Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I refer you to Notice of Motion No. 3, on page 12 of the Order Paper …

Order! It cannot be taken today.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to come back to the position of the Bantu in the White urban areas. The hon. member for Johannesburg North, who is not present at the moment, made quite a few suggestions yesterday about what could be done to facilitate the position of the urban Bantu. I do not know whether the hon. member is fully informed about matters, but the points he mentioned at the end of his speech, with reference to what must be done to improve the position of the urban Bantu, concern matters already receiving the attention of this Government. These are matters that are also being kept well under control by the local authorities. All those points the hon. member mentioned, he mentioned for the simple reason of making propaganda, with a view to the municipal elections taking place in Johannesburg. I want to say this afternoon that the policy of the Johannesburg City Council, in respect of the urban Bantu, has throughout the years still been the same policy applied under the Bantu Urban Areas Act, as recorded in the Statute Book. It is only since the Second World War, under pressure from the Progressive Party group in that party, and under pressure from the world outside, that the United Party has announced this policy of theirs. Now that the Progressive Party is nominating so many candidates in the Johannesburg City Council elections, we get the kind of speech we heard yesterday from the hon. member for Johannesburg North. Now they are trying to outdo the Progressives. That is what they are now engaged in, but in those days of old when I was still serving on the City Council, under the leadership of Mr. G. P. Gordon, and those people, and even when the hon. member for Johannesburg North was there, we did not encounter such matters as are now being advocated.

We had them.

These people must now suddenly be accorded permanence in the White areas. You never had this. According to South Africa’s traditional policy, as stated throughout the years by none other than Gen. Smuts and the United Party, and as stated subsequently by this National Party, those people have accepted that the Bantu brings his labour to the cities because he wants to sell his labour there. That was the only reason why the Bantu went there. We as Whites, employing those people, are going out of our way to ensure that they are established with dignity in the White cities and can live there in a dignified manner. This is being done. It is scandalous, but it was not done in the days of the United Party, in the days when they ruled. Under what conditions did those people not live in Johannesburg and the other cities? Sir, can you recall those filthy squatter camps that developed round Johannesburg in those days? Then the National Party was not at the helm. At that time the United Party was in power, and they thought fit solely to exploit the Bantu, to abuse his labour in the cities. We created a proper home for these people. Under this Government, and the leadership of a man like Dr. Verwoerd, the site and service scheme was instituted. Now the Johannesburg City Council boasts about that, saying that they instituted that scheme. We instituted the site and service scheme, and what did we find? Instead of the chaos that reigned around our urban areas, order prevails today. Sir, I would be the first to admit that I think Soweto has grown beyond its limits. I think that was a mistake—and let us admit it—which led to our having so large a concentration of non-Whites in Soweto today. But we must not run away from that problem. We must correct it. I can say with pride today that what is being done by the Department of Bantu Administration, for the proper regulation and control of conditions in our Bantu locations, is something we can be proud of. It is something the world can take note of.

What happened to your policy in Randburg?

What about the policy in Randburg? Randburg’s Bantu are properly settled in areas set aside for them. Sir, the United Party has not thought out its case with proper logic. If we were to yield to their request tomorrow, let me ask them today to prove to us how we must do justice to the normal increase of the Bantu population in the Bantu location areas, if we give to those people a state of permanence—and if they cannot prove it in this debate, they may do so under the Vote Bantu Administration and Development.

Are they now Bantu areas?

Yes, I am speaking about the Bantu locations in the White areas. The hon. member for Yeoville must not try to be clever now. Let us state it clearly. I want to know: How are we going to keep pace with the normal increase in the Soweto population, which is in a White area, if we are not going to purchase additional land? Where must that land come from, and what are we not going to pay for it? Sir, in this debate there is no further time to discuss these things, but in future debates about Bantu Administration we want a reply from the United Party in that connection. I say that it is nothing more than politicking, with a view to the coming municipal elections.

Mr. Speaker, I want to dwell on another very important subject this afternoon. There has been a great deal of argument in this debate about Ministers who have ostensibly contradicted one another and caused confusion as far as the National Party policy is concerned. Well, Sir, we know politics; we know the quality of the reporting, and I want to say that those who would take the trouble to examine the facts at their disposal would agree with me that many of these stories are based merely on distortion.

That is not so.

But I must come back to the debate. The United Party moved a motion of no confidence in the Government. In the past few months the United Party has told the world that they are going to take over the Government in South Africa. We hoped and trusted that in this debate they would state their policy very clearly. What have we had so far? Sir, after the confusion that developed in the United Party ranks after the prorogation of Parliament last year, confusion as a result of the actions of certain members on that side, we can say only one thing, and that is that, as far as the United Party is concerned, we have today a position of “confusion worse confounded”. What happened last year after prorogation? On 15th August we had a leader in the Sunday Times in which they stated: “The party that is losing its way.” In that article the Sunday Times made a sharp attack on the hon. member for Hillbrow about his utterance in connection with a “White backlash” in South Africa as a result of our Bantustan policy. It was a very long leader and I cannot quote it in full. We all read, re-read and chewed it over. But the eventual conclusion the Sunday Times arrived at in this article is that the United Party must now realize one thing, and that is that they must accept the homelands policy of the National Party. But the Sunday Times goes further and actually entreats the Leader of the Opposition; it states: “For heaven’s sake, you are an outworn leader; please step down and make way for another young intellectual …”

Yes.

“… dashing leader in the person of Japie Basson”. The Sunday Times was actually in tears; they beseech and pray that this be done. Mr. Speaker, what happened then? The hon. member for Yeoville came along on 22nd August 1971 …

Listen, Achitophel.

…and said that this plea of the Sunday Times that the United Party must accept the policy of Bantu homelands … [Interjections.] I think the hon. member for Yeoville should listen now. We shall give him a later chance to pass his instructions to the hon. member behind him. He does not need to get excited now. We know him to be like that; he gets excited very quickly. The hon. member for Yeoville then issued a statement in which he said: “We do not accept that invitation of yours”. I quote—

He said—

Sir, what did this same hon. member for Yeoville do? His breath had not even cooled yet when he made a statement in The Star on 26th August, 1971, and what did he say there? He said that the United Party was now accepting the homelands policy.

I challenge you to prove that. [Interjections.]

The hon. member must just listen now. The Star actually reached a point of ecstasy and announced this as a big bombshell the hon. member for Yeoville had dropped here.

A puff of tear gas!

But not long afterwards he withdrew this in the Sunday Times of 30th August, 1971, and said that it was not a bombshell. It was merely an empty shell. Sir, do you know what happened then? Great confusion reigned in the United Party—“confusion worse confounded”. Such confusion we have never seen before. No wonder the Cape Times began to write about this and became tremendously ecstatic about it. But just before I come to that, on 30th August when the hon. member moved back from here, the Sunday Times wrote in a leader—

—the hon. member for South Coast’s newspaper—

What does the Sunday Times state further? It states—

Sir, it is not only there in the north that this is being said; here in the deep south the Cape Times came forward with a leader the following day, 31st August—

Mr. Speaker, can you now agree with me when I say that “confusion is worse confounded” in that party? And who is responsible for that? The right hand of the leader of the United Party. But what did the leader say? When there was all this mess in the United Party, what did the leader of the United Party do? He was fishing at Riversdale! And what happened then? He almost got the fright of his life, jumped onto a plane to Joel Mervis and had a talk with the Sunday Times. That is what happened. But what happened after that? Then there was the Transvaal congress of the United Party; along came this “Bright young intellectual within the United Party”, as they describe him, and completely upset the applecart at that congress.

Who is he?

If you do not know, it is the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, and he came along and completely upset the applecart. And what did they say here? (Cape Times of 18th September)—

Then it states—

And one of the “oldtimers”, who sits here in the front, has now disappeared. I do not know where he is. I hope he is not in paradise. He states—

And now Achitophel and his people are bartering in Brakpan with this White baasskap of theirs. There they are fighting an election. So it goes on. What do they say further about this hon. member? The Cape Times of 25th September states—

And then the Cape Times states—

Sir, there was great rummaging in the United Party.

Even now.

They fell over each other from morning till night making statements, making “denials,” as the hon. member for Yeoville is so fond of doing. Just look at the Sunday Express of 30th October: “Provincial leader says ‘No change’. Transvaal leader says United Party will fight all the way”. “Cape leader is still opposed to separate development.” Natal Leader: “I want to make it absolutely clear”. So it goes on. What happened then? Then came the United Party’s unitary congress in November. That hon. member for Bezuidenhout then stood up there and we read this in the Cape Times of 11th November: “A fierce row erupts at U.P. congress”.

What happened? Were you there?

And then there had to be a rummaging from all sides to save the situation. The hon. member then came along to make a speech there approximately five minutes in length. Perhaps it was longer, but in any case there was a bit of rummaging.

And then the congress tore apart from top to bottom.

Then there were again “denials”—there is nothing wrong; all is peace and love in the United Party. [Interjections.] An impression was created for the outside world that peace had been made between the hon. members for Yeoville and Bezuidenhout. There was a joint statement from the two of them, but what happened then? Then something else cropped up. “Basson again drops a political bombshell”—Die Burger of 30th October, 1971. Time does not permit, but I want to refer to New Nation of 30th November of last year, when this magazine had an interview with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I cannot quote everything he said there, but I do want to quote the following. This question was put to him: “What is the significance of the United Party’s adjustment?” [Interjections.] The hon. member supposedly issued a statement, together with the hon. member for Yeoville, to the effect that there is no change. “No adjustment”. [Interjections.] However, he acknowledges after the question: What is the significance of the U.P.’s adjustment—what we have just been talking about … in terms of the Prime Minister’s distinction? The reply to that was: I would say it is generally accepted that South Africa is a multi-national country. The big point at issue in this House, the great point at issue between us and the United Party deals with this, and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has said time and again, when he rose from his seat: We are not a multi-national country …

Did I say so?

Yes!

… we form a multi-racial country in South Africa. That is what the hon. member acknowledges. Then New Nation asked him: “Would you say that this is generally accepted in the United Party?” What did the hon. member for Bezuidenhout say then? “Yes.” [Interjections.] I ask this House in all fairness …

Nothing more is stated there; we know what is stated there.

… to the people outside, to the entire world, that in his reply the hon. the Leader of the Opposition should tell us whether he agrees with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout or not; that he gives us an accurate, clear explanation of their policy. [Interjections.]

I want to conclude with this. Recently I was overseas for a while. I was actually ashamed to think that I sat with people such as that in this Parliament. When we speak of the Opposition in South Africa, do you know what the people there say? They say: “Do not be silly; you are ridiculous—there is no Opposition in South Africa. An Opposition is a party with an alternative policy, which claims that it will one day become the ruling party in the country.”

Mr. Speaker, there is a popular saying that there is a joker in every pack of cards, but I wonder whether the Minister of Transport … [Interjections.]

Order!

… after the performance this afternoon of the hon. member for Langlaagte regards the R60 million investment to get him in on the second innings as a sound investment. I want to say to the hon. member for Langlaagte that he must have been born under a lucky star.

He hurt you.

Fortunately for him television is not yet in vogue. If the electorate had seen him or had heard his performance this afternoon, a greater investment than R60 million would be required to keep him in Langlaagte after the next election.

Let me deal with all this talk of the confusion, of the consternation and of the disagreements within our party. Let me just read to him one report of the National Congress of our party. There are many others; they came from political observers, observers of standing, from “Dawie”, from Schalk Pienaar and from others. I shall read one of them, a leader of Die Oosterlig. I quote—

This is what Die Osterlig said. It goes further—

We had to listen to what I can term just “claptrap” from an hon. member of this House for 20 minutes this afternoon. The trouble with this Government is that it is frightened to adapt itself to modern conditions in South Africa. It is frightened to accept any advice, and if it is compelled to accept that advice it wraps it up in verbiage to try to hide it from the electorate. I would like to refer to the development of the Bantustans as an instance. We on this side of the House have consistently and persistently said that developments in the Bantustans could only take place with White capital and White know-how. We said that we would support that so that the maximum development could take place. What does the Government do? No, that is rejected. What have they put in its place? They said that White capital and White know-how could go there on an agency basis. When I spoke to one of these industrialists recently, I asked him how long his agency will be valid. He said that it would be valid for a minimum of 50 years. If that is the attitude of the Government, why are they not frank enough to say that we were right? Why do they not say that that is their approach to the development of the Bantu homelands, instead of wrapping it up in other words?

Now we come to the hon. the Minister of Transport. He has taken his courage in his hands in the past to employ non-Whites wherever they were required in the Railways. What do we find now? Because a non-White has to be a shunter, he is not called a shunter any more; he is now a “train compiler”. The hon. the Minister could some time or other tell us and the electorate what the difference is between the functions of a train compiler and a shunter. Is the one to take the train apart for offloading and the other one to compile it for loading?

I shall tell you a lot more than you want to hear.

That is the nonsense we hear. This afternoon we have had the words from the hon. member for Langlaagte that the eloquent and realistic appeal which the hon. member for Johannesburg North made yesterday is receiving the urgent attention of the Government.

It has always been …

Is he going to suggest to us that they are going to recognize at long last what we have been asking for for so long, i.e. home ownership and more family life? That is what the hon. member has said.

I want to go on to some other matters. I want to go on to matters particularly arising from what has repeatedly been said during this debate, on public occasions and in statements by members of the Nationalist Party. They are critical of the unduly high standards of living of South Africans. We have heard it in this debate. The unanswered question is still at this stage to whom are they referring. What section of our whole population is in fact living according to unduly high standards of living? The hon. the Minister of the Interior said in November that people were living too high for the circumstances in which they found themselves. The question has been posed, but has not yet been answered, as to whether he referred to the 8 per cent of the population who pay income tax or whether he included amongst the people who were living too high for the circumstances in which they found themselves, the old-age pensioner or the civil pensioner or those persons who live on fixed incomes from investments. They have found that the purchasing power of their rand has been eroded by up to 60 per cent whilst this Government has been in power. Are these people living too luxuriously for the circumstances in which they find themselves? The hon. the Minister of the Interior emphasized that “it was essential that more attention should be paid to the standard of living of the Bantu, Coloured people and Indians and to the circumstances in which they find themselves”. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that I regard that as a most commendable statement. It is only unfortunate that, as my hon. leader pointed out, the hon. the Minister linked somewhat extravagant language with that statement of his. According to The Cape Times the hon. the Minister of Information reprimanded his colleague over that particular interview and said that the choice of words of the hon. the Minister of the Interior was unfortunate and open to misunderstanding.

But, Sir, what have the hon. the Minister of the Interior’s actions been in practice? What in fact has he done while in office to give effect to what he says should be done? The approach of his department, which, after all, controls wage and salary scales to a very great extent, has been the same as the common National Party approach of “let us be White but poor” or “Let us, seeing that we have become poor, say ‘thank God, we are remaining White’ ”. The hon. the Minister of the Interior Controls the Public Service Commission. What has he done to make it possible to improve the living standards of those non-Whites whose salaries are controlled by the Public Service Commission? Why has he dragged his feet on the question of closing the gap between the salaries of White and non-White employees of the Government? There can be no greater frustration than that which is caused by poverty coupled to no hope of improvement of the financial conditions in which a person finds himself. This Government stands condemned for perpetuating that state of affairs so far as the non-White people in South Africa are concerned. But this does not only concern the non-White people, because the hon. the Minister went further in his statement. About the circumstances obtaining under this Government, the hon. the Minister said that the average married couple spent up to 35 per cent of their joint income on housing, 10 per cent more than what was regarded as the maximum in most countries. He continued to say that the furnishing of the average home is far more expensive than in any other country. It is not that the individual spends more on furnishing; it is merely that the furnishing of an ordinary home costs more than in any other country. He continued to say that rental was higher and that the interest in capital redemption frequently compelled the inhabitants to live on the brink of insolvency. That is the finding of a Nationalist Party Minister. I want to ask the hon. the Minister of the Interior how, when he finds the policy which has brought about this state of affairs is the policy of the Government of which he is now a member of the Cabinet, he can tolerate remaining in that Cabinet a day longer? How can the hon. the Minister tolerate remaining in that Cabinet a day longer if these are his views as reported in the Press? In dealing with the question of expense, he referred to a section of the White population only. For the moment I want to go a little deeper into the economic plight of the vast majority of South Africa. Do hon. members know that in South Africa, this country of great potential, with blessings of minerals, natural wealth and opportunity, half the population is dependent upon breadwinners who have an income of less than R50 per month? According to the 1960 census 50 per cent of the Whites, 81 per cent of the Coloureds, 94 per cent of the Indians and 99 per cent of the Bantu have incomes of less than R100 per month. Let us assume that there has been an improvement since the 1960 census. How can it be suggested that these people are living too luxuriously in South Africa at the present time? In 1967, according to the hon. the Minister of Transport, there were still 80 000 Whites on the Railways who were earning between R200 and R100 per month and 19 000 Whites who were earning less than R100 per month. I agree with the hon. the Minister of the Interior that poverty can be dangerous, for it is poverty that creates fertile fields for the Communist agitator.

I want to return to the hon. the Minister’s own responsibility in this regard. I want to say that for his contribution to this state of affairs he now stands condemned. According to a report in Die

Burger on the 24th July, 1971, the hon. the Minister stated—

He then went on to say that this was receiving urgent attention. The disparity in pay has been created by this Government since 1963-’64. The hon. the Minister of the Interior, as a Former Administrator, will know that the gap was virtually completely closed, in so far as medical doctors are concerned for instance. The gap was closed in consultation with the provinces, the Health Department and the Public Service Commission. A ratio broadly on the basis of 10 for White, 9 for Coloured and Asiatics and 8 for Bantu was introduced. This was done for doctors. The then Minister of Health decided to appoint a commission to go into the question of the nursing services and nurses’ salaries. I believe that that commission has reported to the hon. the Minister. Nothing much has been done about the implementation of the recommendations, if there are any, aimed at closing this gap.

There was no such commission appointed.

At the time I was a member of the Executive Committee responsible for hospitals in the Cape and I found that the non-White doctors I met and went to see in the provincial hospitals were prepared and satisfied to accept—although they were disappointed that there was not parity—a 90 per cent basis of the Whites’ salaries. What is the position now? At the present time, February of last year, a White intern gets 10, Coloureds and Asiatics get 7 and Bantu 6. A White medical officer commences on a salary of R5 700 per annum. After 11 years of service, with 11 years of increments in his salary, a Bantu attains his maximum of R5 400 which is less than the starting salary for a White doctor. A Coloured or Indian medical officer reaches R5 700, which is the starting figure for a White doctor, after eight years of service to the State. On the 26th December, 1971, which is very recently, there was almost a full page of advertisements placed by “Die Departement van Hospitaaldienste in die Transvaal”. I want to give just one or two extracts to show what the position is with regard to the para-medical services at the hospitals. A White radiographer starts on R2 400 per annum, a Coloured on R1 380 —which is approximately 50 per cent of that of a White—and a Bantu starts on R960 per annum. If one looks at physiotherapists, a White’s commencing salary is R2 700, a Coloured’s is R1 380—a ratio of ten to five, or two to one. These are people with the same qualifications, doing the same work and accepting the same responsibilities in the health services in this country, but that is how they are rewarded. The hon. the Minister of the Interior says that this causes frustration. Of course it does! Of course it causes frustration and enmity but the remedy is in the hands of that hon. Minister and his Public Service Commission. We do not want empty words. The country has had empty words from this Government for far too long. That is the reason why we have a motion of this type before this House today. But let me go on to another aspect, which …

What are you pleading for?

I am pleading for the policy which your colleague, the hon. the Minister of the Interior, has said should be applied in the interests of justice and peace and harmonious race relations in South Africa. If the hon. the Minister does not know of it, he must ask his colleague for a copy of the statement he issued to the Press.

Will the hon. member tell this House whether it is the policy of his party that in all spheres of government employment, including the Railways, there should be equal pay for equal work?

The question the hon. the Minister has put to me takes me away from the topic I want to discuss, but I will nevertheless repeat to him the statement which has been made again and again by this side of the House, i.e. that a United Party Government will take all possible steps to make available the funds necessary to narrow the gap between the emoluments of White and non-White provincial professional employees with the same qualifications doing the same work and accepting the same responsibilities with the ultimate aim of closing that gap completely. Does that satisfy the hon. the Minister? On another occasion I will have the opportunity to talk on the trade union aspect, but I am now talking on the professional aspect, a matter which is under the control of the hon. the Minister of the Interior. We will have other opportunities of discussing other aspects of the industrial laws that apply. The hon. the Prime Minister has already side-stepped this question at a Press conference very eruditely.

I now want to go on to another matter which was referred to by the hon. the Minister of the Interior, one which affects my friend the hon. the Minister of Community Development, namely the question of housing. The hon. the Minister of the Interior said that people had to spend up to 35 per cent of their income to acquire housing. Individuals do not pay 35 per cent of their income on housing because they want to do that. They only do that because they cannot get housing any other way. This fact seems to be lost on the hon. the Minister of Community Development. This Minister has failed dismally in his duty as a Minister in charge of housing in this country. I will give him some short reasons why I say that. His Ministry has been noted for a series of ad hoc decisions with no overall planning in regard to the housing needs of South Africa. Out of the blue the hon. the Minister will rush in and make an announcement that this block of flats will now be released from rent control, or he will suddenly put up another scheme here, or he has another idea there to solve the housing needs. Secondly, this series of ad hoc decisions which the hon. the Minister has made in regard to the Rents Act have been presented to the House piecemeal. Many of them, I will agree, have been made on representations from this side of the House. But what has the Minister done over all his years in office? What has he done and what has the Government done until very recently when a commission was appointed to try and iron out and to balance the conflicting interests of landlord and tenant under the Rents Act? It has been allowed to drift on and as a result of this drifting I would like to give him the position in Cape Town. In 1967 plans for 1 646 flats costing R12 million were approved. In 1971 plans for 319 flats costing R3 million were approved. That is what has happened because of the uncertainty which the hon. the Minister has allowed to continue. Now he has appointed a commission.

Can you tell me how many flats are standing empty today?

There are flats standing empty when the hon. the Minister does what he did to a certain block in Sea Point. He declared it a luxury block, removed rent control and the tenants are compelled to pay rent increases of up to 48 per cent.

Which one is that?

Alphen Court.

Did you not ask me to do it?

I did not ask you to do it! You have your facts a little bit mixed. Next you will talk about Bordeaux being luxury flats. It certainly is luxury when R7 900 worth of public money is spent redecorating one particular flat occupied by a Minister. It is certainly not luxury for the rest of the tenants in that block. The hon. the Minister of Community Development will know about that flat, because he occupies it at the moment. Thirdly, I want to say that for years we have requested this Government to do something to stimulate private home ownership. Why does he not heed the urgings of specialists and economists, let alone the urgings from this side of the House? What has been done to see that, for instance, tax rebates on interest and redemptions for home ownership projects are introduced? Not a sound; not an effort comes from that side of the House. What has been done to reduce transfer costs, a form of direct taxation on the would-be owner of a house for his own occupation? I need only remind the hon. the Minister that this matter has not been raised only by us. Dr. Jan Marais, as chairman of the Trust Bouvereniging, is reported to have said in July of last year—

These matters have been raised in this House, but not one single sign of action has come from this Cabinet.

But the hon. the Minister has done one thing. In October last year the hon. the Minister returned from an overseas tour. He had gone to find out what was happening in other countries. He then announced, for the State, the start of a new home-savings plan. He announced it at a party congress at Goudini and referred to it as a scheme which is operative in Germany and in the Netherlands. If I am correct, the Minister discovered it on his tour. But, Sir, that was rather late, and it demonstrates what I have said about the incompetence and the ineptitude of this Minister. He did not need to wait until October, 1971, to make that statement; he did not need to go himself with his entourage on a visit to Germany; because in this House, on the 16th September, 1970, the hon. member for Parktown, speaking on the hon. the Minister’s Vote, said (Hansard, col. 4318)—

He went on, almost in identical words to those used by the Minister after his sudden discovery on an overseas tour in 1971. What is more interesting, and more condemnatory, of the hon. the Minister, is that while the hon. the member for Parktown was speaking, the Minister was not paying any attention. Hansard reports that I interrupted and said: “The hon. the Minister is not even listening.” How true that has been proved to be! How costly was that lack of attention on the part of the hon. the Minister!

Fourthly, I want to mention to the hon. the Minister one matter which is causing so much concern amongst the poorer people of this country—perhaps the Minister of the Interior knows about it—namely the unimaginative, dreary and monotonous housing schemes which are put up for non-Whites. These sprawling townships lack every conception of modern planning, and local authorities are bound hand and foot to comply with his department’s requirements. There is no variation in quality or in the classes of buildings. There is no provision for different standards and different classes within the non-White townships.

Have you seen any of these schemes?

Of course I have seen them; I have been with the hon. the Minister himself to see them. In locating them, the hon. the Minister has had no regard to distance. He has had no regard to the fact that these non-White people have to travel an hour or more to get to their jobs. Then, Sir, he suddenly says that he cannot understand why so many people squat in servants’ rooms in my constituency and in the cities. He then says that he must introduce regulations to stop them squatting. They squat, Sir, to save themselves about 50c a day in travelling expenses, and about 2½ hours travelling time. The siting of these places is causing discontent of the kind to which the hon. the Minister of the Interior has referred.

Sir, I want to conclude by saying that the country finds a disarray of incompetence on the part of the Government at the present time. We have a Prime Minister who, while he has our Police guarding our northern boundaries, is prepared to accept the possibility of Red occupation and Red influence on a vast portion of the eastern seaboard of our country, and to create international boundaries far greater and almost double the length of the boundaries which now exist. When things get difficult politically we find the hon. the Prime Minister and others assuming the attitude of a bogeyman, a prophet of doom. I want to say to the House this afternoon that I believe South Africans have other views. South Africans have become tired of the negative approach of this Government. My Leader spoke for all South Africans when he said quite recently—

Mr. Speaker, that is why young South Africans are not flocking to support the party opposite. That is why this House has this motion before it, and I believe that the hon. the Prime Minister has an explanation to give this House on various of the points which have been raised by my Leader and other speakers on this side of the House. I trust he will not be tardy in entering this debate and giving those explanations.

Mr. Speaker, one of the last remarks made by the hon. member for Green Point was a statement which the hon. member for Turffontein has also made before. He said that the young people had no interest in and felt no zeal for the National Party, its principles and its policy as it has been implemented during the past 25 years and as the party leaders have stated it from generation to generation during the past two decades. This is a very interesting remark which we have already heard frequently in this House. I want to tell the Opposition today that although it may sometimes appear that the young people are sceptical or critical of the principles and the policies of the various parties, there is nothing strange about that. This has happened in every century. That is why I want to say to the Opposition this afternoon that I personally, as a member of the post-Second World War youth, take a profound interest in politics, and in the future of our father-land. That is why it is very important, when we have to listen to a debate like this, to examine with intensive attention and the closest scrutiny the major problems with which South Africa and the coming generations will have to contend. That is why this side of the House looks forward as eagerly perhaps as the Leader of the Opposition and his fellow-members to a debate on the future of our country. I think there are many young people who will want to listen very critically to these debates and who would also like to read them. Sir, this is the fifth or sixth year that I have had the opportunity of listening to a no-confidence debate, and I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that I examine very eagerly and carefully the contents of what he has to say to the House to find out why he and his Party think this side of the House are unfit to govern. During the past few years it has also been our experience that the Press, the newspapers in particular, make much of the impending week-long debate and give one an impression of what the Opposition are actually going to discuss. But, Sir, I have this problem, this honest and sincere problem, with the Opposition: We have already reached Wednesday and I really cannot discern clearly which of the major problems of our country the Opposition would like to debate. During the past few months we have heard, inter alia, that the Opposition were going to talk about the urban Bantu. I can recall quite clearly the time when the hon. Minister of Community Development was still Deputy Minister and said that our Bantu problem was a real problem. I do not think anybody realizes better than the Government that there are problems attached to this, for it is the responsibility of this Government to convert the principles in which it believes into a practical policy, and that is why it is important that we should come here and debate those basic problems. The hon. member for Johannesburg North said here yesterday that he was going to deal with this major problem of the urban Bantu, and that with his knowledge of the urban Bantu, gained as ex-mayor of Johannesburg and as a person who has been sitting in this House for five or six years, he was going to make an accurate dissection of the National Party policy and indicate where we are going wrong in respect of the so-called urban Bantu. But, Sir, I must honestly say this to you today: I read through the hon. member’s speech very thoroughly this morning and can find in it no real, substantial criticism of the National Party’s policy. I shall return to that later. I could not find it in his speech.

He is fighting the municipal election.

If he was the prelude, if he had introduced the debate, then I could understand that one cannot say everything in one half-hour speech. The hon. member for Potchefstroom then replied and stated certain basic, cardinal facts in respect of the urban Bantu. After the hon. member for Potchefstroom had sat down, the hon. member for Maitland rose, but with all due respect to my hon. friend I want to say this: I thought he would elaborate on the basic points indicated here by the hon. member for Johannesburg North. He discussed the urban Bantu for five or ten minutes and then went on to something else. My personal impression was that the hon. member for Maitland had not been prepared for this important question.

He knows nothing about it.

Today the hon. member for Langlaagte returned to the topic of the urban Bantu, which the Opposition were to have debated. After that the hon. member for Green Point rose to speak, and said nothing about it.

Ran away.

Mr. Speaker, it is with affection, with completely benevolent affection, that I say this to the Opposition side: I get the impression that the Opposition, which declared with a great fanfare that they would debate the matter, do not have an alternative policy for the problems with which we are contending in South Africa, or that they do not have the knowledge to debate those matters or, thirdly, that they do not have any interest in debating them. Sir, if that is all the United Party could come to light with after all the fanfares, and everything which went before about how they would tackle the urban Bantu problem here, then I cannot help feeling, in my own mind, a certain sense of despondency at having to spend so much time in a year debating matters with people who do not understand the essence of the problems of our country and of the world. It makes things terribly difficult for one. Let me tell the hon. member for Houghton that the only time I sometimes find a little stimulus, a little brain exercise, is when I talk to certain of the Young Progressives …

Is this another coalition?

… but one does not get this from the members of the United Party. The National Party welcomes a debate on the urban Bantu. The problem with the United Party is that when we want to talk about the urban Bantu, they want to talk about the Coloureds and when we want to talk about the Coloureds, they want to talk about the Indians, and when we want to talk about the Indians, they want to talk about the consolidation of the homelands. I ask you, Sir, with real tears in my eyes: How does one conduct a debate with people who do not want to conduct a debate with you? When one discusses the urban Bantu, or the so-called urban Bantu, and one wants to conduct a debate on that matter, it is very important that one should at least get one’s terminology right, the terms and the concepts one wants to discuss. Now one finds that the United Party makes use of the terminology of the opponents and also of the enemies of South Africa. I want to qualify that statement in the following way. I want to put it that in a political debate on the population problems of South Africa one does not have a distinctive terminology which one uses. That is why we on this side of the House often have to accuse that side of using the terminology and the idiom of the opponents and the enemies of South Africa. I want to prove this. The hon. member for Johannesburg North spoke about the so-called urban Bantu. How often have the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and his Deputies, and others, not said that you must define this term a little more accurately for us. What do you understand by the term “urban Bantu”? If one wants to discuss those Bantu who are not resident in the homelands, then you talk about the Bantu in the White areas, and if you then want to criticize us in respect of our policy you must add substance to that terminology. Then you must give us a reply, and must not do what the hon. member for Johannesburg North did yesterday, i.e. rattle off three sentences and say that we must do this, that and the other, things that we have done and forgotten what we were doing long ago. There is also the question of the Bantu on the farm and the Bantu living in the towns, etc., etc.

Then there is another term the hon. member for Johannesburg North used, the term “detribalized”. I remember quite clearly that when I was a student we once held such a conference at which there were so-called non-White student leaders and there was a young Shona from Southern Rhodesia who said to me, “I am detribalized”. I asked him what he meant by that, and to this very day I am still waiting for a reply from that Bantu student. It remains a matter to be cogitated. What do hon. members of the Opposition mean when they talk about “detribalized”? What does it mean? I want to return to this again in a moment when I make my statement about our urban Bantu policy, but in a political debate like this one you cannot talk about the Bantu in the White areas if you do not contrast the two parties’ policies with each other. You must compare the one with the other and then you can look for a solution. Let us now take the United Party in contrast to the National Party. The National Party states that there is a variety of ethnic groups living in South Africa, each with its own culture and pattern of living, as these were established in the course of history. In addition we say that each of these population groups have a right to survive, a right to live according to its own nature and customs. That is why we say the Vendas should be able to live like Vendas, the Shangaans like Shangaans, and the Whites like Whites. That is our premise, superficially stated, but let us come to the premises of the United Party. For, Sir, you must remember that ever since the forties when I began thinking about politics, in the time of General Smuts and Minister Hofmeyr, the National Party has always maintained that the United Party policy would lead to the disappearance and subjugation of the Whites, which would result in the subjugation of the different Bantu peoples to one another. In other words, if you accept the policy of the United Party, it will lead to the downfall of the Whites, but it will also lead to the downfall of the other population groups. Now, what is the premise of the United Party? The United Party states in its declared manifesto or fundamental principles, as follows—

Of all the major problems of South Africa this is the basic principle, or basis, or foundation on which the United Party argue. They say that there are four Bantu for every White, and those Bantu are basically still primitive, whatever one wants to understand the term primitive to mean. Then they go a step further and say something about the urban Bantu. I now want to tell hon. members what they say about the urban Bantu. I quote—

Finished and done with. They talk about the Bantu who have cut their tribal ties, as if one can sever with a knife one’s individual membership of one’s ethnic organism and say that one has in that way terminated it. I merely send a card along to the F.A.K. and say that Van der Merwe hereby terminates his membership of the Afrikaner people. Mr. Speaker, people who have for 20 to 30 years been debating major national problems should surely not use such sentences in their declared policy statements. I leave it at that, and proceed with the quotation—

Now they state their policy in respect of these Bantu. I quote again—

That is what they want to do now.

I now come to another concept which was used by the hon. member for Johannesburg North, i.e. the question of petty apartheid. This is also a concept which frequently causes the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, I do not want to say to stumble, but is one which constitutes a problem to him in our South African society.

You never want to debate it.

I recall that the hon. the Prime Minister made this matter very clear to the hon. member across the floor of the House.

I want to refer to what the hon. member for Johannesburg North said. He said—

He is discussing the so-called urban Bantu—

The segregational measures which we have adopted in South Africa, or the laws and measures establishing apartheid or separate development, were introduced, not in order to be discriminatory, but in order to adopt certain segregational measures so that people do not feel that other people constitute a threat to them. I mention this without going into the matter deeply. Now the Opposition maintains that the National Party is being so-called “petty” in regard to the measures which they maintain against the Bantu in White areas. We are petty in the way we deal with the presence of the Bantu in our society. Now hon. members state that they will establish residential separation. The question to which the Opposition will have to reply today or at a later stage is, when does a segregational measure cease to be petty? When is it no longer petty? For one person it is petty if you have separate entrances or separate queues in a post office. To the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and the hon. member for Johannesburg North it is petty, but it is not petty for those hon. members when these Bantu are told to live in separate residential areas in the so-called urban areas. Surely that is a segregational measure. It is not petty for those hon. members when the Bantu are told to travel in separate buses, or that they must attend separate secondary and primary schools. The question these hon. members must reply to when they say that we are being petty with our segregational measures, is where do the segregational measures begin or end which they want to adopt for the Bantu in White areas?

There is another matter I want to deal with. Hon. members say—and I quote point two—

I have here a M.A. thesis by a Mr. de Villiers dealing with the role of the African National Congress since 1910, the entire development of the African National Congress and other political groupings within the Bantu society. Those hon. members often say that we create Bantu communities that object to our segregational measures, and that this leads to political organizations which can change into a Black Power Movement. Hon. members on the opposite side of the House maintain many of these aspects in their declared policy. In many respects perhaps they do so even more drastically, because they do not afford these people any opportunity of expressing their political opinions. That the National Party does in fact do. They go on to say—

1. (a) making it possible for deserving Bantu to gain controlled freehold title to their homes in the big urban locations …

The question which arises from this is as follows. The hon. members state that the Bantu living permanently in White areas are cut off from their family members. Very often these are their parents, their brothers, sisters or cousins. The tribal affiliations of the Bantu, and the hon. members on that side probably do not know this, are very strong. The hon. members say that they are completely severed from their family, and the United Party are going to allow them to obtain controlled freehold title. The question I now want to put to the Opposition is whether they are going to obtain this controlled freehold title only in the urban areas or are they going to obtain it in the country towns and on the farms as well. Last year I put a question to one of the hon. members on the opposite side of the House and I am still waiting for a reply. I want to repeat the question. What will be the size of the piece of land the Bantu are going to receive, permanently in the White areas, under that scheme of controlled freehold title? Is it going to be a half-acre, a quarter-acre, or is it going to be two acres in size? Are those Bantu who, according to the hon. members are permanently resident in White areas, going to have the right to own a piece of land?

Five acres?

Are they going to have the right to own farms? It is important to me to know this, because those hon. members attack the National Party and say that we are creating communities which could in future be a danger to the Whites.

I want to return now to the hon. member for Yeoville, who is unfortunately not present at the moment.

There he is.

Oh, I beg your pardon. I said a moment ago that the essence of every election during the past 20 to 25 years has been that the National Party maintains that it can give the Whites in South Africa living space. The United Party has stated that they, too, can give the Whites this, in other words, the heart of the matter is the survival of the various groups in South Africa. Hon. members will recall how the National Party asked the voters year after year at the elections what the political future of the country was to be. The hon. members on the opposite side of the House have said on each occasion to the Afrikaans-speaking sector of our society that the United Party will see to it that the Whites remain the masters (baas).

White leadership.

Very well, they said that they would maintain White leadership. Time and again the question asked by the voters was how long would it last. They asked how long the United Party could ensure their survival and that of their children in South Africa. The Opposition shied away from it every time. The United Party shied away from telling us what the complete future of the Bantu in the politics of South Africa would be. When the hon. members go overseas, they play along with the idiom of the outside world. In respect of human rights they say that there is no Party which is able to give the Bantu better human rights than the United Party will in fact be able to do. The hon. members blow hot and cold. They want to run with the hares and bop with the baboons. I want to return to the television interview given by the hon. member for Yeoville. I want to ask him a specific question today. Would he have put it like that to the young people of South Africa? Every day the young people have to think about the future of our country and our people. In this House that hon. member and I both think about the future of our people. In that interview, however, the hon. member was asked, on an international level, by Robin Day …

That is an old story.

It is an old story, but it is still an important one. Robin Day asked him—

Mr. Speaker, this is the question the outside world is putting to the United Party. I, as one of the younger members, am still putting it to the United Party. The emergent Bantu youth are also putting that question to the United Party. Hon. members must remember that the Bantu had political rights and a political system from the beginning. As far back as I can remember, the Bantu had a political system. Politics is nothing strange to them. At the time of the interview the hon. member for Yeoville had recourse to his hon. Leader and gave the gentleman the following reply—

Mr. Speaker, in all fairness, I want to ask the hon. member for Yeoville today on what international platform he is morally able to defend this standpoint of his?

On what platform are you able to defend the Coloured policy of the Nationalist Party?

Mr. Speaker, I shall defend the Coloured policy of the National Party on any platform. But hon. members opposite said that we must deal with the matter of the urban Bantu. I did not start all this. Just ask the hon. member for Johannesburg North. Apparently the hon. member for King William’s Town was not listening.

In all sincerity and in all fairness I now want to ask the hon. member for Yeoville on what platform in the world he is able to defend this standpoint. That is the problem the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has. Although the hon. member wants to reject completely his Afrikanerdom in his political views, or will reject it if he continues in his standpoint, even he finds himself in a dilemma with the policy of the United Party, which is that the policy of the United Party offers no solution to the problems with which we are contending. Hon. members opposite cannot escape from that when they talk to the young Bantu, the young Afrikaner and the young Englishman in South Africa.

That is why your majority in Rissik among the students is increasing so rapidly!

Mr. Speaker, I accept that my majority has perhaps decreased. But I maintain that the problem we have in South Africa today is that the young people do not recognize the United Party. We are saddled today with a propaganda machine or with an Opposition which cannot really play the game. Hon. members opposite cannot debate the real problems. I asked Mr. Du Preez, the United Party candidate during the election, whether he would reply to this question before the students of the University of Pretoria. I asked him whether he would discuss it with the students from Oxford; and I asked him whether he would be able to discuss it with the students of Cape Town, Stellenbosch and elsewhere. But he cannot do so. The National Party adopts the standpoint that among the Bantu in the White areas we have the same tribal affiliations as among those in the homelands. I think there is one of my former lecturers who taught me these things present here today. I want to tell hon. members that there is more tribal awareness among the urban Bantu than many of us may perhaps want to accept.

I now want to come to my actual prepared speech. However, before I come to that I just want to say that the hon. member for Yeoville must give me, as a young backbencher, a reply to these questions so that we can thrash out these matters in debate in the interests of South Africa, in the interests of generations still to come.

A very interesting book entitled Muntu: An Outline of New African Culture deals with what became of those Blacks who were in one context or another—whether by slavery or by other means—exiled to other countries where they had to work as labourers for the Whites. The conclusion this book arrives at is that those people, although they were severed from their tribal or ethnic affiliations in the cruellest possible way, carried with them the thoughts and ideas which gave shape to their pattern of living. If one makes a study of even the American Negro today, one finds that the foundations of their living pattern came out of Africa.

I want to conclude by saying that the United Party has no solution to offer for the problems of South Africa. The National Party does in fact, in its principles and in its policy, have an adequate solution, but it is a solution which will emerge from the hearts of the coming generations. If I may make an appeal to the young people who support the National Party, I want to say that we will have to realize, more than ever before, that we are living in a difficult world with major problems at which every young man and every young woman with the talents the good Lord gave them will have to labour and work, so as to solve the problems of the day in terms of the principles and policy of the National Party. Then the solution will be at hand.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the hon. member for Rissik with considerable interest. I believe that he is a young man—as he has told us—who is sincerely troubled by the problems which face South Africa. I believe he is trying to find a solution to these problems. He relies very heavily on the ethical basis of the homelands policy of the National Party. Unfortunately for him, that policy cannot work for two main reasons: Firstly, the land set aside in the 1913 and 1936 Land Acts was never intended to accommodate the bulk of the African population; there is not enough land for that purpose. Secondly, it is too late; it is too late because there are today second and third generation Africans who were born in the urban areas. Whether one calls these people “detribalized” or “urbanized”, there can be no doubt whatever that the way of thinking, the way of life, the customs, aims and ambitions of these people differ very considerably from those of the people living in the homelands. For these reasons I do not believe that this policy can possibly work today.

I sympathize with the hon. member’s problem as far as the United Party and its policies are concerned. I have the same problem, very often, of trying to discern what their policy is. I am very glad to hear members, such as the hon. member for Johannesburg North, making decidedly Progressive noises in this House. I think that very good. Whatever the reason for that may be, I welcome it, because if he makes such statements often enough, he is going to come to believe them. That would be a very good thing for South Africa. The more people who follow that line of thinking, the better. I do find difficulty in following the reasoning of the hon. member for Green Point this afternoon. He gave us quite a passionate exposé of the United Party’s policy on “Equal pay for equal work” or “the rate for the job”. He took the hon. the Minister of the Interior to task for not getting on with the policy which, according to him, should be followed, which is of course one I agree with. I can only say that not very long ago—in fact, in October last year—The Star appeared with a front page article: “No rate for the job for Africans.” It said—

I want to know whether or not it is the policy of the United Party to pay the rate for the job and, if it is their policy, why they are not paying the rate for the job in the City Council of Johannesburg, Where they have the opportunity to do so. I also remember—I am not going to dwell on this because I have many other things to say and not much time in which to say them—that a couple of years ago in this House when the question of equal pay for black doctors at the King Edward Hospital in Durban was raised, it was the hon. member for South Coast who came out adamantly against that policy. It would be nice to get some clarity on this and I do sympathize with the hon. member for Rissik with his difficulties in this regard.

I would now like to come back to the main subject that I intend speaking on this afternoon. I have sat through this debate from the time that it began and to me the most remarkable thing about it is that the one subject which seems to be dominating the news in South Africa for the past few weeks has really had relatively very little attention in this House, namely the position in South-West Africa. We did have the Leader of the Opposition, in his opening speech, probing the Government about what was really happening in South-West Africa and asking the Government to give us the true position. Yesterday we had a statement from the hon. the Minister of Police telling us what was happening as far as the use of the Defence Force was concerned and as far as Police action was concerned, and he hinted darkly, as one would expect from him, about agitators at work and the part played by church leaders in the strike. But of the actual conditions existing in South-West Africa and in Owambo and of the conditions precipitating the strike we have heard nothing at all. Of the terms of settlement of the strike, much of which has remained completely unpublicized, we have also heard nothing. We have also heard nothing at all of future probable reactions both in South-West Africa and in South Africa. I believe these are matters about which this House and the rest of South Africa should be very concerned. South-West Africa is not just a trouble spot in some remote part of the country controlled by South Africa. South-West Africa has a very definite international significance for South Africa. The maintenance of law and order on which the hon. the Minister of Police spoke yesterday, is a very important aspect, but it is only one aspect of the problem. I believe there is another equally important aspect, namely the need to tackle the deep underlying causes of unrest in South-West Africa. I want to say at once that it did seem to me that the original handling of the strike was sensible. Workers were allowed to depart peacefully; they entrained, went home and there was very little use of force. I was very glad to see that; I think it was sensible. I believe that if they had not arrested the so-called ring leaders the strike might have been cut short at its early stages.

You are well informed.

I get this information from nobody less than the Commissioner-General of South-West Africa, who made a public statement to that effect and which the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration evidently has not read. I hope the Government is going to continue with its attitude of using the minimum of force in South-West Africa, because I believe it is very important indeed that we do this rather than just show our “kragdadigheid” in order to satisfy the more right-wing supporters of the Government. I want to say that the last thing we want in South-West Africa is a Sharpeville. If there is one thing that Colin Eglin, the Leader of the Progressive Party, and I learnt on our travels in Africa last year, it is that Africans on the Continent of Africa, wherever they are and despite all our talk about our handling of our black South Africans being a domestic issue, feel a very strong identity with Africans in South Africa. Anything that happens in South Africa is reacted to very strongly. Even men like President Senghor of Senegal, who is not a man who supports terrorism and who is in favour of dialogue, nevertheless feels very strongly about discrimination and about any harsh handling of Africans in South Africa. I can tell the hon. the Prime Minister that dialogue will be out of the question with any country in Africa if much violence is used in South-West Africa and if the guns are brought out against the Owambos. I hope the hon. the Minister of Police will see to it that any policemen used in South-West Africa will have been specially trained in crowd control, because I believe this is terribly important. We do not want any dramatic incidents there that can trigger off all sorts of international incidents. Those policemen should be specially trained in the handling of crowds.

I want to say that the Owambos themselves are very aware of their particular international status. I think the Government is very insensitive not to have realized that there was a considerable reaction amongst the Owambos themselves after the World Court had given its decision at The Hague last year. There was a considerable resurge of national feeling there, and this fact should have been taken into consideration by the Government in handling the Owambos. I think, indeed, the Government can thank its lucky stars that the United Nations did not accept the offer that the Government made of holding a referendum. I think the results would probably have been very unfortunate for South Africa.

Why didn’t they take it?

They did not appreciate the situation either; that is why, and the Government withdrew the offer.

Now what caused the strike in Owambo? There are several versions of this. There is, of course, the viewpoint of Senator Niehaus, the United Party leader in South-West Africa, who blames the Government for the strike in South-West Africa. He said it was because the Government was spoiling the Owambos with too much kindness in order to create a good impression overseas. The Owambos, he said, “have seen all this money poured into the homelands, into new hospitals, schools, colleges and so on, and they are perfectly well aware of what it is all about”. Now I wonder if the leader of the United Party in South Africa agrees with that statement. If he does not agree with it, will he not repudiate it? Because I believe that to be an atrociously harmful statement which was made by the Leader of the United Party in South-West Africa. [Interjection.] Well, I have a copy of this from the Sunday Times, which supports the United Party up hill and down dale; so it is unlikely to have been misreported. If so, however, somebody ought to speak up, and the sooner the better. I want to say at once that I also, in fact, blame the Government, but not because they spent money on Owambo. Quite the contrary, Sir. I believe that they have not done enough in Owambo. I am well aware of everything which the Government has done. I have read with the greatest interest from cover to cover this hard cover—“hard sell”, I call it— little booklet which was published by the Department of Foreign Affairs, dated 1971, but which appeared early this year or late last year. It gives an account of all the achievements and it is full of very handsome pictures, including a particularly handsome one of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development.

I always have handsome pictures.

Well, I do not think they are all handsome. I think some pictures are better than others. This is one of the best pictures. I know all about the dams, the roads, the schools and the colleges that have been built, and I think that is good work; but I think a great deal more has to be done if Owambo is going to be able to sustain the majority of its people in agriculture, as the hon. the Minister has predicted in this book and if we are going to have enough industrial development to create jobs there. At the moment there are two or three light industries only employing a few hundred people. That is not enough. I might say this handy little booklet devotes exactly one page to migratory labour. It says that there are a few disadvantages and a few advantages; but it gives no hint of any trouble whatever in Owambo. Of course, it also does not mention that when that fine high school and training college was opened, most of the students boycotted the opening, which is also an indication of trouble already brewing in South-West Africa.

The hon. the Minister of Police in his statement yesterday said that the first sign of dissatisfaction with the contract labour system in South-West Africa was in 1971. He said it arose because a series of meetings was held in Walvis Bay by an excused in a terrorist trial. This is simply not true. The Government does not seem to know what is going on in these places.

The hon. the Prime Minister will know that in the interview which he held with the Lutheran Bishop, Bishop Ouala, and the pastor of the Lutheran Church in August, 1971, which followed on the open letter which they published to the Prime Minister, I think at the end of June, the Bishop said that in 1967 he had approached the Government and had asked that the contract system be changed. He stated that he had approached the then Commissioner-General of South-West Africa as well as the Chief Bantu Affairs Commissioner in Windhoek. According to the Bishop, all they said was “It is impossible to bring about change.” After that, Sir, the Bishop said that he took the matter to Pretoria. He told them all about the problems which the Lutherans experienced in their congregations in the marriages of the men who are away from home practically all their working lives, and he was told that “the matter is receiving attention”. We are all very familiar with that formula. Instead of this “attention” resulting in the alleviation of some of the conditions of the contract labour system, the Bishop had to tell the Prime Minister in August, at their interview, that the contract system “is developing so that it is assuming even greater proportions through the Homelands policy”. He went on to say—

Sir, are these the words of an agitator, or are they the words of a churchman who is deeply concerned about what is happening to his congregation, and who is deeply concerned about the fact that while he converts them to Christianity, the laws of the Government do not allow them to live Christian lives. I would like somebody in the Government to answer me. Why convert the heathen to Christianity if thereafter they are not allowed to live normal Christian lives, where a man can live together with his wife and family?

Sir, what happened as a result of the interview, the open letter and the pleas made by the Bishop way back in 1967? We are told that negotiations were about to be proceeded with when the strike took place. All I can say is that nothing was seen to be done by the Owambos. Nothing was seen to be changing at all. To them it was the old story of White officials handling submissive Blacks in Africa, and it was the old story too of White people in power dismissing all the grievances, all the complaints and all the frustrations as being only the work of agitators, or communists, be they Chinese or Russian—you can take your choice these days—or of churchmen. All the genuine grievances are dismissed as meaning nothing at all. That is why I believe that who started the strike or what started the strike is really not very relevant at this stage. What is relevant is that it took 13 000 Owambos to go on strike before anything was done about this system …

That is a misrepresentation.

… of which they had complained year after year, and were told that no changes could be brought about and that “the matter is receiving attention”. Now I want to know why anyone in this House should imagine that the Owambos should have been satisfied with the contract labour system. It entails the man spending nearly all his working life away from his wife and family. He is given no choice of job and no choice of employer, and he starts at appallingly low wages. It is not the churchmen or the agitators that set the wages. It is SWANLA or it was SWANLA, which, after all, was a Government-controlled agency.

No, that is not true.

Well, partly controlled.

No.

Do you mean to say that there is something in this country the Government does not control?

We do not even control you.

Never mind about controlling me. You should control the labour system. That I can tell you. It was SWANLA that set the starting wage for an experienced, adult male on an 18-month contract—listen to this, Mr. Speaker—in domestic service at R9 per month, of course plus rations and accommodation. I may say that nobody really bothers to see what those are like. It also laid down the minimum wage for a shepherd at R10.50 a month for an 18-month contract, and in the case of mining the wage was R8,69 plus keep valued at R15 a month. Those are the starting wages, though many employers pay more. I know for instance that the average wage on the diamond mines was about R45 a month, plus board and keep, but that was by far the highest paid for that sort of labour. The average throughout the territory was very much lower than that. The awful part is that when the strike got going and these adult, experienced workers walked out of jobs for which they were receiving R35 a month from the Railways without board or keep, young White schoolboys came in to do the job—on an emergency basis, admittedly—and were paid R109 per month. I think that is disgraceful.

Their productivity was much higher.

And maybe they were better fed as well. It is just possible that the two things go together.

Why do you not tell the House about the new agreement?

If you would only tell me the details, I would be very grateful. This is one of my problems; I do not know what the farmers are going to pay, because this is kept a dark secret. By the way, a police officer made the statement that the farm labourers went on strike because they heard the news of the strike over the radio. It appears that shepherds in South-West Africa are much addicted to listening to the radio, and I must say if I had to choose between talking to a karakul sheep and listening to “Current Affairs”, even I might choose the radio. But this, I understand, is how the strike spread in the rural areas—this is very interesting— and the other reason for the strike, I am told, was the Commissioner-General’s statement …

[Inaudible.]

Well, a lot of them went off. Sir, the other reason for the strike, I believe, was the statement issued by the Commissioner-General that Owambos appeared to be happy with the contract system and therefore the Owambos thought that they had better show the Commissioner-General and the Government that in fact they were not happy at all with the contract system. Sir, I hope the hon. the Prime Minister will remember what was in the open letter that was addressed to him and that he will remember what took place in the subsequent interview that he held. Not only were strong objections made to the contract system, but to the pass laws, to the limited job opportunities, to the low wages and the operation of the Group Areas Act.

I find it very strange that you devote your whole speech to this question.

Well, it is a very important question. I will find it very strange if the hon. the Prime Minister does not devote his speech to this question, because I think it is of extreme interest to South Africa and to this House.

I am very interested that you are so interested.

I will tell the hon. the Prime Minister why I am so specially concerned about this, if he has not gathered it already. The complaint was also made to the hon. the Prime Minister that there was a lack of dignity, that there was police intimidation, and that there were restrictions on freedom of speech. In fact, objections were made to the whole system of apartheid and to its aftermath. Indeed, Rapport actually said that it is small wonder that the Owambos put up with the system as long as they did without going on strike. I must say that Rapport is saying some very worthwhile things these days. Now, Sir, what of the aftermath? There has been a new agreement. The hon. the Minister wants me to mention the new agreement, so I am mentioning it now. It was entered into at Grootfontein between the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and the Government of the Owambo-Kavango. It did not do away with the contract system, needless to say, but it did introduce certain improvements. The man actually sees the contract of labour. This is a very good improvement. The Minister might introduce that into the contract labour system in South Africa as well, because the labourers do not get a copy of the contract in the homelands. I have asked for this over and over again; they do not get it. The men in Owambo now see a copy of the contract; they are given some choice as to the type of work; they may change their employment if they do not like it, although I do not know how long that is going to carry on. But this is what the hon. the Minister told us; this is the new contract. I gather that wages are going to go up somewhat, and there is going to be a better system of home leave and paid leave and so on, and that medical classification is out; a man is not classified according to the medical classifications A, B or C; a certificate of fitness is now simply issued to him. But basically, of course, the worst of the system remains, and that is the contract system where a man has to leave his family and go out to work for most of his working life.

That brings me to my final point, which may perhaps provide the answer to the question the hon. the Prime Minister put to me. I believe the most important question is whether we have learnt anything from what has happened in Owambo. That is the most important question. Does it occur to hon. members of this House that the contract labour system, which we know more familiarly as the migratory labour system, and which is widely used in South Africa, is just as hated here by the Africans as it is hated in Owambo, that it causes just as much distress among the families and that it is increasingly part of the Government’s labour policy?

Are you now referring to the gold mines?

Surely, in view of what has happened in Owambo and in the face of all that we know of the effects of this system, we should be making every effort to try to phase this system out.

Are you referring to the gold mines?

I am referring to everything, but more particularly am I referring to Africans who are born in South Africa, who are South African citizens and who have to spend all their working lives as migratory labourers. The mines draw 72 per cent of their labour today from outside the Republic.

What difference does that make?

The difference is that we are at least primarily responsible for our own people and we have no business to be inflicting a system on them which we can avoid. I will have a lot more to say about this at a later stage.

They are only further away from their wives than our people here.

Ours should not be away from their wives at all, for we have control of them and we should allow them to be with their wives. I want to ask the Minister: Why do you convert these people to Christianity if you do not intend them to live as man and wife, married by Christian rites?

But you are quite satisfied when Harry Oppenheimer does it.

Harry Oppenheimer at least pays decent wages. I do not want to be diverted too much, but Harry Oppenheimer, or his father anyway, wanted to increase the permanent Bantu force on the mines in the Free State, and it was the Nationalist Government which stopped him from doing so and from housing his mine workers on a family basis. The late Dr. Verwoerd said “no”, and the hon. the Minister knows that because he was sitting on this side of the House at the time it happened. Surely, as I say, in view of everything which has happened in Owambo, we should lose no time whatsoever in revising and abandoning the system of migratory labour and converting as much as we possibly can into a stable labour force. And not only am I concerned about the people living in the urban areas at present getting tenure and other rights, but I am also concerned about the people in the homelands who cannot find work in the homelands and who are condemned, both under the National Party policy and the United Party policy, to permanent lives as migratory workers; because the policy of the United Party is to try and stabilize those Africans already living in the urban areas, but what about the generations to come? What about those in the homelands who can never be accommodated or provided with jobs there? Are they for ever to have to spend their lives as migratory workers? Sir, I believe that the Government should take cognizance of all the warnings that have been uttered by churchmen, by the Institute of Race Relations and by Africans in responsible positions, both in the Urban Bantu Councils and elsewhere, and all the grievances that have been voiced, and do something about them. There are grievances about migratory labour, about the lack of job opportunity and about the pass laws. Sir, I believe there is building up in South Africa bitterness and frustration among the Africans not only in the urban areas but also in the homelands and on the White farms where there are few opportunities for advancement.

I believe there is building up a terrible legacy of bitterness and frustration and I believe we will ignore these warnings at our peril. I want to say finally that I am absolutely convinced that to try to put all these warnings down to the utterances of agitators is not only foolish but it is dangerous, because if we do that we believe that we do not have to do anything whatsoever about these grievances. I do not believe that these grievances stem from the utterances of agitators or communists. I believe they stem, in the words of Professor Meyer of Rhodes University, from life experience. It is not necessary for anybody to tell these people that they are living abnormal lives and that they have no hope for the future. As long as the present Government continues with its policies, I believe that South Africa is going to face a perilous future. That is the reason, Mr. Prime Minister, why I believe it is very important indeed to raise in the House this afternoon the whole question of South-West Africa and Owambo, because I believe that we in South Africa should learn a lesson before it is too late, and do something about the situation in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Houghton will not hold it against me if I do not react to her speech. I just want to say that in due course she will probably receive the appropriate answers to her arguments. However, it is very clear to us that the game the hon. member for Houghton played here was one for a table which has been laid. I leave it at that.

Sir, I want to come back to the United Party Leader and to those speakers on United Party side who participated in this no-confidence debate and who left certain questions unanswered. To me it was very clear, after we had listened to the hon. the Leader as well as to other speakers on the opposite side of this House, that they were speaking with little conviction. Their performance was absolutely unimpressive, one of the weakest we have probably ever had here. Therefore, it is very clear to us that the Leader of the Opposition is not sincere in wishing to form an alternative Government in this country. He is perfectly happy to be the Leader of the Opposition and I cannot express this in any other way but by saying: “De Grendel was delivered of a mouse.” To us it is very clear that the Leader of the Opposition will remain in opposition for many years to come.

In considering a motion of no confidence moved in the House of Assembly, one asks oneself, in the first place, on what one bases one’s facts; who one’s advisers are, who one’s helpers are; who one’s lieutenants are who are to assist one in the fight.

The hon. member is one of the lieutenants now.

In addition one has to find out who the boss of that party and his lieutenants are. I think this is a very easy task and I think we should disclose today who the boss of the United Party is. [Interjections.] I want to come to that. To us it is very clear, in the first place, that the Leader of the Opposition has to play the game of the Sunday Times and the English Press and the game of Joel Mervis. Here we find the boss of the United Party. This is the vice in which the leadership of the Opposition is gripped.

He has a few lieutenants around him. The first one I want to mention is the hon. member for Yeoville. Then he has the exprophet, the hon. member for Hillbrow, Dr. Jacobs. On his left flank he has the people who have to build the bridge to the Progressive Party—Mr. Harry Schwarz and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, Mr. Japie Bezuidenhout. [Laughter.] I mean Japie Basson, of course. They are the strong men; they are the bright boys; they are the future stars of the Sunday Times and of the leader of the United Party, Mr. Joel Mervis. I say they are his advisers and they are the people who determine his actions. They are the people who are misleading him and who have misled him to where he finds himself in this debate and to where he stands in politics today.

I do not want to be insulting towards the hon. the Leader of the Opposition or his person, but his actions remind me of those of a punch-drunk boxer, if I may be allowed to express it in that way. When one has been climbing into the boxing ring for 23 years and has been knocked out each time, one cannot be anything but punch-drunk. We had the late Gen. Smuts opposing the late Dr. Malan, and we know what happened. Subsequent to that we had Adv. Strauss who climbed into the ring with the late Adv. Strydom. He was given not only a knock-out blow, but also a technical knock-out blow from within his own ranks. Subsequent to that we have had the present Leader of the Opposition opposing the late Dr. Verwoerd and at present opposing this dynamic leader the National Party has, Adv. John Vorster. The Leader of the Opposition reminds me of that man who climbed into the ring and who, after each round, retired badly beaten and full of blood to his corner. His second kept on telling him, “Just keep going; you are going to win this fight”. After the 22nd round the boxer said, “You should really take a good look; there is someone here who is hitting me very hard—is it not perhaps the referee?” This is what is happening to this United Party. They are being hit hard, and I wonder whether it is not their seconds—Joel Mervis, Japie Basson and others who are sabotaging the Leader in this way.

I say it is very clear that these people are not in earnest. His manager keeps on telling him how he is to act, and there is a purpose behind that. The purpose is to have the Leader of the United Party come to grief so that they may get somebody else in his place to lead that party and to bridge the gap between them and the Progressive Party. This is the object behind that method. Hon. members will recall that the hon. member for Yeoville participated in this debate last year and accused the hon. the Prime Minister of advancing the election date because we were afraid to go to the people of South Africa in 1971. The first opportunity which presented itself after that, was the by-election in Witbank. The United Party was hopeful that it would perhaps be able to make some progress there. Let us see now what the results of that election were. I should just like to refer hon. members to what the hon. member for Yeoville said in that regard. At that time he still was the hero of the United Party. The article to which I want to refer appeared under the heading, “Voters in powerful situation”, and read—

This was what the hon. member had said. I quote more from the same article—

He went on to say—

What were the results? What was the answer of the voters of South Africa? In the same article the by-election was referred to as being “the most significant contest since 1948”. The article went on to compare it in importance to by-elections such as those of Wakkerstroom, Germiston and Hottentots-Holland. Let us see what else they said—

What happened? What were the results? They went further, and I want to point out to hon. members what else was published in this article—

It follows the moral defeats the Nationalists suffered last year and at a time when there is widespread discontent and confusion in the Nationalist ranks on a large number of issues, in particular the economic situation.

This was just after the Little Budget when certain unpopular financial measures had been taken; at that time these people hoped that there was a future for them. Shortly after that we dealt with the Prime Minister’s Vote. We all know how destructive of the Leader of the Opposition the Prime Minister’s performance was. The very next edition of the Sunday Times the next Sunday carried the story that the Leader had to be gotten rid of because, as they put it, “You cannot flog a dead horse”. This was what happened. At that time the boss of the United Party also came to the rude realization that he could not carry on with these dead horses. The first one that had to be pushed aside, was the hon. member for Yeoville. After that the second one he had to get rid of was the hon. member for Hillbrow, Dr. Jacobs. We can still recall how they used to sing their praises. In the Sunday Times of 16th August, 1970, a report appeared under the heading “Prophet Jacobs sees Nat upset”. He ventured to make a whole lot of predictions. He said, inter alia—

He went on to say—

We are still waiting for these predictions to come true. As I have already said, Joel Mervis had found him out and then started discrediting him. The hon. member for Langlaagte referred to the way in which he was being discredited gradually and last Sunday, 30th January, 1972, we had another report in the Sunday Times under the heading “Dr. Jacobs has done it again”. They are sick and tired of him, because they cannot proceed with him. Then it was necessary to get another man out of the way. He was the hon. member for Yeoville. We know how his praises used to be sung. On 10th October a report was published in this newspapers under the heading “When a Solemn Pledge meets a Bombshell”. Let us examine for a moment in what way, according to this report, the hon. member for Yeoville was acting. The report reads as follows—

The report continues—

Mr. Speaker, now I do not want to read the policy of the United Party as it was published here in the newspaper, but as it was published in this pamphlet, which we all know. It reads as follows—

But what did the hon. member say, according to a report of 26th August? This report reads as follows—

The status of Bantustans expecting independence (and on the verge of obtaining it) when a United Party Government took over, would be the subject of negotiations between the homeland territory and U.P. leaders.

The reporter concluded the report as follows—

As yet we have not received an answer to this. But this is the method which that newspaper is using to get rid of this hon. member as well.

We now come to the men it would like to use. There are the two gentlemen to whom I have already referred. The one is Mr. Harry Schwarz, the one young horse that has to be tamed now. One could follow this story each Sunday, and just the next Sunday, i.e. on 17th August, there was a report in this newspaper under the heading “Harry Schwarz is way out in front”. The young foal is out in front. But why is this young foal out in front? He is out in front because it suits him. This is the Progressive-bred foal. However, it was not only Mr. Schwarz whose praises were sung by them at that stage. In the Sunday Times there was also another report under the heading “Press backs Basson’s call for realism”. The report reads as follows—

It is very clear what role the English-language Press and especially Sir Joel are playing. It is very clear to us that they want these people out of the way and others in their place to take over the leadership of the United Party and to lead the United Party to the Progressive Party where they would like to have it. Why does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition not put this to the people of South Africa? He has here every opportunity of repudiating these people, but he does not do so. No, he is prepared to allow himself to be led. We know what will become of him. What moral right does such a leader have to move a motion of no confidence in a National Party Government?

Now, however, I should like to come to another matter. Various speakers on Opposition side referred to the rising cost of living. The hon. member for Maitland virtually choked in his own tears when he told us here yesterday of how badly things were allegedly going with White workers in this country, of how White workers were allegedly living below the breadline and of how very badly off they allegedly were. Mr. Speaker, we know the bread and butter politics they are practising here are practised with a view to the municipal elections and the by-election in Brakpan. But these people never seem to learn. Last year they tried to play the same game in respect of Witbank. And where did they end up? In Waterberg they hid under the petticoats of Jaap Marais. That was their ally at that time. I had the privilege of helping there and do hon. members know what I came across? I discovered that the old Afrikaner supporters of the United Party, like the Bassons and the Bronkhorsts, were breaking away from the United Party to join the H.N.P. This was the cause of the growth of the H.N.P. there. They, the U.P., are not prepared to discuss the topical political problems here in this House. They are afraid of stating the alternative policy, because they know the voters have rejected their policy time after time. This debate offers them the opportunity to do so. Various speakers on this side very effectively proved, giving chapter and verse, that as far as the cost of living was concerned, increases in salaries kept abreast of consumer spending. They did this in a very effective way.

To come back to the hon. member for Maitland and to the case mentioned by him, i.e. how badly things were allegedly going with workers in South Africa, I should like to give an example. I have here a statement of the income of a station foreman giving his earnings for the year ended 30th June, 1941. These were the years when they had their “war effort”; when there was a manpower shortage; when they had a “controller of manpower”. At that time the workers had to work a great deal of overtime and what was the gross earnings of that railway station foreman with five years’ service? His earnings were R508 including overtime and remuneration it kind, i.e. certain remuneration he received on his house. What does a station foreman a position which carries an average salary earn today? Basically he earns R2 520 His overtime wage is 140 cent per hour. His Sunday time amounts to 157½ cent per hour. In what way is the worker in South Africa worse off under National Party Government today than he was under that worthless lot when they governed? And yet they think that they can bluff the voters in this way! Why does the hon. member who said how badly things were going, not get up and tell the White workers and the White voters in South Africa, “Do you still remember the days when the United Party governed and we allowed the mixed trade unions? Do you still remember the days when Solly Sachs reigned supreme?" with communism in the trade unions?” Sir, about that they are as silent as the grave. Why does that hon. member not tell the White voters of South Africa and the workers he is so concerned about now, that they are the people who opposed the Industrial Conciliation Act? They should go and tell this in Brakpan. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said on 6th February, 1970: “We want to remove section 77 from the Industrial Conciliation Act.” This protective measure is accepted by the White workers and by all workers in South Africa; it gives them a guarantee. They keep quiet about these things. And yet they think they will be able to win votes with the few crumbs they have picked up here! Why do those hon. members not tell the voters of South Africa that they enfranchised Indians so as to plough under the Whites in this country? Sir, they remain as silent as the grave. Why do they not tell them of their opposition to the last ditch when the Coloured voters had to be placed on a separate roll? Sir, they are as silent as the grave. And in this vein we can continue! How did they not oppose the legislation enfranchising 18 year old White boys and girls? They remain silent about that. The Opposition underestimates the intelligence of the workers. If they think that they are catching the White workers in this way, they will remain where they are, because the White workers and the White voters in South Africa understand what inflation is. They understand what devaluation entails! Evidently those people on the opposite side still do not! I represent a workers’ constituency in the true sense of the word. Yesterday was our nomination day for the municipal elections and in eight of the nine wards Nationalists were nominated unopposed! Where are the dissatisfied Nationalists? Since 1953 we have never allowed a United Party supporter there, nor shall we do so. The Opposition wants to exploit the municipal elections; and for that reason I may just as well do so too.

One speaker after the other got up here and tried to link the economic position in which the Republic finds itself—inflation and devaluation—to the labour policy of the National Party. They tried to do so by telling the hackneyed stories that we were not making sufficient use of Bantu labour, that we were doing too little with regard to the training of manpower and that we were spending too little on education. These were the allegations made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Basically these are the complaints which are generalized. The hon. member for Johannesburg North appealed here to Afrikaans businessmen to testify that they wanted changes in our labour policy and in our labour pattern. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs stated that there had been a decrease in our overheated growth rate, i.e. a decrease to 4 per cent. This obviously brought relief to the draining of our manpower. To some extent I think this is healthy. I, too, want to call upon South African businessmen who commented on Government labour policy. However, before I come to that I should like to quote from a report which appeared in the Sunday Times, seeing that hon. members on the opposite side so dearly like quoting from Rapport. In the Sunday Times of 16th May, 1971, a report appeared with the heading “Labour shortage is easing, said property developers”. From this I want to read the following—

I do not know them; evidently it is a very small organization?

In Hoofstad of 28th April, 1971, a report appeared under the following heading (translation), “Manpower: Facts refute U.P. Cry”. According to this report the Human Sciences Research Council made a scientific investigation in to South Africa’s manpower position. What were their findings? I quote (translation)

The H.S.R.C.’s Institute for Manpower Research has just completed a thorough investigation in this regard. A newsletter which has just been released, states, inter alia, “The most reliable information available was used in these estimates … According to these estimates the total demand for manpower in 1973 comes to 1 540 000 persons and if an average economic growth rate of 6 per cent … were to be maintained the demand for manpower would come to 1 577 000. This would mean a shortfall of 1,6 per cent.

So where is the so-called large shortage of manpower? Dr. Anton Rupert said the following in the very same report (translation)—

Here we have the proof which destroys the rampart behind which the hon. member for Johannesburg tried to take refuge. The United Party tried to state its case with the usual cry of greater prosperity and faster growth. Their only solution to South Africa’s problem the Opposition sees in the concept of more and more black labour in the urban and White areas. Not one of the hon. members on the opposite side indicated what political, economic and social consequences this would have for South Africa. They shied away from that and again remained as silent as the grave. Their policy would spell the end of prosperity and it would spell the end of peaceful coexistence amongst various peoples. At present we are enjoying greater peace and quiet in the field of labour than any other country in the world is enjoying, and this they want to come and disturb. They want to put an end to that. How many countries’ economies and prosperity have not been brought to their knees by labour unrest? So very many! Do they want to do this in South Africa as well? The United Party is welcome to indulge in this cheap politicizing, we shall see what the results in Brakpan are. They will suffer yet another resounding defeat. The White workers know that their future and protection are safe in the hands of this National Party.

Mr. Speaker, I had some difficulty in following the theme of the speech of the hon. gentleman who has just sat down. Unkind observers might perhaps say that there was no theme to his speech, but I want to say two things only in respect of what he has said. There are two aspects in respect of the United Party where no attack can lie from hon. members opposite. If one has read the Nationalist Press after the recent United Party Central Congress in Bloemfontein, one found that the commentators were unanimous on two things. One was the unshakeable position which the Leader of the Opposition occupied in his party, and the other was the notable enthusiasm, optimism and unanimity which were to be found amongst the record crowd of delegates at that congress. So, Sir, let us not waste any further time on those two issues during this debate. They are dead before they start.

I would like to say a word or two in regard to the speech of the hon. member for Rissik. I always enjoy listening to his speeches. By chance it so often happens that I follow him in a debate. Sir, I always feel that before one tends to ridicule an opponent in respect of something he has said in bygone days, one should be sure of one’s own position. I think this applies particularly to my friend from Rissik this afternoon. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that he attempted to have some fun with the hon. member for Yeoville in regard to an earlier speech of his. I have in my hand a report from a Nationalist newspaper, dated August, 1968. The headline is appropriate to a young person like himself. It reads: “Geen gemengde spanne,—Daan.” The article begins:

My friend had a lot to say about students at their conferences. It goes on:

You see, Sir, how careful one must be before one attempts to embarrass one’s opponents with statements that they have made at an earlier stage.

My hon. friend also dealt with the question of the urban Bantu, a subject to which I shall revert later in my speech. But before I leave that point at the moment— he asked us what a detribalized Bantu was. He seemed puzzled by that phrase although it is one which has been in common usage for as long as I can remember. He seemed not to know what a “detribalized” Bantu was. There is no magic in the name. But surely it is common knowledge to all of us that particularly in those parts of South Africa where the large metropolitan areas are remote from the Native reserves, such as Johannesburg, Port Elizabeth and Cape Town, we find locations growing up outside the White towns which have been there for a number of generations. Because these people are permanently employed in those White towns and because they are geographically remote from the nearest Bantu reserve, their interests have been more associated with the Western way of life of a White metropolitan area than they have been with the tribal area from which their forbears originally came. One has to say no more than that to indicate the nature of the detribalized Native. They are not a recognizable block in the sense that there is a clear beginning and a clear end. They are a people in a stage of transition. One has some who are slightly detribalized; one has some who have totally cut their ties with the reserves and the tribes from which they came. One has areas hike Cape Town, a thousand miles, I suppose, from the nearest reserve, where there are a great many of these people. One has a place like Natal where almost every big town is on the border of a reserve, and where these people are less in relation to the total population of the Zulu people, but it is idle to pretend that they do not exist as a class, a growing class, and that the detribalization is taking place more rapidly as the years go by.

Another thing which puzzles me about the speech of the hon. gentleman, Sir, is something which so frequently comes from that side of the House, and that is that we are asked to accept that for any class of people permanently living and resident in a country, no representation at the political level is better than limited representation. No representation, we are asked to believe, is better than limited representation. This is a completely untenable proposition. It needs only to be said to demonstrate that it is absurd. I do not pretend for a moment that the representation offered at the centre by the United Party to the Bantu people is not limited and defined. It is both those things, Sir, but who can say that limited and defined representation is worse than no representation at all, which is what the Government offers to the Bantu, the Coloureds and to the Asiatics? The Government offers them nothing whatever, and we are supposed to accept that that has a moral basis, whereas ours has none.

There are other aspects relating to the urban Bantu which, as I have said, I shall deal with, but for the moment I should like to deal with another aspect of our affairs, and that is the question of the rule of law and the freedom of the individual in South Africa at the present time. I think one of the first things that was noticed by anybody who has been abroad lately—particularly those from this House —was the impossibility one found in defending anywhere in Western Europe the system of indefinite detention without trial which we have in this country in terms of section 6 of the Terrorism Act. For generations the countries of the West have been striving to introduce into their systems, into their administrations, a code which prevents any form of indefinite detention without trial except in times of war or national emergency, and then only as a temporary measure. We in South Africa brought from our countries of origin an equal abhorrence of a system of this kind. Until recently we have been able to manage our affairs without any recourse to such measures except, as I say, as a temporary measure in time of war or national emergency. Judging by what successive Ministers of Justice have said in this House —and I refer to the hon. the Prime Minister, when he was Minister of Justice, when many of the so-called security measures were introduced, and the present Minister of Justice, as I understand him—it is accepted on both sides of the House as a matter of principle that indefinite detention without trial is wrong and objectionable in a civilized State.

Provided circumstances are normal.

Yes; I am speaking of the principle. Both Ministers have made it clear that they do not like, and that they would prefer to do without, such measures in our legal system.

We have not got it.

The hon. gentleman says we have not got it. Well, if the present exercise of the powers under section 6 of the Terrorism Act is not indefinite detention without trial, then I do not know what language means. If you can detain a person for the purpose of interrogation for an indefinite period, a person to whom no one can have access by right and who has no right of access to a court, as of right, then what is detention without trial? I do not think we need to debate that; it is as clear as day. We proceed then from the standpoint that everyone agrees in this House that indefinite detention without trial is abhorrent as a matter of principle. Something which has been debated frequently—and I have no doubt that in the course of the next few days it will be touched on again by hon. gentlemen in this House—is the question of whether this type of measure is necessary in South Africa or not. We on this side of the House have always held the view, and we have motivated it on previous occasions, that bearing in mind the other powers which exist in order to obtain information and in order to protect the security of the State, the present manner of exercise of section 6 is unnecessary. But, Sir, in order to test the administration of this measure, I should like to assume for a moment that a case could be made out for its exercise at the present time. I emphasize that we have always proceeded from the point of view, as we still do, that that is not so. But I want to test the administration of this measure, so I assume that it is necessary. Now, Sir, let us look at the manner in which this power has been exercised of late by this Government. The Security Police at the present time act almost exclusively in terms of section 6 of the Terrorism Act. This is entirely contrary to the reasons for its enactment, given by the hon. the Minister of Justice at the time that measure was put on the Statute Book. One need only look at the Hansard of that period, and I refer to the Hansard of the 2nd June, 1967, at col. 7100 and the following columns, where the hon. gentleman dealt at some length with the problem with which he was faced in the northern areas of the country and in South-West Africa in particular and where he dealt at length with the sort of terrain that he had to cope with (col. 7101)—

He went on to explain, which is understandable, the problems which faced the Security Police in that area and how the 14 days provided for under section 22 of the previous legislation was not sufficient to deal with the problem there. Sir, the point we have always made is that whilst that might apply in the remote areas in the north of this country, it does not apply in the centre of Johannesburg.

One would be likely to see an elephant there!

As I say, the Police act in terms of section 6 of the Terrorism Act, which states that a man is detained in order to obtain information; he is detained not in order to get rid of him but in order to obtain information. Detaining him for any other purpose than to get information from him in terms of section 6 is illegal, so it is quite clear that you detain him in order to get information. Now, Sir, to get information from a person I should have thought that you would have to see that he stays alive. I should have thought that that was an elementary proposition. So the first object— indeed, the first duty—of the Security Police would be to ensure that a detainee, in terms of section 6, was kept alive. Sir, knowing this it is hardly surprising that there is grave public disquiet when a comparatively high proportion of detainees die whilst under detention. No satisfactory explanation for this phenomenon has so far been; forthcoming from any of the Ministers concerned.

Nonsense.

Let us take the last of these cases as an example, the case of Timol. One assumes that Timol was detained in terms of section 6, because it was believed on reasonable grounds that he had valuable information relating to terrorism or to the security of the State, and that was why this particular section was used in his case. I would have thought that it was vital that he be kept alive so that he could be questioned in order that this important information could be obtained. Now, Sir, what happened? He falls from a tenth-floor window and dies and we are told baldly that he committed suicide.

Before the inquest’s findings, mark you.

You are now discussing something which is sub judice.

No, I am not discussing the inquest. We are given no details of the circumstance. We are told that he committed suicide, and I accept that from the hon. the Minister. I accept that is so, but what does this reveal? Surely it reveals incredible incompetence on the part of those questioning this man.

Why do you not wait for the inquest proceedings to be completed?

There have been numbers of other cases where suicide has been attempted and in some instances accomplished by persons under interrogation.

Why say a number when it is only nine?

Only nine?

During the last ten years there were only nine. [Interjections.]

Sir, when I say that a number of persons who have been detained have committed suicide and the number is in fact nine, am I guilty of a misstatement?

Why do you not give the figure then? You have got it. [Interjections.]

The astonishing thing about this interjection by the hon. the Prime Minister is that he reveals this figure of nine as though it is something to be proud of. [Interjections.] Is he perfectly satisfied that in fact only nine have committed suicide?

You know it is nine; why do you not …

I have said that a number have committed suicide. I did not say a vast number; I said a number, and that is in fact so. However, the point I was making is this: Knowing that some of these people are prone to this kind of behaviour, surely it shows incredible incompetence that a person whose information is believed to be sufficiently valuable for section 6 to be used to detain him, is allowed to jump from a 10th floor window whilst he is under interrogation. I would have thought that any person who knows his job, who knows the type of things that have taken place in this regard in the past, who knows that there have been a number of precedents of this type of thing, who knows the incredible damage that this sort of thing can do to the good name of South Africa when it does take place, would take every precaution to see that when these people are interrogated in the tenth floor they will be interrogated in a room with the windows locked or with barred windows as an elementary precaution. Then there is a second thing. If this is in fact what took place, why were we not given … [Interjections.]

We cannot hear you properly. Will you speak up please?

Sir, I am not responsible for the noise that emanates from that side of the House.

Where is your speaker?

Order!

If this is what in fact took place—and I accept what the Minister says, that this is in fact what took place—how much better would it not have been for somebody in authority on that side of the House to have immediately made a statement clearing the air in this regard? But this is what we lack every time when one of these instances takes place.

Mr. Speaker, I believe I heard an hon. member on the opposite side say, “Where is your Speaker”? Is that not a reflection on the Chair?

I referred to his “loudspeaker”.

Order!

The point I am trying to make is how much better it would have been if in respect of instances of this kind, instead of allowing an aura of mystery to develop, we could have an immediate clarifying statement by the Minister giving us all details of precisely what happened. It would be better both for ourselves here and for the impact that this has outside the country. Because of the number of cases that have occurred of this kind this side of the House asked the hon. the Prime Minister for a commission of inquiry, a judicial commission of inquiry. What did the hon. gentleman say? He gave a glib answer which was to the effect that there was no need for a judicial commission of inquiry because in every instance an inquest would be held and that an inquest was in itself a judicial commission of inquiry. Consequently a special one such as we envisaged was not necessary.

Now, let us examine this for a moment. I think a statement of that kind, coming from a layman, would be weak. But, Sir, a statement such as that from a lawyer—and the hon. the Prime Minister is a lawyer—I think is inexcusable.

That, of course, is not the whole of my statement and you know that. I said that the papers are submitted to the Attorney-General.

That carries the matter no further. I know the hon. gentleman said that. Every lawyer in the country knows that an inquest is a legal proceeding of a very limited nature indeed. Everybody knows that and every student of law at a university knows that. But what is more is that the evidence which is placed before an inquest is placed there by a prosecutor of the magistrate’s court who is an officer who operates under the instructions of the Attorney-General, both of whom operate under the instructions of the hon. the Minister of Justice. Bearing in mind the limited nature of an inquest where no cross-examination is allowed as of right to anybody, be it the representative of the deceased or anybody else …

You are talking nonsense. Where do you get that from?

As of right, I said. Knowing that the evidence which is placed before an inquest is placed there by officers of the department of the Minister and bearing in mind the difficulty that has been experienced in some cases by relatives of the deceased in obtaining information relating to the deceased and the circumstances of his death, necessitating in some instances applications to the Supreme Court, how can anybody who has a legal background compare an inquest with a full judicial inquiry conducted by a Judge of the Supreme Court under the rules of the Commissions Act? The hon. the Prime Minister made himself guilty of trying to lead the country to believe that an inquest could be equated with a judicial commission of inquiry and that the public mind should be set at rest accordingly.

I still say so. That is a fact and you know it.

You did not say so?

I still say so. It is a fact and you know it.

Well, if the hon. gentleman still says so, then his understanding of the legal position in South Africa is far less than I imagined it to be.

He is losing his grip on everything.

Now, let us come back to the question of detention without trial as a principle. I suppose that an evasion of the rule of law could be justified if one had the situation where one in a multi-racial society was leading the people forward towards a goal which was both desirable and workable. I suppose that if in those circumstances one had subversion, destruction and things of that kind, one could justifiably invade the rule of law as a temporary measure in order to achieve the desirable result. In the short time at my disposal I should like to examine for a moment whether this is a defence which hon. members opposite could use in respect of their policy as justifying an invasion of the rule of law of the kind that I have been dealing with. Yesterday my hon. friend from Maitland referred to a recent article in the Nationalist Party newspaper, Rapport, which struck me as being of particular significance. I want to deal very briefly—and I am sorry that I do not have more time—with the position of the National Party in regard to their philosophy and their goal as it stands today. For five years, from 1961 onwards, I sat in this House listening year after year to the late Dr. Verwoerd expounding the policy of this Government and it hinged on the basic fact which was the key to their whole philosophy, namely that the Bantu in the White areas would ultimately disappear back into their own areas. This was the key to the whole case. The philosophy of the hon. Gentleman was that a number of races of different kinds could not live peaceably together in one geographical state. For that reason there had to be partition.

1978 was the golden year.

It would work despite the presence of the urban Bantu because ultimately, when the magic year, 1978, came, the graph would begin to curve downwards and not every man jack, but the majority would go back to their own areas, and you would have a series of homogeneous populations, each in its own state in South Africa. I listened to this for five years. Indeed, I remember a memorable speech by the hon. member for Yeoville, when, at the time the present State President was the Minister of Defence, he said that if, for example, the bulk of the Bantu from the White areas in South Africa were to go back to their homelands, the first thing that the Prime Minister would say, would be: “Oom Jim, call out the army to stop them from going back into the native areas, because our economy will collapse.” Ten years have gone by and what has happened? When 14 000 Owambos went back from the White areas to the reserves, did anybody from the Government stand up with a triumphant smile to say that their policy had been successful? They had all gone and what happened? The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development goes hot-foot to South-West Africa to persuade them all to come back to the White areas. This was the key to the whole philosophy. It began to crack in 1966 when we had this debate about numbers. By the time the hon. gentleman who is presently Prime Minister had taken over this position, the castle was tumbling about his ears. I feel genuinely sorry for him that he should have inherited this situation, but it was bound to come. We have been telling these hon. gentlemen for the ten years that I have been here, precisely how it would happen and indeed it has happened. Since I have only three minutes left, I do not have time to quote the references which were quoted yesterday. Two points are made in that article in Rapport which was quoted yesterday. One is that the urban Bantu population is permanent and the second is that it is growing. If it is growing and it is permanent, it means that this Government has to find a formula for the social, the economic and the political existence of these people within the White state. This means that in 1972 they have arrived at the position which the United Party had arrived at in 1948 when they handed over the power to this Government. I want to conclude on this point: I believe that the greatest disservice that this Government has done is not the legislation they have put on the Statute Book, but it is the fact that they have indoctrinated a large percentage of the electorate of this country into believing that apartheid is the only solution —the electorate which is the vehicle for peaceful change in South Africa. The only vehicle for peaceful change in South Africa has been manipulated by these gentlemen in such a way that they cannot use it today for the purposes for which it is required. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the last statement made by the hon. member for Zululand, i.e. the one in connection with the Owambos who had allegedly returned and that our Government ought to have been glad that they did, is to my mind unworthy of the hon. member. I wonder whether I could have the attention of the hon. member for Zululand while I am making this accusation against him? I say that that statement which the hon. member made in connection with the Owambos, is totally unworthy of the hon. member. Here we have in a part of our country a situation which is extremely ticklish and a very sensitive one on the international level, and yet the hon. member makes the absurd statement that we ought to applaud if the Bantu return since this is allegedly in keeping with the implementation of our policy. To my mind this is a foolish statement.

When the hon. member claims that the hon. the Prime Minister said that an inquest is the same as a judicial inquiry, I think he is discrediting the hon. the Prime Minister as well as his own intelligence. The hon. the Prime Minister has never said that.

He said it this afternoon.

Let me tell hon. members what the trouble is. That hon. member, for whom I have a great deal of respect—this I want to tell him—fell into the same trap into which all the United Party people are falling, i.e. that in a matter of this nature they always make the insinuation that the South African Police has done something wrong. The hon. member knows just as well as I do that when a person dies under circumstances which are not normal, an inquest is usually held. But now the hon. member has asked the Government for a judicial commission of inquiry. They ask: Give us a Judge, for all the magistrates are “stooges” of the Government; give us a Judge, for your prosecutors are in actual fact only in the service of the Attorney-General, who in turn is in the service of the hon. the Minister of Justice, and therefore all that evidence will be cooked. That is the insinuation that hon. member has made. That is the trap into which all the people who think that way, and especially these liberalists, are falling. This is something that must really be squashed. The reason why a judicial commission of inquiry has not been appointed, is that it is unnecessary. I say it is unnecessary because the Police have nothing to be ashamed of before the public of South Africa in respect of the detention of prisoners of this kind. At this stage I want to take the opportunity to extend my personal thanks to those young lads of ours who are wearing blue uniforms, our Security Police, and everybody who is involved in the security of South Africa, because we South Africans who live and attend to our business in peace everyday, realize that those men on the borders of South Africa, in South-West Africa and in the Republic of South Africa itself, are engaged in protecting us, in keeping South Africa healthy and in squashing terrorism. Let me say now that the English Press tried to anticipate us in this debate with this kind of United Party mentality by saying that we would once again come up with a communist bogy which we would hold up to the people. We are not referring to a communist bogy here. Yes, we are bringing it up, but we are referring here to a terrorist bogy seeking to cause the downfall of the Government in South Africa by force. There are many people, and many clergymen as well, who have arrived at the conclusion that that party is too rotten to give this party a sound thrashing. They have arrived at the conclusion that the only way in which the detestable National Party can be driven out of office, is by making use of force. Mr. Speaker, let me say today that this party will under no circumstances be driven out of office by force. They will therefore have to change their policy and adopt a realistic attitude in that regard. They will have to use persuasion to induce the people of South Africa to vote against the National Party. But with terrorism nothing will be accomplished in South Africa. We shall catch all of them. Every terrorist will be caught by our Police in order that law and order may be maintained.

Now I want to deal with section 6. I want to tell the hon. member for Zululand that his party voted for this legislation in principle. Am I correct?

[Inaudible.]

I know the hon. member will now come forward with the old sob story that the hon. the Minister said it is rather difficult to bring people before a Judge in the bush. That is the story with which the United Party is doing the rounds nowadays, but, as I have said, the United Party voted for this in principle. What protection does section 6 afford the prisoner? The hon. member is a jurist and ought to know. Every fortnight the prisoner has to be visited by a magistrate. [Interjections.] I hear someone saying: “Oh! Jeez!” That is a typical U.P. expression. They do not accept the bona fides of our administration of justice at all. That is their trouble! That is not politics! [Interjections.] I am quarrelling with your mentality. I said that a magistrate had to visit the prisoners every fortnight. After that the police officials, all of whom are senior officers who arrested the prisoners, have to report to the Minister of Justice on why the prisoners concerned will be detained for longer periods. I have every confidence—and I wish a U.P. supporter would say “Oh, Jeez!” again—that the magistrates of our country will visit those prisoners, and that, when the prisoners want to tell them something, they will listen to them, and that a report will be made to the Minister of Justice. Furthermore, I have every confidence that the hon. the Minister of Justice will give his thorough attention to the report he receives, and that, if a person has to be detained for a longer period, it will be absolutely essential for the security of South Africa.

I also want to tell the other side of the House that I also have every confidence that if a person has been caught by our senior police officials, they will have done so for a reason. Such a police official is investigating whether an offence has been committed under the Terrorism Act. I, as John Citizen, am very grateful to him for doing so. I want to add that hon. members should not think that South Africa is the only country that takes such steps. Oh, no! I have here the American News Digest, which is an official document of the United States Information Service. In their very latest edition they dealt with the case of Angela Davis. I shall read out the following extract from it—

[Interjections.] What does the hon. member for Houghton want to say?

Has she not been charged?

No, she has not been charged. She may have been charged, but her trial is pending. [Interjections.]

Order!

I shall come back in a moment to the sneering remark made by the hon. member. They also appointed a doctor for her. The report goes on to say—

[Interjections.] Just see how sensitive the hon. member is; see what a fright she got; she must wait a while, for I have not yet touched upon her friends. [Interjections.]

Order! Is this a dialogue or are we having a debate? The hon. member may proceed.

I shall read on—

Not 180 days, but 365 days plus another unknown number of days. This is taking place in the great democracy. [Interjections.] Now I shall reply to the hon. member for Houghton with reference to her interjections. It is quite correct that these people have not been charged as yet, but an offence is being investigated. If the hon. member for Houghton does not know an offence is investigated, I shall enlighten her on that point today. An offence is investigated by the Police on real suspicion, and in this case, where the absolute safety of, inter alia, the hon. member for Houghton, who has so much to say, is being threatened, all those people are caught. An investigation is then carried out, and under our system of law detectives have always been entitled to detain people as long as may be necessary, pending an investigation.

Who decides that?

The police officer, the magistrate concerned and also the hon. the Minister of Justice.

I do not have your abounding faith.

The hon. member says that she does not have my abounding faith in the Police or in the Minister, I presume?

Well, in everybody.

Thank you very much. That is exactly what we want to hear from the Progressive Party. The hon. member for Houghton is enjoying the benefits and the security of the State of South Africa, and then she still has the audacity to suggest that we are not a democracy. She says that in spite of the fact that she is enjoying the security of Parliament and that of the country, and then she advances the kind of argument she has just done. [Interjections.]

Order!

Now I should also like to say a few words about restriction. I raised this matter on a previous occasion, and I also quoted to the House figures in respect of people who had been restricted, people who had been engaged in communist and terrorist activities. I mentioned 17 cases where the hon. the Minister had exercised his discretion. Now I want to deal with the hon. member for Houghton, who has attacked the hon. the Minister’s discretion. Exercising his discretion, the hon. the Minister restricted certain persons. In all those cases which I mentioned here on a previous occasion, those persons were subsequently charged with communist activities in an open court, and some of them were sentenced to life imprisonment. That happened in an open court, where a Judge had to exercise his discretion on the basis of the evidence submitted to him. That took place after the hon. the Minister of Justice had exercised his discretion. To me this is proof that the hon. the Minister of Justice exercised his discretion correctly. I repeat that I want to pay homage and convey my thanks to those persons who are looking after our safety in that manner.

The hon. member for Houghton fills me with melancholy—sometimes she makes me angry—because I realize that the dark forces in South Africa which are engaged in undermining our country, are using the hon. member for Houghton as the public front in Parliament for propaganda and for the purpose of furthering their aims, and she does not realize it. Unfortunately this is true, and I do not blame the hon. member. She has her duties to perform here in Parliament, but unknown to her those dark forces are using her to make propaganda here against the Minister of Justice, against our police officers and against our policemen, who have to carry out their task in very difficult circumstances. She is softening up public opinion for those people. The time has arrived for us in South Africa to adopt a realistic, real attitude because we may not be saddled with this kind of thing any longer. Matters are becoming too grave in South Africa. I want to mention an example.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member allowed to threaten me?

Did the hon. member threaten the hon. member for Houghton?

Yes, I did understand that from what he said. [Interjections.]

Order!

Sir, if the hon. member feels that I threatened her, I withdraw the threat, but I think it is really her own conscience that is threatening her, not I. She becomes frightened of her own accord. But now I want to give the House an example. In the course of a fairly long carreer in the courts I have always found that when a person is guilty, he first tries to prove his innocence by making an attack on the Police. These terrorists are by no means different. I am not saying that time is wasted, but hours and hours of our courts’ time are taken up by evidence that has to be led on supposed attacks allegedly made by the police on prisoners. Recently we had a case in Pietermaritzburg where more than 50 witnesses were called to give evidence on what had allegedly taken place in the prisons. Listen to what the Judge …

Is that case not still sub judice?

I have the right to quote anything that was said by the Judge. What the Judge said, is not sub judice. The hon. member would be well advised to study the Act. I beg your pardon, Sir, but sometimes people who bring up a sub judice rule and make a big fuss about things they are ignorant of, make one feel rather discouraged. [Interjections.]

Order! I want to ask now that these interjections should cease. We have had enough interjections. The hon. member may proceed.

As you please, Sir. The Judge said—

All this evidence is on oath. Now I should like to ask those hon. members who are so ready with their comments on this kind of trial, to show me a case—I have not yet read about one, and therefore I speak under correction—where, in this kind of trial, the police were convicted on a charge of maltreating prisoners. I should like the hon. member for Houghton to do so. I think the hon. member will have difficulty in doing so. The point I am making here, is that the attack made by my learned friend for Zululand is, in the first place, unfounded. I think the United Party did the only sensible thing they have done in years when they supported the Terrorism Act in principle, for by doing so they did at least retain a small part of their character. To my mind it does not behove them at this stage to nag here time and again about a matter which they endorsed too. Secondly, I do not believe this maltreatment story at all. Thirdly, I find it impossible to agree with the hon. member for Zululand when he says that now, all of a sudden, a judicial commission of inquiry should be appointed for each person who dies in a prison. Surely, this is unadulterated nonsense. I think the hon. gentleman ought to know that.

He said a few things about the Black people, and I should also like to say a few things about the nature of the debate I heard coming from the Opposition side. When we came to this House, we heard that we had to prepare ourselves as the United Party would allegedly be filled with enthusiasm and feel like running the National Party clean out of this House. Sir, I have a fair amount of respect for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition because he is a gentleman, and in addition to that he also has a title to prove it, but, judging by the performance he gave us here in this House, I am afraid that he is only going to lead his United Party into the desert. He will not lead his party out of it. The other day “Dawie” of Die Burger put the matter very aptly, even if it was something of a literary distortion, when he said: “Graaff would snatch defeat from the very jaws of victory.” That is true, Sir. They will never reach the winning-post.

Let us take a look at a few of the reasons. When I came back from abroad, I heard about the tremendous enthusiasm in the United Party ranks. I wondered what the reason for the enthusiasm was; I wondered whether they were glad, firstly, because they had put Japie Basson in his place and were back on a lovely “verkrampte” picnic—a lot of stuffy people who could once again carry on gaily to their hearts’ content—or whether there was really no reason for their enthusiasm, as a certain young man put it to me. He said: “Sir, I have also asked myself what they can be enthusiastic about, but sometimes, as you know, a man would, in a fit of enthusiasm, simply seize a flag and run without really having any reason for doing so.” It seems to me as though this is really the case with the United Party. They simply seized the flag and ran. They ran to Parliament, and here they ran into this side of the House—and see what they look like now. They are all sitting over there with long faces.

May I say this, Sir: Perhaps their enthusiasm is based on the fact that there is a new Native policy now. Only the other day I read in the newspaper that the hon. member for Yeoville had written out a piece of policy for a newspaper and that the very next day he had written a letter to say that he was terribly sorry, but he had given them a wonderful exposition of a policy that no longer existed. Sir, we should very much like to hear from the hon. member for Yeoville exactly what their policy is now. In all friendship I want to tell the United Party that I am very sorry for them. They will have to get rid of this archaic policy of theirs, their Native policy, as soon as possible. The people abroad are laughing that policy of theirs to scorn. An English-speaking person, who has been a supporter of the United Party for a great many years, said to me: “No, I shall never vote for you people, for I am a traditional U.P. supporter, but, please, if there is really any danger of your losing, let me know, for then I shall work my fingers to the bone for you. I really do not want the United Party to be in power.” [Laughter.] Hon. members on that side are laughing. They are out of touch with English-speaking South Africa. The English-speaking people do not vote for us, but they know that the United Party is no good. They have no policy whatever.

Sir, I listened to the hon. member for Hillbrow the other day. If there has ever been an outburst of total frustration, then that is what we had from the hon. member for Hillbrow that day. Would the Leader of the Opposition tell us whether he agrees with the hon. member for Hillbrow when he refers to our relations with the small Black states; when he says that we are going down on our knees before the small Black states? Would the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, in replying to this debate, tell us whether he shares that sneering, disparaging attitude adopted by the hon. member for Hillbrow? Does he agree with it? Is that his party’s policy in respect of the Black people of Southern Africa?

Sir, I also want to refer to the speech made by the hon. member for Johannesburg North. He said that the Natives in the homelands were showing a spirit of independence which was unhealthy. What does the hon. member mean by that? Why is he allowed to develop a sense of independence, but the Black people may not get it? Why not? What is the attitude of the United Party towards Blacks? Does the United Party want them to be shot dead? They are out-Hertzoging the Hertzogites. That is true, I am sorry to say. The United Party is absolutely archaic. Their whole standpoint and attitude towards Black people are absolutely medieval. [Interjections.] No, do not throw up a smokescreen; let the United Party tell us what their policy is going to be.

What is your policy?

Sir, what did the hon. member for Johannesburg North say? He said that influx control “must go”. I wonder whether the U.P. voters of Johannesburg will like that.

The hon. member for Yeoville says so too

The hon. member for Yeoville says so too.

No.

The hon. member says “No”, but he said that influx control had to be abolished.

Had to be relaxed.

To what extent?

That is even worse. Now they are back to the old half-truths of the United Party. They say it must be relaxed. Their attitude is not warm, it is not sold, it is lukewarm. That is typical of the United Party. Then I want to put this question to the hon. member: He says we should give the Bantu higher wages. Has he given his own Bantu higher wages?

No.

Has the U.P. industrialist given his Bantu higher wages yet? What is stopping him? It is not the Government that is stopping him. It is the profits the U.P. supporters want to make that are stopping them. They are afraid that, if they did that, they would not be able to pay out high enough dividends on shares. They want to have cheap labour. They should not come to this House and tell the National Party here that the Bantu should be given higher wages. They should go to their U.P. industrialist-supporters and tell them that they should give the Bantu higher wages, that they should be prepared to take a smaller profit. If they do that, they will be making progress; then they will be facing up to the facts. They should not continually throw up a smokescreen in this House to the outside world.

Sir, then I should like to put this question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in a very frank manner; it is a question I also put to people abroad. I do not want to mention this person’s name, nor do I want to mention the country, but this is what I said to a very high-ranking foreign official: “You do not like separate development; you believe in integration, but tell me what objection you have against the next phase of our policy of separate development, namely the industrialization of a homeland, within a growth-point; what do you have against that?” His reply was that he had nothing against it. Then I said to him, “Then you should have the moral courage to state in UNO that you have nothing against that aspect of our policy”. Now I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: What does he have against it? Would he kindly tell us in his reply what his objection is against our industrializing the Bantu homelands?

Is that not a new colonialism?

The hon. members should not start now with their slippery U.P. tactics. Sir, if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has nothing against that, then I challenge him today to say, “I have nothing against the industrialization of the homelands, and I am making an appeal to all the industrialists supporting the United Party to go to the homelands and to industrialize them”. This would be for the good of not only the Black people, but also all Whites in Southern Africa, and in the interests of the coexistence in South Africa. I challenge the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to say this to us.

Inside or outside the homelands?

Inside the homelands, on an agency basis. Why should it be on any other basis?

On any basis?

On the basis we apply.

Sir, it will be on a basis which will imply the minimum exploitation of Black people. We do not want the Black people to be exploited; we want to give them something. We want to try to help the Black people to share with us the benefits and fruits of Southern Africa, and the United Party does not want this.

Mr. Speaker, we have had to listen to the hon. member for Prinshof spending most of his time in attacking the hon. member for Houghton on what he believes to be her attitude towards terrorists and the safety of the country. He started off by accusing the United Party of always throwing suspicion at the Police. He did so because we asked for a judicial commission to be appointed to inquire into the deaths of detainees. It was pointed out by my hon. friend, the hon. member for Zululand, who referred to this demand made by us, that that was done because of the number of deaths which had occurred while people were being detained. I must say that I was shocked to hear the hon. the Prime Minister interject that there have been only nine suicides. What a shocking thing for the Prime Minister to say, as if it were something of which to be proud. I would like to remind the hon. member and the Prime Minister that when that section 6 was discussed we opposed it, and when the Third Reading of the Bill took place I was the spokesman on behalf of this party as leader of the Justice group, and I referred to section 6 and said that we objected to the provisions of that section. We objected to detention for an unspecified time, and I stated our case that we wanted section 22 to be applied, and I pointed out that we were only agreeing to the Third Reading because of our attitude towards terrorism, that we were adamant that terrorism had to be fought. [Interjections.] I have my Hansard here in my hand. I am surprised that hon. members over there do not know about it. This is what I said—

And I pointed out too that we were only agreeing to this because of the assurances given by the Deputy Minister of Police at the time, who is at present the Minister of Police, when he pointed that the Police could not operate without a provision of this nature in South West Africa. Now our actions are twisted and a different aspect is put before the country.

*I now want to come back to another matter. The new honorary chairman of the Institute of Race Relations, Dr. Nkomo, recently had an open discussion with Mr. Otto Krause in which he described the climate among the Bantu in the cities. It is interesting to read that the complaints the Bantu have about the policy of the Government, are the same as the main complaints the United Party have in this respect. He is even opposed to the policy of independence, although he accepts it now because he has no alternative, but he stated clearly that he is opposed to fragmentation. What are his main complaints? That the urban Bantu are regarded as temporary sojourners of the White territory; that they forego freehold title; that the Government encourages local authorities to utilize in the homelands the profits derived from the beerhalls which are intended to be spent on local social amenities; that the Government regards planning for the homelands as adequate planning for all the Bantu. That approach, he says, is not a valid one. This open discussion was published on a leader page in Rapport. Not only was this discussion published, but also an editorial, in which Dr. Nkomo was praised for the manner in which he had conducted the discussion. The article went further and wanted to know whether we— apparently meaning the Nationalists—-should not take a fresh look at the problems of the urban Bantu and stated (translation)—

These are two very important statements. My hon. friend, the hon. member for Zululand, remarked that this is fundamental to the policy of the Nationalist Party and that the ideas which appear in Rapport these days, are quite contrary to those of the Government. [Interjections.] Is it true what is being said, that “nobody tries to pretend any more that the urban Bantu will be a temporary sojourner in White South Africa”? Is it true what they say that “nobody denies any more that the Bantu cities will be growing Bantu cities, permanently established around our White cities”?

The Deputy Minister said yesterday they would reply to that, but we are still waiting for that reply. The hon. member for Potchefstroom did not reply. Everybody kept quiet; it was only the hon. the Minister of Community Development who had something to say and he said he did not agree.

The Minister will reply. We do not run away as you do.

We hope the Minister is going to reply; we have been waiting for a reply for a long time now. Why is it that nobody replied to Rapport when this report appeared? Only one person reacted, and that was the mouthpiece of the Government, “Current Affairs”. Sir, it is not only Rapport that has doubts; another expert, who is a Nationalist Party sympathizer, Dr. Moolman, chief of the Africa Institute, said a long time ago that, as far as the Bantu in the cities were concerned, it would be a mistake to keep on regarding them as being temporary and without rights or future; we will have to find another solution. And Rapport now wants to help to find another solution.

†I happened to listen to “Current Affairs” last week and I heard the talk, this attack on Rapport. I had to listen to this tripe that we are becoming so used to over “Current Affairs”. It said that the Natives should be satisfied; they were being offered something much better than citizenship of a homeland or a country; they were being given citizenship of a nation; without any meaningful rights, but they were expected to be grateful. I wondered, when listening, whether that announcer was speaking with his tongue in his cheek because I remember having a discussion with a senior official of the department who retired before his time, and when I asked him why he said it was because he was sick and tired of having to tell the Natives that they should be happy when he knew very well that they had every reason to be unhappy. Now, the type of reasoning that we have had from “Current Affairs” is what we have had to listen to in this Chamber from Government speakers, especially from the Minister and the Deputy Minister. Dr. Nkomo complained about paternalism. He said it was “verouderd”, and I take it he meant it in regard to the Government acting as a guardian to its ward. But it also goes further. It is also the way in which the Ministers and the officials talk to the Bantu. I have mentioned this before in this Chamber, the condescending manner in which they talk to them. They treat them as children and we in this House also have had to listen to that type of lecture in this House. We had to listen to it from Dr. Verwoerd, From Mr. De Wet Nel and from the present Minister and especially from his Deputy Minister, Dr. Koornhof. We have these trumped-up slogans about separate freedoms, multi-nationalism, while in practice all this amounts to is discrimination. Now at last Rapport has lost patience with “Current Affairs” and has taken them to task. Why has it taken them to task? It has taken them to task for saying the very things which this Government says, and I want to read what Rapport says—

I can hear the Deputy Minister Dr. Koornhof saying this!

Empty words!

I read further—

We do have clarity.

Everything that is said in this leading article can apply to demands that we have made on this Government over the years. Over the years we have done that. We have pointed out that the urban Bantu are rootless and rightless. We have asked that they be given more consideration and that efforts should be made to make their lot a happier one. The impression is given that this Government is making their lot as unhappy as it can so that they will go back to the reserves. It is obviously not going to encourage them to be here. When he was Deputy Minister of Bantu Development Mr. Coetzee said some time ago that the amenities in the urban areas were too attractive and that the money should be spent on making the amenities in the Reserves more attractive. As a result they are taking the money from the beer halls—the very thing about which Dr. Nkomo complained. They are trying to get the municipalities to spend that money on amenities in the Reserves and not on the townships.

We have complained about the chronic shortage of housing, and we have also complained about the type of housing. You should! go to Langa to see this uniform, monotonous type of house with two rooms per house; whether you are a doctor or a lawyer or any other professional man, you just have to be content to live in a house which is of the same type as the house hired by the lowest paid African.

What is the Government doing to widen the gap between the poverty data line and the wages? In July last year there was a survey conducted in Johannesburg and the Johannesburg non-European Affairs Department found the following. They prepared a budget for a family of five: two adults and three children. They found that they needed R69-80 in order to make ends meet. The urban Bantu councillors themselves prepared another budget and it came to R116-38. The Chamber of Commerce prepared a budget too and it came to R75-80. The lowest was R69-80. The large difference between the budgets prepared by the municipality and the Bantu councillors is due to the fact that the councillors allowed more for food—this is understandable—and also because there was a big difference between the estimated amount required for books and stationery in schools. It is a shocking thing that they must pay for their own books. They are the only group in South Africa who have to incur that type of expenditure. What are their wages? Let us look at the wages. It was found that between 29 and 32 per cent— about one third of the inhabitants of Soweto—earned more than R60 per month and the lowest budget was R60-86. It was also found that 14 to 22 per cent was earning less than R40 per month. Now I ask the Government whether they are doing anything about it. What steps are they taking to see that that is improved? It is no good for the Minister to pretend, as he used to do, that these Africans would disappear from the cities and that they would go back to the Reserves. Rapport has pointed out that that was a fallacy. The year the industrial complex was established at Epping it was said that no Bantu would be employed there. Just recently, however, the Government has altered its policy and the Bantu can now be employed on permit. That is an indication that Bantu have to be brought in and that they will continue to be brought in.

Look at the unreal attitude of Ministers in regard to this question. The Minister of Finance said that there was no unemployment in the country. How could he say a thing like that? What record is being kept of the unemployed Bantu? Has he visited Dimbaza? He must know that there are people in Dimbaza who cannot get employment and who have to be fed by the Government. In addressing a congress of his party in April last year, the chief Minister of the Transkei referred to unemployment and the Minister himself will know that they have referred to the question of unemployment several times in the Transkei Assembly. The Chief Minister has said that he will not have repatriates sent to the Transkei unless the Government supplies employment and accommodation. It is possible that the hon. Minister was not thinking of the Bantu when he made that statement, because I cannot see how a Minister could make such a foolish statement. However, I have seen that most of the figures which he gave in his speech have been queried by other authorities. We shall most probably find that everything he has said was wrong. It is the duty of this Government to look after the African people. Non-Europeans are not allowed to send representatives to this Parliament; therefore there is nobody to talk for them in this House. That is the reason why we have to talk for them. For that reason there should be greater responsibility on the Government’s side to look after the interests of those people.

It has often been asked what our policy is in regard to the Bantu. In our approach to this problem we have to bear in mind at all times that we do have different stages of development and civilization. We do have to bear in mind that we have different assessments of values; that we do have different customs and values; and that we do have different moral and spiritual standards. Whilst this does not apply to all the Bantu, it certainly does apply to the majority of the Bantu and the Bantu are in the majority in all our provinces. The two major parties have similarities in their approach, but they also have fundamental differences. We both agree that the Reserves, as the natural homelands of the Bantu, should be developed economically to the fullest extent so as to accommodate as many of the Bantu as possible. I am surprised to hear the hon. member for Prinshof asking my leader whether he objects to industrialization of the Reserves. What has been the attack, especially from me, who comes from the Transkei, on this Government over the years?—The very fact that the Government is not developing the Reserves and that it does not allow the development of the Reserves. That has been our attack. We have not objected to the political advancement of the Reserves or to the economic advancement. What we have objected to, is the policy of Bantustans and the policy of giving them ultimate independence. Hon. members opposite must realize this …

Marais Steyn has accepted it in his bombshell.

I never accepted the policy. It is untrue.

The hon. Government members have to appreciate that in accepting political development and in accepting economic development of the Reserves, we are not accepting the Bantustan policy because fundamentally the Bantustan policy is independence and the denial of all rights to the citizens of the Bantu homelands in our urban areas. Rapport must realize that if the Government’s urban policy fails, as it has failed according to Rapport, the whole policy fails. You cannot divide the policy since it is one policy. This policy has two parts, and both parts have to go together. If the policy fails in the urban areas, the whole policy fails. Why did Dr. Verwoerd introduce the urban policy? Dr. Verwoerd wanted to deny the Africans any political representation, but he knew it was unjust to do it while they lived permanently in the urban areas. That is why he introduced the independent Bantustan idea, with the idea they will be able to exercise all their political rights in the Reserves. If you now depart from that policy, you depart completely from Dr. Verwoerd’s policy.

It is common policy, too, that they should have separate residential areas. However, I must say that as far as this Government is concerned, that policy has fallen by the way in the Transkei. As villages and towns in the Transkei become Black-zoned, this policy goes and Whites and Blacks are forced to live together whether they want to or not; as I say, it is common policy that in the White urban areas they should have separate residential areas. But the Nationalists treat the Africans as temporary sojourners and as a work unit only there to work for the White man; he is only there to work for the White man and to leave when he has completed his task. This question of the rights of the urban African is an old one. It will be remembered that last year I reminded the House that the Stallard Commission in 1922 took this line that the African was only there to minister to the needs of the White man, and once he had done that he had to depart. But in 1932 General Hertzog, as leader of the Nationalist Party, appointed the Holloway Commission. Mr. Holloway rejected that and said that it was a most unfair recommendation.

General Hertzog said that himself in 1936.

I am sorry, he did not say that. In 1947 the Fagan Commission also found that that policy was false. But I see that the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education, in addressing the Institute of Administrators of Non-European Affairs in Port Elizabeth the other day, repeated it. He said that the Bantu was not in the urban areas to exercise such rights. He said—

as a work unit, to serve the White man, I suppose—

There are a few other very interesting things which the hon. the Deputy Minister said in that address. I am sorry that I do not have the time to read everything, but I must say that I have never heard such utter nonsense as this drivel in this paper. It is like “Current Affairs” replying to Rapport. Furthermore, the hon. the Deputy Minister said to these administrators—

He went on to say—

Referring to the Bantu Affairs Administration Act, he said—

One can almost say: Flip prepared the ground, Piet planted, and Japie will have to water it! This is the type of stuff that we have from the hon. the Deputy Minister. We differ fundamentally from the Government with regard to the position of the urban African. With the re-appraisal of the Government’s policy by Rapport and other followers of the Nationalist Party, they will have to find a new solution. In contrast to the Government’s policy of forcing contract or migratory labour on employers in White areas, you have our policy, which seeks to establish a settled, permanent, well trained force enjoying family life, with home ownership and a stake in the country in which the labourer finds he is living and to which he should show his loyalty. That is our policy in contradiction to that of the Government.

As far as political rights are concerned, our policy of race federation was outlined in 1963 in the Handbook for Better Race Relations. Members have seen that book; there have been certain variations but the principles remain the same. The principle is that there are three phases. The first is to examine and review all legislation which is discriminatory and offends the rule of law and impinges on the dignity of the individual.

Give us an example.

The second stage is to introduce interim constitutional reforms to provide proper machinery for consultation with non-Whites at all levels. This would include parliamentary representation and members know what that is. As far as the Bantus are concerned it is eight Whites. There will also be consultations at all levels and standing select committees which will consult with the various homeland communal councils.

The final phase will be the product of proper consultation and agreement wherever it is possible. This will ensure that White leadership is accepted and protected in the interests of all races. Each group will have a predetermined share in the government of the country. The rights of each individual and group will be protected. I hope that, now, there will be no more questions as to what our policy is.

After Sharpeville and the march on Cape Town there was a demand by Nationalist reporters and by Nationalists themselves that the time had come for fusion or a coalition. At the time they were worried about what might happen in the country. Now we see the same thing happening again. The Nationalist papers are coming out with a plea for a coalition, an appeal for the United Party to come to the rescue of the Nationalist Party and the country. I have made it quite clear that, with the Nationalist Party policy as it is, or is not, with the indecision as to what their policy really is, there can be no hope of the United Party ever forming a coalition. There can be no hope of the United Party taking their chestnuts out of the fire.

Mr. Speaker, I want to start immediately with the last statement made by the hon. member for Transkei, namely his reference to coalition. My hon. Leader rejected it with contempt in the strongest language imaginable. I think I need say no more about the matter. If the Opposition continues with that, like the hon. member who spoke about Bantu affairs and referred to it at the end, it really makes one wonder whether they do not think that the National Party and the National Party Government would be so foolish and stupid as to help them out of the predicament in which they have placed themselves [Interjections.]

I want to confine myself now to the so-called urban Bantu. I want to say at once that “urban Bantu” is not really a correct concept; it should actually be “the Bantu in the White Area”. I want to state very clearly at once that there are so-called urban Bantu in Pretoria, Durban and East London, which border on the homelands. Thus there is Ga Rankuwa at Pretoria, Mdantsane at East London and Umlazi at Durban. Those Bantu live seven miles outside Pretoria and approximately the same distance from the other two places I have mentioned. They are settled in their homelands there and have all the rights there for which the hon. members opposite supposedly plead. Therefore it is not correct to speak of the urban Bantu per se as the hon. members there are so fond of doing. With this correction I shall leave the matter there.

I personally, as well as all the other members on this side of this House, welcome the fact that a responsible debate is being conducted about this problem, because it is a problem. The hon. member for Maitland read out from Rapport yesterday in order to try to create the impression that “Current Affairs” had stated that it was no problem, but in reality the words quoted from the S.A.B.C. programme “Current Affairs” were used incorrectly by Rapport. I regard the hon. member for Maitland’s reference to this as cheap politicizing. If the hon. member had read the report “Current Affairs misquoted” or had listened to the radio, he would have known that “Current Affairs” had beyond all doubt put this matter perfectly correctly.

That completely erroneous statement used by the hon. member for Maitland was actually carried further by the hon. member for Transkei, who is a front-bencher, in discussing an important matter such as the so-called urban Bantu. It should be clear that it is a bankrupt Opposition which tries to indulge in this sort of cheap politicizing. If I had the time at my disposal, I would have gone into this matter further, but I shall leave it at that, because I see the hon. member for Maitland is nodding his head; apparently he is aware of the faux pas he made yesterday.

The question of the so-called urban Bantu is a delicate matter which we should consider in a responsible way in this House. I now want to state the well-known policy of the National Party in regard to the Bantu in White areas very clearly, plainly and pithily. Firstly, I want to say clearly that it is not necessary for a newspaper to dictate to us on this side of this House that we should make new policy determinations in respect of the urban Bantu. This applies to Rapport as well. The policy of the National Party in regard to the urban Bantu is very well-known. It is a dynamic policy which, as I shall indicate, is evolving very well and, generally speaking, very responsibly in South Africa, Therefore it is not necessary for us to think about this matter afresh. The Department and the Government are continually and to the best of all available abilities examining and developing this matter in the interests of the Whites in this country, in the interests of the Bantu in this country, and also in the interests of the maintenance of good relations, which is of the greatest and most cardinal importance imaginable to everyone in this country.

More words.

These are not just more words, but facts. Before stating the policy, I want to lead up to it by referring to what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said about this matter. He said: “A complete revolution in thought about the future of the country is essential. The aspirations and needs of the Black man can no longer be ignored without serious danger to ourselves.” He linked this statement specifically to the aspirations of the Black man. Coming from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, this really seemed very strange to me—and not only to me, because it was referred to in the public Press as well—because there is no institution in the Republic of South Africa which offers as little hope to the Black man as those very hon. members on that side of this House. They offer absolutely no aspirations to the Bantu. Because they cannot do so, they have no hope of maintaining good relations here. For that reason, they have no hope either of offering the Whites any guarantees for the future. The hon. member for Rissik indicated this here this afternoon in a really excellent speech. Our people, especially the young people, want replies to these questions, but the Opposition has no replies to them. I just want to refer to two salient facts. Bring me one responsible Bantu leader who is satisfied with the political representation the Opposition offers them. They cannot bring me one. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said there should be revolutionary thinking about this matter. The one place from which it cannot possibly come is from those benches. We have put the question to them before, and I personally put it to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. They maintain there should be revolutionary thinking and that the Bantu should come into their own here in the White area of South Africa. I asked them whether, in terms of their policy, a Bantu, who, according to their revolutionary thinking, should come into his own in the White area, with the maintenance of good relations, could for example become Secretary of the Department of National Education? Would it be possible for him to become Secretary for Justice or for Defence? Can they give us a reply to that?

They would be in charge of their own education.

Yes, but in a White area. There they sit, Sir. That is why we say that no revolutionary thinking about this matter can or will come from that side. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is really using empty words in this regard. Therefore they are ambiguous and dishonest towards the Bantu, and are by no means honest towards the Whites in this respect either.

On the other hand, we on this side are very honest and clear in our policy. We tell everyone who wants to listen that our policy in respect of the urban Bantu is based on two cardinal principles. The one is that, in respect of the franchise, the Bantu cannot exercise his franchise in White South Africa in such a way that it would provide him with representation in this House of Assembly. Under no circumstances can this happen. Surely that is clear. Surely these are not empty words. Surely it is a factual statement. We say this is a principle on which our policy is based.

The second principle on which our policy in respect of the urban Bantu is based is that we unequivocally tell the Black man and the White man in South Africa that, just as we will not grant the Black man the franchise in order to afford him representation in this House of Assembly, which is our undivided right as Whites, we shall not grant him proprietary rights in respect of land in our fatherland either, because it is our land, the land of the Whites, and we are not prepared to share that right with anyone else; therefore not with the Bantu either. These are the two principles on which our policy is based. It is as old as the hills. It is a policy which was formulated in this way a long time ago.

Mr. Speaker, with the permission of the hon. the Deputy Minister, in regard to his reference to proprietary rights …

Order! Does the hon. member want to put a question?

Yes, I am putting a question, Mr. Speaker. In regard to the proprietary rights to which the hon. the Deputy Minister referred, does he or does he not accept the permanency of the Bantu in White areas?

No, I was putting the two principles and I shall come back to them now; but I want to reply to that question immediately now, as I intended to do and as I promised. In the first place, nobody on this side of this House, not the late Dr. Verwoerd either, has ever adopted the standpoint that all the Bantu would disappear from White South Africa. This is the first point. [Interjections.] Nobody on this side of this House has ever adopted the standpoint that there would be a time when there would be no Black people in White South Africa. Do hon. members understand that? I promised that I would reply, and I am doing so now. [Interjections.] Dr. Verwoerd never said so. I challenge hon. members to prove it.

Many of you said they would decrease in number.

But that is something different. The number of Bantu in the White area has already decreased. Nobody on this side of this House has ever said a time would come when there would be no Black people in White South Africa. I want to say respectfully that the hon. member for Zululand adopted a foolish attitude this afternoon when he joked and said that we should have called out in triumph when all the Owambos went back to Owambo. That was a shocking statement. I do not think it befits the hon. member to make such a statement about such an important subject in such a responsible place.

What about his question?

In the second place we say that the Bantu in White South Africa are here in a loose capacity.

What do you mean by that?

It is very clear what we mean by that. They are here in a loose capacity because they are in White South Africa, where the Whites are governed by Whites. Just as we claim for ourselves the inalienable right to govern and maintain ourselves here in White South Africa as it befits Whites, we grant the Bantu that same inalienable right and principle to do so within their own national context—if they are Zulus, as Zulus, and if they are Vendas, as Vendas, and so forth. For that reason we say that they are in this country in a loose capacity.

Permanently, in a loose capacity?

They are here in a loose capacity, and I shall go so far as to say that some Bantu may even be here permanently, because we are very realistic; we have the example of Bantu who have been living in Soweto and other places in White South Africa for generations, under National Party rule as well. As the hon. member for Potchefstroom put it yesterday, surely it does not make a Zulu less of a Zulu if he happens to have been born here in White South Africa and is living here. Sir, the leaders of the Bantu are all ad idem in this regard. I have here a document which was drawn up by the national representative of the Vendas. He says, inter alia—

Are they loose?

He says—

Sir, all the leaders of the Bantu peoples have already made statements on this matter. I refer to the Chief Councillor of the Zulu people, who stated very explicitly that a Zulu who had been born in a White area and who was living and working here, was as important to the Zulu people as a Zulu who had been born in Zululand and who was working there. All the other leaders have issued similar statements on this. Recently, during the discussions with the national delegates and their Chief Ministers, my leader, the hon. the Prime Minister, asked each of them pertinently whether they had detribalized people who no longer knew where their nation was. Sir, my Minister is sitting here; you can ask him. Each of those leaders replied unequivocally: “We do not have such people. Even if a Bantu has been here for generations, if he is a Zulu, he remains a Zulu, and if he is a Venda, he remains a Venda.”

Sir, I have now replied to the question in regard to the matter of temporariness. I was stating the two principles in respect of our policy. I want to indicate how, within the framework of these two principles, about which nobody should have any doubt, it is in fact the National Party which, because of revolutionary thinking about this subject and because of the fact that its policy in respect of the urban Bantu is based on unimpeachable principles, is able to offer the Bantu in the White area that which he needs so much. Sir, I want to reply unambiguously to the article which appeared in Rapport and which requested that the National Party Government should help the urban Bantu and which stated that the National Party Government could help the urban Bantu; the National Party Government is helping the urban Bantu because it can do so within the framework of its policy, and for that reason it is able to offer guarantees to the Whites on the one hand and to the Bantu on the other.

I now want to refer to the hope which is evolving in this regard for the Bantu in the White area. And let there be no doubt about this one very important matter, i.e. that, as the homeland policy develops, new vistas are being opened for the urban Bantu in the Republic of South Africa. I want to state briefly and pointedly this afternoon that if this burning subject of the urban Bantu were not such a political football and were not dragged to and fro across the floor of this House, I know of no problem in respect of the urban Bantu which cannot be solved easily and conveniently in the interests of everyone in South Africa. I know of no problem which cannot be solved within the framework of the National Party’s policy. So, for example, it was in vain that the hon. member opposite tried to mock the speech I made to the Institute. It was an important speech in which the road ahead in respect of the Bantu was outlined very clearly by means of seven landmarks along that road. In the first place, last year, in 1971, we passed the Bantu Self-Government Act in this House. What is one of the most important implications of that Act for the Bantu in the White area? One of the most important implications is that at an age which they may determine, every Bantu in the White area, male and female, will be granted the franchise within a reasonable period, because three groups of them are going to reach that phase in respect of this important stage this year already. They are going to have the franchise then, and the time is not far off when under National Party policy, based on these two important principles, every Bantu male and female in White South Africa, the so-called urban Bantu will have the franchise at the age of 18 or 21 years. What a phenomenal achievement! Five years ago those people would have labelled it a revolutionary idea that the slogan of “one man, one vote” would be implemented in South Africa. We are on the threshold of it being implemented. We have experienced the revolution in Africa, which was a political revolution, and in respect of this matter the National Government has now reached the stage where it can grant those people, the urban Bantu in the White areas, that full political voice in that they can go and vote for their people in the homeland governments.

Secondly, in 1971 we passed the Bantu Homelands Citizenship Act, in terms of which the first citizenship certificates will soon be issued and in terms of which every Bantu in the Republic of South Africa, in the White area of South Africa, will receive his citizenship of the nation to which he belongs and of which he is a member. I wish I could show you how enthusiastic the Bantu are to obtain these citizenship certificates. You can read in the newspapers at how many discussions they requested that they receive those citizenship certificates as soon as possible.

I shall now refer to a third very important landmark on the road ahead in respect of the urban Bantu, an aspect in which the National Party Government is helping to provide for the aspirations of those people, namely by establishing aid centres in the urban areas, aid centres for which even the hon. member for Houghton cannot conceal her silent admiration; the newspapers cannot conceal it either. Why not? Because this is revolutionary thinking which the National Party Government can carry out in order to help solve the problems of these people, which we understand. We are able to solve them because our policy is based on principles which are fundamentally sound. Sir, I am no prophet, but I do not think it takes a prophet to make the following prediction in this House. Just as the English newspapers have been chastising that party in the past few months because it cannot see that the homelands policy is such a success in respect of the homelands that it should change its policy —the whole débâcle there has been in the United Party during the past few months as a result of the fact that the English newspapers forced it to admit this because the English newspapers could not understand that it cannot see that the homelands policy has reached a point of no return—just as those newspapers did this in respect of homeland development and the homelands policy, the day is not far off when they will have to admit that the policy of the National Party Government in respect of the Bantu in the urban areas of White South Africa has been carried out successfully and that they will tell that party: “Can you not see that you must accept that policy?”

I want to mention a fourth very important matter, namely that we are giving the Bantu in the White area guarantees and creating opportunities for them which would otherwise not be possible. These are in regard to the provision of transport between the places of employment of these Bantu working in White areas and the places where they reside. We on this side of the House are just as keen as some spokesmen on that side of the House to help the urban Bantu to build up and to have a fundamentally sound family life. We are as keen to do that. But who is doing something about it? The hon. member for Houghton and some of the other hon. members speak about it a great deal. But when it comes to action which is really aimed at solving these problems and which are once again the result of revolutionary thinking on the part of this Government, those hon. members put spokes into the wheels and are conspicuous by their absence. I shall mention two things in particular. A brilliant feat has been achieved in this field. I cannot go into it in detail now. More than four million journeys per month are already being made between the homelands and places of employment. Accordingly as these transport facilities are provided the Bantu making use of them are able to have a fundamentally sound family life. Can hon. members not understand this? Who are the people with revolutionary thought who are implementing these things? Surely they are not the hon. members on that side; surely it is the National Party Government.

I want to deal with a second point now. Who are the people who are responsible for the decentralization of industries? This is also something revolutionary which has come from this side of this House. What is the implication of this? The implication of this is that at every place where there is a decentralized industry or an industry within a homeland, every Bantu working in that industry can have a fundamentally sound family life. In this way the problem of the urban Bantu is being solved. But when it comes to supporting the policy of decentralization, that hon. member is conspicuous by her absence. Those hon. members too are conspicuous by their absence when they should support this. Those hon. members think that the electorate of South Africa is so stupid that it cannot see how transparent their empty talk is. Moreover, I am surprised at the clerical leaders of some church bodies in South Africa who have much to say about migratory labour and its evils, but when it comes to solving the problem in order to give the Bantu a true, fundamentally sound family life by taking the industry to the place where they can have that sound family life, and when it comes to providing the necessary transport facilities for this, they are the leading criticasters. In the same breath, however, they criticize us about this aspect of migratory labour. But thank heaven, the Bantu, who are the ones to suffer, understand the position and therefore they have a warm feeling for the National Party Government. [Interjections.] It is true. Go and ask them. For that reason the National Party is the only party which is able to solve this problem, not by words, but by deeds.

Then there is the question of education. I cannot go into that now. Just take note of the landmarks which have been planted in the sphere of education. Go and talk to the Bantu about it. I am not saying that Bantu education is perfect. As far as the education of the urban Bantu is concerned, my Minister and I and our department have succeeded in achieving very fine things with the funds at our disposal.

Can the hon. the Deputy Minister give us the name of one of the Bantu leaders in the urban areas, the detribalized Bantu, who accepts his policy?

Oh, I can mention many names to the hon. members, people like Mr. Modau, Mr. Maredi and all our delegates representing national groups. They have written about this matter and their writings have been quoted in the newspapers. Hon. members should know that the Leboa people alone already have 23 national representative councils in White South Africa. The Tswanas, too, already have about 20 such councils.

Give us the name of one of them.

I have mentioned Mr. Modau and Mr. Maredi, and I can mention numerous others. I do not have the names with me and do not know their names so well either, but I can mention the names of numerous Bantu delegates in the White areas. The quotation I read to the hon. members a moment ago is from Mr. Modau, an urban representative. Since the hon. member is questioning me about this, I may tell him that one of the other very important landmarks on our road, of our revolutionary thinking in respect of the urban Bantu, is in fact the establishment of a platform by means of which I, as the responsible person in this regard, and the Minister as well as the Department, may be able to conduct real dialogue with these Bantu leaders who are representatives in White South Africa of their respective governments. Hon. members must remember that these representatives in Soweto, Thembiza and in the Bantu locations are living in the White areas. On 9th and 10th December, 1971, I held discussions with these leaders. Furthermore, about a month previous to that they had long discussions with the Prime Minister, the Minister and myself. I can tell the hon. members today that as a result of those discussions we held for the first time with these responsible leaders in the White area, we were able summarily to relieve two of the most important bottlenecks of the Bantu in the urban area. These leaders are responsible people representing their people in the White areas. It was a great pleasure for me to be able to do so and it is wonderful to be helping in the implementation of this dynamic policy of the National Party Government. It was a privilege to me to have been able to do so, and the Bantu understand and appreciate this. As a result of these discussions we could make the concession that Bantu teachers who had to move from one place to another in White areas, could take their families with them in future. Furthermore, he will be granted priority on the waiting list for houses. The hon. members can go and ask the Bantu how much they appreciated this. This has become possible through dialogue with the national delegates. Then, I want to mention a second important aspect to those hon. members who have so much to say. In regard to the family life of the Bantu I can tell those hon. members that there is no person who can feel more strongly about it than my hon. Minister and I myself. [Interjections.] Nobody is more favourably disposed towards this matter than we on this side of this House or I personally, and the Bantu know this. We can and want to look after the interests of the urban Bantu in White South Africa. We are doing this on the basis of honest principles because I have always looked the Bantu squarely in the face. It is a privilege; and those hon. members cannot do so. They are not capable of this thinking, because their point of departure is wrong and does not allow of it. For that reason I say that we were able to tell these people through the national delegates that if a Section 10 Bantu in White South Africa marries a Bantu woman from the homeland or from the rural areas, he may bring his wife along if a house is available. By these means we are providing safeguards to both the Whites and the urban Bantu, we are maintaining good relations. In this way we want to show the world something admirable; it is just a pity we have such an irresponsible Opposition, an Opposition which breaks these admirable things down to the ground.

Mr. Speaker, I should think it is only the sort of torrent of words we have had from the Deputy Minister that is managing to keep the real truth in regard to the question of the urban Bantu from the ears of the Nationalist Party, or at least from some of them. In the short time at my disposal, I want to point to the fallacy of the whole argument which he has directed to this House and with which they attempt to beguile the country year after year. The hon. Deputy Minister did not give a clear answer to the question he was asked, i.e. whether he regards the urban Bantu as permanent and growing or not. [Interjections.] He perhaps came nearer to the question than he normally does when he said that they have been here for generation after generation. However, he said their presence here did not matter because in fact they still had their tribal link. His words were to that effect; he said: “Dit maak horn nie minder van ’n Zoeloe nie, want hy is ’n Zoeloe.” This is what the hon. Minister has said and this is the whole basis of the belief on the other side, that it does not matter that that man is here and that he has no rights, apparently because he remains a Zulu. I immediately want to say to the opposite side: if that is the case why is it necessary that any Bantu should be kept out of the White area? You simply keep his tribal links strong; you simply tell him … [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, this was the policy of Dr. Verwoerd, and the present Administrator of the Free State used to propound this policy here, namely that numbers did not matter in the slightest. If it was valid that simply because the man remained a Zulu, he need not have any rights whatsoever in the urban area, why is it necessary to keep a single Bantu out of the urban area? This is the answer. The very fact that you make him a Zulu means that he may remain a very keen Zulu in the way that some others may remain keen Afrikaners or keen Germans in Germany and so forth, and this rather increases their nationalism and their sense of injury if their dignity is infringed by what is done to them in an area where they do not have full rights. I want to ram this point home by saying to the hon. member that it was Gen. Hertzog who said that if there were Bantu people in South Africa—call it the White areas if you like—then they must have political rights. I want to give the hon. the Prime Minister’s own answer to this question by the hon. the Deputy Minister. We are told by the hon. the Prime Minister time and again that he has sleepless nights at the thought of unemployed Bantu in South Africa. Why should we have any sleepless nights? They are apparently all happy in their “volksverband”. Why should there be any unhappiness if this “volksverband” is such a panacea? If this “volksverband” is such a panacea, why should the hon. the Prime Minister be the slightest bit nervous? The fact is that the hon. the Prime Minister has his feet on the ground, while the hon. the Deputy Minister is floating in the clouds. The hon. the Prime Minister knows that it is not sufficient that you give a man “volksverband”. It was said by Lord Haley: “Let it not be said of British policy in Africa that the native asked us for bread and we gave him the vote”. The modern, up-to-date, version of that dictum is: “If a man asks for alleviation of his condition, you offer him a postal vote”. This entire idea that the Zulu remains a Zulu, that the Afrikaner remains an Afrikaner, does not mean that he does not want rights where he is. The man who is in the urban areas, must receive adequate rights. This is the whole argument of their own Nationalist newspaper, Rapport, namely that you cannot answer people and fob them off in that way.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to develop this point more fully tomorrow and therefore I wish to move at this stage—

Agreed to.