Mr. Speaker, I move—

An additional appropriation of R15 265 000 is being requested in this Bill.

Of this amount, R1 489 000 is needed for additional operating expenditure, R10 400 000 for the increase of standard stock capital and R3 376 000 for additional expenditure on the capital programme.

Details of the additional appropriations needed under the various subheads of the Budget appear in the Estimates of Additional Expenditure which has been tabled.

The increased expenditure on the operating side is due mainly to increased payments abroad in terms of postal, telecommunication and remittance services agreements with other postal administrations.

The most important cause of the increase is the devaluation of the rand.

In the operating expenditure estimates provision is also made for the ex gratia remission of installation fees and transfer fees in respect of telephone services provided in the earthquake disaster areas of the Western Cape, and for other remissions and partial remissions for which the approval of Parliament is necessary in respect of periods before the special tariffs laid down in those cases were included in the Telephone Regulations.

In the last-mentioned cases there is no actual loss of revenue involved for the department, because at no stage was it envisaged to charge the ordinary tariffs, but to apply the special tariffs which have in fact been charged.

On the capital expenditure side, the largest item is an increase in the department’s standard stock capital.

The capital programme for increasing the capacity of the telecommunications system has been greatly expanded in recent years, and larger stocks of material and equipment have to be kept in order to implement it.

The rest of the additional appropriation is needed mainly as a result of price increases caused mainly by devaluation.

I can assure the House that the additional expenditure cannot be deferred without prejudicing the public interest.

Mr. Speaker, as is customary, most of the questions we want to ask in this regard will be put during the Committee Stage of the Bill. We all know that the main Budget will be presented within 13 days, and in terms of the rules it will be possible to discuss most of these items much more extensively then. As the House knows, there is a time limit for additional appropriation and taxation Bills, and consequently we shall not delay the House long today in this regard.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Schedule 1: Revenue Services, and Schedule 2: Capital Services:

Mr. Chairman, there are a few points I should like to raise. Firstly, I want to say that I have information on certain of these items. I am grateful for that information, and shall therefore not delay this House long in that regard. Item 35 under subhead E—Miscellaneous Expenses—deals with agents’ commission on collections at special table-mounted public telephones. I understand this is in connection with an attempt by the Post Office to introduce this new type of telephone. It is understandable that this special charge will have to be paid.

Next, I refer to item 38 (111)—Temporary telephone services provided for use by “political parties”, “election campaigns” and at polling stations—R13 900. Sir, we do not object to this amount. What strikes one, however, is that this item is worded in fairly general terms. Reference is made to “policital parties”, “election campaigns” and “polling stations”. Perhaps the hon. the Minister can explain to us whether this item includes election campaigns, polling stations and political parties in the case of municipal elections, a matter about which I have approached him in the past. I have said that this item is worded in very general terms, but in one respect it is perhaps worded rather restrictively; in my opinion this service should also apply to independent candidates, not only to political parties.

I then come to subhead T—Payments abroad in terms of postal, telecommunication and remittance services agreements. Here we find the largest increase, but I accept the hon. the Minister’s explanation that it is due mainly to devaluation, and however strongly he may feel about devaluation, this is not the occasion on which it may be discussed.

However, there is one other item under the Revenue Fund total of R1 489 000 which seems rather strange to me, and this is the gift of R4 600 to the International Telecommunications Union.

†Mr. Chairman, this gift of R4 600 to the International Telecommunications Union is a mysterious gift; it is a large gift and it is taking quite a great deal of the public’s money, and I would certainly like to have an explanation from the hon. the Minister in this regard.

Sir, as you have also put the Capital Expenditure Vote, I should perhaps make a few remarks in that regard as well. The biggest amount is the increase in the standard stock capital account. I believe that the amount in the past was R9 600 000, which was voted many years ago, and in view of the development of the Post Office this is now being increased to a total of R20 million. I presume—and I hope the hon. the Minister will mention this just in passing—that a great deal of this will be in connection with the building up of the standard stock account with regard to the plans for television.

In Item No. 2, “Telecommunication Services”, there has been an increase of R3 240 000. Naturally this side of the House, in view of the telephone and other services offered by the department, would not object to increased funds for the good purpose of giving this country a better telephone service. However, I do believe, and I am given to understand, that a great deal of this is also in connection with devaluation, and an assurance from the hon. the Minister in that connection will be welcomed.

Then, Sir, I hope you will allow me to say just a few words on one topic in connection with telecommunication services, and that is to express the appreciation of this side of the House for the hard and the splendid work done during the recent storms on the Witwatersrand by the technical and other staff when they restored the telecommunication services. Many of the repair teams worked for 24 hours a day. It was a splendid effort, particularly in view of the shortage of labour and the great and unexpected disorganization caused by the storms.

That is all I have to say on these Additional Estimates. We shall, however, as I pointed out, be dealing much more fully with many of these topics in the main Budget debate.

Sir, what the hon. member for Orange Grove said at the beginning of his speech, applies to me as well. Therefore I shall not delay this House long. I should just like to put a question to the hon. the Minister in regard to item E36, “Registration, study and examination fees for advanced management programmes”. Although there is a similar item in the Budget, I understand that that relates to technical training, while this relates to university education. If this is the case, we welcome it. We think it is a very good idea to provide for university education, but I should just like to ask the hon. the Minister at which university it is, whether it is only at that university, whether it is a course of study taking more than one year and whether it is only a single study programme.

Then I should like to say a few words about Item 38, subsection (iv), “Temporary telephone services on ships during their stay in South African harbours”. I understand that the amount is calculated on the basis of fees at R20 per unit which have not been collected. As I understand, there is a permanent unit at every wharf where the telephone is simply plugged in and then installed on the ship. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is correct that it is calculated on the basis of R20 per unit, whether this in fact covers the cost, and whether the cost per unit is more; in other words, whether this amount of R249 000, which is the largest item in these Additional Estimates, is a true reflection of the expenditure incurred and, if not, why that particular basis was chosen.

Sir, to begin with, I want to express my appreciation for what the hon. member for Orange Grove said in regard to what was done by our officials at the time of the storm damage on the Rand. They really performed an exceptionally big task there. In conjunction with the Witwatersrand, I am also thinking of the storm damage caused in the Gamtoos Valley some time ago. Our officials really worked day and night in order to repair that storm damage in the Gamtoos Valley as well as on the Rand in the shortest possible time, and I am glad that we on both sides of this House can express our appreciation to our officials for the work they performed there.

I want to reply immediately to the questions put to me by the two hon. members. I think I should deal with these items in the order in which they appear in the Additional Estimates. The first item is the question of agents’ commission on collections at special table-mounted public telephones. The hon. member for Orange Grove referred only briefly to this, and I should just like to furnish these few particulars in this regard. This is a new service which we can only render on a very limited scale as yet, because it depends on whether the automatic telephone exchanges concerned can render it. For example, at the moment we cannot render it here in the Peninsula, because telephone exchanges have not yet been equipped for it. This service is rendered in Pretoria and on the Witwatersrand and there is a great deal of interest in it. It is a system which means that we can now place telephones at hotels, cafes and building societies, etc., which, with our approval, indicate the places concerned, and then the public or their own staff may make calls there. These are in fact public telephones under the care of the various business concerns. The pattern of collection is as follows: Initially we thought we would have officials collect the money regularly, but this caused us problems, because one had to send two officials, and thinking that this system would expand, we felt that this would not pay us. We then decided rather to charge the place concerned, whether it be a building society, hotel or cafe, according to the number of metered calls. They then receive an account for those metered calls and are given a discount of 10 per cent. This amount of R1 000 is the amount we have to pay back to those people. It is in fact their commission. I may just mention that we have not yet reached the stage where we can propagate this system on a large scale. It may happen in the near future when exchanges are equipped for it, and I really want to express the confidence that we shall receive very good support for this, because I think this system of public telephones under the supervision and care of the business undertakings concerned can save the department a great deal of expenditure because there would be people personally supervising the telephones and in fact safeguarding one against the vandalism to which telephones are often exposed.

May I put a question to the hon. the Minister, in the interests of many businessmen who have problems in connection with this matter? In this case, how do you control the use of the telephone as regards trunk calls which can be dialled directly, so that the agent does not suffer a loss as a result of the fact that members of the public using that service do not disclose such calls?

Sir, it remains the responsibility of the agent. He must accept and exercise that responsibility in accepting the telephone. After all, we cannot keep an official there to exercise supervision. Determining who makes use of such a telephone is beyond our technological knowledge.

We do so in Parliament.

But there is no mechanical system by means of which you can determine that the telephone is being used by a dishonest person and not someone who has the necessary permission. No, I am afraid the various places will have to accept the responsibility. If they find in the course of time that too much misuse is made of the system, they will simply have to request that the telephone be removed. The experience so far is that the people who have it are highly satisfied with it. I think the dangers which the hon. member foresees have not yet become so alarming.

The hon. member for Florida asked me about Item 36, which deals with the registration of study and examination fees. This was introduced to cover our senior officials whom we have trained in management techniques. Because we have a new dispensation in the Postal Service now, in terms of which much more emphasis is placed on scientific management, we felt that our senior officials and other key officials should be kept abreast of the most modern management techniques. For that purpose the Post Office then made this arrangement for which this R4 000 is being requested, so that they may be entered. The hon. member asked at which university it was. It is at Unisa, and it is a one-year course. We have entered a number of officials for it and we have had exceptionally good results. We shall have to see in future when we should do so again. It is not an annual institution. In the light of our experience this year, we shall decide whether it should be done again next year or at some other time.

Then the hon. member for Orange Grove asked about the gift of R4 600 to the International Telecommunications Union. As we all know, Sir, we are a member of the International Telecommunications Union, which has its head office in Geneva. Recently they made additions and improvements to their building, after which the management of the union asked its member countries whether they did not want to contribute towards the renovation and decoration of this building. They asked us, as they did all the other member countries, whether we did not want to contribute towards the decoration of certain of the offices. We then agreed to wood-panel one committee room with South African teak as our contribution, and this accounts for this R4 600, which is in fact a very reasonable contribution. If one belongs to an association, one is requested from time to time to help with such things, and we were under an obligation to do this.

Then we come to the question of item 38 (iii), in connection with the telephone services for use by political parties during election campaigns and at polling stations, where a remission of R13 900 is being requested. In the first place, we have to do here with the statutory provision that the tariffs must be laid down by regulation, and that the tariffs promulgated in the regulations must be paid. We were helpful in this regard by allowing the political parties as well as the officials and the M.P.s—the hon. member did not refer to that, but it falls in the same class—to pay the reduced tariff of R2 instead of R20. But, because that R2 was not collected from them it appeared that the remission could not be made in this way in terms of the Act. The law advisers told us the Act provides that there must be tariffs because it provides that the tariffs shall be as determined by regulation. So one cannot get away from it. In the past, the political parties, like the officials and M.P.s who are here in the Cape during the session, were therefore granted this remission. The law adviser then drew our attention to the fact that it was ultra vires; we could not grant such a remission and therefore we reverted to the reduced amount of R2. In addition to this there is the further question put by the hon. member in regard to municipal elections. Regulation 43 (3) (b) reads as follows—

No reference is made here to municipal elections, school board elections, etc. I assume that the intention of this provision in the regulation at the time was that this concession should be given to political parties participating in parliamentary and provincial elections in the normal course of events and that the other local councils were not included. This being so, it unfortunately excludes the municipal elections, as I told the hon. member with reference to previous representations and as I informed my own party on the Rand as well. In terms of this provision it is not possible. I really want to say to hon. members that I do not see my way clear to changing this.

A question was asked about subhead 2 in connection with the telecommunication services amounting to R3 240 500. The reason for this amount is the increase in the prices of imported and locally manufactured telecommunication equipment. These have increased not only as a result of our devaluation, but also as a result of the revaluation of the German mark. As you know, Sir, we import a considerable amount of our commodities from Germany as well. As a result of their revaluation the prices have increased. But apart from this, the increase is attributable to the larger quantity of supplies we need for our telecommunications programme.

In regard to subhead 7, the increase of the standard stock capital, the position is that it is being increased from R9 600 000 to R20 million. The reason is that we keep approximately 15 000 items for our telecommunications system in standard stock. We regularly receive those 15 000 items from the suppliers, mainly from the domestic suppliers. As those goods are received from the domestic suppliers, they must be paid for immediately. They are kept on the Standard Stock Account. As you know, we have expanded our entire telecommunications programme. In fact, as I shall indicate in the Main Budget Speech, when I shall mention the figures specifically, you will notice that in the past few years our telecommunications programme has virtually trebled. If it has trebled, it is understandable that the stocks we must keep will be so much larger. This amount is needed now because we have to pay for them immediately. Only when those stocks have come from standard stocks into telecommunication equipment, is our capital account debited. Then this account is credited again. To a certain extent this is a revolving fund as well. In view of the large volume of stocks needed, it is necessary to increase the amount. I think this covers all the matters raised.

Mr. Chairman, there is only one short question I would like to put to the hon. the Minister. That is in connection with Item 38 (iii), which refers to temporary telephone services provided for members of Parliament and session officials in Cape Town during sessions of Parliament. I would like the hon. the Minister to confirm the erroneous nature of certain reports which have appeared, namely that M.P.s telephones are going to be subsidized to the extent of R9 600. It creates an entirely misleading and wrong impression. All M.P.s who have their own telephones in their own homes in their constituencies have paid the full amount of R20 for installation fee of their telephones. Thirdly, this only deals with telephones which have to be taken for the Parliamentary session of five or six months by hundreds of officials as well as by certain M.P.s. I take it that probably more officials are included here than members of Parliament. Those of us who have our telephone permanently in Cape Town, have in most cases already paid the full installation fee.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister omitted to reply to the question I put in regard to item 38 (iv). I asked whether that amount reflected the actual cost correctly, and if not, why that basis had been chosen for the estimate.

Mr. Chairman, I am very glad the hon. member for Orange Grove raised the question of the telephone services of Members of Parliament living in Acacia Park and elsewhere, because there is some or other idea outside that we receive everything in abundance, that we get everything free and for nothing. This, at least, is not a case where M.P.s get something free and for nothing. It is a fact that in the past they paid no installation fees. It is only since 1970 that installation fees have been introduced in the Postal Service. It was stipulated then that the officials and the M.P.s would pay a reduced amount— not the R20 laid down for the general public. This was done because we adopted the attitude, as the hon. member rightly said, that in their own constituencies M.P.s have their own telephones for which they must pay the full installation fees and the rental, etc. Our M.P.s perhaps come here of their own free choice, but the officials certainly do not come to the Cape of their own free choice, but because they have a duty and because they must come here. Therefore it was felt that it was fair towards them to let them pay this reduced tariff of R2 as well. The amount being asked here is in fact a hypothetical one and is not something we have received and are now giving back to the people. This amount of R9 600 in respect of Members of Parliament and officials has never been received by us. This is also the case in respect of the next point raised, namely in regard to the telephone services rendered to ships. That amount was not received either, but was only administered as such by the Minister, the previous hon. Minister, and the department. The law advisers now say that we have this hypothetical back-log because the Act provides that it must be done according to prescribed tariffs. This amount is now being remitted for the sake of clarity within the framework of the Act, and no repayment is being made.

Then the hon. member asked a question in regard to the temporary telephone services provided to ships in the harbours. An amount of R249 000 is involved here. The pattern here is as follows: As ships enter the harbours, the telephones are immediately connected to them. All the ships have telephone plugs, and when the ship enters the harbour, a connection is simply made in order to provide the ship with this telephone service. When the installation fee of R20 was introduced in 1970, the ships all complained about the unfairness of this in that some ships remained in the harbour for only one or two davs and because there was no work involved in the installation of a telephone since the ships had their apparatus and the plug merely had to be inserted. They then asked also to be exempted from the R20 installation fee. In respect of ships it is now done for R2 as well, as it is done for the M.P. and the officials during the session. The amount of R249 000 accumulated in the books. It is also a hypothetical amount, and is in respect of the period 1st July, 1970, to 1st also a hypothetical amount, and is in re-April, 1971. It is in fact only being written off in this form although we never really received it, and in future the ships, like the M.P.s and the officials, will receive their service on the R2 basis.

Schedules put and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Deputy Minister, who is officially occupied elsewhere, I move—

Mr. Speaker, during the Second Reading of this Bill I indicated that we were opposed to clause 2 of the Bill and that we had criticism to offer on certain other clauses, but that we would support the Second Reading. Our attitude to the Third Reading will be the same. We shall support the Third Reading although we are still opposed to clause 2 and still have criticism to offer with regard to certain other clauses with which I will deal.

With regard to clause 2, we rightly pointed out that this was really maintenance of the existing law except that relief is given to Native males in the Transvaal. This is a lib movement for the men and therefore we welcome it. We only regret that the hon. the Minister has not given the same freedom to the women as he has given to the men. I am not going to go through my whole criticism of this clause. We attacked this clause both in the Second Reading and during the Committee Stage and criticized the fact that the women were still being treated as minors in this age. We pointed out the fact that it was wrong to keep them bound to laws which were passed a 100 years ago. All we said during the Second Reading and Committee Stage still applies. We are still opposed to this clause.

I now want to deal with the other clauses. Yesterday afternoon during the Committee Stage considerable objection was expressed to clause 7.

Clause 7 alters the schedule to the Transkei Constitution Act in that it now allows the Transkei Legislative Assembly to handle motor transport as well. We have no objection to the extension of powers to allow them to control motor transport, but we are very worried about the consequences of extending this power to them and where it does not apply. I pointed out last night that as far as I could understand the law, the Transkei Government will control road transport in Bantu areas in the districts of the Transkei excluding the White areas of the Transkei. I wish to address the Minister on that point again. While the hon. the Minister of Transport is here and in case he wants to leave the House, I want to ask him if he is quite satisfied in giving over road transport control to the Transkei Government, because his motor transport is going to be very seriously affected. I want to know whether there is any special agreement with the Transkeian Government for the protection of his road motor transport. This is an essential service in the Transkei. I want to know from him if he agrees with the Deputy Minister, who handled the Bill last night, that the Transkei Government in fact has control and can exercise authority in the White areas of the Transkei, like Umtata, and also over the national roads. The Minister of Transport will know that when we discussed the Transkei Constitution Act it was made quite clear to us that national roads would not fall under the Transkei Government nor would Railways. The Minister has frequently stated that especially railway transport will not fall under the control of the Transkei Government. There was a case in the Transkei in 1969, and this is how it affects the Minister of Transport. It was the case of a provincial traffic policeman who laid a charge against a motorist for a contravention on the national road between Umtata and Engcobo. The magistrate convicted the accused, who then went on appeal. The point he took on appeal was that the provincial authorities did not control the national road between Umtata and Engcobo. On appeal the Attorney-General did not argue the case for the State and did not support the magistrate. The judges said, however, that they felt it was such an important issue that they had to give a full judgment. They said that in terms of section 2 (a) of the Transkei Constitution Act, No. 48 of 1963, the Transkei shall include the following areas: The Dalindyebo Regional Authority area comprising the Bantu areas in the districts of Engcobo, Mqanduli and Umtata. Section 2 of the Act states the following—

The court found that the national road, although it was excluded in the Schedule from the control of the Transkei Government, fell within the Bantu areas of those districts and that the Transkei Government controlled the Bantu areas. The relevant item in the Schedule, affecting national roads, reads as follows: The Transkei Government will control public works and undertakings, roads, outspans, ponts and bridges in the Transkei, excluding bridges between the Transkei and any other part of the Republic and roads which have been declared to be national roads. If the Transkei Government controls all areas in the Bantu areas, I submit that in terms of this judgment they must also have control over but now own, the railway line where it goes out of the White areas. The matter would not crop up in the same way as it does on national roads, because you do not have traffic policemen operating on the railway lines as they do on the national roads.

My department only has to do with the building of national roads, not with controlling of the traffic.

Yes, I know. But how does it affect the Railways?

It does not affect the Railways at all.

In terms of the Constitution, they have control of all areas outside the White areas. The Minister owns the railways, as he said in his speech; but if they can now interfere and intervene in road transport, might they not have the same powers—although we cannot see how they could use them now—over the railways as well? According to the Minister, the Transkei Government could in fact stop carriers licensed in the Republic to travel anywhere in the Republic, from going through the Transkei on the national roads. Does the Minister not agree?

No.

That is the point. That is where we differed from the department last night. The Minister of Transport says he does not agree, but this specific question was put to the Deputy Minister, namely, can the Transkei Government stop licensed transport carriers going from the Cape to Natal? He said: “Ongelukkig is dit so; hulle sal ’n permit moet kry.”

All they are doing, is handing over the control of road motor transport in terms of the Motor Carrier Transportation Act, to the Transkei Government. They will issue permits for road transport within the confines of the Transkei alone, under the condition that if there is undue competition with the road motor service, I shall withdraw them.

I am very interested in what the Minister said about the conditions he has laid down. Where do those conditions apply? You see, we have been dealing with the Deputy Minister, and we had plenty of arguments with him yesterday afternoon, as well as during the Second Reading debate. He has made it quite clear that the Transkei Government, once this Bill is passed and they have passed their own legislation, taking over road transport control, any carrier, from the Republic with a licence issued in the Republic who wants to go through the Transkei, will have to get a permit from the Transkei Government. It is quite clear.

They will act in precisely the same way as any other local road transportation board, does.

This question is so serious that I do not know whether we should not adjourn this debate to get the Government clear …

Ha, ha!

The Minister of Bantu Administration and Development is laughing. What does he say? Does he agree with the Minister of Transport? I would like to ask him before I go on with my argument, because now I do not know with whom to argue. Does the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development agree with the Minister of Transport or with his Deputy Minister?

I will reply.

Sir, we want to know what attitude to adopt towards this Bill. We cannot wait until the end of the debate for the Minister to reply then. Here we have a senior Minister in the House differing with the Deputy Minister who is piloting this measure. I differ with the Deputy Minister and his interpretation of what the Transkei controls and what it does not. The Deputy Minister gave no justification for what he said. I asked him to give me examples and he gave me the example of Magistrates’ Courts. But that is no example at all. He was talking utter nonsense. My contention is that the Transkei Government has no authority in the White areas in the Transkei. That authority was excluded in the definition of the Transkei in the Transkei Constitution Act. I shall quote section 2 of that Act again. It reads, inter alia, as follows—

1. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act the Legislative Assembly shall have the power—
   1. (a) to make laws not inconsistent with this Act in relation to all matters appearing in Part B of the First Schedule to this Act; and
   2. (b) to provide in any such law for the amendment or repeal of any law, including any Act of Parliament, in so far as it relates to any such matter and applies in the Transkei or to any citizen of the Transkei whether such citizen is or is resident within or outside the Transkei.

The definition of the Transkei is quite clear; it consists of the Bantu areas. I now come to item 12 of Part B of the First Schedule, which clause 7 row amends. Item 12 states, inter alia, that the Transkei may make laws regarding—

I emphasize “in the Transkei”. That does not include the White areas in the Transkei; it is only the Bantu areas in the Transkei. We have an example of where they are allowed to legislate for areas outside the Transkei: Item 2 of Part B of the First Schedule to the Act states that they can do so in regard to—

Special reference is made here to Bantu education to give them powers in this respect outside the Bantu areas, and I submit that in terms of this item, which clause 7 seeks to amend, they will have no authority outside the Bantu areas. Therefore I say that if we pass this clause, we shall be making a meaningless law which cannot be enforced.

In regard to the powers being granted to South-West African legislative councils, we raised certain questions last night and we queried the ability of these legislative assemblies in South-West Africa to manage the affairs which are now being entrusted to them. We queried their ability, but we did say that we were prepared to let the Government give them these powers because of the control which can still be exercised by the Minister and his department. We pointed out that the State President has powers over the South-West African legislative councils which he does not have in the Transkei. Therefore we are prepared to let that go, trusting that there will be proper control. In asking the Minister to see that this proper control is maintained, I want to refer him to a discussion which took place when the Transkei Constitution Act was passed. At that time a Mr. Durrant, who is now a member of the National Party, but who at that stage was a member of the United Party, raised certain questions with Mr. De Wet Nel with regard to the licensing of transport in the Transkei. I mention this now, while we are dealing with South-West Africa, to show how we rely on the Ministers to in fact keep the control which they promise. Mr. De Wet Nel, in replying to the member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) said (Hansard, vol. 7, col. 5666)—

That is quite right; it was done. He continued—

That is in fact what did happen. He continued—

What the member for Turffontein had suggested might happen, was that transport would be handed over to the Transkei Government. He pointed out all the difficulties which we have now pointed out, that could arise. We were given the assurance then by the Minister that this would not happen. I want to ask this Minister to be more careful in seeing that there is an orderly advance, as there has been in certain respects in the Transkei. I wanted to say something more about transport in the Transkei, but the Minister of Transport is discussing the matter with the officials of the Department of Bantu Administration. All I can say is that I hope he will get up in this debate and tell us what arrangements he has made with the Transkei Government, because in terms of the Bill before us, it is not clear at all. We differ from the Government as to what can be done and as to the legal interpretation of the rights of the Transkei Government. We understand now from an interjection by the Minister of Transport, that he has come to certain arrangements with the Transkei Government. I submit that we in this House are entitled to know what arrangements were made with the Transkei Government by the Minister of Transport; after all, he is the Minister who is surrendering these powers. He is giving them the power to control transport inside the White areas as well as the Black areas. I hope he will get up now and tell us what he envisaged when he agreed to this measure being passed and what we can expect in the Transkei.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Transkei, who has just sat down, is worried about what the position of transport in the Transkei is going to be in future. As far as I am concerned, I see the matter in a very simple way, namely that this Bill provides for a transport commission to be established to control the areas of the Transkei. In the same way that there is an office in East London today, for example, which controls those areas in the vicinity, the office in respect of the Transkei will be in Umtata in future. The transport commission of the Transkei will then exercise control over traffic and transport in the Transkei areas. That is how I see the matter.

As far as the roads are concerned, which were mentioned by the hon. member for Kensington yesterday evening, the national roads will still belong to the White Government in terms of the Transkei Constitution Act, but control over them will be handed over to the Transkei Government in future. The result is that the Transkei Government will exercise control over the national roads within the areas of the Transkei.

But apart from that I should like to return to clause 6 of the Bill. I am reminded now of 1958, when the late Dr. Verwoerd was asked: “What is the future of the Whites in the Transkei going to be?” The hon. member for Transkei knows about it as well. The late Dr. Verwoerd replied: “In the course of evolution the Whites will have to disappear from the Transkei.” This legislation provides today for the taking over of the prisons department; this in itself is a step in that direction. Certain of the institutions are now being taken over by the Transkei Government. This is not to say that this measure will be put into operation immediately, but in due course, as the people qualify, they will take over. Surely there are people who are qualified to take over even today. I shall just mention here for the information of the House that there are already the following members of staff who are qualified to take over: there are two Bantu lieutenants; there is one Bantu chief warder, grade I; there are seven Bantu chief warders, grade II; 27 Bantu chief warders; 77 Bantu warders, 16 Bantu special matrons, a total of 130 Bantu members of staff who are already qualified. It goes without saying that as the people are trained and qualify they will gradually take over. The Xhosa people are taking over what is their own, and we are prepared to grant them what is their own. Just as we as Whites lay claim to what is our own we grant them their own as well.

Sir, the statement was also made here last night that English and Afrikaans-speaking people are not two ethnic groups but constitute one people. That is quite correct; I agree with that. We are one people, but this side of the House fought to make us one people. This side of the House fought for that nationalism which is an intrinsic characteristic of the White people of South Africa today …

What about the Broederbond?

… and this side of the House also fights for what belongs to the Black man, namely Black nationalism, because Black nationalism belongs to the Black peoples of South Africa just as much as White nationalism belongs to the White people of South Africa.

Sir, I do not think the hon. member for Aliwal knows what he is cooking up for this country with Black nationalism. If he lives long enough, he is going to be in for a very rude surprise. I for one do not welcome the growth of Black nationalism in this country. I would far rather see South Africa develop as a multi-racial country with a common loyalty owed to South Africa by everybody.

Black imperialism.

Call it what you like, Sir, but I prefer it to Black nationalism any day.

What I want to say on this Third Reading of this Bill is that I am going to vote against the Third Reading, or rather, that I shall record my objection to the Third Reading. I want to do this for one simple reason only, and that is that I think it is so outrageous that African women are being subjected in this day and age to the perpetual status of minors that I as a White woman in this House, enjoying all the privileges of the franchise and the right to vote in this House, can do no less than to demonstrate my disgust at the fact that this is being done here today.

Sir, as far as clause 2 is concerned—the hon. member for Transkei made some good points with regard to the other clauses, but they do not affect me to a great extent—I can only say that it outrages me; I cannot put it less strongly than that. I listened very carefully throughout the Committee Stage of this Bill to hear if hon. members on the other side could advance any reasonable explanation as to why clause 2 was being introduced. Except for the hon. member for Rissik, whose views I would say are well to the right not only of mine but of everybody else’s in this House, with the exception of the hon. gentleman on my left not a single member on that side, from the Deputy Minister down or up, whichever way you want to look at it, has advanced any argument supporting the principle of this clause. Neither the hon. member for Potchefstroom, who argued on the question of consultation, nor anybody else on the Government side, advanced any justification whatsoever for reducing the status of African women in the Transvaal, which is what that clause does. [Interjection.] Yes, it does. My legal opinion is that African women in the Transvaal do not require the consent of their fathers or guardians when they are over the age of 21. They require enabling documents and I can provide the hon. the Minister with a court case in the Native Appeal Court which upholds that point of view; and it maintains for women in Natal a status which in any case I do not believe could ever be justified. I can see no reason for this House to entrench a law which was introduced at the turn of the century, when so much has happened over the last 72 years in South Africa to justify an improvement in the status of African women. The only explanation which was advanced during the Committee Stage was a feeble bleat that “African leaders wanted it”, and when pressed for further details the only African leader we could find who wanted it was the late Cyprian of Zululand. Sir, there are plenty of live leaders whom the hon. the Minister or his deputy could have consulted. It is just possible that from the live leaders he might have got a very different point of view. It is without any doubt at all certain that he would have got a different point of view if he had consulted the most sophisticated group of Africans we have in South Africa, namely the urban Africans, including, I might add, urban African women who today have assumed a role of considerable responsibility in our economy. Indeed, we had a tax introduced in this House only the other day because so many African women had become employees in industry. If those women are responsible enough to be employed, to earn a living and to run their own households, they are responsible enough to decide whether they can marry or not marry after they have reached the age of 21 years, and especially as this law does not apply to African women in the Orange Free State or in the Cape or, I might add, to White women or Coloured women or Indian women in any province of South Africa. There is not the slightest reason for the entrenchment of what is an archaic law on our Statute Book at the present stage. As I say, I feel as a White woman who has the privilege of being in this House and has the privilege of the franchise, the least I can do is to vote against the Third Reading of a Bill which contains this medieval clause.

I am sorry the hon. member for Houghton was not here when we discussed this matter at the Second Reading.

I have read all your speeches.

I know the hon. member enjoys the privileges and the rights of a modern woman, and that is why I am approaching her carefully. Throughout the ages the male has done this in any case, in spite of the fact that they have not always had all the rights and obligations of a male person in the community. If the hon. member should look at the history of mankind, she would see that there are, of course, certain things which in fact a woman cannot do, but I do not wish to go into that matter now. I just want to tell her that she is making a number of basic errors of reasoning if she thinks that, if one wants to compare the Bantu communities with the history of White communities, one can effect a total change in a community by a wave of the hand, and, although Bantu communities have therefore in this sense been in contact with White communities, which were totally different in their approach, that even in a process of 20 or 30 or 50 or 60 years one can all of a sudden take over the accepted norms and standards of the other community just as they are. Another mistake she is making, is that she wants to take certain individuals in the South African communities who may perhaps run into many hundreds already, and accept them alone as the norm of the total. But in a moment I shall come back to her.

By way of preface I just want to say that owing to circumstances, as the hon. the Minister said, the hon. the Deputy Minister cannot be present here this afternoon. It was very obvious yesterday that, to use an old student word, the hon. members of the Opposition wanted to “rattle” the hon. the Deputy Minister, whereas this was the first time he acted in that capacity as Deputy Minister. I think he and the hon. member for Pinelands will appreciate—we have occasionally played cricket in the same team—that the hon. the Deputy Minister put in a very good batting performance yesterday and that, like a Geoff Boycott, he calmly played back the loose balls and the full tosses. He may perhaps speak about this in a moment. I think they could not tempt him into edging loose balls to the slips so that he might be caught there. In his absence I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that he did very well.

In regard to this particular clause 2 we should always bear in mind—and I should like to say this to the hon. member for Houghton—that Bantu leaders were in fact duly consulted. Yesterday the hon. the Deputy Minister mentioned a deceased leader. He was quite correct in saying that while these talks were in progress, that person was one of the men who did agree with it. However, he was not the only one. Consultation took place with him as well as with tribal and regional authorities. Nor was the Zulu group the only one that was consulted. The Venda, Shangaan, Tonga, Tswana and the other people were consulted as well.

He did not say so.

Perhaps the hon. member just did not listen carefully. One reaches an age where perhaps one does not always hear everything. The hon. the Deputy Minister definitely said that Bantu leaders had been consulted. The arguments advanced by the other side of the House were that he had had talks with the wrong leaders. He should have consulted a sophisticated group, which you call “urban Bantu”. Yesterday the hon. member for Houghton also mentioned a well-known Bantu business-woman of the Johannesburg area. He (the Minister) should supposedly have spoken to her. I do not know whether the hon. member for Houghton has ever spoken to this particular person.

[Inaudible.]

I know you know her now; however, I do not know whether the hon. member had discussed this specific matter with her.

The fact of the matter is that the National Party accepts that those leaders in the traditional community are the real leaders of the community. Furthermore, we accept, unlike you, that those leaders are also accepted by the vast majority of the Bantu in White areas. In addition, we accept that these Bantu leaders are constantly in touch with their fellow-tribesmen in the White areas. On the strength of that we are justified in listening to these people.

But we must go further than that. If we want to discuss the effect of this measure on the Bantu groups, we should ask: But what did these Bantu leaders, who are the established traditional leaders—whether or not you agree with them—have in mind? What would the effect of this particular requirement have been according to their reasoning? And it is very obvious that these people as responsible leaders are also concerned—something which I specifically mentioned at the Second Reading—about family disintegration, the effect on family life together with all the difficult aftereffects that are involved. That was in fact what they had in mind. They realized that if one started with the establishment of a steady and sound family life at a stage as early as that of concluding a marriage, one could not help coming to the prelude to a marriage. The conclusion of the marriage is implicit in that.

You make it more difficult to marry.

But, Mr. Speaker, surely this does not only concern the aspect of marrying.

Of course it does.

It does not only concern that. After all, a marriage leads to the establishment of a family, and I have told you very clearly that what one wants to preserve, is in fact the family. All the sociological problems of a modern world are not going to be solved by these means alone. But this is an attempt at achieving this effect. That is all I want to tell the hon. member for Houghton. Furthermore, these people had in mind the stabilization of family life. That was the one factor. The other factor is the stabilization of the lives of the children who will result from it. In addition, it is also a help and a stabilizing factor to the Bantu woman as such. In the female society of the world there are quite probably individuals who, like the hon. member for Houghton, can simply take up a profession and make a success of it, as well as the other capacities of which the woman has to make a success, but all women are perhaps not like that. I think that to the vast majority of women in the Bantu communities it is very necessary, in the consultation prior to the conclusion of a marriage based on the traditional acknowledgement of accepted norms, to go back all the time in order to bring about the commitments to a real marriage. If a time should come, and this we also stated very clearly, when the Bantu leaders no longer want this, we shall accept it and change it. I want to tell the hon. member for Houghton that the original clause of Act No. 3 of 1897 read as follows—

Nevertheless, as far as the change in this respect is concerned, there is a ray of light. It was submitted to the Bantu leaders and they said that they would like to retain certain elements of this provision. The first element they did not want to retain, was the fact that the words “every Coloured person” were used in the original Act, and this provision was changed so as to have a bearing on the woman only. They find it essential, at least for the woman—one of the most unprotected beings in the community …

They do not want your protection …

Well, I think my wife does at least want my protection, and the same goes for my two daughters.

You have a nerve.

If the hon. member for Houghton carries on in that vein, I shall soon find myself faced with marital problems. These Bantu leaders subsequently decided that a similar clause would not be necessary for Bantu males. However, they considered it to be in the best interests of the female to have in fact such a clause in the case of Bantu females. The second was that previously they had to consult three parties before they could proceed to the conclusion of a marriage. That has now been changed so that they only need to consult two parties, i.e. the parent or the guardian and after that the marriage officer. I think the hon. member for Houghton may as well accept that changes in communities take place gradually, and the more gradually such changes take place, the better it is for that particular community. What is also of importance, if I may leave this particular clause for a moment, is that in other clauses more powers are going to be granted to the respective Bantu groups, especially as far as South-West Africa is concerned. Then the hon. Opposition came along and last night the hon. member for Durban Point waxed lyrical in asking how many matriculants there were, how many people there were who had these or those qualifications.

What was the reply to that?

I am discussing it at the moment, if the hon. members would just give me a chance.

Order! The hon. member should not take any notice of all the interjections. He is just hampering his own speech. The hon. member may proceed.

Whilst certain rights are being granted to a community, there is no necessity for everybody to comply with those requirements. Throughout Africa, also in some of our neighbouring states, we have had cases where those people claimed for themselves certain powers and certain institutions in their communities without their having the necessary staff for meeting those needs.

What was the result?

Mr. Speaker, I shall not allow myself to be led astray by the hon. member; I shall take your good advice instead. In our own White community in South Africa, too, there are certain objectives we should like to achieve. There are certain institutions and certain ideals which we have set ourselves, whether it is to build aircraft or to carry out research in the field of atomic science, and when we did not have the staff required for it or the people who could do it, we obtained people from other countries to help us in those respects. In other words, whilst we are granting the people in these communities certain responsibilities, such as responsibilities in respect of animal diseases, stock diseases, and so forth, it is not essential that those communities should already have 20, 30 or 40 veterinary surgeons. One sets those people certain ideals and one creates certain possibilities. Having done that, we as the guardians of those people, as laid down by us in the concept of guardianship and responsibility, are going to help them. We are giving them agents and administrators to help them with these tasks. I think that the hon. members of the Opposition have very often said, very unnecessary things about this legislation, and I think they have displayed a certain ignorance in many respects.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Rissik referred to the fact that the hon. the Deputy Minister, Mr. Raubenheimer, was a cricketer. He also referred to the fact that he thought that if we had seen him batting last night, we would have thought that he batted quite well. The hon. the Minister also referred to the absence of the Deputy Minister today. Let me say at once that the hon. the Deputy Minister is better known as a bowler. If we had regarded, him as a batsman yesterday and if we had not known that he would be unavoidably absent today, we would definitely have thought that the captain had omitted him from the team today. [Interjections.]

That is not cricket.

They have nothing else to say.

I want to say that we noticed today how the hon. the Minister of Transport went back and forth. He made several interjections in which he entirely contradicted the standpoint taken by the hon. the Deputy Minister yesterday, and after he had been invited to take part in the debate, he left the House.

He had other urgent business to attend to.

He was bowled.

I may be wrong, but I think that the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development was present when the hon. the Deputy Minister batted yesterday. If I am mistaken, I shall …

Apologize.

Yes, if I am mistaken, I shall apologize, but I rather think that he was still here when the hon. the Deputy Minister furnished the replies that were contradicted by the hon. the Minister of Transport today. I shall come back to that, but I want to deal first with the Bill as a whole.

This Bill consists of 13 clauses, which are often of a detached nature. A wide variety of topics is covered in it. There are the consent to marriages, prisons in the Transkei, the extension of certain powers of the Transkei, the extension of possible powers to the six different territories in South-West Africa, and others. As we see this Bill, the main object is to grant greater powers to the Transkei and to the other territories. It is quite true that we do not hold with all the powers that are being granted. We criticized this and we shall criticize it some more. Since it is our policy to grant maximum self-administration to the various Bantu communities under White leadership, it is possible for us to consider this to be the most important aspect in this Bill. Since we advocate the extension of powers of the right kind at the right time to the right persons, we are prepared to support the Third Reading of this Bill. However, that does not mean that we do not have specific points of criticism. Some of them have already been mentioned by the hon. member for Transkei, and I just want to take them a little further. In the first place, I want to deal with the question of motor carrier transportation. I have already referred to what was said by the hon. the Minister of Transport, and to the fact that he contradicted the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development. It is quite unacceptable to us that a cartage contractor who has a permit for conveying goods between Cape Town and Durban for instance, will now, in terms of the provisions of this measure, have to obtain another permit in order to carry on with his job. This is quite inconsistent with the view which we hold in respect of the Republic’s future, and consequently we are quite opposed to it. As far as the question of public holidays is concerned, South-West Africa and the various Bantu territories, except the Transkei, are affected by it. Here we have also seen the stupid situation to which Government policy may lead. Admittedly, it is true that it is unlikely that every individual ethnic group would now lay claim to 12 different holidays, but the fact remains that a large number of holidays may in fact be established. As we explained yesterday, there is a big difference when an ethnic group gets a holiday under Government policy and when it does so in terms of our policy. This is so because the Government harps on the fact that for instance, the Zulu people or any other ethnic group must identify themselves with their tribe, irrespective of whether they are living in the territory or outside it in the urban areas of the Republic. In terms of our policy, such an arrangement will be confined to a territory, and then there will be no or little chance of such a holiday being carried over to a Bantu person in an urban area. Consequently, the economy will not be disrupted to the same extent at all.

In conclusion I want to say a few words about the question of the consent to marriage of a Bantu female. We expressed heated criticism against this clause, and last night we caused the House to divide on that clause. We have by no means been persuaded to abandon our opposition to that clause by anything that has been said. There is one thing I should like to emphasize. Whereas the hon. member for Rissik once again referred to family disintegration, I want to explain to him that this very provision could lead to a deterioration in family life. There is no doubt that this new provision is going to cause a great deal of trouble for Bantu couples who want to get married. They will have to look up either their father or their guardian and obtain their consent to the marriage, or they will have to approach the Minister or a Judge. It must be borne in mind that we are now speaking about adults. We are speaking about people who are of age, people who may be 30 or 40 years of age. Since a great deal of trouble may have to be taken in order to trace the father or the guardian, this will have only one result, namely that this couple will prefer to live together without the necessary consent, a situation which will have tremendously unfortunate consequences for the children and also for the stability of the marriage. Consequently we on this side of the House have not at all been won over to the standpoint taken by hon. members opposite in regard to this matter. However, since we consider the main object of this Bill to be an extension of powers and a readiness to grant at the right time more powers of the right kind to the various authorities, and since we agree with most of them, we are still going to support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, and once again today, the U.P. proved anew through their attitude that in regard to this legislation they are undeniably and irrevocably following the course of an integration party in South Africa. They may argue just as they please, but they have proved it here. I think that in this argumentation the hon. member for Pinelands very clearly revealed last night that they believed that certain powers should be granted to these people, but not that they should be granted to the Bantu peoples in South Africa on a multi-national basis.

Were you here last night?

I was here. The hon. member said that these people had to be given these rights and that they could uphold and realize their cultural rights within South Africa as a whole, as they saw it in a multi-racial South Africa under their policy, just as they can do so now under our policy of multinationalism. That is what the hon. member said last night. That is what the hon. member said again here by implication this afternoon just before he resumed his seat, i.e. that the United Party does not believe in multi-nationalism. The United Party believes that these rights are to be given to these people within the context of a multiracial South Africa. Therefore I can see the logic in their attitude in respect of holidays. If the policy of the United Party is carried through to its logical conclusion, and they accept that the Bantu in South Africa form part of the multi-racial nation in South Africa, then they accept that that multi-racial nation should only accept those holidays that are laid down by this Parliament. Surely, this is true?

Yes.

The hon. member agrees. But—and this is where they are an integration party—in a multinational country one must accept that in the country of the other people there are certain things which are sacred to it, which it would like to recognize and respect and for which it would even want to set aside a holiday. Why can those people not be granted that right? That is what is happening in South Africa today in regard to other race groups that are being absorbed into our White community here. How many times does it not happen at present that the Portuguese element in South Africa, which forms part of the White population, in their own right, without this Parliament attaching its approval to it, simply do not go to work on certain holidays which are sacred to them in a religious sense? This often is the case. But it is in this multi-racial White community in South Africa where it is recognized this way.

And the Jewish community?

The Jewish community in South Africa is another example. Do you want the Bantu in South Africa to be treated the same as these other race groups in South Africa? If that is so, what then would the logical implication of it be? The logical implication would be one thing and one thing alone, and that is an integrated community in South Africa, consisting of the White and the non-White peoples. It was said that there could be 168 holidays in South Africa. But, surely, this is nonsense. If hon. members would read the Bill, they would see that these holidays will only be granted after the Minister has considered and approved them. It will therefore be ensured that steps in this respect will not be taken in a reckless manner.

And when they are independent?

When they are independent, their domestic arrangements and their domestic affairs will be of absolutely no concern to this Parliament. Does the hon. member really want to suggest to me this afternoon that, having sat here all this time, he still does not comprehend what will happen in the Bantu homelands once they are independent?

May I put a question?

No, you have had your turn to speak. Can the hon. member really say in this House this afternoon that he does not know—I am almost tempted to say “that he is so stupid that he has never understood it”—what the implications will be when these homelands become independent? When they become independent, they themselves will be able to decide about it. Then they could have just as many holidays as they please, and that would be no concern of ours.

But what about the workers here?

If that Bantu, as a citizen of that homeland, comes to work here in South Africa, he has to obey the laws of this country. What do those hon. members want to do now? I am referring now to what was said by the hon. members for Transkei and Pinelands and also by other hon. members. This is why they are taking such a strong stand in respect of the urban Bantu. They want these people to be recognized, to be consulted, etc. They want to divorce the urban Bantu completely from their traditional Bantu homelands, and for those Bantu they want to create here in South Africa a different Bantu group that may be integrated with the other population groups here in South Africa. That is what they want to do.

Do you think they will not want to observe their holidays here in the cities?

If they want to observe their holidays in the cities, they will be doing so on their own, but because they are here in this White country, the only holidays that will be recognized, will be those approved by this Parliament. Those people will not be able to do this in an arbitrary manner. I hope that the hon. member for Pinelands will display enough comprehension so that he will be able to accept this simple premise. If that Bantu leaves his homeland in order to work here, he will be working here as a citizen of a foreign country. If he wishes to observe his religious or other sacred holidays here, he may do so, but he will be doing so at his own risk and in his own way. He should not ask this country to give recognition to it and to declare it to be a public holiday. That he should not expect here. Just as it is in the case of the other foreign citizens entering this country in order to work here, such as the Portuguese, the Italians and the Jewish community, so those people, those foreign citizens coming here to work, must appreciate that we have here certain prescribed holidays which they must respect.

He also referred here to the marriage laws. Sir, I think that by this time we have already discussed this topic exhaustively, and I do not want to indulge in repetition, but the hon. the Deputy Minister clearly stated that the amendment to the marriage laws of the Bantu was not something we were forcing on them; it was something for which these people asked in a very proper manner in the course of negotiations. I can understand why the United Party and the Progressive Party are taking this standpoint. It is logically consistent with their policy of integration. They do not acknowledge that those people are ethnically different. They accept that the Bantu in South Africa is just as much a Westerner as is any member in this House; they want to absorb the Bantu into our community; they want the Bantu to accept the traditions, morals and customs of the Westerner. When those Bantu consider their traditions and marriage laws and customs to be sacred, the United Party, together with the Progressive Party, simply wants to commit an act of sacrilege against those people. They simply want to trample underfoot the traditions of those people and place them under Western laws. Sir, I think that this Bill has been argued out properly, and I think that the United Party should realize that as far as this matter is concerned, they are on the wrong track.

Sir, I am a little bit amused this afternoon at the shyness that we have found on the other side. There is a distinct reluctance on that side to debate the Bill this afternoon.

There are no arguments to reply to.

Perhaps that hon. Minister would like to be the saviour of the National Party here this afternoon, and I challenge him now to get up and to answer the questions which have been put from this side.

What a bore!

Sir, this is the sort of behaviour that we are used to from the Minister of Sport and Recreation. He does not worry us in the least.

We had the hon. the Minister of Transport here this afternoon tied in a knot on his own administration by my hon. friend, the hon. member for Transkei. We had the hon. the Minister of Transport running away without giving an answer. He has implied certain important things by way of interjection, but he has now run away. Where is the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education who was so anxious to help out yesterday and the day before? He is not taking part in the debate. Sir, what replies have we had to the questions which have been asked from this side? It is all very well for the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development to sit in his seat and to say arrogantly: “I will answer”, but at that stage the debate is over. What is the good of that as far as debate is concerned? Then we had the spectacle of the Deputy Minister, the Minister and the Whip trying to prevail upon the hon. ex-member for Benoni, the member for Langlaagte, to get up to speak. He did not want to speak, and no wonder, because what did he say when he got up? He started off by making the old parrot-cry, which he has been making ever since he came to this House with me in 1966, that we are an “integration party.”

Of course you are.

Sir, this is the cry of the Herstigtes, and we have become used to getting it from him. In fact, we are tired of hearing it over and over again from those benches. But what else did he do?

Sir, the hon. member tried to defend the question of public holidays. For some reason or other he has decided that we are against the granting of public holidays to these various Bantu groups. I want to ask him and the hon. the Minister: Where and when did this whole question of public holidays for the Bantu start, and what happened at that time? It started about 18 months ago when Chief Buthelezi of Zululand asked for the right to have a holiday called Tshaka Day in Zululand. This hon. Minister came out and slapped him down with a blunt “No”.

Arrogant.

I am glad to be able to say that I supported Chief Buthelezi in his claim and I said so publicly, because that is the policy of this side of the House, as has been said. Our policy is that we will allow these various groups the right to have their own holidays. If the hon. member for Langlaagte had taken the trouble to look into the Public Holidays Act, he would have found that in terms of that Act it is possible today to declare a public holiday for a region. Why cannot that public holiday be declared today for the Transkei or for Zululand, or for Vendaland, or for any one of these regions, if they want a public holiday?

For Hammarsdale.

Or for Hammarsdale, perhaps, if the people there want it. I must admit that this is a most important place. It is certainly far more important to me than Rissik is. Sir, the difference between that party and this party is that that party on the other side sees a fragmented South Africa. Their pathological fear of the Black man makes them say the sort of thing that was said by the hon. member for Langlaagte when he said that we must not look upon the Black people as westernized; that we must stick to their old traditions. I want to put this question to him: Why does he not bring a law here to allow them to practise cannibalism as they, possibly, did 2 000 years ago? Why does he not allow that if he wants to advance that sort of argument?

Or witchcraft.

Why does he not bring a law here to allow witchcraft as it was formerly practised, or to allow the killing of twins when they are born? If he wants to allow the old traditions, why does he not allow these practices if he wants to stick to this sort of argument? No, Sir, the sooner the Government realizes that these Bantu people are developing in the ways of Western civilization, thanks to the influence of the White man in South Africa, the sooner race relations in this country are going to be improved, and we will not be sitting then on the time bomb we are sitting on today because of 24 years of rule by that Government, because of the oppression that they have forced on these people in this country and because of the oppression that they have wrought; that is why we are sitting on this time-bomb.

Sir, let us have a look at another aspect of this particular Bill. Let us look at clause 4, where we are now putting right a question of legal terminology, the question of what a “Bantu Affairs Commissioner” should be called in South-West Africa. There he is still called a “Native Commissioner”. Sir, this has been the practice over the years. The hon. member for Langlaagte says that the change in the marriage law was made through consultation with the Bantu, but, of course, not consultation with the Westernized, urban Bantu. The Government does not recognize them; they do not exist. These people who have advanced in the ways of Western civilization do not exist as far as that Government is concerned. Sir, I want to make an appeal to the Minister. This Government has established the bodies which are necessary for consultation with the Bantu; it may only be consultation with the rural Bantu—I accept that. There are bodies established by this Government amongst the urban Bantu who can also be consulted. Perhaps the hon. the Minister might consider consulting with them, notwithstanding the words of the hon. member for Langlaagte. Sir, will the hon. the Minister consult with the Bantu as to the terminology which they want when it comes to referring to them in the Statutes of the Republic and when it comes to dealing with them through Government officials and other people? I know that there are many Bantu who resent the term “Native”; there are many who resent the term “Bantu”; there are some who like to be known as “Africans”; there are others who like to be known as “Blacks”.

What do you say?

I am not prepared to say, because I have not had the opportunity of consulting fully with these people to find out exactly what term they want. The responsibility lies with this hon. Minister, and I would urge him to consult with these people and to find out by what term they would like to be known.

What do you suggest?

I think this is important. No, I am not prepared to make a suggestion. I am not falling for the trap of that hon. member. Then at the same time, of course, I think he might also consult more fully with these people with regard to the amendment of the marriage laws. The hon. member for Langlaagte said that they were consulted, but the hon. the Deputy Minister told us that they were consulted some years ago, and in fact the only leader that he was able to quote was somebody who has since died, the late King of the Zulus.

Did you not listen?

Yes, I listened carefully. We asked him to name the people with whom he had consulted and that was the only person he mentioned. In fact, he would not even name him; he just said that it was the leader of the largest group of Bantu in the country. I beg your pardon, Sir. He named the late Chief Cyprian. I beg your pardon.

We have now come to the closing stages of this Bill where Parliament is being asked to condone errors on the part of the Government. I am referring to clauses 3 and 11 where the Government has made mistakes and they have come to Parliament and asked Parliament to condone these mistakes and to put them right. I must point out the arrogance of this Minister. Look at the explanatory memorandum issued with this Bill. I refer to item 2 which deals with clause 3 where it just reads—

Sir, if ever there was an example of the arrogance of this Government, particularly as typified by this Minister, it is this. There is no request to Parliament to put the matter right, but just a bald statement that in order to correct the situation the land concerned is now being included in the released areas. Sir, we are compelled to do so; we are compelled to help the Government, but I want to place on record that this is happening more and more often because we have another Bill before this House at the moment which deals almost wholly with the correction of errors.

The hon. member should leave that for the Second Reading of that Bill. He should now come back to this Bill.

Sir, I obey your ruling. But in this particular Bill there are these two matters which are to be corrected and I sincerely hope that this is going to be the exception and not the rule.

Order!

We are handing over various powers in terms of this Bill to various Bantu authorities. We are empowering the State President and the Minister to hand over various powers to various Bantu authorities, including, as far as the Transkei is concerned, the power to administer prisons. There is one provision in regard to that which worries me and that is the fact that any Bantu in the Republic can be transferred to a prison in the Transkei. If this had been confined to citizens of the Transkei, a legal person who is now identifiable and who can be identified, I would have had no objection. I sincerely hope that in its administration of this Bill, the hon. the Minister and his department will abide by the undertaking the hon. the Deputy Minister gave us last night that he would see to it that only Transkeian citizens would be transferred to gaols within the Transkei. But at this stage, until all the Transkeian citizens have received their certificates of citizenship, he said it was impossible to have the law written that way.

As I have said, we are being asked to give many powers over to the Bantu authorities. The attitude of this side of the House has all along been: Let us give them these powers, as long as they are competent and have the required degree of responsibility to carry out these powers. But what we are in fact being asked for in this Bill today is not to give powers to Bantu authorities but to pass powers over to other officials of this hon. Minister’s department.

There was one issue in particular which was unresolved and which it is necessary to resolve. It is essential that we should have clarity before this debate ends. I refer to the intervention by way of interjection this afternoon by the hon. the Minister of Transport when he indicated two things: Firstly, that he had warned the Transkei that if they used the powers proposed to be granted to them in terms of this Bill to the detriment of his road motor services …

I did not deal with the Transkeian Government. That was my colleague, the Minister of Bantu Administration.

But if this Bill is passed this power goes to the Transkei Government and not to the hon. the Minister.

The Minister consults with them.

The Minister may consult with them. The power goes to the Transkei. But the issue which matters is that the hon. the Minister of Transport said that if this reflected to the detriment of the road transport services of his department, then he would withdraw the right.

No, I would withdraw the road services.

You would withdraw the road services?

That’s right.

Not the right?

No.

It is important that we have the exact wording. If this is used to the detriment of the railway transport services …

May I explain to you before you go further with your argument?

But I will lose my turn if I sit down.

I think Mr. Speaker will allow it.

I will not allow it as the Rules do not make provision for it.

I know the hon. the Minister of Transport has been here a long time. So have I. Sometimes one wonders whether it is not too long. We have now the clear statement. The hon. the Minister of Transport can get up and follow me. This is an open debate and there are still 45 minutes left.

But you won’t have the chance of replying to me again.

Other speakers will on this side. Unlike the Government, we work as a team, and unlike the Government not at sixes and sevens, contradicting one another. This was the one issue, a threat that if this power which we are asked to pass now was used to the detriment of the railways, then the services would be withdrawn. I heard it the other way, namely that this power would be withdrawn. [Interjection.] That is how I heard it.

No.

The Minister says no, it is not the power. It does not matter. We have established, firstly, that there is a threat. Secondly, the hon. the Minister said that the national roads in the Transkei remain under the Republican Government and that the Transkei could not stop anyone passing through there. Is that correct?

No.

The hon. the Minister said the Transkei couldn’t stop anyone passing through. He said they could stop somebody operating as a carrier in the Transkei, but that they could not stop a carrier passing through the Transkei. It will come through in Hansard; that I am not going to quibble about—nor accept any explanation on it; it was loud and clear. A carrier could pass through the Transkei and could not operate in the Transkei without a local certificate.

The Deputy Minister who handled this Bill until he was unavoidably absent today, said the following—

May I, in passing, Mr. Speaker, refer to a snide remark made over here when my hon. colleague here used the word “transport” and somebody on my left, an hon. member who is too clever for himself, said: “Vervoer bedoel jy.” The word is “transport”, as it is in the Bill and as my colleague used it. If some of those hon. members would show equal respect for both our official languages as we try to do by using both languages instead of trying to be clever and funny about it, we would get much further. I quote from the Deputy Minister’s speech—

I emphasize that the hon. the Minister of Transport’s answer was “Yes”. The Deputy Minister continued—

Now we have, Mr. Speaker, the Minister in charge of this Bill making a clear, unequivocal statement. I and my colleagues queried it in Committee yesterday. We queried it and received categorical assurances in the Committee Stage, after checking the Second Reading reply, that any motor carrier going through the Transkei would have to have a motor carrier’s certificate from the Transkeian Board.

I took it further and said that when this was extended to the other homelands, what would happen to a person travelling from Eshowe to Cape Town? The answer was he would have to have a Zulu certificate, a Transkeian certificate and a Ciskeian certificate because he passes through three homelands. The hon. the Minister of Transport said that that was not so. The hon. member for Transkei quoted from the Act —he quoted the definition of “Transkei”. He proved that it was Bantu areas within defined districts excluding White areas. Here we have a straightforward issue. This issue was raised in Committee and this afternoon two members of the Bantu Affairs Commission, the deputy chairman and another senior member both entered the debate but neither could answer the hon. member for Transkei. In the meantime the hon. the Minister of Transport repudiates the Minister in charge of this Bill. We as an Opposition are not prepared to see a Bill pass through Parliament when the Government itself does not know what it means and does not know what the effect will be on the ordinary commercial life of South Africa. We are not a rubber stamp; we are not here to say “ja, baas” and “amen”, and demand from the Government a clarification of the question which one of the Ministers who have given rulings on this matter is in fact correct. Is it the Minister of Transport or the Minister in charge of this Bill, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development? We give the hon. the Minister of Transport the opportunity to do that right now, but before I sit down I want to deal with the other implication, the implication of a threat. Here we are granting powers to a country about to become independent, a country on the road to independence, independence which is given by a Government which keeps shouting its sincerity from the rooftops. They keep on shouting: “We are sincere; we are giving these powers and why are you opposing them?” We have said that some of these areas are not ready to assume these powers. Now, when we point out the logical and the inevitable consequences of one power only, the power to prevent a motor carrier from moving through the Transkei without a permit which he must obtain at a fee laid down without control by this House, when we point out that we are giving the Transkei Government authority to control and legislate for White South African citizens outside the Transkei by making them pay a fee for a licence for a carrier exemption certificate, the hon. the Minister of Transport says it does not matter; he threatened that if they affected his railway transport he was going to take it away. In other words, what sort of independence is this and what sort of offer is this we are making to the Transkei? We are passing a Bill on paper with the Minister of Transport standing there with a big stick saying Chat if they use this power to the detriment of his department, they are going to suffer. What sort of independence is this? It is the independence of the bully who says: “You can have this power but do not exercise it or I shall fix you.” Therefore I say two things have emerged from this Bill. Firstly, a threat is held over the Transkei, and this counteracts any usefulness this power may have and, secondly, two Government departments and two Ministers of this Government are engaging in a performance which is typical of what we have seen this year, of showing that the Government docs not know what it is doing; that its left hand does not know what its right hand is doing. Here we have a direct confrontation and a direct repudiation which must be cleared up. We have 35 minutes in which to find out whether it can be cleared up before we vote.

Mr. Speaker, I will now deal with the two matters the hon. member has raised. Firstly, I have never discussed the matter with the Transkeian Government. That is not my job. All I did was to discuss the matter with my colleague, the hon. Minister for Bantu Administration and Development. In regard to my so-called threat, what I said was that, if road permits are issued indiscriminately to the detriment of my road motor service in the Transkei, I will simply withdraw it; what else!

Withdraw what?

My road motor services. Obviously I will do that. If road permits are issued indiscriminately to private hauliers to the detriment of my road motor services, I will withdraw those road motor services. That is what I told my colleague; I did not tell it to the Transkeian Government. I hope that is now quite clear.

What concerns the other matter, I have gone into it and what the hon. the Deputy Minister said was quite right. I was wrong when I made that interjection.

You were wrong?

I was wrong. The hon. the Deputy Minister was right in what he said and I was wrong in making that interjection. I should not have made that interjection, but I did and it was wrong. Does that satisfy the hon. member?

Now you are listening to a real man.

That is my reply to the hon. member.

Mr. Speaker, here hon. members have now witnessed the qualities and character of an honest man. I think that one may learn many lessons from that. All of us make interjections and decide afterwards that we should rather not have made them. The hon. the Leader of the House also did this. We are all human, but we should like to see everyone admitting: courageously what the true position is, as the hon. the Leader of the House did here this afternoon. I have had to retract many times where it was justified. Where it was not justified, the Chair has apparently never instructed me to do so. For the information of that hon. member, I have never refused to withdraw what had to be withdrawn when ordered to do so by the Chair.

Last week?

I was not ordered by the Chair to withdraw. Apparently it was completely unnecessary, as I maintained.

Order! I want to remind the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District that I have been calling “Order” time and again.

Of course there are only a few miscellaneous points to which I have to reply, and which I should now like to do.

Firstly, I want to say that I find it very reprehensible that hon. members, particularly the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District, who was the worst of the lot, referred very scornfully here this afternoon to the absence of the hon. the Deputy Minister who was in charge of this Bill until the previous stage. Quite a while ago the hon. the Deputy Minister made very important official arrangements in regard to Bantu homeland matters. He came to see me yesterday and told me that he was in a fix because he had arrangements for today in Pretoria and that, if this Bill was not disposed of today, it would have to stand over for a long time, whereas we would, for a number of reasons, like to have this Bill disposed of in both Houses before the end of this month. I told him: “Go to Pretoria. The Standing Orders of the House allow it. Go to Pretoria; do your work; I shall take charge of this Third Reading for you.” I do not know what is wrong with that. There is nothing wrong with it at all. I think it was just plain bad manners to insinuate that the hon. the Deputy Minister ran away from this afternoon’s debate. The hon. the Deputy Minister is the very last person who would want to run away. In fact, he said to me: “Very well, then, take charge of the Third Reading but, please, I want to take the Bill through the Senate.” I agreed to that and said that this would in any case take place at a later stage. I think that hon. members are entitled to make attacks on one another in this House, but I do not think we should apply such petty, Grade A techniques—those were Grade A techniques. [Interjections.]

I now want to deal with the speakers in the order in which they participated in the debate. The hon. member for Transkei referred again to the marriage question, as did the hon. member for Houghton. If I remember correctly, the hon. member for Transkei asked why men are being excluded and why this measure refers only to women.

I did not ask why.

He said it was a pity, or something like that.

No, I said it was a good thing.

We are not dealing here with White men, but with Bantu men.

Apparently he agrees now.

He agrees with some aspects and is opposed to others. The position is that we held very thorough consultations in regard to this matter with the Bantu authorities in the Transvaal and in Natal. This was done some time ago, because this concerns them. They definitely insisted that the position should be maintained as it is in respect of Bantu women. Anyone who knows anything about the history and culture of the Bantu, knows how the Bantu feel about a woman who marries. Many things are involved here, including lobola. In passing I should like to settle one point with the hon. member for Houghton. She referred to—a matter on which her law advisers based her argument, but the point at issue there was for the most part a lobola argument, an argument which is not relevant in this debate.

That is not the information I have.

The hon. member always has different information to anyone else, and I know why.

The hon. member for Transkei also referred to the road transportation question. The hon. the Minister of Transport spoke briefly, and I also want to make it clear that there was no such thing as a threat. The question of whether motor carrier transportation powers should be handed over to the Transkei Government—in fact, as with all the other questions which are being discussed now—was not only discussed by the hon. the Minister of Transport, by other hon. Ministers and by myself, but received the full attention of the Government. Before I discussed these matters with the Transkei Government on 1st October of last year, the entire matter was given proper consideration by the Government. Afterwards I was given the right to discuss all these matters and other matters as well, with them matters which are not relevant to this debate. When the Secretary of the department and I spoke to the Transkei Parliament we made it clear to them that we felt that they should have a full-fledged road transportation system and road transport board of their own, without an appeal to the Transport Commission. We, as a Government, actually raised two points which they did not think of themselves. The one point is, there is no appeal to the National Transport Commission, as is stated in this measure. If they want an appellate body they must create it themselves in terms of the powers they will themselves have. The second point which I brought very clearly to their attention—and this was in no way a threat— was the intimate link which exists between the railway line to Umtata and the road motor service of the South African Railways, which has to serve that railway line as well as the interior of the Transkei. Without arguing about it, they said that they had no quarrel with us in regard to the fine red motor transport vehicles of the Railways, that those motor transport vehicles brought life and development deep into their country and that they had no objection to them. They stated that they would be only too glad to protect that service. I explained to them that the railway line to Umtata is apparently not a paying concern. The Minister of Transport can correct me if I am wrong, but I am certain that this is the case. I told them that the road transport service must help carry that railway line, and that if the road transport service is not going to pay either, they can understand that the Minister of Transport would not be able to maintain unprofitable services. There was no argument about this, and no threat either. It is a very cheap political manoeuvre on the part of the hon. member for Durban Point to talk about a threat and bullying now. He said that the Minister of Transport, the Government, and I were adopting a bullying attitude. That is an absolutely cheap political manoeuvre on the part of the hon. member and we know why he is doing it. I should like to say something further about the question of transport. There is the question of road transportation from outside the Transkei into the Transkei and from within the Transkei out of the Transkei, and also outside the Transkei by the Transkei. That aspect is an entire new development now, and is not the first new development we have had in regard to the ever-increasing emancipation of the Bantu homelands which we are engaged in. Sir, this is but a minor problem compared to other problems with which we have had to deal, problems which one cannot always foresee because they are brought about, one after another, by the development of circumstances. On an administrative level the two Administrations, that of the Republic and that of the Transkei, will deal with these matters. I have no fear whatsoever that it will not be possible to arrive at a workable arrangement on an administrative level. If there are snags in the administrative arrangements which have to be made requiring legislation, authorization from our department or from the Department of Transport or in terms of Transkei legislation, this will receive the necessary attention. On the part of the Transkei and on our part there is only one aim, i.e. to cause the new system which is being introduced here to function properly. I therefore want to tell the hon. member for Transkei that he need not feel concerned about this. If he comes across problems in this connection and brings them to my attention properly I shall be pleased to give them my attention. He must not object again today because I have said “properly”. I mean comprehensively and well motivated.

May I ask a question?

Yes, but my time is limited.

Does the Minister agree that the Transkei Government can exercise authority in the White areas over White people in the Transkei?

It may happen with the practical implementation of transport arrangements under the new system which is being introduced in the Transkei that there will be Transkeian citizens who will be operating within the White municipal areas of the Transkei. But let me tell the hon. member that even this is not going to be a new phenomenon. They are already exercising control over judicial matters in the Transkei. Their magistrates are officiating in those small White towns. These are matters which, as I have just said, will be administratively arranged in the proper way. If legislation is needed to regulate matters more effectively, it will be done. There is nothing wrong with coming to ask for legislation then, here or in the Transkei.

The question is: Is this Bill applicable in the White areas?

Order! The hon. member must not interrupt.

This Bill is being established for the Transkei area and in practice it will probably have to filter through, here and there, to the White area. That is what the arrangements there will be for. I am talking about the small White towns in the Transkei, and not outside the Transkei. I think I understood the hon. member for Transkei correctly. What he was saying was not very clear because of the interjections.

The hon. member referred to the authorization in regard to South-West Africa. He reiterated that there were supposedly too few people to do everything, and that we were giving them powers which they were not able to exercise. But surely we cannot first train people outside Owambo, Kawango, or whichever one of the South-West Africa territories it is, to perform certain kinds of State administrative work, and only then give them authorization to do that work. This is empowering legislation which provides that they may exercise those functions and may tackle legislation in that regard. Then they tackle the legislation. If they do not themselves have people to exercise the executive functions, they borrow the White officials from us. As the people employed there are able, with the help of our White officials, to perform those tasks, the number of White officials is reduced and their own people employed. This is the process which is taking place in the Transkei and in all the other Bantu homelands. Must we wait now until all the Bantu homelands have enough people for all the different kinds of work which have to be done in a body politic before we give them the powers? Surely that is absurd. In 1910 we began with functions for which we did not have people either, and for which we had to use people we had loaned. In our Bantu areas it is essential that this should take place in this way. It works very well indeed. It is a particularly good way of creating and maintaining sound relations between the Republic with its White Government and the various Bantu homelands with their governments.

I must refer briefly to the hon. member for Houghton. The hon. member used the word “outrageous”. She said that the introduction of the clause was, partly, “outrageous”. She said: “To introduce it is outrageous”. I say that that remark of hers is “outrageous”.

Oh, how clever!

Yes, it is not a new concept which is being introduced here. It is an old concept, and it is not necessary for me to deal with it at length. My hon. friend, the member for Rissik, did so very competently by quoting from that document, the old provision which existed and which falls away in terms of the other legislation. I can also tell the hon. member, which the hon. member for Rissik did not do, that there is also a statement here to the effect that by “Coloured persons” is meant Coloureds and Asiatics as well as Bantu. To say therefore that a new concept is being introduced in an arrogant way is an absolute misrepresentation.

I never said it was new.

The hon. member, and other hon. members, also complained that the urban Bantu had allegedly not been consulted in regard to these matters. Even within our White areas they have their representatives through whom they can ascertain the standpoint of their own people in regard to these matters. But let me now, as the hon. the Deputy Minister did yesterday, say to these members very clearly, lucidly and, I hope, finally that the urban Bantu councils in terms of the urban Bantu Councils Act are not there for this kind of consultation. Let this be realized now. The Urban Bantu Councils are there for functions entrusted to them in terms of the framework of local administration matters, and not in terms of the anthropological and socio-political matters concerning the peoples in the homelands. That is the position, and the hon. member would do well to read that Act if she does not want to agree with me on this. Let me now make it very clear: The Urban Bantu Councils will not be consulted on matters which fall outside the purview of their powers. That must be understood very thoroughly.

That is actually illegal.

In any case it is illegal to do so, yes. I should just like, in passing, to make the following point clear in regard to this consultation. This consultation was conducted in all the Bantu areas, as I said, through our officials, Bantu Affairs Commissioners and Chief Bantu Affairs Commissioners. A proper report was made to the Bantu Affairs Commission in regard to this matter, which had to ensure that there was proper consultation. On the recommendation of the Bantu Affairs Commission this matter was then brought to the Minister. Now we cannot, if there should be a new chief, tribal council, regional authority, executive committee or executive council in a Bantu area, go back and say that the new body also has to be consulted now. Then we would always be consulting, for this fluctuation takes place everywhere, and there are always successive responsible office-bearers with the Bantu governments.

The hon. member for Pinelands complained that if a Bantu woman who did not have her father’s consent to her marriage was to be penalized, she would not be able to marry and that she would have to live with another person out of wedlock. I am not going to say that the hon. member did not read the Act. I know he did read it. I know him to be a reliable Member of Parliament, and he did read this Bill. But surely the hon. member knows what is stated in the subsection, that, if that Bantu woman is at loggerheads with her father and he does not want to give her his consent, she may go to a person authorized by the Minister and request his consent.

He said it.

No, the hon. member did not say it. I was listening with both ears to hear whether he said it, and he did not say it.

I come now to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District. I want to make one thing very clear to him. If he does not want to believe me, he must have the courage to tell me that I am lying.

But that is unparliamentary.

Then he could say that I am fibbing. I think “fibbing” is parliamentary. I did not bring up this point in regard to the holidays as a result of the request made by the Zulus. This point was brought to my attention for the first time as a result of a request of the South Sotho from Basotho Owaqwa. That was where it first originated.

[Inaudible.]

Sir, the hon. member must sit and listen to what I am saying now; he must not keep on talking. I repeat: This was brought to my attention for the first time from Basotho Qwaqwa. We then went into the matter, because the question of holidays is controlled by an Act administered by the Department of the Interior. That Act is in no way adjusted to the White area and the Bantu homelands separately. It is an old Act which is adjusted to South Africa as a whole. It is very clear that in terms of that Act we were completely unable to deal with the position of holidays, and that we could not in terms of that Act give the Bantu people holidays in their own homelands. At about the same time a request was also made by the Zulus and another nation. I then informed the Zulus, just as I informed Basotho Qwaqwa, that we could not take steps in terms of the existing Act. I told them that they could in the mean time, on a non-official basis, give their Government employees leave on their national day if they wanted to; I said that I would give my consent to that, but that it was at the time not yet official. With that of course they were not satisfied, in the same way that I was not satisfied with it either. I was not satisfied that it was a good institution. I then took up this matter with the Department myself and this idea is my own suggestion to the department, i.e. that the Bantu should be given the right in their constitutions to introduce local holidays for their homelands, provided it is not going to become a 15th or 20th holiday in South Africa, but that it should take the place of one of the holidays indicated in the Act administered by the Department of the Interior.

A further condition was that it should be the Minister who approved of that exchange of the specific holiday. That is the history of this matter, and the hon. member must accept it now. The matter did not arise as a result of the request made by the Zulus; that hon. member is implying that anything we do, we are doing simply because we heard about it from the Zulus. That is not the case.

The hon. member also referred derogatorily to the clause in which it is stated that, as far as South-West Africa is concerned, “Bantu Affairs Commissioner” shall be construed as a “Native Commissioner”.

No, not derogatorily.

I wonder what the hon. member looks like and sounds like when he is being derogatory. The hon. member then said that we must ask the Bantu by what name they wished to be known—“Bantu”. “Native”, “African”, or any other possible word. The point is that the legal-technical position is that we speak in our legislation of “Native” in South-West Africa. Those people in the Bantu homelands of South-West Africa prefer to be called “Natives” rather than Bantu. That is why, if the hon. member were to look at the 1968 Act, he would find that we refer there to “Natives”. But in our department we have Bantu Affairs Commissioners throughout the entire country. After all, we cannot simply call a Bantu Affairs Commissioner a Native Commissioner in South-West Africa, while the man on this side in Upinton is a Bantu Affairs Commissioner. That is why we say that a Bantu Affairs Commissioner, if he is operating in South-West Africa, is of course construed for that purpose to be Native Commissioner. That is being made very clear. As far as the names of different Bantu persons are concerned, I can give the hon. member the assurance that each of the Bantu peoples have a name. There are the Xhosas, the Zulus, the Vendas, the Shangaans, the Pedis, the Hereros and the Ovambos. They have their own names, and if one converses with a member of a specific nation on a national basis, they have a name; it is consequently not necessary for us to look for a name. It is solely a group description when we talk about “Natives” or “Bantus”.

All I asked was that you consult them.

We consulted the Natives in regard to everything affecting them, and which was necessary. In regard to this matter, as far as this word is concerned, they were also consulted. We are not going to consult them to find a new group name for them in South Africa; there is no need whatsoever for that; they have a group name in South Africa, one which they have had for a long time. I want to ask the hon. member whether he would undertake that they will begin now already to negotiate with the Bantu—for after all they will never come into power one day where they will have to negotiate —to hear whether they should all be called “Africans”, with the equivalent Afrikaans word for that? Would they want to do that? Hon. members on that side must not tell me now that the rules of the House do not allow them to rise in reply. I shall remain silent for a moment so that the hon. member may reply to this question. Does the hon. member want to start negotiating with the Bantu of South Africa to hear whether they want to be called “Africans”, yes or no? Zip! If you want to talk of being zipped, Sir, there is a case of zipping—zipped fore and aft, zipped on both sides! Is the hon. member for South Coast prepared to take a reply to this question out of the hands of the arrogant hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District; is be prepared to begin negotiating now with the Bantu of South Africa to hear what they want? I shall offer him the arrangements and facilities for that purpose, and I shall not go and eavesdrop, Sir. Is he prepared to begin negotiating with the Natives to hear whether they want to be termed “Africans” officially in our legislation?

You are addressing me as though you were a schoolteacher.

I am hearing something else now, and I am hearing it now for the umpteenth time in this House, and that is that if a member on the opposite side, particularly the hon. old gentleman from South Coast, wants to belittle anyone on this side, then he calls you a schoolteacher. The school-teachers in South Africa in their tens of thousands, must take note of the fact that if hon. members on that side want to belittle a person, then they call him a school-teacher. It will do that side of the House the world of good if they had a few former school-teachers in their midst. Sir, with all due respects, the most reasonable members on the opposite side are all former school-teachers.

They are few.

There are only Andrew and Kaatjie.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District said that there were two mistakes in this Bill. No, these are not two mistakes. There is only one which is attributable to a mistake, and that is clause 3.

And clause 11?

No, clause 11 is not a mistake; it is an improvement.

You are putting it right now.

Clause 11 is an improvement; it could have remained as it was, it would just have meant that the Minister would have had to do a tremendous amount of work. The hon. member called clause 11 a mistake. As far as clause 3 is concerned, it is only by chance that this became a mistake. There were negotiations in regard to the purchase of land near Mafeking and in the Rosslin block, and if the right farm had been purchased first there, then this would have happened in a consecutive way, but there was a delay and it was not possible to buy the right farm first, and the next farm was purchased; this sale went through more rapidly, and as a result the so-called mistake arose. The hon. member says that we are committing Parliament here, and that we are guilty of the greatest arrogance in the memorandum. Sir, are we not here today to ask for approval for this in Parliament? After all, we did not keep quiet about that purchase; we are here today to put the matter right.

The last point the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District touched upon and to which I just want to refer was in respect of Transkei citizens in the prisons. Of course we will do everything possible administratively—and my colleague, the Minister of Prisons, will certainly do this as well—to transfer only people who are Transkeian citizens, as the hon. the Deputy Minister said, but we cannot make this exclusive in the legislation because it may be necessary to have persons other than Transkei citizens in a prison there on a temporary basis, and then they can be sent back it is quite possible, but we cannot state it in such an exclusive way; it would be completely impractical to apply this exclusively to Transkei citizens.

I have nothing further to say about the hon. member for Durban Point; I replied at the outset to the matter he raised, and the hon. the Minister of Transport furnished a further reply to what he said.

Motion put and agreed to (Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Bill read a Third Time.

When the House adjourned last night, I had referred to the fact that the object of this Bill was to abolish the Bantu Education Account and to return to the system of financing of Bantu Education through the Consolidated Revenue Fund, which, in effect meant acceptance of and a return to United Party policy. I dealt with the policy under the existing Act and I highlighted the fact that the Government had placed emphasis on its expenditure on higher education whilst the money which had been available for primary and secondary education had been limited to a shoestring budget as the result of the financial limitations imposed by the previous Act, no. 23 of 1956. Now we know that this Bill abolishes that Act, but I submit that the policy which has been followed as the result of that Act over all these years has resulted in an inadequate flow of suitably qualified Bantu through the Bantu universities. Sir, I see no great improvement as a result of this Bill, unless the Government adjusts its financial allocations and priorities. I believe too that as long as there is a teacher corps responsible for the education of the Bantu, of which 72 per cent consists of teachers whose training is limited to Std. VI or Std. VIII and no professional training, we cannot hope for any great or visible improvement in the position. I submit too that unless, flowing from this Bill, there is a financial adjustment of the allocation for vocational training and this matter is treated as a priority, we will find ourselves in the same difficulties which have existed under the present Act.

Do you want more money for Bantu education?

I will treat that question with the contempt it deserves. I believe the hon. member should be able to give himself the answer to that question. I believe that as far as vocational education is concerned, the present facilities are inadequate and the output is appallingly low when one considers that of the total enrolment 0.3 per cent, or 3 637 students, are registered for training in technical and vocational education.

Last night I addressed a question to the Deputy Minister of Bantu Education and I wish, if I may, to be of assistance to him, because I believe that I have the advantage of receiving the answer to a question which I tabled to the Minister of Finance before the Deputy Minister himself has had an opportunity of studying the answer. My question to the hon. the Minister of Finance was, in the first instance, whether the committee of inquiry into the financing of non-White universities had (a) issued an interim report. The answer to that was “yes”, there was one interim report. The conclusion is that the committee is still deliberating and that its final report is not yet ready. Then I asked whether the implementation of the committee’s findings would involve additional State expenditure, and obviously the answer to that question is not known at this stage. Then I asked who the members of the committee were and whom they represented. I see from the answer to that section of the question that the Deputy Minister’s department is represented and that the three Bantu universities were represented by Prof. J. L Boshoft. To the last portion of the question, whether legislation based on the findings of the committee would be introduced during this session, the answer was that it was unknown at this stage. That is strange, because we have this legislation before us right now. Then the hon. the Deputy Minister last night, when the hon. member for Transkei was speaking, interjected twice to say: “Why do you not say a word about the importance of the constitutional development of the Bantu homelands?” Sir, my colleague, I believe, is aware of what your ruling would have been under those circumstances and I believe he correctly did not refer to it, and I too am prepared to accept that this is a subject which you would rule out of order. But I feel that I have to accept in part the invitation of the hon. the Deputy Minister and that is in regard to the financing of education in the homelands, because surely this is something in which this Bill has a major concern.

It is no good discussing that. He is shaking his head.

Well, I am seeking some clarity from the hon. the Deputy Minister in regard to the degree of autonomy and independence there will be under this Bill in connection with the financing in relation to Bantu education in the homelands, vis-à-vis the White areas. I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister. Reference has been made to the ethnic universities. He referred to them in his Second Reading speech. I ask whether it is the position that all three ethnic universities situated in the homelands would remain the responsibility and under the administration of the Bantu Education Department? Is that the position?

Carry on. I will reply later.

The Deputy Minister says that he will reply later. I accept that. If that is the position it would seem that this increasing homeland development on the educational front will result in no direct involvement of the people of the homelands in higher education unless of course the hon. the Deputy Minister feels that their involvement should still be limited to an advisory council and an advisory senate; or does he feel that to make this situation meaningful the right of the •residents of the homelands in regard to education will be extended beyond that limitation which is imposed by statute?

Secondly, I would ask the hon. the Deputy Minister if he could clarify the position concerning this autonomy or degree of independence in regard to the financial help which will be allocated to the homelands and to education in the White area. It seems to me that this independence could be taken as being a sham, or qualified independence, because as I understood the Deputy Minister last night he said that it would be ensured by his department that the education provided in the homelands compared with the education provided in the White areas for the urban Bantu would not be better or worse. If that is the position, surely that is a limitation of autonomy, particularly in the Transkei, and I want to quote a particular example. I have before me the Estimates of Expenditure for the Transkei for education for the year ending 31st March, 1972, and I see under the heading of “Bursaries to pupils” that the amount has been increased by more than 100 per cent over the previous year. I find, that if we refer to the Bantu Education Account over the same period, that the amount has been increased by virtually 300 per cent. Is it the intention that in so far as bursaries are concerned there should be an absolutely constant arrangement and that the various homelands will not be allowed autonomy in this?

Then there is another aspect I wish to raise. Supposing that the Transkei, which is the most advanced homeland, decides that it wishes to save expenditure under certain heads under the Educational Vote and under certain heads under other Votes, in order to increase the total amount available for education. This will result in increased per capita expenditure which will then be in excess of the agreed per capita expenditure, which is practised in the White area in the Republic, will the Transkei Government be allowed to do that? And if not, what kind of independence or self-government or self-determination is this?

You talk so glibly of independence or self-government that it seems you do not know the distinction between the two.

I know, but I wonder sometimes whether members opposite know what is meant by self-government or independence.

Then, Sir, there is another aspect. What would be the attitude, should the Government of the Transkei decide that they wish to allocate further expenditure on the issue of free school books to children in the Transkei? We know that this is not the policy here. Would that be regarded as something which the Transkei could put into operation and, would not that be affecting the balance of inferior and superior services which the hon. the Minister says he wishes to maintain? I believe that we are entitled to have answers to these questions.

We have indicated that we support this Bill. We hope too that the new financial arrangements will have the effect of disclosing details which we in the past have found extremely difficult to ascertain through the various documents and official papers that have been placed before us. I refer particularly to the question of schools and the building of schools for Ban u. I maintain that in the last two or three years it has been virtually impossible for any member of this House to ascertain from the documents placed at his disposal what is the global amount that has been allocated through the Bantu Education Department—not through the school boards and the parents themselves—for the building of schools in the Bantu homelands and for the Bantu in the White areas. We support this Bill but we do hope that there will be a more equitable basis in regard to the education of the Bantu compared with the methods involved in the financing of education for other races in the Republic.

The Opposition has once more proved itself faithful to tradition. Sitting in the Opposition benches has become a tradition with them. Equally, it has become tradition with them to say they support legislation, but … Then follows a long groan. Both speakers on the Opposition side said they supported the Bill, but then they voiced numerous complaints about the whole matter of Bantu education. I think this is born out of pure frustration, because what is all this fuss about. The hon. members for Berea and Transkei said, inter alia, that it now appears that Dr. Verwoerd’s philosophy did not succeed. I claim the opposite, that Dr. Verwoerd’s philosophy specifically did succeed. This Bill now before this House is no more than a consequence of the constitutional development of the Bantu in South Africa. It is a logical consequence of the multi-national development in South Africa where the Bantu in the Bantuhomelands now budget for their own services. Let us look at the policy of the National Party. The policy of the National Party is that all courses will be offered to the Bantu in their education system and, in addition, that all pupils must at least complete the lower primary courses, i.e. up to and including Std. V. In addition it is the party’s policy that the Bantu should pay, as far as possible, for their own education and for the development and extension of that education. This has been the case since 1919. Since 1919 the National Party and the National Government have accepted this policy in respect of Bantu education. There are reasons for that, and the reasons are, in the first instance, that they must also develop and accept responsibility. In addition, if they must pay their hard-earned money on taxes, they will ensure its better utilization and they will ensure that their children attend school more regularly. These principles give rise to all these factors. Then there is the question of independence. If a parent cares for his child and solves all his problems and difficulties for him, that child will never become independent. The principles the National Party advocates are independence and self-determination. Then there is also another aspect, and that is the question of self respect. Every person would like to have self respect and human dignity and he wants it at his command. That can only be done if one is not always just receiving, but also giving. The second principle is that the education of the Bantu must be supplemented from the Treasury and that an auxiliary amount must be employed, an amount that must be voted by this hon. House. The other principle is that the Bantu must be responsible for their own revenue for new development and the growth of their education. This is one of the most important principles we bear in mind. A further ideal is that the Bantu must budget for their own services. That is another principle of very great importance to the National Party. Education is probably one of the foremost services for which they can provide. The seventh principle is that there must be a direct link between the tax levied and the services furnished. If that link is not there, there is disruption and Bantu education cannot develop as it ought to. The Bantu must know the purchasing power of their money and they must be able to appreciate it. That is a sound principle. One does not realize the value of money until one has to spend one’s own hard-earned money. The Bantu must first experience this for themselves before they can know whether their earnings are in accordance with their paying capacity. The Bantu must also know whether their demands are in accordance with their paying capacity. Then they will also have greater appreciation for what they receive, for what is given to them and for what this Parliament entrusts to them and gives them to spend on their education. When the Bantu themselves take care of the development and the extension of their education, it will result in our having full utilization of that money, because then the Bantu have developed an appreciation for that money. Mr. Speaker, what does the United Party’s policy reflect? I could not distinguish when their policy changed. As usual they have also changed their policy in respect of the voting of money for Bantu education.

Since when?

Since 1945, with the promulgation of Act No. 29 of 1945 under United Party policy—you may go and read it up—this Act made provision for a new principle, i.e. that from the Treasury the State would finance Bantu education directly and completely. In other words, the old principle that the Bantu should also contribute to their education was rejected by the United Party in 1945 in accordance with Act No. 29. What results did this legislation have? The result was that the Bantu were deprived of their tangible share and also their say in Native education. The National Party wants to lead the Bantu towards self-determination and independence. The National Party does not begrudge them what they claim for themselves. What we claim for ourselves we do not begrudge other peoples in South Africa either, in fact, all peoples in the world. This Parliament will still decide whether it will make a contribution and what the extent of this contribution will be when the Bantu Education Account is abolished. Each year this Parliament will consider whether it is going to make a contribution and what the extent of that contribution is going to be. It surely goes without saying that we cannot leave these people to their own devices overnight. We have never done so and neither are we going to do so, but we feel very strongly that as far as possible these people must provide for their own needs.

The Bantu’s ability to contribute will in time increase with development, as it has in the past. At present they are contributing much more than they did a few years ago because their development lead to an increased capacity to contribute. In other words, the increase in their education and their development will mutually interact. It is only logical that this will happen. This is how it has always been in the life of man and in the development of all peoples.

Dr. Verwoerd, whose philosophy they say did not succeed, said the following, inter alia, on 21st January, 1955, Hansard Vol. 87—

In addition Dr. Verwoerd stated that an amount must be voted from the Treasury for Bantu education. He then uttered the significant words—and I should like the hon. member for Berea to listen to this, so that he may accept the principle that—

That is what Dr. Verwoerd said on 31st January, 1955, in this House. It has therefore always been like this and will continue to be. It will very definitely remain National Party policy. This step, the abolition of the Bantu Education Account, is a quite normal and logical one within the framework of multi-national development.

The constitutional development of the Bantu is surely not revolutionary. It is an evolutionary process, and in this process the Bantu in the homeland becomes increasingly able to budget for his own services. This Bill only has a new approach within the framework of the policy, in particular with respect to the constitutional development of the Bantu. The hon. member for Berea said here last night that “the United Party supports the Bill because it is United Party policy”. Since when was it United Party policy that the Bantu should pay for their own education; that they should do so according to what they can afford; that they should do so in future and that as they develop so their education will also develop? It has always been the policy of the National Party, but the United Party policy has been diametrically opposed to it. The United Party said this Parliament should budget fully and contribute in full to the education of the Bantu. Where would this policy of the United Party lead? To the enslavement of the Bantu, to White baasskap, as they usually call it. We want to see the Bantu developing independently and regulating their own affairs, particularly in respect of education.

The next point the hon. member for Berea made is that the unit cost per university student at the three Bantu universities is R2 400. I want to give the hon. member the true facts. The true facts are that in this financial year, 1971-’72, R4½ million was budgeted. The enrolment at the three universities totalled 2 400 and the unit cost therefore R1 875. Now the hon. member will tell me that this is a very high figure. At any university, however, it costs a great deal to train a student. It is claimed, for example, that in England it costs the State R40 000 to train a person from the time he goes to school until he obtains his Ph.D. degree. The major portion of this R40 000 goes to his university training. This si so. We are now faced with another fact, i.e. that if the enrolment is high the unit costs are low and vice versa. Let us take the example of the University of Pretoria in 1970. The University’s enrolment figure was 13 000 and its unit costs R860. The University of the Orange Free State’s enrolment figure was a mere 4 200 and the unit costs R811. The unit costs of the three Bantu universities will therefore be much higher. The only question now is where a start must be made. What came first, the chicken or the egg? Where must one begin with those people’s university training? I shall tell hon. members where they want to begin. They want the Bantu peoples’ students to be enrolled at the university of Pretoria, at the university of the Witwatersrand, at the Rand Afrikaans University and at the other universities in White South Africa.

Then the unit costs would be less.

Yes, then the unit costs would be less. That is what they want. They do not really want it for the sake of the unit costs; here it goes much deeper than that. Under National Party policy the growth in Bantu education was phenomenal. In 1971 there were 10 974 schools and the school population totalled 3 036 751. This enrolment represents 80 per cent of the children of schoolgoing age, i.e. if it is calculated at 25 per cent of the total Bantu population. Let us look at the figures in respect of teachers. There were 51 565 Bantu teachers and 877 White teachers in Bantu education, a total of 52 442. That was under National Party rule. Only 3 per cent of the staff in Bantu education are Whites and 97 per cent are Bantu. The Whites are only used in the Bantu areas to train Bantu as teachers and in other specialized fields.

There was also talk here of the low pass mark. Let us now take the training of teachers. There were 3 784 candidates,. 3 705 of whom passed. This proves to us that the Bantu peoples do make good. They get the opportunity to make good under this Government. The Bantu have accepted this challenge with respect to their education and they will definitely surmount the challenge. I had the privilege of accompanying the president of the Senate on a visit to Runtu. Together with Dr. Van Zyl, the Secretary of Bantu Education, I paid a visit to a few schools in that area. That is in the Kavango area. I told those matriculation students that when one does something one has or should have a purpose in doing it, and that if one does not have a purpose, it is really senseless to do it. I then asked them why they were there and their reply was “to enrich our knowledge so that we can serve our own people”. That is the attitude these people display. These people would like to pay for their own education, and we should like to give them the opportunity to accept responsibility for their own education.

In conclusion I want to say that the constitutional development of the Bantu peoples in South Africa has progressed to such an extent that the Bantu Education Account has become superfluous. The Government is satisfied and convinced that there is now adequate and sufficient provision for the Bantu to manage their own education with their own machinery. The Bantu are equipped and ready to pay their own education account. Where they fall short, this hon. House will consider and decide how much it must contribute under the Bantu Administration and Development Vote, under which this account will fall in the future. This is the only realistic approach to Bantu education and its financing.

Mr. Speaker, I hope it will not come as too rude a shock to the hon. the Deputy Minister to find that I am actually going to support a second Bill of his within one session. I do not do so because I think this is the ideal substitute for the existing method of financing Bantu education. I do not take the line that we have retreated or reverted to the 1945 provision. We have not. It is true that under the 1945 legislation all funds for African education were drawn from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, but the important thing is that, although funds are now also going to be drawn from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for Bantu education, those funds are going to depend to a large extent, though not entirely, on the amounts that Africans are judged to have contributed towards the coffers of the State; whereas in 1945 the amount which was voted for Bantu Education was divorced entirely from any assessment of the taxes paid by Africans towards the general revenue. So we have not in fact reverted to the 1945 position; we have come a little closer to it, but it is not the same as it was in Mr. Hofmeyr’s day. I am sorry because I would have wanted to revert to me position where all funds voted for Bantu education come from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, with no relation to the amount of taxes paid by the Africans but in direct relation to the needs of the African people for education. After all, Sir that is the principle that we work on, certainly as far as White children are concerned. We do not to the same extent work on it for Coloured children; we do not take any regard of the amount the Indians contribute to the coffers of the State, but certainly their full needs for education are not catered for. The hon. member for Hercules, who has just sat down, enunciated some very high-sounding principles as far as African education is concerned. He talked about the need for self-reliance and self-respect and that Africans should be made to feel more responsible for financing the education of their children and that they should provide for their own services and that there should be a direct relation between the taxes paid and the services provided. I must tell the hon. member that I do not agree with him. Of course I do not agree, because if I did, I would want that also to apply to Whites, and I do not want it to apply to them. There are very many poor Whites in South Africa who do not pay taxes. But their children get free and compulsory education and free books.

That has nothing to do with the matter.

The hon. member says it has nothing to do with the matter.

Where do the funds for the so-called “free books for Whites” come from?

They come from the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

From taxes, then.

Yes, but there are Whites who do not pay taxes. That is exactly the point I am trying to make. There are many White people who do not pay any taxes at all. Perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister does not know that until a White man earns R1 500 a year, if he is a married man, he does not pay any taxes, and if he is unmarried he does not pay until he earns R500 per annum. Does he know that Africans, apart from paying the general tax of R2,50 per annum, start paying income tax as soon as they earn R360 per annum, so there is a discriminatory income tax as far as Africans are concerned? Sir, I would never for a moment suggest for instance, that we ration education and the amount voted for education according to the amounts that the provinces contribute to general revenue; I would not dream of suggesting that, The provinces must get an amount voted every year according to the needs of education, not according to the contributions which they make to the coffers of the State. Sir, there was a time when the Orange Free State paid very little into the coffers of the State. Before the discovery of the Free State goldfields, this was a poor relation. Today, of course, it is not, Nobody would have dreamt of voting a lesser amount for the White children living in the Orange Free State than was voted pro rata for the White children living in the Transvaal or the Cape or Natal. Equally, Sir, if we are going to relate the amount of taxes collected to the amount of services provided, may I suggest that it is likely that the children in Houghton, shall we say, would have many more facilities than the children in Primrose or Koedoespoort or Hercules, but I would not dream of suggesting such a thing.

What is wrong with the children of those places?

Of course, it has everything to do with it. The hon. member has suggested that there must be a direct relation between the amount of tax paid and the services provided, and I am trying to show him that this is an untenable suggestion. He is horrified when I suggest it for White children and White people, but he takes it as the law when he suggests it for Black people. This is where our paths separate, of course, because I do not consider that the basis for the provision of education for African children should be any different from the basis for the provision of education for White children.

Who pays for the books of Coloured schoolchildren?

And for the books of Indian children? There are many Indian people and Coloured people who do not pay taxes because they are too poor to pay taxes, yet books are free for them. Sir, we have a progressive form of taxation in South Africa where, except for the discrimination which I have already mentioned Blacks start paying at a much lower income than Whites, those who can afford it pay higher taxes—I think too high, certainly at the moment, because high taxation is crippling initiative, but that is another point. I agree with the principle of progressive taxation, because all modern democracies use the system that the more you can afford, the more you pay, and you thereby subsidize the services required for people who are unable to contribute the same amount for their services. Sir, the hon. member should also realize that Africans are inhibited from contributing taxes to the greatest possible extent, to their highest capabilities, in South Africa, because their earning capacity is restricted Their earning capacity is restricted by national policy …

That is not true.

“That is not true”, says that hon. member, who ought really to keep quiet. It is true, Sir, and I will tell him why it is true. It is true because there is job reservation in South Africa that restricts the earning capacity of Africans. The fact that there is not free and compulsory education is, in itself, an inhibiting factor, because although we are quick to point out to visitors to South Africa that 80 per cent of African children of schoolgoing age are at school at any one time …

87 percent.

Very well, 87 per cent. I will make it 90 per cent if that pleases the hon. the Deputy Minister. But then, Sir, when we give that interesting piece of information to visitors, we must also add that over 70 per cent of the children leave school by Std. 2, so they are not functionally literate. [Interjections.] It is the fault of the Government because there is not compulsory education; there is not free education, and there are inhibitions on the earning capacity of the parent who cannot afford to keep their children at school. There are other inhibitions. The laws that restrict the mobility of Africans prevent them from selling their labour in the best market. The fact that there are very few vocational training centres for Africans prevents them from acquiring the skills which would enable them to earn higher incomes and thereby contribute a greater amount to the coffers of the State. All these are factors that have to be considered, and there is no point in hon. members pretending that they do not exist, because these are facts and surely nobody can deny them. Therefore, if you inhibit the earing capacity of a section of the population, if you do not support them with free and compulsory education, then you can hardly expect them to be able, in the words of the hon. member for Hercules, to be more responsible, to be self-reliant, to have self-respect and to provide for their own services. It just is not possible.

Are you in favour of introducing compulsory education?

Oh yes; I do not say that it can be introduced overnight. It was not introduced overnight for White people in South Africa.

How long do you think it will take?

I do not know; I am unable to gauge that; I just know that one has to set it as one’s goal and work for it as fast as possible, and the way to do it is not by inhibiting the earning capacity of parents; the way to do it is by removing the restrictions and enabling them to be able to afford to keep their children at school for longer periods. We must do what we had to do in the case of White people. I think compulsory education was introduced in the ’twenties, but it could not be introduced overnight for Whites; it was introduced district by district. As the schools were provided, as teachers were trained, so the legislation introducing compulsory education was actually enforced, although it had been placed on the Statute Book long before that. That is obviously what one would have to aim at for Africans and Coloured people and Indians, because there is no compulsory education for Indians either. There is compulsory education for Coloured children in, I think, about six or seven districts; that is all. I do not think we have advanced over the last few years at all in that respect. There is no free or compulsory education for African children. Sir, Africans have to pay for their books. That is one way in which we could make it easier for African children to stay longer at school. The costs vary from about R1,40 in the grades to as high as, I believe, R38 by the time matriculation is reached. R38 per annum is a lot of money for African parents to be able to afford to keep a child at school. To that you must add the fees that have to be paid and the uniforms that have to be bought. Of course, White children have to buy their own uniforms, but they do not have to pay the other fees and they do not have to pay for their own books. When you think of all these things, the burden is almost overwhelming on a population whose earning capacity has been so severely restricted.

Did you say R38 per annum?

Yes. Is that not right? That is the figure I have; it is an estimate of the cost of books.

Sir, I want to come to this question of the unit cost. The hon. the Deputy Minister said in his speech last night that R20 was the unit cost. He has gone down R5 since last year. Last year it was R25. I wonder if the hon. the Deputy Minister would like to explain to me why he has suddenly decided that R20 is the average unit cost because the figure he gave me in the House last year—in fact, we had a little altercation about it in the debate on his Vote—was R25. Well, I hope that he is not going to consider that as the ideal. He did say last night in his introductory speech that he would have to balance the unit cost per child in the homelands and in the White areas; I think I understood him to say that. But I sincerely hope that his mention of the figure of R20 does not mean that he considers that this is the sort of ideal amount to spend. I would like to point out to him that at the present stage we are spending on White children something like R285. per annum, R73 per annum on Coloured children, and R81 on Indian children, so the differentiation is enormous. Of course, Sir, it shows itself in numbers of ways. It shows itself in the lack of accommodation for children; in the overcrowded schools; in the fact that some of the schoolrooms are so primitive that it is a wonder that the children are able to learn in them at all; in the lack of equipment such as desks and benches; in the lack of scientific equipment. When one goes to the Orlando High School in Soweto and looks in the science laboratory, one is horrified to see the sort of equipment that the children who are doing science in the upper forms are supposed to use. The equipment is hopeless. And all this is a reflection of the very low unit cost per African child. It is a reflection of the terribly low standard of African teachers in this country. A very small percentage of our teachers have university qualifications.

I can give the hon. member the assurance that things are not as bad as she tries to make out.

Well, am I giving the hon. the Minister the wrong figures? Can it be denied that only 1,52 per cent of the teachers at African schools have university degrees?

Who is reponssible?

Again there comes that same silly bleat from behind me. I have been saying over and over again whose fault it is—it is the fault of the policy which has been followed in this country for the last 24 years.

Surely there are not enough qualified teachers in the White schools either.

Yes, but you cannot tell me that only 1,5 per cent of the teachers in the White schools have had university training. [Interjections.] I am sorry I interrupted myself replying to that nonsensical interjection. Sir, you will not be able to tell me that only 10 per cent of the teachers in White schools are matriculated but that is the case with the African teachers. And you will not be able to tell me that only 16,5 per cent of the teachers have no matric or any qualifications whatsoever. But I will give the Minister a better figure which will please him and that is that 70,12 per cent have J.C. or Std. 6 plus a teachers qualification. [Interjections.] Well, he will admit that it is not good, and if he admits that it is not good, he must realize that it is due to the low salaries that are paid to teachers, to the lack of training and to the fact that we have concentrated all our efforts for African education on primary education, getting a huge broad base of functionally illiterate children instead of concentrating on keeping a smaller number at school for the present so as to provide the teacher trainee material, which is being done by all the intelligent, developing and emerging states in Africa, and is paying dividends. That is the way it ought to be done in this country. But we will never get so far if we consider R20 per unit cost as the sort of base on which to work. I do not wish to quell the enthusiasm of the Deputy Minister for a moment as he is enthusiastic about this and I believe he genuinely wants to get more money voted, always of course with the proviso that it does not come out of the White pockets but must come out of Black pockets, because who knows what the hon. member sitting next to me is going to go around saying? But never mind that. I notice, Sir, that they only leave a member next to me for one session and then they move him on in case my evil influence is being felt. [Interjections.] I said it was my evil influence, and I even got a simile out of him now which I did not get before. As I say, I do not want to quell the enthusiasm of the Deputy Minister. I think he does genuinely want to improve the situation in regard to Bantu education. I only hope now that he has admitted—and he did not admit this in 1970, and I have his words on record; he did not admit that the indirect taxes, which after all are paid also by Africans, should be allocated for Bantu education. He said nothing had been decided, when he was asked that question. It had not been allocated, but the admission has now formally been made by the hon. the Deputy Minister that Africans make a very considerable contribution to indirect taxation in this country and from that he hopes to glean the money for the education of African children. I wish him the best of luck in his effort. I do not know whether he will be able to persuade the hon. the Minister of Finance to give him a very substantial proportion of the amount of money which the State gleans from its indirect taxes, which the hon. the Minister said amounted to the astronomical figure of R180 million. I hope very much he gets a considerable portion of that because, only then, with a greater allocation of money for educational facilities and with a higher unit cost, will we make any real improvement in what I believe is the parlous situation of African education today.

About one of the aspects the hon. member for Houghton quoted in connection with the incomes of Bantu in the country, I want to say that in this country the incomes of Bantu have increased tremendously in the past few years, and I think she would also acknowledge this.

Yes.

Why then did she say that under those circumstances the Bantu cannot afford to pay for their education? If you look at the Journal of Economics of 1968 you will see the tremendous increase of Bantu income in this country, and therefore they can also afford to pay for their children’s education.

But I want to come back to the hon. member for Transkei. I think the United Party ought now to look for a better person to act for them as Bantu Affairs spokesman.

They do not have any.

He says “the United Party opposed the Bill in 1955”. Why? I should like to know from the hon. member why they opposed the Act in 1955. He has no reason. I have read the speech. I have it here before me. Why did you oppose it?

For the same reason you now want to abolish it.

We are not abolishing Bantu education. Neither are we abolishing the financial source. Why were you opposed to it in 1955? Now he comes along and says “it was a complete capitulation by the Government”. In what respect was it “a complete capitulation by the Government”?

The R13 million was not enough.

And now that we want to increase it, what now? The hon. member for South Coast is unfortunately not present. He said “I am afraid that we are going to be left with a very uneasy feeling and there is a political motive behind the Bill”. Was there a “political motive behind the Bill” in 1955?

Yes.

What was that political motive?

I am not going to make your speech.

What was the political motive in 1955 when the Act was introduced? Now there is a deathly silence. I am still asking what was the political motive then, and now they are supporting it, but in 1955 they were not prepared to support it.

May I ask a question? What are we supporting now?

Why did you not support it in 1955?

For the same reason we are now suporting this Bill.

What is the reason? I quote—

It is the hon. member for South Coast who said that. He said there would be no “free discussion on Bantu education” each year. Yet the hon. member for Transkei said—

Who is right? Is it the hon. member for South Coast or the hon. member for Transkei? The hon. member for Transkei says that we come along here each year to discuss the Vote, and the hon. member for South Coast says we are not able to do so. Who is correct? Is it the hon. member for Transkei or the hon. member for South Coast? I just want to tell hon. members that the position from that day to the present has changed completely. There were urban Bantu, but in the meantime there has been constitutional development, which the hon. the Deputy Minister spoke of yesterday. What did they do then? They laughed about it. This legislation came as a result of the constitutional development in various Bantu areas. Were it not for that constitutional development we would not be discussing this Bill today. This points to the success we have achieved, because when these areas obtain independence, or a lesser degree of independence, they will obtain this money. It is no longer only being used here in the White area, it is also being used elsewhere as a result of the constitutional development the hon. the Deputy Minister spoke of yesterday.

The expansion.

What did the hon. member for King William’s Town say?

The hon. member may continue.

I shall continue. Hon. members told us of the tremendous expenditure incurred. That is quite correct, but the expenditure incurred in 1947, as other hon. members indicated, was much more than is now being spent. Under those circumstances the Bantu were dissatisfied because they did not have the same educational facilities either. At the moment the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is sitting next to the hon. member for Transkei. I just want to tell the hon. member for Transkei that he must remember Shakespeare’s words. Shakespeare said—

Sleek-headed men and such as sleep o’ nights;

Yond’ Cassius has a lean and hungry look;

He thinks too much.

The hon. member for Transkei must beware of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout “Yond’ Cassius has a lean and hungry look”. In 1948, before the National Party assumed power, R7 million was voted for that purpose. That was a great deal of money at that stage.

Yes, that was a lot of money.

Yes, subsequently about R1 million per year was added. However, nothing was done for Bantu education. Only when this Government came into power in 1948 was something done for Bantu education. The system that obtained in 1947, before this party came into power, resulted in money being wasted and education being inefficient. It was neglected and the Bantu were dissatisfied because they did not get what they wanted. The Bantu are very set on their sons or daughters obtaining the necessary education. Under that Government they did not do so.

They wanted to apply it for political purposes.

The expenditure increased during that time, but the results were unsatisfactory, and they know it. It was only when Dr. Verwoerd took over the Department in 1950 that progress was made in Bantu Education.

I want to go further and refer to the fact that it was said here that the education was of an inferior quality. It is indeed true that the results in the White areas were not of an equal quality to those of the Bantu homelands. That is an argument indicating why the schools in the Bantu homelands must be developed. I have here a record of what Dr. J. H. van Zyl, the Deputy Secretary, who has since become Secretary of Bantu Education, said in connection with the education of Bantu in the White areas (translation)—

In other words, the results were much better in the schools in the homelands than here in the White areas. In other words, that is an argument indicating why the schools must be erected in the homelands and why the measure which will be passed here today or tomorrow is absolutely essential.

Hon. members must not think that this legislation is being suddenly brought before the House. This did not simply take place overnight. As far back as two or three years ago a clear warning was given to everyone. In an article in The Star it is stated “Homelands to take over education”.

Who said so?

In the article it is stated—

The article continues—

In other words, this is not a Bill that has suddenly come to light. As far back as 7th March, 1968, a warning appeared in The Star. The Department of Bantu Education is also quoted in The Star of 23rd August, 1968. The article reads—

The article continues and states the same thing in connection with this legislation that will be passed here.

Mr. Speaker, under those circumstances I cannot but accuse hon. members opposite of political hypocrisy.

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

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

There is at least ambiguity.

I just want to continue my argument. In addition it was said that the Bantu education is of inferior quality. There was an article in the Rand Daily Mail, a newspaper that supports the hon. member for Houghton …

Correct.

Oh, now you acknowledge that the Rand Daily Mail supports the Progressive Party? Does the hon. member acknowledge that?

Of course, in the editorial.

We are very glad to hear this. It has always been denied. The article reads as follows—

Does the hon. member agree with that?

I do not really understand what you are saying.

Of course not.

You do not want to understand it.

I shall read it again if the hon. member does not understand it. It is doubtful whether the hon. member for Houghton still understands English. It seems to me as if the hon. member for Houghton is so involved with the Bantu that she can now only understand Bantu languages.

Particularly after her safari.

Yes, particularly after her safari to Zambia. I quote further—

That comes from the Rand Daily Mail.

He is developing an argument; why don’t you read the whole article?

I shall read the whole article. It looks to me as if the hon. member is beginning to feel it. Does the hon. member agree that the Bantu’s standard is lower than that of the Whites? Does the hon. member agree that the standard of living of the Whites is higher than that of the non-Whites, and that education must consequently also be in that same proportion?

She is not allowed to reply.

If she answers that question, the Rand Daily Mail will no longer support her. I am very glad that hon. members opposite support this Bill, but I also know why they do so. It is not because of Oudtshoorn. It is because they —and I am now speaking of the United Party and not of the hon. member for Houghton, because she will support anything as long as it is in favour of the Bantu and to the detriment of Whites—now have the scent and do not want to go to Oudtshoorn or the platteland with this Bill, but they do want to go to their verkrampte friends in the cities. They want to join their verkrampte friends in the cities in winning an election with this Bill. With this Bill they now want to go to Brakpan, Benoni and all those places and show people what the National Government is doing to the non-Whites in South Africa, and to the Natives more than any other. Neither will they use that word “Native”; they will again use the word “Kaffir”. At every possible future by-election and at the next election this Bill will be …

But we are supporting it.

They support it because they want to make use of it. They will say that they had to support it under the circumstances. They want to use the Bill there and they shall do so too.

Are you getting scared now?

We are not getting scared, and we have never been scared of the United Party. On the contrary, we are better off now than we were previously, specifically as a result of the fact …

Of the greater number of seats.

At the next election we shall obtain more seats, and I think the hon. member for Bezuidenhout will possibly be the only hon. member opposite who will come back after the election.

Mr. Speaker, we of course cannot agree with a great deal of what has been said by hon. members opposite, including what was said by the hon. the Deputy Minister in his speech yesterday evening. However, progress has been made in respect of one matter, and we are very satisfied about that. It is tremendous progress that hon. members opposite, like the hon. members for Hercules and Krugersdorp, can boast that the Government is doing more for Bantu education than this side of the House did when it governed. That is good; it is a new spirit and it is welcomed. I want to say to the hon. members for Krugersdorp and Hercules that we do not mind at all if they try to prove here that more is being done than was done in the old days. That goes without saying. It should be like that. Times have changed. It would be too foolish for words if a present-day government had to say that it was doing less for the education of any section of the population than a government which governed 25 years ago. Therefore we do not have the slightest objection. To me this is a good indication of how matters have changed. We welcome this new spirit amongst members on those benches.

Let me just say a few words now about that background to this Bill for the information of the hon. member for Krugersdorp. This Bill is much more interesting than it seems on the surface. In the years before 1948—that is the time to which this legislation goes back—members now sitting on the opposite side launched the bitterest attacks on the United Party because they said it was spending too much on Bantu education.

It was still unproductive then.

That was not the point. The attack was that too much was being spent on Bantu education. The man who was the main target of the attacks from that side was Mr. Jan Hofmeyr, who was Minister of Finance and of Education. The complaint was that this side was doing too much for the Bantu in respect of education. The amount involved at the time—I do not want to say it was sufficient; times have changed—was in the vicinity of what would be R10 million today. The attitude then adopted by members on that side who were active in politics at the time, was not only extremely irresponsible, but gave rise to an attitude on the part of the White electorate which has a damaging effect on human relations to this very day. This is the story. When that party came into power in 1948, it found that it had made a rod for its own back. Then it found that, in the nature of the matter, the amount spent on Bantu education by the United Party Government had to increase and that it could do nothing to make it less. Indeed, it is obvious that with a population group which comprises 70 per cent of the total population and which is a growing one, the expenditure on education had to increase. Then, instead of being honest with the electorate and telling them, “look, we have made a mistake; we have in fact misled you”, and instead of admitting that mistake and informing the people properly about the need for education which would be growing among the Bantu as well, that side, made two mistakes out of one. They then created a separate Bantu Education Account. This is the crux of this matter. In that account they pegged the amount for education at R13 million, and created the idea that everything in excess of that amount provided for the education of the Bantu would have to be paid for by the Bantu himself, and in doing so the Government created an illusion. It deliberately brought the electorate under the impression that the amount for Bantu education would remain pegged at R13 million. Later on R1½ million was added for university education. But they left them under the illusion that this Government—this Parliament —would contribute no more than the R13 million plus the R1½ million added later, and that the Bantu themselves would have to pay for everything above that figure. It went so far as to pay all the additional amounts which it found it had to add to the R13 million, into the Education Account in the form of loans and advances. Sir, this illusion which the Government created for political reasons it has maintained for 16 years, until we have now reached the point where it has almost become ashamed of itself and has realized that it has to put an end to that illusion.

May I ask a question with reference to what you said about Mr. Hofmeyr? What was the direction in which the United Party wanted to move in those years in respect of its Bantu education?

Sir, I do not think it is relevant here to elaborate on the direction. The direction was education for the Bantu, but that is not why the Education Account was established. The Education Account was not established to control the type and standard of education; that was a separate question; there has always been a difference of opinion among all sorts of people on what type of education should be given, but this is not relevant, and therefore it would not be relevant to discuss it here. The Education Account was established for the purpose of fixing a particular amount, for party-political reasons, and this illusion was then maintained for 16 years. Sir, we on this side have consistently opposed that arrangement, for two reasons, which I want to give the hon. member for Krugersdorp now. The first reason was that it gave the public a false impression; and how false that impression in fact was, is apparent from the fact that while this arrangement is still contained in our legislation, i.e. that Bantu education is in fact pegged at R13 million, the total amount spent on Bantu education has increased to more than R71 million. Am I right or wrong? The total amount being spent today is approximately R71 million, and I am not saying this by way of criticism; I mention it only to point out how this matter has created a false impression among the people. This was one reason why the Opposition opposed it, i.e. because it created an entirely false impression among the people, the second reason was this: it was in any case a very unfair arrangement. Was it fair, would it still be fair today and would it be correct in principle that one particular section of the population—in this case the Black man and, as it happens, the most needy of all sections of the population in South Africa on top of it—should pay an extra tax for education? The Bantu already pays taxation according to his capacity. He is a general taxpayer, whether it be poll tax or other forms of taxation. As the hon. member for Houghton indicated, he is in fact paying at an income level at which many Whites are not paying. But over and above this, like every White man he is also subject to all indirect taxation—customs duties, excise duties, sales tax—and, what is more, with his labour he is contributing as much to the development of South Africa and the welfare of all as any other group in South Africa. Is it fair, then, that such a section should be singled out to pay, over and above the general taxation he has to pay, an extra tax for education as well? Not only is it unfair, but I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister why education is singled out, education, which is, after all, the mot important of all services? If a population group, whether it be the Bantu or another group, has to pay separately for a service, why is education singled out; why is health not singled out? Why does he not have to pay specially for his health services? No, I think this is a very unfair situation, and this is the other reason why we opposed it. Since this side has consistently opposed it, surely it is obvious that it will support this Bill, which is abolishing the special Bantu Education Account. It does not really matter to us what the motivation is. The hon. the Deputy Minister has given his motivation and other members who have spoken have given theirs. I do not think it really matters. The crux of the matter is that after 16 years an end is being made here to something which was wrong, and it is obvious that we will support it. But I just want to address a few additional words to the hon. the Deputy Minister. Firstly, I hope he too will accept the full implications of this Bill. I hope the Government will be on their guard in future and that they will think very carefully before again passing such negative and unfruitful legislative measures in future, measures which were intended merely to feed people’s prejudice. In the second place, I hope that this new arrangement whereby Bantu education will again be financed from general revenue, as in the case of the other sections of the population, will open the way for an even greater upliftment and education programme for the Bantu than is in operation today. The Minister will have to press on as far and as quickly as he can to the fullest measure of education for all children of all race groups in South Africa. I am sorry that the hon. the Minister is still trying, as he did in his introductory speech and as was done by other members as well, to cover up the real position. Would it not be better if he and other members opposite rose and told the White man sincerely and fearlessly that provision for education is not expenditure; that provision for education is an investment? The better trained a man is, the more able will he be to earn. Mr. Speaker, if we as Whites ever want the Bantu to contribute his share to the State coffers, we should make it possible for him to earn a good income and to create a prosperous class. This is the only way in which the Bantu too will eventually be able to make a large contribution to the State coffers and the general development of South Africa from those coffers. The more one improves the quality of people by education, the more everybody in our country will benefit, and in any case, the growing Black population in our country will only be able to earn more and thus be able to make a larger contribution if we stimulate their general progress by more extensive education.

In conclusion I want to say this by way of praise to the hon. the Deputy Minister, although I do not believe he will really welcome my praise. To me this Bill is a sign of the times. As I see it, it is in fact the first Bill which makes provision for the positive repeal here in the Republic of a measure which was introduced on the basis of and which arose from the old negative apartheid attitude. I think this is to be welcomed. Here we have the first step. One swallow does not make a summer, but here we have the first step of the repeal of a negative apartheid measure of the old school. Sir. I want to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that it is a good start. I hope that we in this Parliament will see quite a few more such steps in the future.

Since yesterday, the United Party speakers, as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout did today, have been trying to suggest that there is no difference between this side of the House and that side of the House. They have been trying to make us believe that what we are going to do now is precisely what they have been advocating for all these years. But surely that is not true. The Bantu education policy of that side of the House has always been an unprincipled floundering about. The policy of this side of the House was, and is still, based on firm and important principles. There has only been one person on that side of the House who was able to think in fundamental terms on this matter, i.e. the liberal, the late Mr. J. H. Hofmeyr. He was the only person to do this; he was an arch-integrationist and the whole of the Bantu education policy as introduced by Mr. Hofmeyr in 1945 was specifically designed to achieve this purpose of integrating education.

Nonsense.

Yes, that was the case, and after 1948 we had to do a great deal of renovation work in this regard. This is the policy those people are still trying to achieve. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that a false image was created by pegging this amount at R13 million, and that it would remain at that, but this side of the House has never said that. In introducing this Bill in 1955 the late Dr. Verwoerd said twice in his speech that the amount of R13 million was three times the amount of Bantu tax at that stage. It has never been the idea that this Government would not do anything further about this matter, and the late Dr. Verwoerd said twice that this was an arrangement which would apply for a period of five years. That was in 1955. Where do we stand now? We are in the year 1972 now. Is it not high time that we considered this matter? The hon. member says the Government has suddenly become ashamed of itself, but this side of the House has fundamental principles and there has never been any unprincipled floundering about on our part as far as this matter is concerned.

Tell us what they are.

I shall deal with them in the course of my speech. I am dealing now with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. We had this amount of R13 million plus the Bantu tax plus the amount of R1,5 million and in addition to that it was established as long ago as 1955 that loans, repayable over a period of 30 years, would be negotiated to meet the shortfalls. But we have laid down this very important principle, that as much as possible of the Bantu tax would be ploughed back in Bantu education. We laid down this principle and we are honest with the Bantu in this regard. The loans of 1970-’71 are not recoverable in terms of section 3 of the second Finance Act of 1970. At that time non-recoverable loans or advances were made to the Bantu Education Account. In 1970 it amounted to R19,5 million and in 1971 it was R26,7 million. This was an additional amount, and non-recoverable. Where does this come from? It was because indirect taxation such as sales duty has been introduced, and because other indirect taxation has been increased and because we want to display White honesty and sincerity towards the Bantu and also show the world that we want to be honest that we pay to Bantu education the amounts we receive from the Bantu in the form of indirect taxation. This is the principle on which this party operates.

I said that we are a party which approaches this matter in accordance with fundamental principles, and this is the tragic problem of the party opposite. Take the speech of every member opposite from beginning to end. There is no principle on which they base these matters. It is an aimless floundering about from one aspect to another, like people on skates, and there is no direction. As long ago as 1925 the first National Party Government accepted this very important principle—a principle which was actually laid down by the Native Education Commission of 1919, on which both Whites and non-Whites served—that the Bantu should accept responsibility for their own education and that the education of the Bantu should be financed from Bantu revenue as far as possible. But in 1925 an equally important principle was added to it by the National Party Government, i.e. that a fixed additional amount should be added to this amount of Bantu tax every year. Batu education was financed in accordance with these two principles during the following 20 years, until Mr. Hofmeyr, the liberal thinker, the man who wanted to integrate education in South Africa, appeared on the scene. He simply rejected this principle which had been in operation for 20 years saying that we had been treating those people unjustly. In doing so he removed the responsibility and the joint say from the Bantu and he said that from that stage Bantu education and its development as a whole would be totally, directly and fully financed out of State funds.

Hear, hear!

That hon. member said: “Hear, hear!” That is what those people have always been pining for. That is their policy. They cannot think in fundamental terms, because they are still followers of Hofmeyr. They are still pining for that policy. In this connection the United Party remains true to the image it has created with its policy in respect of every problem in this country. It displays a total inability to think creatively. Like Lot’s wife they are true to the image of a pillar of salt. They pine for the things of the past, and years ago they turned into a motionless and unprepossessing pillar of salt. When this Government came into power in 1948, it realized immediately that this creation of Mr. Hofmeyr could not continue to exist. The Eiselen Commission was subsequently appointed. This commission conducted a thorough investigation into the question of the financing of Bantu education. Not only did they consider financing in South Africa, but also financing in other countries in Africa. They stated that the principles of the Bantu having a joint say in their own education were very important and that this state of affairs would have to be introduced again. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout asked the hon. the Deputy Minister why these principles, that in the first place the Bantu should as far as possible pay for its education only applies to education and not to other matters. Surely this is quite easy to answer. After all, everything we receive from Bantu taxation we spend on Bantu education. Surely this is by far the largest and most important item of expenditure in regard to the Bantu. Even in the revenue accounts of the self-governing Bantu homelands education constitutes by far the biggest item of expenditure. For that reason it is important that the Bantu should pay their own education account, not so much because the Whites do not want to give them any more money, but because they should learn that this is an important matter for which they themselves should accept responsibility. The Bantu Education Account was established in 1955 by Dr. Verwoerd after the Eiselen Report had been published. Why are we doing away with it now? Surely this is obvious; it was indicated by the hon. the Deputy Minister. Those hon. members cannot understand this because they are still living in the old imperialistic dream of 20, 30 years ago. I am telling hon. members that this is so; they may laugh as much as they want to; they do not know what is going on in this country. They have no idea of what is going on in this country. The Bantu Education Account was established in 1955 when South Africa consisted of one White state and a number of subordinate reserves. The Bantu Education Account was established at that stage but since then spectacular developments have taken place. After all, we are no longer living in the 1955 situation. How can one possibly struggle along today with the same old 1955 model jalopy? Those hon. members have no idea and they do not appreciate the times we are living in because they turned into a pillar of salt long ago.

Welcome to the world!

The Transkei was granted self-government as long ago as 1964 and since then almost every Bantu nation in this country has been placed on the road of self-government, on the road of ultimate independence. After all, every self-governing state has its own Bantu revenue account. Apart from the taxation they themselves collect, the Government of White South Africa pay into the Bantu Revenue Fund of every area a pro rata amount of the general Bantu taxation. However, these self-governing Bantu states now have to finance education from their own revenue account and they should no longer do so out of the alms the Whites dole out to them. They should finance it themselves. The National Party has the courage of its convictions … [interjections] apart from the fact that those hon. members, together with the Hertzogites, are going to exploit this matter to high heaven in Oudtshoorn. This they are not going to do from public platforms, because they do not hold meetings, because the liberals of Sea Point will get to hear of it and vote for the Progressives. No, they do this on a house visit basis. They join the Hertzogites in making propaganda in an outrageous and irresponsible manner. [Interjections.] We say we have the courage of our convictions to do away with this account, because autogenous development has brought about a radically new set-up and challenging new visions in the pattern of White/Black relations in Southern Africa. [Interjections.]

Order!

That is why there is a world of difference between the approach of this side of the House and the approach of that side of the House. That side of the House does not think about these things, they laugh when one speaks about these things. They pine for and accept the Hofmeyr policy, and if they should ever come into power again they will apply the Hofmeyr policy, the policy which will eventually end in integration. They are not in a position to face the realities of the second half of the twentieth century.

The National Party strives to bring about independent, self-governing Bantu states and our policy must eventually mean that in future, somewhere along the way in future, the stage will be reached where every self-governing, every independent Bantu state can and will have to finance its own education. That is our policy. Logically speaking, the burden which is placed on the White taxpayer will therefore be alleviated more and more in future until every independent Bantu nation will be able to govern itself and to finance its education.

However, the United Party do not believe in Bantu homelands. Oh no! They believe in one State and they want, for all time, to place the enormous burden of the educational requirements of 18 million and more people on the shoulders of the White taxpayer. The difference in numbers between the Bantu and the Whites in the year 2000 will be far greater than what it is today, but they nevertheless want to place this enormous burden of Bantu education on the shoulders of the White taxpayer for all times. This is a burden the White taxpayer should ultimately rid himself of. That is their policy. Our policy— and we are not afraid to state our policy —is that we are now prepared to undertake the financing and this we will keep on doing for many years in future, because we know that the sources of taxation of the Bantu are limited. Eventually the burden on the White taxpayer in respect of the financing of Bantu education will be alleviated and disappear completely in the distant future. This is in accordance with our policy. In terms of the policy of that party, however, this burden becomes heavier and heavier. In pursuance of this argument I have mentioned a moment ago, I just want to point out that the Bantu education policy of this Government is a homeland-orientated policy. This is the policy of this Government as compared to the policy of that party, which is a policy of integration. They can argue as much as they like; that is the only policy they have ever had, the only policy they have propounded in this House. They extol the 1945 legislation of Mr. Hofmeyr. We have a homeland-orientated policy; i.e. that the responsibilities of the various Bantu peoples in their homelands should become increasingly more in regard to their own educational requirements and that the burden on the White taxpayer should become proportionately less.

This homeland-orientated trend in the case of Bantu education is quite clearly illustrated by certain factors. Even at this stage there are 500 more Bantu schools in the homelands than in the White areas. In the homelands there are 5 900 schools, as against 5 400 in the White areas. The second fact is that there are 11 000 more Bantu teachers in the homelands than in the White areas. There are 31 358 Bantu teachers in the homelands, as against 20 806 just in the White areas. The third fact is that 650 000 more Bantu children are attending school in the homelands than in the White areas. There are 1 843 000 Bantu pupils attending school in the homelands, as against 1 193 600 in the White areas. Surely these figures speak for themselves. No matter how much those hon. members may laugh, the trend of this education policy is homeland-orientated. These figures I mentioned a moment ago convey a clear and distinct message to everybody who has eyes to see and ears to listen, i.e. that the homeland-orientated policy of this Government is succeeding as far as education is concerned as well.

The late Dr. Verwoerd propounded the policy of this Government in respect of Bantu education in 1955 when he said that we should endeavour to achieve hundred per cent literacy among the Bantu in South Arica. This is still our policy. The primary aim is therefore that every Bantu child should be able at least to read and write. This is a fine ideal, a noble aim. But this is an enormous task, an almost superhuman task, particularly when one considers that the Bantu population is at present increasing at the rate of 3,8 per cent and that experts estimate that it will soon reach the figure of 4,8 per cent. At this rate of increase the Bantu has the highest rate of increase among all the nations in the world. This places a tremendous responsibility on the shoulders of those who have to exercise the control. Even at this stage there are over 3 million Bantu pupils attending school in South Africa; they represent over 80 per cent of the children of Bantu parents of school-going age. This is a fine and spectacular development, and great tribute should certainly be paid to the Department of Bantu Education for this remarkable progress, this achievement they have built up virtually from scratch and for the fine foundation they have laid in this regard. However, responsible Bantu leaders should realize—they should bring it home to their people—that if this unbridled population explosion is not contained, the stage will be reached where the Whites will be unable to go on spending large sums of money on Bantu education. The stage will be reached where some limit will have to be set.

How are you going to achieve this?

We are achieving this because we are sincere and honest with the Bantu and according to what we calculate they are entitled to according to their own contribution, which will be paid towards their education.

May I ask the hon. member a question? The hon. member said that there would have to be a stage where a limit would have to be set to the money the Whites have to spend on non-White education. What does he mean by that?

I mean just what I say. If the hon. member understands Afrikaans he will also understand it. In the past we had a formula, and at present there is also a formula and this formula will remain. There are also principles, and the principle is that Bantu taxation will be spent on Bantu education. Additional amounts are allocated from State funds. I cannot see that accurate calculations will have to be made, but it is possible to calculate approximately how much the Bantu pay in the form of indirect taxation. The formula will be applied according to that.

However, I said so subject to certain conditions. I said that if this population explosion should take place, the Whites, who have their own problems in regard to their survival, will have to set a limit to this.

I want to congratulate the Department of Bantu Education, which has carried out this enormous task during the past two decades. They have laid firm and sound foundations on which it will be possible in future to build with faith and vision. I believe that this measure will also be an important milestone to achieve the stated ideal—that independent Bantu states will co-exist peacefully with us in Southern Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Algoa spent most of his time accusing the United Party and hon. members on this side of the House of following a policy of integration in education. So much so that at one moment I thought that we were no longer in this hon. House, but that we were perhaps listening to a debate in the American Senate on a motion of busing, pro-busing or anti-busing. Whilst he accused us of being integrationists—an accusation I immediately reject with the contempt it deserves—he also made an attempt to associate us with the Herstigte Nasionale Party. I do not know how he arrives at that conclusion. How can we be integrationists on the one side, and on the other hand be fellow-travellers of the verkramptes? Listening to him, I became convinced that he himself qualifies as one of the best fellow-travellers of the verkramptes.

The hon. member made a mistake, which forces me to say that I doubt whether he ever read this Bill properly. He said, amongst other things, how proud he was that from now we were going to take the taxes of the Bantu and hand it over to them for the purposes of education. But what about clause 26 of this Bill? If he reads clause 26 of this Bill he will see that it will be possible, under the provisions of this clause, to hand over some money raised under Bantu taxation to the Bantu Trust Fund, from where it will not be primarily spent for the purpose of education. [Interjections.] No, the hon. member made the categorical statement that we were doing a wonderful thing, namely that we are taking all the taxes and spending them on education. He obviously did this to prove that the other side of the House is treating this matter with the priority it deserves. To me this is a glaring example of how difficult and, in fact, painful it is for the present Government to adapt Itself to changing circumstances in South Africa. It also proves to me how a political party can become the victim of its own irresponsible political propaganda. Undoubtedly hon. members on the other side would like to hail this Bill as a new revolutionary step, but we have made it quite clear that it has become common practice for the other side of the House to accept United Party policy that it is no longer something revolutionary. It is something which we are expecting every day.

Order! Yes, but that is a point which has been made over and over again.

I regard this Bill as something which has been long overdue. During the Second Reading speech of the hon. the Deputy Minister he gave us various reasons why the Bill was being introduced. I regard these reasons as being mostly reasons for the delay of the introduction of this Bill.

First of all, he made great play of the constitutional development. I want to submit to him that the constitutional development of the homelands is completely irrelevant to this particular debate. It would have been possible for the Government to use the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the purpose of financing education, whether South Africa is going to be demarcated into independent states or not. Whether there is any constitutional development in the homelands or not, it would have been possible to do it. It is completely irrelevant. In other words, he really wanted to tell us why the whole matter has been delayed. It is an excuse for the delay of this matter and not a reason why it is being introduced.

We have also had as a highlight throughout this debate the increased taxation which is now being derived from the Bantu themselves directly and indirectly. The way for the introduction of this Bill was prepared for the hon. the Deputy Minister last year when the hon. the Minister of Finance said that this particular method of financing education by means of the Bantu Education Account, was an unsatisfactory method. I believe the hon. the Minister remained quiet about some of the most important reasons. As regards the first reason, my sympathy is with him. I believe that it is in fact very difficult for a Government to come with a Bill which proves that the Opposition has been right about certain aspects thereof. We have all been paying the price of the 1948 propaganda of the National Party. The public in South Africa had to be conditioned to accept this type of legislation. No one can deny the fact that one of the most effective propaganda slogans used during the 1948 election was, in fact, the slogan that the United Party was spending too much on education.

Order! But that point has also been sufficiently canvassed.

We find that, having committed themselves to follow a particular line, they of necessity had to enter into a period of stagnation. The stage was set in 1948. From then onwards the Government could not make a move, because they had sold a particular story to the public. This is why, if you look at the various amounts allocated to education, you find that up to 1960 there was hardly any increase in the actual amount.

The hon. member must come back to the Bill. We have heard the history of this whole matter over and over again. He must come back to the Bill.

The hon. the Deputy Minister said in his Second Reading speech that the principle of this Bill was that Bantu education would now be financed from the Consolidated Revenue Account. But I was very disappointed when I read through the hon. the Deputy Minister’s Second Reading speech and noticed that it was his policy that it would be tied to Bantu taxation, to the amount which is received from the Bantu by means of direct and indirect taxation.

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