and coordination of all four provinces and South-West Africa. Finally, this can be done with the assistance of a special force of reservists which could be established. This matter has been advocated before and to my mind this is practical and realistic and this is a factor which may be of assistance in such a dynamic campaign. In regard to the long-term, it is interesting to note that during an international conference on road safety in London in 1966, all the speakers said that they knew of no country in the world which had a fundamental and intimate knowledge of road traffic. When syllabuses are drawn up for universities by planners, these syllabuses mainly concern the technical aspects of the environment, the construction of roads and bridges, and so forth. An intimate knowledge of traffic and the inter-actions between traffic and the human being do not, as far as their knowledge goes, constitute a subject for special study. I therefore believe that a university could fruitfully consider the possibility of establishing a Chair of this nature.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.