Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Bill read a First Time.

I have to announce that I have exercised the discretion conferred upon me by Standing Order No. 1 (Private Bills) and permitted the Bill, while retaining the form of a private measure, to be proceeded with as a public Bill.

Mr. Chairman, since South Africa is growing and developing in the industrial sphere, the Bantu in the White areas are an integral and permanent part of the infrastructure and of the total economy of South Africa. The fact is that the overall economy of South Africa is responsible for 70 per cent of the labour force of the Bantu. We cannot explain that away, as the hon. the Minister wants to do in the most philosophic of terms. As witness, one may just quote the favourite newspaper of the Nationalist Party, Rapport. In an editorial on 30th January of this year the newspaper stated (translation)—

We may just look at the position on the Witwatersrand. If one examines the figures for the past ten years, one finds that the presence of the Bantu in White areas on the Witwatersrand evidences a tremendous growth. What is quite interesting is that the numbers of Bantu in the urban areas are growing in those very areas where the industrial development is greatest. Let us look at a place such as Kempton Park. There the urban Bantu population has quadrupled over the past ten years. Ten years ago there were 30 900 Bantu in Kempton Park; today there are 97 300, of which 81 000 live in Thembisa and are classified as urban. In Alberton the Bantu population has doubled from 60 500 to 122 000, of which 121 000 are classified as urban. Then there is the constituency of the hon. the Minister of Community Development. He is the person who is always speaking about 1978. In Vereeniging the Bantu population has increased from 119 000 to 160 700, also nearly a twofold increase. In Vanderbijlpark the population has increased from 26 300 to 42 200 and in Sasolburg from 28 000 to 37 000. This increase in numbers undeniably confirms the permanence and the essentiality of the urban Bantu in the economic growth and the stability of South Africa.

We must be realistic. The fully developed Bantu homelands, as envisaged and proposed by this Government, Prof. Nick Olivier says—

Then he continues—

One then wonders what the hon. the Minister of the Interior meant when he made his speech before the United Municipal Executive of South Africa and said—

Is this now the acceptance by hon. members opposite of the fact that we shall never be able to remove the non-Whites from the White area of South Africa? The hon. the Minister must tell us: Does he associate himself with Rapport, which stated the following in another editorial, which appeared a few weeks later (translation)—

Then there is the well-known Prof. Moolman, who expressed himself as follows—

Then the hon. the Minister waxes philosophical here and uses terms such as “the urban Bantu, an element of his own people”. He also speaks of “citizenship solely within his own national context and own area”. He speaks of their presence in the White area as “secondary”. He also speaks of a “link” between these people and their homeland. And then he uses the term “a maximum in their own and a minimum in White areas”. Sir, this probably means a maximum in belief and a minimum in practice! These are merely platitudinous words which are not going to solve this problem. I want to say that in order to bring about stability and steadfastness amongst these millions of nonWhites, the Bantu in the urban areas, drastic adjustments are necessary in South African politics. In the first place we shall have to create better residential, educational and social facilities for these people. We shall have to establish quicker training and opportunities for more productive employment for them. We shall have to apply influx control in a more humane way in order to place the family life of these people on a stable basis. The stabilization of a middle-class of Bantu, as my hon. Leader has so frequently stated, is absolutely essential for the continued existence of South Africa. Sir, how can we stabilize these people? How can we give them a steady way of life in the White area? In the first place, by giving them home ownership rights and by granting exemption from the pass laws to the deserving Bantu. We shall have to accept that in the urban areas we shall have to give the Bantu the right, at local authority level, to administer those areas, that in terms of the policy of this side of the House we shall have to bring about the establishment of community councils and that the principle of representation in this Central Parliament of South Africa will have to become an accepted fact in the interests of this country. Sir, the urban Bantu are an important and integral part of prosperity and progress in South Africa, and it will do hon. members on that side of the House no good to try to explain away the presence of the Bantu in the urban areas. What is essential is that we must cultivate in these people a feeling of loyalty towards South Africa, a feeling of solidarity, a feeling that they have a share in the future of South Africa. Sir, the lifelong permanence of these people in the urban areas requires attention in those places where they are living, where they are working and, in my opinion, where they cannot be separated from the Whites of South Africa. No wonder, Sir, that a man of the calibre of Dr. Eiselen is now telling the Nationalist Party that they must not think they can withhold political rights from the Bantu in the urban areas where they are living. They must begin to listen to Dr. Eiselen and to people who have practical experience of the problems of the urban Bantu. [Interjections.] Sir, the hon. member for Potchefstroom always says that this side of the House does not hold consultations with the urban Bantu; let him go and speak in Soweto to the Peter Lengene’s, to the David Thebahali’s, to the Benjamin Mdaka’s, the Makhaya’s and the Pilane’s. They know only one home, and that is Soweto, an urban Bantu township within a White area. Sir, hon. members opposite may talk for as long as they want to, it is going to do them no good.

For whom are you actually lodging a plea?

The hon. the Minister must tell us where he stands in respect of section 10 of the Urban Consolidation Act, because recently at Warmbaths the Nationalist Party Jeugbond held a conference and accepted a resolution to the effect that the Nationalist Party should abolish section 10. What is this hon. Minister’s attitude? He must tell us whether he is going to do this. Then the hon. the Minister comes along at the Nationalist Party Congress and states—

Is he now beginning to acknowledge that we on this side of the House are right when we say that we should accept these people are permanent in the urban areas? Is he going to allow section 10 to remain on the Statute Book, or is he going to abolish it?

Sir, in the past 10 minutes we have listened to how the Opposition plays with words. The hon. member for Turffontein has taken up 10 minutes of this Committee’s time, but he has told us absolutely nothing. He has not told us what we must do to combat and overcome this problem. All he told us is that here we should give the urban Bantu, which are increasing in numbers—as far as the numbers are concerned I agree with him—certain rights here on a certain basis —with that I do not agree. Is that correct? I do not want to interpret him incorrectly. In other words, he wants us to give rights to the Bantu in the White area. Sir, but then he is surely also going to discriminate amongst the Bantu; he is surely then going to create various classes amongst the Bantu—an A class and a B class.

A middle-class.

Certain classes will qualify for those rights and other classes will not qualify. Sir, one of the biggest problems this country is faced with is the Bantu population, but the solution of the problem can be entrusted to the National Party Government. The National Party took over from a United Party Government, and we simply cannot forget the events of history. We remember what chaotic conditions prevailed when we took over. Today the hon. member for Turffontein concentrated on the urban Bantu. It is true that the urban Bantu are today multiplying as a result of a natural increase. The hon. member says they will apply influx control in a more Christian and a more lenient manner. Other speakers on that side spoke of hundreds and thousands of Bantu which are jobless here. If we were to fling open the gates, as the United Party wants us to do, there is surely going to be a revolt amongst the urban Bantu, whose bread and butter will be taken out of their mouths by Bantu coming in from outside. Hon. members on that side are now shaking their heads, but that is so. Apart from the fact that one must control the influx of Bantu to the urban areas, one must also look after the Bantu who have already established themselves here in the cities. We must ensure that there is security for them as far as their work is concerned. Sir, recently we have heard here of the tremendous gap that exists between the incomes of the Whites and the non-Whites, particularly the Bantu. Sir, who planned these regional locations? Who planned that residential area, Soweto? Who planned all those big urban areas on the Witwatersrand? Who removed the Bantu from the urban areas where they were caged in? Who evacuated the Bantu from Hillbrow and Parktown where they were caged by the hundreds in small rooms? The National Party removed those locations-in-the-air. We cleared up places such as the dirty Sophiatown and resettled the people in modern Bantu townships. The people today pay a reasonable rent. Let us accept the fact that the average Bantu earn R60 or R70 per month. The maximum rent they pay is R7-40 and they obtain water and all other services free of charge. We are always telling the Whites that they must not spend more than a quarter of their salary on rent or payments on a house, but we were able to provide the Bantu with accommodation at R6 and R7 per month. Frequenty not only the man works, but also the wife and children; this, of course, increases the income of the family and eases the Bantu’s lot. It is true that many of the people are settled far from the cities and that they have to make use of trains and buses, but in that connection the necessary facilities have also been established for them. Sir, what did the United Party do in those years? How can the Bantu entrust their future to the United Party? The hon. member for Turffontein is still a young member; I want to ask him whether he knows the history of the Bantu from the thirties until after the war? Does he know under what circumstances the people lived? We inherited critical conditions from the United Party. There were squatter camps throughout the entire East Rand: today there are modern Bantu townships. Sir, today there are some of the most modern of swimming-baths and tennis courts in the Bantu townships. I agree that there is still room for development and for improvement, and the improvement will be brought about in the course of time. No, Sir, the Bantu will not trust the United Party. For many years I served on the Bantu Advisory Council of Brakpan, and for many years I have also worked in the Bantu Affairs Department, but one of the finest things I ever heard was told to me one day by an old Bantu. He was a police constable who called me to one side and said: Sir, I am now being incited to “strike”, which was the way he put it. I then asked him why he wanted to “strike”. He then said: “I do not know, Sir, but I am told I must ’strike’. In Sophia-town I slept under four sheets of corrugated iron and a few bags, and now I am living in a decent house with my family, my children are going to school, I have a bus and I have every facility here, but now people are inciting me to ’strike’.” I want to tell the hon. member for Turffontein that the Bantu also see through that, and they know they cannot entrust their future to the United Party. He said that the Jeugbond at Warmbaths, I think, decided that section 10 of the 1945 Act should be substituted. I want to state here this afternoon that section 10 of the 1945 Act does not offer the Bantu permanent residence in the urban areas. I believe that in the near future that section will be struck out. But I want to say this. The Bantu who live in the urban areas will probably remain there for always, but the National Party will have to take precautions so that the homelands, where the Bantu’s homes are, where they obtained their citizenship, the homeland of which they are citizens, can develop. I am grateful that there are now some of the United Party people who support the homelands policy. That is actually the reason why they have been so mixed up during the past week or two. But it is a policy that will remain in force. It is a policy that has been accepted by the Bantu and in which the Bantu place their trust. But if I incite the Bantu every day and tell them the policy cannot succeed, I am not only detracting from the Whites but also from the Bantu who have confidence in their fatherland. [Time expired.]

The conclusion of the speech made by the hon. member for Stilfontein was the necessity for development in the Bantu areas, in the homelands, but in the process of saying that the hon. member said something which I want to ask the Minister to confirm. The hon. member said that section 10 would be deleted in the future. He said it would be deleted in the future. Now, is this the policy of the Nationalist Party? What does the hon. the Minister say of this? No, now he is “zipped”.

I will reply in my own way.

When the hon. the Minister replies he will dodge this way and that, but he will not get to the point.

I want to come back to the essence of the argument of the hon. member for Stilfontein. I leave aside for the moment the tragedy of trying to argue this fundamental issue of the future of the Bantu people on the basis of what the position was in 1948, or in 1924, or in 1910. He said: “Look what has been done; houses have been built and swimming baths have been built,” and I want to ask whether that is so strange? Is it strange that these things should have been done? Was there not an Atteridgeville and a New Brighton and other townships way back in the United Party days? Sir, we cannot solve this problem by trying to compare what happened on such and such a date with the position now. We have to look to the future and we have to decide for ourselves whether we are providing the needs for tomorrow. I do not believe we are even providing them for today, let alone for tomorrow. To do so, I believe it is necessary to look at the three instruments available to the hon. the Minister for establishing the economic infrastructure necessary to provide employment for the Bantu in the Homelands. He has at his disposal the Bantu Investment Corporation, the Xhosa Development Corporation and the Bantu Mining Corporation, and he is assisted by the Industrial Development Corporation. The first three of these fall under the control of the hon. the Minister. He has created here a new financial empire, a new economic empire. It exists on paper. I have the three reports here. If you study them, they have 26 objectives, things they are aiming at, and they have 30 directors, and the 30 directors of the three corporations have met 21 times and they have been paid R27 161 in fees. But what have the achievements been? That is what matters. Are the achievements keeping pace with the needs of the country? The target is economic viability and full employment. It must be. Yet if you look at the IDC and the border industries programme, in 20 years, according to its latest report, it has provided employment for 40 000 Bantu. That is half of one year’s new Bantu labour which becomes available on the labour market; 80 000 new Bantu look for work every year and in ten years work has been found for half of that total for one year. Let us look in the report of the BIC. Their latest report is here. At Babalegi, with 102 sites, expected to be completed by 1973, they will have provided jobs for 8 000 Bantu out of the 40 000 work seekers living alongside Babalegi; 32 000 will be unemployed when the scheme is finished, when every factory of the 102 have been built and when every job has been filled. Then 8 000 will have jobs and 32 000 will not have jobs. And at Sitebe, with 10 000 families they are providing 44 sites. Thirty businesses have been transferred in the whole year. Then you have the great tourist development at Umgababa, which is empty 90 per cent of the time. There is a manager there; but I will not go into that. But that is the tourist industry—one holiday resort for the Bantu and now they are starting another one for White people in the Bantu area at Witzieshoek. And that is the sum total I can find in this report—31 businesses and the development of two growth points.

Let us take the Xhosa Development Corporation. It is much more impressive with its listing of the individual shops etc., but at the end it shows 3 303 Bantu employed, which, together with those employed by people helped by the Corporation, gives a total of 5 000 for the whole of the Transkei.

The Mining Corporation has two going concerns, five investigations and 78 applications for mining concessions. So the three corporations are just scratching the surface. But what is worse, they control R43 million of the taxpayers’ money and this Parliament which has voted that money, has no control over what they do with it. Earlier this year I asked the hon. the Minister questions about bus undertakings assisted by the Bantu Investment Corporation, and on each occasion the answer was that he was not prepared to disclose facts of the operations. I started with Question No. 6 on the 24th March, 1972, in which I asked him what bus transport undertakings had been purchased by the corporation and which ones had been placed under the control of Bantu persons. His answer was that two had been purchased, one in Zulu and one in Lebowa territory, and that none had been handed over. That was on the 24th March this year and I asked about the past three years. Here I have the report of the corporation itself for the year 1970-’71, and I find to my amazement that two bus services, one in South-West Africa and one in the Tswana homeland, have been handed over to Bantu to operate. Whom do I believe? The hon. the Minister gave me one answer and the corporation gave another. We in Parliament are not even entitled to know what is going on! What does the hon. the Minister say?

But they are two different things.

Words mean what they say to me. My questions read as follows—

The answer reads—

However, the corporation says in its report—

It is a different thing.

It is a different thing? I should like to hear what the different thing is.

However, let me go further. In question No. 7 of the 24th March I asked whether a certain undertaking, the Sizanani Mazulu bus service had been taken over. The answer was no, but the BIC held shares in it. In fact it holds 51 per cent of the shares and therefore it controls that company. The hon. the Minister refused to give me any information. I now ask him to deny that that corporation advanced a sum, reputed to be R200 000, to four Bantu drivers of Putco who had no business experience whatsoever, and the corporation then, in the process, took over 51 per cent of the shares; that they have a contract which eliminates all maintenance which is done by contract with the company; and that they are now running at a serious loss. But it is the taxpayers’ money! In question No. 5 of 24th March, I asked the hon. the Minister whether they had taken over the E’Zakheni transport bus service. He admitted that they had taken it over, but he refused to give any details. I now want to ask him if he is satisfied whether the price paid for that, namely R252 000— which he refused to tell me—is anywhere near the value of that service. I challenge him to deny that within six months of the takeover, seven of its vehicles were off the road. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, unfortunately ten minutes do not allow me to reply fully to some of the statements and accusations made by the hon. member for Turffontein, but I would like to exchange a few ideas with him, particularly in connection with his question about what the position is with respect to section 10. I should like to try to put the following matters a little more clearly than hon. members opposite do when they are trying to make politics out of them, because this only creates confusion. I should like to state the following: We on this side of the House have never said that eventually there would be no Bantu left in the White urban area.

What did Blaar say?

That has never been said, and hon. members will not be able to show me any such statements by any leader of the National Party. [Interjections.] In the second place we have never said that all Bantu are merely casual labourers in that sense of the word. I shall be coming to the concept of “on a casual basis”. We have always acknowledged— and I am saying these things because I think it is necessary for us to repeat them here today—that the urban Bantu are also people who have a claim to a decent living and that, like ourselves, they are also entitled to a place in the sun. We have always said that no Bantu would have the franchise in White South Africa, and that the Bantu in the urban area would have no proprietary rights. There is nothing strange in that. We have always done our best, with the available funds, to establish for these Bantu the necessary community facilities as far as possible. By means of section 10 of the Urban Areas Act, we have given the Bantu residential security as long as they comply with certain requirements. It now seems as if the hon. member for Maitland is getting ill, but that is because he does not want to accept these basic aspects.

They are not basic.

When we speak of “in a casual capacity”, we mean a person who, though he has residential security under certain circumstances, is not permanent in the sense that he thereby obtains citizenship and proprietary rights. That is the difference. That is what hon. members opposite did not say. We also accept—and I can understand hon. members being so amazed, because they do not want to understand that we accept these aspects and that they form a part of our policy—that in every Bantu urban area there are people who are the corner stones on which that community rests. Here I am thinking of doctors, nurses, police officials, teachers and other people a community depends on. Those are aspects which are accepted. Hon. members opposite have been debating here the past few days as if the National Party had no understanding of these matters. We also accept the fact that in the sphere of trade, as the hon. the Minister also explained yesterday, there will probably be development in Bantu urban areas on the basis of utility companies. I am also convinced that in conjunction with that there will be full opportunities for the Bantu to reach a just level of development. Those are matters that are accepted. The particulars will be worked out and announced in greater detail by the hon. the Minister. Under this Government the Bantu already have a form of franchise at local authority level. They also have the franchise in their homeland in respect of national affairs relating to that homeland.

There is human dignity in that.

Yes, there is human dignity in that. I am prepared to conduct a debate with anyone on any platform about the so-called Lusaka Manifesto —to which that hon. member has referred in the past and to which the hon. member for Houghton is continually referring—in connection with the question of human dignity with respect to the position in South Africa. That is why I am just stating these matters. This situation has also been accepted by responsible Bantu leaders. The concept of multi-nationality has been accepted in this sense. It has even been accepted by responsible leaders in the United Party that the urban members of a people form one political and constitutional whole in conjunction with the homeland members of that people. That is something which hon. members opposite apparently do not want to accept. None of us also claims, because of that, that the people in the urban areas have the same aspirations, desires and ways of life as, for example, the people in the homeland areas. In other words, what it amounts to is that in terms of the Government’s policy and the policy of the National Party, these people have everything that is basically necessary, and even more, for a decent living. On the other hand, let us look at what the United Party’s situation is. In contrast to this, the United Party’s situation is one of confusion. The United Party accepts and regards Soweto as a kind of conglomerate of people without ethnic ties. None of them belongs to a people and none of them should exercise any right which a people exercises. This is all a third-class conglomerate of people without ethnic ties. The hon. member for Turffontein says that these people form one nation in conjunction with all the other people in South Africa. If the hon. member for Turffontein employs such an argument, he is also concurring with the people who drew up the Lusaka Manifesto and said: “All men are equal and they must have equal rights in determining their political position?” Does the hon. member agree with that? In 1963 the United Party said in their policy statement, which I have here in front of me, that the urban Bantu should exercise their franchise on a separate voters’ roll for representation in Parliament. That was in 1963. Today the United Party, in the persons of the hon. member for Hillbrow and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, states by way of policy statements in the newspapers that the urban Bantu will gain representation in a so-called community council. That community council will hold consultations with the Central Government through fixed committees that will be established. That is where the people will exercise their representation. The United Party does not recognize contact between this community council and the so-called community councils in the homeland areas.But the hon. member for Bezuidenhout states that the United Party’s policy is that the urban Bantu will have contact with their fellow citizens in the homelands and that when they decide about the right to self-determination, the entire people, i.e. the people living in the urban areas and those living in the homeland areas, the entire Xhosa people or entire Venda people, will decide about that right to self-determination. That is what is proposed. That is the confusion that is being created. Now the hon. member asks: “What about section 10?’’ He wants to know whether section 10 is going to be repealed or not. The hon. member asked that question, did he not? If the hon. member now wants to debate it, let me ask him whether he wants section 10 to be extended further or whether he wants us to abolish it and give the Bantu absolutely free right of access to the urban areas? Or does the hon. member want the situation to be frozen, as envisaged when section 10 was introduced in 1952? At the time Dr. Verwoerd very clearly said in his speeches in that debate that what was actually being contemplated was a freezing of what he called at the time the “detribalized Bantu”. In other words, a line should be drawn and no more people be able to enter and obtain rights in terms of the so-called section 10. Must we not go that far? I am asking the hon. member for Turffontein whether we must get to the stage where we have to say: So far and no further? The Bantu, who are now in the urban area and are protected in terms of section 10, which we gave them, will keep this as long as they legally meet the requirements. Must we not add that no additional Bantu, who enter the urban areas whatever the circumstances of such entry may be, will be recognized and protected as is now provided for in section 10? Have we not perhaps reached that day yet? Have we not perhaps reached the stage of saying that all Bantu should be placed on a population register in their homeland areas and that when they come to the White urban areas, to work here, they should do so on a kind of visa, call it a labour visa? Must we not say that such a person will then obtain none of the rights that now exist in terms of section 10? I am asking the hon. members on that side of the House whether we have not perhaps reached the stage of a line being drawn, because as long as this line is not drawn hon. members opposite have the opportunity of continuing to create confusion to the detriment of South Africa. To the detriment not only of the Bantu in the urban areas, but also to the detriment of the Whites in South Africa, hon. members opposite continue to create the impression amongst those people that they obtain citizenship and are entitled to the franchise. By those means the United Party incites unrest. I therefore say—let us draw the line. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to follow up on what that hon. member said and try to find a solution for all the political problems of the Bantu. I do not want to take part in that at all. What I do know is that there is a great deal of talk about political solutions, but as yet I have seen no sign of any solution from any side. I am now being completely honest. This whole story about South Africa starting to get whiter on 2nd August, 1978, at 6 p.m. is nonsense. There is no such thing.

All I know is that today there are Bantu who want work. I also know that in the Western Cape there are farmers who need Bantu labourers and are going to need more of them. Those are hard facts. All I am asking of that hon. Minister is that he should listen carefully this afternoon and not try to be stubborn and cling to formulas. He must face up to the real truth and then try to help us. I agree with the Government that one cannot have an unbridled and uncontrolled influx of Bantu to the Western Province, and this afternoon I am not advocating this either. All I am asking of the Government is that it should accept the fact that one can only farm successfully on a farming unit if one has a satisfied corps of workers under one. We know that there are a few prerequisites if one wants to keep one’s farmhands happy. One must give them a decent standard of living and see that each has a full stomach. If it is possible, one must see if one can have the worker and his family unit on one’s farm. Then one must ensure that he earns enough so that he can maintain a standard of living that one does not have to be ashamed of. I am now asking whether we are doing this. We need these people.

At present we can obtain as many Bantu as we want, but what do we get? What is the real truth? We get the Bantu for a year, and after a year he would first like to go and visit his homeland again. He himself would like to stay here and work, but we must then buy him a train-ticket so that he can go to the homeland. Usually one does not get him back again. I am not blaming anyone for that, and although one can get him back again, it frequently happens that owing to administrative difficulties that Bantu cannot ever venture to come back to his own boss. If the hon. the Minister wants to, he is very welcome to come and see what the practical results of the policy are. One is dealing with a person who cannot speak one’s language, a person who does not know one’s farm or one’s circumstances. It takes one nine months before he even knows where one’s camps are. He is not trained either. We are willing to help the Bantu by giving him training with the best farmers of South Africa, here in the Western Province. In that way he can again be an asset when he goes back. All we ask is that such a Bantu be given to us for a five-year period instead of a one-year period. I know what the Minister will say. He is going to say he will not do it.

I am asking that the Bantu be allowed to bring along his whole family in cases where the employer is willing to have the Bantu and his family and is willing to see to it that the entire family goes back again. What harm can this do if it is allowed? I know the hon. the Minister will say that the people come to the White areas and that their children are born here, which he does not want. That is the basis. I now want to give the hon. the Minister a hand by telling him what happened on my farm. During the past five years five Bantu children were born of Coloured women. Where do those little children live? The father goes back to the Transkei, the mother goes to work in the Cape and I sit with the baby. That is what the present-day position is. But that is not all, as if that were not enough. In terms of the laws of this country, those little children are Bantu. Under the Minister’s policy the reproduction rate of Bantu in the Western Province is not being decreased but increased. We know that not only Bantu women are the mothers of Bantu children here, but also Coloured women. I wonder what the hon. the Minister would do if I loaded up those small children and off-loaded them with tickets round their necks at the H. F. Verwoerd Building. Then he can send them back to where they belong.

Take them to Sea Point.

I know that there are frivolous people here, but they are people who have never had anyone in their employ. If they had not been Members of Parliament they would not have had a job either. There are such free-wheelers in this world, people who do not care. I am now speaking of responsible people, and I know that the hon. member who has just spoken is a responsible person who will be able to see my point. I am not asking for something that is impossible. Here we are making our brown people blacker as a result of the policy of this Minister. We are not preventing the birth of a single Bantu in the Western Province under this policy. We are discouraging the brown people from having brown children, while we are creating friction between the brown and black people. It is unnecessary. Let that hon. Minister make inquiries and find out how many of the contract Bantu, who are working in the Western Province, only work for a week or a month before they abscond. This happens because they have no home context. They abscond and come to the cities.

I know that the hon. the Minister does not know how many illegal Bantu there are in the Cape. I know more or less how many there are in our area who have been reported to the Police. We no longer make reports to the Police, because the Police cannot find them and I do not blame them either. Here we sit and we bluff ourselves that we are solving a problem. In truth we are creating new problems. The Government is dealing the Western Province a grievous blow and it is going to receive a worse blow as soon as convict labour is withdrawn from the Western Province, as it will be. I do not blame the hon. the Minister if he does not know all the practical implications, because it is not possible for him to do so. Of necessity he also has other work to do. I am only asking him to listen to people who are dealing with this problem every day. Let him consult his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Labour. Let him consult the hon. member for Paarl. He will hear that what I am saying here is the truth. We surely cannot go on like this. We are adults, after all! It is no good our coming here with a lot of wonderful schemes and solutions that we cling to year after year, knowing them to be wrong. We cannot go on like this.

I wonder whether the hon. the Minister of Labour cannot say a few words about this matter. In this House we have heard that the hon. the Minister of Agriculture said he could do nothing about that, that it is the Minister of Bantu Affairs who must clear up this matter. Am I asking for something unreasonable, or am I asking for something that does not tally with the Government’s policy when I say: “Give them to us a longer period and let the man’s family come along too?” We are willing to pay good prices.

I wonder how much work has been done all these years in the Western Province by Coloured women, who were previously seasonal pickers on farms, but who have today found better employment opportunities in the cities as a result of an improved economy and now work in the cities at higher wages. No one is opposed to that; of course we want them to utilize that opportunity. But their place must now be taken by the most expensive labour one can possibly obtain, and must we continue to increase the prices of products for the housewife owing to the stubbornness of that hon. Minister? We must make use of this expensive labour while the Bantu can come here with their wives and do the work the Coloured women always did previously. Who is the Minister pleasing with this intentional stubbornness of his? He knows that I am speaking the truth. Oh no, we must surely grow up now! I have no inclination to listen to political rights that are being given to the people here or being given to the people there, and all that kind of thing, and in the meantime the Bantu are growing poor in their reserve. They do not have any work, and here there is work. We want to give them the work, and they can obtain the work without this becoming a danger to us, but the Minister says “no”. Surely one cannot go on like this! The hon. the Minister of Health is laughing but he is always laughing. He can make a living in other ways, for example as a doctor or as a diesel mechanic or any other way he chooses.

Not as a diesel agent.

All we are asking is that our people, who must work for a living, be given the opportunity to do so for our benefit and for the benefit of the Bantu. I can assure the Minister that the Bantu who come to work on the farms will be no danger to him politically. They can only be a danger politically if they are going hungry in the Transkei. Let them come and work because there is work to do. We are willing to give them the work if the Minister will only agree.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Sea Point dealt with a matter which was of a purely local and quite personal nature. I think the Minister or one of the members from the Cape Province or from the Western Province will better be able to reply to him than I. All I want to say is that the idea or the plan he proposes in terms of which to establish the Bantu here on a family basis will only result in their being given permanency here in the Western Province. Once you have established Bantu on a family basis on the farms on a large scale you would have driven in the thin end of the wedge and you or posterity would hardly succeed in removing them from the Western Province again.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

I do not want to answer any questions now because my time is very limited. I say that this principle is a very thorny one and one which is going to entail many problems for the future of the wine farms of the Western Province.

I should prefer to see what the United Party looks like since Oudtshoorn.

They have not changed at all!

Yes, they have changed quite a lot. The Opposition is on the run. What set them off was the big fright they got at Oudtshoorn. It started on 19th April and they have been on the run for 22 days now. It is becoming much more of a marathon than that of the Egyptians in the desert. In this process they are losing much more than merely the physical objects the Egyptian soldiers lost in the desert, viz. trousers, shoes and weapons. They are losing their political integrity, their dignity and the respect which they as an Opposition should command; on account of their behaviour they are losing their status as the official Opposition, which must form the alternative Government. They have lost all their party discipline and the unity which should really be the most essential characteristic of an Opposition when it deals with a strong Government such as this one. If they want to throw this Government out of office they will have to speak with one voice. There will have to be a unity of action, which the opposition lacked completely since the big fright they got. It is pathetic to see the way they respond. Everybody goes his own way and everybody has his own version. They are no longer able to dodge the purposeful attacks from this side of the House and the worst of it all is that they still have their old friends, the English-language Press, which set them such dangerous traps as they did to the hon. member for Hillbrow during the past week-end. They enticed him into talking to them about the various discussions taking place in the inner circles of the party. The result was that the newspapers, in a spate of headlines, told us and the public of South Africa that the United Party was changing its policy and that it was going to abandon its standpoint of having 25 representatives for the non-Whites in this Parliament. This proves that the Opposition, in this process of running away, are bumping into and hurting one another. On various occasions the hon. members for Bezuidenhout and Yeoville have bumped into and fallen over one another’s feet in this pathetic manner. One moment the hon. member for Bezuidenhout says: “It is essential that we, when coming into power, will have to accept the progress the National Party has made in respect of the development of the homelands.” Then the hon. member for Yeoville says directly the opposite; he says: “We cannot accept it.” Then the hon. member for Bezuidenhout says: “It is absurd to think that the nonWhites will be prepared to be represented in this House by Whites.” Everyone who believes this is living in a fool’s paradise. “No”, says the Leader of the Opposition, “we stand firm on our policy; there is no deviation whatsoever; neither is there any difference of opinion among the members in the party.” This is the way they are carrying on. When they talk about the results of the Oudtshoorn election an hon. member of the Other Place, Senator Horak, says: “Do not worry about Oudtshoorn; those are only credulous people of the deep platteland.” “No”, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout hits back, “you cannot offend those people like that. One finds equally civilized and educated people up-country and we must bear them in mind.” Then the hon. member for Simonstown says, “Forget about the platteland. The future salvation of the United Party lies in the large cities, because the movement is away from the platteland to the cities.” This is the way they are carrying on; the confusion is increasing all the time. During the past weekend we had newspaper reports on what had been said by the hon. member for Hillbrow. After he denied that he had furnished the press with information it became evident that there was something afoot. If we look at the Argus of yesterday afternoon, we will see what their remarks were. The heading was: “Re-thinking of basic policy in the U.P.” And then it said the following—

This is what we found even after the Leader of the Opposition had emphasized that there was no change and no re-thinking. According to him there is no question of changing the policy. Nevertheless, the Argus, one of their friends, had the following to say—

You will therefore see, Sir, that everyone has his own version and that the frontbenchers of the United Party are competing with one another. The hon. member for Wynberg also participated in this. She said: “As far as I am concerned, there is certain constitutional machinery established by the Nationalist Party on account of their relations politics and their policy to show the non-Whites the way towards full political status which we will have to accept and recognise.” You see therefore, Sir, that there is a great deal of confusion. They are failing over one another’s feet. However, an attempt has been made by some of their leaders to find a formula which will furnish the voters with an acceptable statement of policy in order that they can be held up to the people as a strong Opposition. In this way they hope to persuade the people outside to support them again. Members of the Opposition are competing with one another in finding a formula such as that. Attempts are being made to vie with the Leader; that is why Japie has his own idea and persists in this despite the fact that he is often taken to task by his party leaders. It is pathetic to watch the United Party in their attempts. We on this side of the House will take off our hats to the Leader of the Opposition if he succeeded at yesterday’s caucus—he must still tell us whether or not he succeeded—to reorganize this recalcitrant and rebellious team of his into a united group and a united front to dig in their heels and fight back. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, during the last ten minutes we have been on an excursion; we have heard of the discussions of the United Party caucus from the hon. member for Marico. He has taken us from Oudtshoorn to Bezuidenhout; in fact, we have been all over the country. I want to assure the hon. member for Marico that he must just have patience. It will not be long and he will have every opportunity of discussing the Vote of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. But today we are busy with the Vote of the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development.

I want to come back to the Question of farm labour and organized agriculture in general. Very soon. Sir, we shall be discussing the consolidation of farmland for Bantu occupation, mainly in the Ciskei and border areas. Most of us on this side of the House, in fact all of us here, view this very seriously indeed. It is a serious exercise. I wonder if the hon. the Minister has ever taken this matter into consideration. Here we are about to discuss the consolidation of farmland for Bantu occupation. Has he ever considered training Bantu farmers to occupy all this land? How much training has this Government done?

We are doing so.

Sir, I will tell this Committee how much has been done and how much is being done at the moment. I know exactly how much is being done. It is practically nil. No training is being given to those Bantu who will be occupying this valuable land—nothing at all. I say this straight to the hon. the Minister. But let us leave agriculture for a minute and consider how much training has been given to Bantu to drive tractors. What has been done to teach them something about the mechanism of tractors and of agricultural implements? How much training have they been given in connection with the cultivation of the soil, in connection with milking and the dairy industry, in connection with sheep-shearing and the classification of wool? We will soon have a Bill before Parliament relating to the wool industry. How much is being spent on the training of Bantu in connection with the classification of wool? How much training are they being given in connection with the curing of skins and hides, where much money is being lost today? If we want to maintain, let alone increase, productivity in agriculture, then we have to do very much more than we are doing at the moment, and I can assure this Committee that this is practically nil. We have to bear in mind that we have to feed an increasing population. Our population is not remaining static. Let me refer back to the hon. the Minister’s remark that something is being done in connection with the training of Bantu farm labour. Let us look at Tsolo, the agricultural college close to Umtata. This college is run under the fine leadership and guidance of Mr. Haywood. There we have only 61 Bantu students, divided into two groups. Each one has five morgen to cultivate and control. It is a 12 months course. We have only 61 students at the only agricultural college in the Transkei. I have visited this agricultural college. Then, Sir, let us go a little further north. There is a technical college at Lusikisiki, where we have a few more students—in fact, 115—under the principalship of Mr. Heathcote, also a very fine teacher in this regard. The total number of Bantu students therefore is 176—61 and 115. This is all the training being given to Bantu to maintain agriculture not only in the Bantu Reserves but to maintain the agricultural economy of South Africa on the land which they are about to receive. Sir, additional land is going to be given to the Bantu, but nothing is being done to train the Bantu who are to occupy this land. It is hardly fair to expect these people to take over this beautiful and fully developed land when they have no knowledge whatsoever to enable them to maintain the productivity of this land today, let alone play their part in Organized Agriculture in S.A.

Let me now deal with the question of unemployment. We have just dealt with the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Labour. The Minister of Labour has said repeatedly, as he did again in the debate on his Vote, that there is no unemployment in South Africa, but in saying this, he is only referring to the White workers. When you talk about unemployment amongst the Bantu, his reply is: “Nee, hulle is nie onder my toesig nie; Bantoewerkers ressorteer onder die Minister van Bantoe-administrasie en -ontwikkeling.” When the Minister of Labour says that there is no unemployment, Sir, you must bear in mind that he is not referring to the Bantu at all. I can give the hon. the Minister the assurance that in spite of what his administrators tell him in the Reserves and on the borders of the Reserves, there are many, many unemployed Bantu. In fact, there are thousands of unemployed Bantu. Take Mdantsane, which is being held up as a Government show-piece. I have been through Mdantsane repeatedly. I have heard officials there telling people that there is no need for unemployment in Mdantsane.

But do they register for work?

Sir, let us be fair and reasonable. There are people amongst the Bantu, the Coloureds, the Indians and the Whites who refuse to work. There are people who do not like to work. But I can assure this Committee that there are thousands of Bantu who want to work but who are sitting in Mdantsane and other townships unemployed. Why? The last time I was in East London only a week or two ago, six young umfaans came to me and said: “We are looking for work. You are from Cape Town; you pass the laws; now we want work.” I said to them that I could find work for them at Saldanha and on the goldfields. Their reply to this was, “Thanks; we know we can get work there, but are you, Mr. Wainwright, prepared to go and work there for nine months and leave your young family alone in East London?”. When I frankly said, “No”, they said, “But you expect us to do it. Unless we are allowed to take our families with us, we are not interested in the work you offer us. You White people brought us here to East London and we expect you to provide us with work here.” Sir, let us go a little further to another township, Zwelitsha in King William’s Town. Here you have a different picture. The Zwelitsha township in King William’s Town is a show-piece, but you must bear in mind that Zwelitsha township was started by a United Party Government. Before the United Party Government started Zwelitsha township, they provided work for every individual living in this township. One of the biggest industries we have on the Border today, in spite of all the talk we have heard from that side for 24 years, the largest and most up-to-date industry is the Good Hope Textile Factory at King William’s Town. Every individual living in Zwelitsha gets employment there and in King William’s Town. There is no unemployment in Zwelitsha at King William’s Town, because this township, this industry, was started by a United Party Government under the leadership of Gen. Smuts. Let us go a little further; let us go to Dimbaza, Sada and Ilinge. Dimbaza is about 17 miles west of King William’s Town. And at Queenstown you have Sada and Ilinge. I am sorry the hon. member for Aliwal is not in his seat now. The hon. member said yesterday: “Dit is hoog tyd dat die Opposisie ophou om te praat oor hierdie dorpsgebiede. Dit gee ons ’n slegte naam oorsee.” But what did the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education say when he visited these townships? When the Deputy Minister visited Dimbaza and Sada, his words were that they were a disgrace. I want to know from him what he meant when he said that they were a disgrace. [Time expired.]

Sir, the hon. member for King William’s Town, who has just sat down…

No, not King William’s Town.

I mean the hon. member for East London North. I am sorry for having made that mistake; that is the only mistake that I shall make during this speech. The hon. member contended that nothing was being done for those Bantu who wish to farm, neither on the farms nor in their homelands. Sir, that hon. member ought to know better. He ought to know what the circumstances of the Bantu in South Africa today are. Let us take the homelands first of all. When one visits the homelands today, one sees the progress that has been made over the past few years in connection with soil conservation and better grain cultivation. That improvement has taken place because of the activities of this Department of Bantu Administration and Development. A great deal is also being done for the stock farmers in the homelands in regard to the provision of better breeding stock, bulls and rams, etc. Even the Wool Board just recently, in 1971, gave R3 000 to the Transkei for the purpose of purchasing better rams. It is not only a question of the purchase of better stud stock; the people are also being trained so that with better animals and better feeding and better working methods they can progress to the same level as the White farmer of South Africa. I do not want to discuss the hon. member’s speech in too much detail, but what is more, as far as the farmers on the platteland are concerned, they receive very good training in the first instance. The position there is the same as that of artisans who work and learn at the same time, for example, to drive cars and to repair them themselves. Courses are also made available for those Bantu in the rural areas from time to time in order to train them. What is more, specific attention is being given to the needs of the Bantu in the homelands. If the hon. member is of the opinion that the picture I am painting is not a true one, let him just go along and see for himself so that he can come here to this House next year and give a more accurate impression of the conditions.

There is a matter which I want to mention during this debate and you, Sir, must forgive me if I say right at the outset that I blame the United Party and the Englishlanguage Press for this. They always have a great deal to say about the development of our homelands, but during this debate we have had an admission from the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that they now subscribe to the homeland policy. What is more, questions are asked from time to time in regard to, for example, what the actual borders of this or that homeland are. While the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has admitted during this debate that they support the homeland policy, he has also said that all they actually object to is that the Government is not progressing rapidly enough with the development of the homelands. I hope that the member of the United Party to speak after me will reveal their plans for the homelands, which they apparently want to develop so rapidly. Let them produce those plans, because they say, after all, that they are the alternative Government and therefore they should produce such plans. But besides the feeling they have expressed that the homelands are acknowledged as something that is here to stay, we find this article written in the Sunday Times of 12th December, 1971, in connection with Chief Matanzima and also Buthelezi of Kwazulu. It states—

This was with reference to the hon. the Minister—

There is no proof of this, and nowhere did the hon. the Minister refer to the Zulu people in particular as “colonial puppets”, but it is clear to us that the United Party and the English-language Press choose this type of expression in order to try to drive a wedge between the Department of Bantu Administration and Development and these developing homelands. However, it is nothing new to South Africa to discover that that type of person is always trying to stir up ill-feeling between the Afrikaner and his Government and the Zulus and others. We have ample proof of it. The article goes on to say—

Now you can see what this columnist is getting at. He wants an explosion between the Department and the Zulu homeland. This is the proof I advance for the contention that the United Party opposition and the English-language Press in South Africa are deliberately trying to see whether they cannot hamstring and even destroy the whole development policy of the Government. The article goes on to say—

Why was this statement made with reference to Minister Botha’s actions when he launched the Constitution there 18 months ago? This article was written shortly after Prince Goodwill was inaugurated as regent. Once again this is a very clear attempt by the Sunday Times and the English-language Press to sow suspicion, but just let me say in passing that not one of those hon. members of their language compatriots took exception to this sort of language that is used in their English-language Press. They ought to know that this sort of language can only disturb the relationships between the Bantu in the various homelands and the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. I want to say that when the National Party came into power in 1948. there was nothing but chaos and misery as far as the Bantu in South Africa were concerned. The hon. member for Stil-fontein has told us about the miserable conditions that prevailed in the cities. Mr. Chairman, you and I know the miserable conditions that prevailed within the Bantu homelands. There was not even a homeland in the process of development. The National Party changed the chaotic conditions in which those people found themselves into what we see today—orderly development. Those people have been placed on the road to self-development and democratic government. These hon. members and their English-language Press also had misgivings about the system of democratic government that is being applied there. They tried to play the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and the Zulu nation off against each other by suggesting that the hon. the Minister was inaugurating the King of Zululand with the sole aim that the king should rule autocratically and that there should be no democratic system of government. In this connection I can quote from a speech of the hon. the Minister in which he makes it quite clear that the government that has been installed and will rule in Kwazulu is a democratic government with elected or nominated representatives, and that each one has his own portfolio. The hon. the Minister pointed out further that the head of state there had also to be acknowledged and respected, but that the government would be a democratic one. I mention this to prove that my statement is correct and that South Africa must know that the English-language Press and the United Party are deliberately trying to hamper and even destroy this process of development of the Bantu nations to full independence. Who is going to gain by this? Not the English-language Press, not the United Party and not South Africa! They themselves, and not this Government, should take action to stop that sort of thing. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the hon. member for Harri-smith that the United Party does not control the English-language Press. What is written in that Press is not the responsibility of the United Party. I wonder what the hon. member for Harrismith thinks of Dr. Eiselen’s statements, whether he too is digging South Africa’s grave when he criticizes this policy. However, I should like to deal now with the spectacle the hon. the Minister made of himself yesterday when he was the first to jump up to speak in this debate.

It was the day before yesterday.

The hon. the Minister tried to act as a lightning conductor. This was of course because he was afraid that the tremendous criticism Dr. Eiselen had levelled at his policy in his interview with Rapport, would be hurled at his head. Dr. Eiselen differs in every sphere, in every cardinal sphere, with the hon. the Minister and his policy.

Do you agree with Dr. Eiselen?

He criticizes the actions of the Government in respect of the urban Bantu, the independence which the Government wants to give the Bantustans, and the economic development of the Bantu homelands as being too slow. It is not difficult to decide who actually knows more about these matters—the co-architect of apartheid or the hon. the Minister and his two Deputy Ministers. The relationships policy in South Africa, with its population of about 4 million Whites and 18 million non-Whites, is of fundamental importance, and the sooner we find a formula by means of which all these people can coexist in peace and prosperity, each group nevertheless being permitted to retain its identity, the sooner will the pressure be removed from South African politics. That is why it is doubly unfortunate—and members of the Cabinet stand condemned before the nation because of it—that for the sake of some miserable political advantage, they have tried once again to incite White man against White man. This Anglo-Boer conflict is a thing of the past; that struggle has already been won. But a far more serious conflict threatens eventually to engulf us in South Africa if we do not find that formula swiftly, namely the WhiteBlack confrontation. The Nationalist Party Government has been in power for 24 years now and this question must be asked in all earnestness: What contribution has the policy of this Government made towards placing race relationships in South Africa on a sound footing? Let us not think of the policy of apartheid which has made us the polecat of the world, or of supremacy and all the other names coined in this connection, but let us consider the policy of the independence of the Bantustans. This policy is in essence the old imperial idea of “divide and rule”. The Nationalists tell their supporters that South Africa has to be Balkanised in order to safeguard the White man, because then the vigorous Nationalist Party Government will always be able to dominate the economically and therefore militarily weak Black mini-states. With hand on heart and gaze uplifted the Bantu nations are told that precisely what the Nationalist Party claims for itself will be granted to them. What is it that the Nationalists grant the Bantu? For 70 per cent of the population, only 13 per cent of the soil of South Africa. Added to this, of course, they will have their own language, their own flag, their own National Anthem and their own Parliament, but not their own healthy economy nor fixed borders. The most condemnatory accusation that has been hurled at the honour of the White man, as a result of this Bantustan policy, is that this skeleton, this whited sepulchre, is given the guise of Christianity by the Nationalist Party, and the stench of its rises to the heavens. The hon. the Prime Minister has stated repeatedly that the Bantu homelands can ask for their independence and that he is prepared to negotiate with them. These negotiations will take place against the background of undefined borders and complete economic helplessness.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No. Half or more of the Bantu live and work in White South Africa. The Bantu in and around our metropolitan complexes are South Africa’s greatest single problem, and the Nationalist Party refuses to acknowledge this problem. For the most part these Bantu live in extremely pitiful circumstances, with inadequate housing and inadequate transport services. Their employment opportunities are also limited. The Nationalist Party’s approach and actions in respect of these urban Bantu, as well as in respect of the territorial authorities of the homelands, are the greatest single factor why race relations in South Africa have deteriorated to such an extent in recent times. The Nationalist Party has lost sight of the fact that when colour enters the confrontation between nationalisms, the position has the danger potential of a nuclear holocaust. They have also forgotten that the leaders of these Black mini-states, who perhaps out of necessity today have to consist mostly of “yes-men”, will not always remain such, but may become sophisticated politicians who will reject the empty promises and pretty speeches with the contempt they deserve. According to Press reports the hon. the Prime Minister stated recently that he shuddered to think of the relationships policy of the United Party. However, I want to say with the utmost seriousness and the greatest emphasis that the majority of the Whites in South Africa and the majority of the Bantu, and now Dr. Eiselen as well, shudder at the implementation of the Nationalist Party’s relationships policy, because it is generally realized that the Nationalist Party cannot rid itself of its obsession with supremacy and race discrimination.

Mr. Chairman, against this sombre background of deteriorating race relations, race conflicts and seething discontent, the moment of truth has arrived for the small men presently leading South Africa. They are being challenged to prove their bona fides. The issue of more land will not be settled by the remark of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, when he described Chief Matanzima’s demand as unstatesmanlike and a sop to his political followers. The hon. the Prime Minister, with his Government, now leans heavily on the 1936 Act to resist further demands for land from Bantu leaders. Since when has a Nationalist Party Government allowed its hands to be tied by existing Acts of Parliament? Nobody had forgotten how a Nationalist Party Government broke the pledge of the White man by removing from our Constitution an entrenched clause. In this cul-de-sac into which the Nationalist Party and its policies have led us, there is one single beacon of light and hope shining in South Africa, namely the United Party’s policy of race federation. The great virtue of this policy is twofold. It will engender a common loyalty amongst all the peonies of South Africa to one fatherland. Secondly, all the forces at work in South Africa, whether it be White or Coloured or Black Nationalism, whether it be demands for more territory or for a greater share, … shall remain domestic affairs. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the real laundry basket appearance of the United Party in recent times could really not have been illustrated any better than by the speech of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, who has just spoken. Just imagine, in these times, in the year 1972, that hon. member comes forward and illustrates how those people opposite really think, and that is in the most negative concept imaginable, namely in terms of a Black /White confrontation. My goodness, we on this side of the House do not think in those terms. We do not think so negatively. I almost want to say that because of its very nature, the National Party is not able to think like that. We think in terms of developing peoples, of training these Bantu peoples and of placing them on the road of political and economic development and development in other spheres. That hon. member pitted the absolute negativism, as I have said, the laundry basket appearance, of the United Party against this side’s wonderfully positive attitude which has been this country’s salvation the past 20 years, and which will be its salvation the next 20 years, and that is the positive attitude of multi-nationalism and the development of peoples.

Let me leave it at that as far as the hon. member is concerned, otherwise I might just hurt him. As a further development in the implementation of our policy, we on this side of the House should like to launch a comprehensive Bantu artisan training scheme. We are engaged in this; the plans in this regard have reached an advanced stage. Hon. members will understand that a scheme of this kind involves heavy financial commitments. This side of the House sees great possibilities in the utilization of the Bantu services levy funds for this purpose. It is estimated that there is an accumulated surplus of approximately R30 million in this Bantu Services Levy Fund. We on this side of the House see great possibilities if those funds were to be utilized for such artisan training and associated schemes. I should like to hear from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and from that side whether they in this House would also be as strongly in favour of such a step as the leaders of the Opposition in the Other Place were when the matter was raised there. Let me say to hon. members at once that it is very clear that such an artisan training scheme is in the interests of both the industries and the industrialists. That is why it seems to us that this is an approach which is fundamentally sound. I should like to hear from the hon. members whether they would support us in this regard. I mean this very sincerely, and it is not my intention to play politics with it.

Then I want to say that we are making excellent progress in compiling a professional register for each homeland. From those registers each population group will be able to determine how many trained citizens it has in the professional, technical, artisan and operator categories, and whether the persons find themselves inside or outside the homelands and inside or outside the professions for which they are qualified. Hon. members will remember that I spoke of this register last year already. The register should be of great assistance in the planning of training, as well as in the utilisation of labour from outside the homelands, of which there is a shortage in the homelands. It gives me great pleasure to inform this House that at the moment we already have the following on the register: The North Sotho national unit has 2 260 persons on the register, of whom 630 are teachers. I am mentioning only certain categories of each people, as recorded in the professional register. More than 3 000 are recorded in the register for the South Sotho people, of whom 130 are medical staff, nurses etc. In respect of the Ciskei-Xhosa people, there are 1 960 on the register, of whom 200 are operators. The hon. members should remember that these persons are all Bantu. The Transkei-Xhosa has 1 760 on the register, of whom more than 300 are in trades. The Tswana have 3 600, of whom more than 600 are teachers. The Zulu have 3 400, of whom more than 500 are textile workers. The Venda have 750, of whom 600 are teachers. The Swazi have 420, of whom 40 are in the South African Police, in other words, public servants. The Tonga-Shangaan national group has more than 400, of whom 50 are sawmill operators. At the moment, therefore, we have classified 17 550 Bantu in the professional register for these peoples, giving names, addresses and other details. I think this is a wonderful achievement, and I wanted to inform the hon. members of this.

Will you make the full details available?

The hon. members may have the full details, but my

time is extremely limited, otherwise I could have mentioned them. However, the hon. members are very welcome to have these details. This development of which I have just informed this House, is a very important one.

We are also engaged in vocational orientation projects for the homelands. Hon. members may have full details in this regard as well. Vocational orientation centres are being established and we are making marvellous progress in that regard. I am mentioning these points very briefly to hon. members just so as to inform them that we on this side of the House are in fact making important progress in regard to artisan training. Let me say to hon. members at once that I, and my department knows this, regard the question of artisan training for our Bantu as one of the most important developments in our country. I should very much like to have the support of hon. members so that we may tackle this matter drastically. It must be tackled drastically because many of our problems in this country would be eased if we could make more rapid progress in this regard. In the light of the facts I have mentioned to hon. members, it seems to me that it would be possible for us to do so.

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

My time is extremely limited, otherwise I should have liked to reply to the hon. member’s question.

I also want to inform this House that we are making excellent progress in respect of another aspect of the implementation of our policy. During the past two years, in fact, in just under that time, 37 000 Bantu were moved from Black spot mission stations in badly situated Bantu areas, and resettled in the homelands. From the rural areas, 69 000 were resettled from the non-prescribed areas. From the prescribed areas, i.e. the towns and the cities, 101 151 Bantu were resettled. 156 Bantu who had businesses in the prescribed areas, i.e. Bantu traders, industrialists and professional people, were resettled satisfactorily in the Bantu homelands. Therefore, in less than two years we resettled a total number of more than 208 000 Bantu in the homelands in that positive way.

Then I should very much like to mention a few details in regard to the progress being made in respect of aid centres. It gives me great pleasure to inform you that according to the latest figures, those for the period 4th to 28th April, the success factor in the Johannesburg aid centres was 66,95 per cent—a wonderful achievement. I want to refer you to a very good article which appeared in the Sunday Times a few weeks ago. It was a middle page article, written by a Bantu who had conducted a personal investigation there. You may read what positive comments he made on that matter. I just want to mention to this House that 72 800 cases have been dealt with at the four aid centres which are functioning at present. The success factor was more than 60 per cent, which is excellent.

[Inaudible.]

These were not sentenced cases, but cases to whom assistance was given in some way or other. I can inform you that in one instance, namely at Brakpan, where 1 008 cases were reported, the success factor was 83 per cent. In the case of Johannesburg, those who had been sentenced represented only 26 per cent. In the case of Welkom, those who had been sentenced represented only 38 per cent. Therefore, really magnificent progress is being made in regard to these aid centres. It attracts much interest from abroad and from all sorts of institutions throughout the country. What is particularly heartening is the fact that increasing numbers of people who have not been referred to those aid centres are presenting themselves there of their own free will.

Then I should very much like to reply to the hon. member for Pinetown, for whom I have much appreciation, in order to supplement what the Minister told him yesterday. The tenders for the Clermont scheme where between 10 000 and 12 000 Bantu will be settled, is under consideration at present. A final decision on those tenders will be taken within a week’s time. I presume this will be very good news to the hon. member. We are facing up squarely to the problem mentioned here by the hon. member. I agree with him wholeheartedly. This is a serious problem. We know it should receive such attention, which it is in fact receiving. I am very sure he will find that very good progress will be made in that regard. For further information I refer him to the detailed reply I gave the hon. member for Houghton a few weeks ago in respect of this matter.

Mr. Chairman, I am glad that the hon. the Deputy Minister is very satisfied with himself, and that at last a beginning has been made with something for the Bantu. After all, it has taken the Nationalist Government 25 years to get into gear. In the next 25 years we will see what will happen. When one looks at the Estimates, under Loan Vote B there is nothing for this purpose. I do not know where the money is coming from. For the extension of existing services and the provision of new services, as well as the payments to the ten governments of the Bantu areas, a paltry R13 million is set aside.

I now come to salaries and wages on the Estimate of Expenditure. I notice that R2 500 000 has been budgeted for the Zulu Government, a small amount when compared with the eight commissioners-general, who receive a vast amount, plus R5 200 as “official entertainment”. In the case of the Zulu people, their Government has now been formed; they have their Parliament at Nongoma, which was opened some time ago. We have a Director of Justice and a Director of Authority Affairs and Finance who are stationed at Nongoma. But the Director of Community Affairs, the Director of Education and Culture, the Director of Works and the Director of Agriculture are all down at Pietermaritzburg, some 250 miles away. I understand, after having spoken to various people, that these directors are supposed to meet once a week, in consultation with their Chief Minister, Chief Buthelezi. Where do they meet? I have not been able to find out where they meet. Do they in fact meet once a week? When is the capital of Ulundi going to be ready? After all, they have been voted an amount of only R25 million for this coming year to run their affairs.

R2 million?

No, R25 million. Referring to the official establishment in the case of the Zulu, I notice that there are 675 officials, but I do not find anything about Bantu magistrates. The top of the salary scale for a Bantu official is apparently R2 520. What are these magistrates being paid? What are their qualifications? Incidentally, Sir, I went to the Umlazi Magistrate’s Court the other day, and I saw a trilingual notice, in which the Afrikaans version of “magistrate” was given as “magistraat”. I always thought that we had done away with the term “magistraat”, in favour of “landdros”. Is the word “magistraat” now to replace “landdros” in a Zulu area?

What is your point?

I want to know which is the correct designation. Mr. Chairman, we all know that Umlazi is situated on the southern boundary of Durban and that it is contiguous to Durban. It is situated on what was known as the old Umlazi Mission Reserve. In 1961 together with the Durban Municipality, acting as agent for the Bantu Trust, a plan for 21 000 houses on a 8 089 acre site was put forward. The idea was to build 18 units which would be self-contained with shopping centres, etc. I have been around there on a number of occasions, and I must admit that there are at the moment 63 primary and secondary schools, whereas the target is 69. For the population of 166 000, there is one vocational training school, and it (Umlazi) is right next to an industrial area! There is only one vocational training school for all those people. I have also noticed that there is a place of safety which cost a considerable amount. As regards shopping facilities, there are admittedly 86 shops which were erected both by the Bantu Investment Corporation and by private means. The shopkeepers were full of grouses to me. Because they were of a general nature, I did not take them down. But I shall talk to the Minister about this when I have the opportunity one day. As regards sport facilities for these 166 000 people, there is one football stadium, which was opened by the hon. the Minister’s predecessor, Mr. de Wet Nel. At that time certificates were also given to the owners of privately owned land. There is one swimming pool for all these people, and six tennis courts. There are numbers of soccer fields, but then no maintenance is required for them. No doubt members of the Cabinet will be pleased to hear that there is an 18-hole golf course. I suppose in due course the Prime Minister and his fellow Cabinet Ministers will be asked to go and open it and it will be a great gala day. I think it would be a very fine occasion. It is about time we had some goodwill from the other side on a friendly basis and not on a so-called consultative basis.

We are oozing goodwill.

There are 15 churches, four bottle stores and two beer depots. There are only four bottle stores. Old Mpanza, who used to be a commentator on Radio Bantu, owned one of those at one time, and he was very happy with it. There are 20 000 houses, and the target is 26 000. I admit that they are four-roomed and that they have sewerage and shower facilities. Here I must congratulate those Bantu, those Zulus who have built their own houses. These houses would grace any upper middle class White suburb. But here I appeal to the hon. the Minister to do something about his magistrates who are living in the area. These magistrates are living in sub-economic houses. A magistrate, after all, has status, and I want to make a plea to the hon. the Minister to see that proper residences are built for his magistrates, residences which will enhance the status of that post.

As regards transport facilities, there is admittedly a branch line which goes into Umlazi. It is a line which is supposed to go through the centre of Durban and end up at Kwa-Mashu. I wonder whether it would not be beyond the bounds of possibility for the Minister to exercise his influence on his colleague, the Minister of Transport, to try to have a loop-line built there, so that transport for these people will be easier. After all, there are people who have to get up at 3 o’clock and 4 o’clock in the morning because they work at the other end of town or in the centre of the city. They finish work at 6 p.m. or thereabouts, and it is not until 8 or 9 p.m. that they arrive back home. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I must apologize for the fact that I am not going to follow up the speech made by the hon. member for Umlazi, for I am afraid that I will not be able to reply to all those questions of his. To be able to reply to all those questions which he put to the hon. the Minister, one would have to be a Zulu witchdoctor. This debate has reached the point of exhaustion. If one looks back at what happened here, one remembers that the United Party warned us last year already that they would launch a terrific attack on this side in this debate, particularly in regard to the Bantu in the White areas. If one takes stock of this it is clear that their bolt has been shot and that only one thing remains now, which is that the United Party is obsessed with political rights for the Bantu in the White areas. Sir, I want to state today that the Bantu in the White areas are a satisfied corps, and that they are by no means as frustrated as is being implied here. I want to allege that the vast majority of the Bantu in the White areas are happy, and that above all they have appreciation for what is being done for them here in the White areas. I want to allege that most of these urban Bantu are not interested in the so-called political rights in the White areas which are being held out here. Sir, do you know what is of the greatest importance to the Bantu? It is not political rights. The Bantu who are with us here are interested in having good employment and earning a decent livelihood. They are interested in a decent house; they are interested in health and welfare services, schools and other facilities for their children. We, the National Party, and the Whites in South Africa have nothing to be ashamed of. We have a record of progress, of opportunities which we have created, of growth and development, and of future possibilities which exist for every person in this country. But what did we inherit? Let us see what we inherited when the National Party came into power. There was no decent housing for the Bantu. Several families had to live together in hovels under the worst circumstances. Bantu collected sheets of corrugated iron and erected hovels in the bare veld; they had to live under cardboard boxes everywhere in and around the Johannesburg shanty towns. That was our heritage, Sir, There was no law and order either. This was the home of gangs of thugs who ruled the roost there, blackmailed the inhabitants and conducted an atrocious reign of terror.

It is much worse now.

No, it is not worse. Proper sanitation had never been heard of. Disease was rampant; the death rate was tremendously high, and it was added to by murder, crime and mayhem. Even in the Bantu townships of that time, things were not much better. In the western areas of Johannesburg White and Black virtually lived together. In order to clear up these black spots, a resettlement board had to be established. Mr. Chairman, I think that if there is one black spot in the history of the United Party, then it is the way in which it opposed that legislation. All you need do is read up the Hansard of 1954 to see what tremendous opposition came from the side of the United Party when this clearance work had to be done. That clearance work was opposed and hampered by the United Party Press, the United Party city council and certain clerics. That was the problem the National Party inherited. In spite of all this criticism and opposition, the National Party cleared up those conditions and laid a foundation for the future. What do we have today, Sir? Today we have large and modern urban complexes, such as Soweto, Meadowlands, etc., around our cities. I need not mention all the names now. One finds them at every large town and city. In that one complex alone there is a concentration of more thanmillion people. Today those slums have virtually disappeared, and living here one has a responsible Bantu community consisting of Zulus, Sothos, Vendas and Tsongas, grouped according to their ethnic units, in areas where they are receiving their education in their mother tongue. Many of them have already come under Western influences to a certain extent, but their tribal affiliations have remained intact. Sir, this is how the National Party views the Bantu, and not as an appendage to the Whites. To us the Tswana is a Tswana, and to himself the Tswana is a Tswana, whether he is here in the White area or in his homeland. When the Bantu are in the White area, we let them live in an urban area where they have their own churches and schools and hospitals and where they can give expression to their own traditions and where they will also shortly be able to exercise their own franchise in their own areas. There we are already applying the principle of “one man, one vote”, so that the Bantu can vote for the Bantu in their own country. This gives them a co-share in the political say, and makes them homeland-orientated; it ties them to their own area and citizenship. The Bantu are allowed to sell their labour to us here, and the Whites pay them for that labour. They pay them a fair wage according to their achievements, together with providing a good house, education, health services, etc., so that they can live here satisfied and happy. I want us to glance for a moment at how the Bantu are getting along in the Bantu residential areas. I want to quote to you from a booklet published by the Johannesburg City Council on Soweto. I just want to mention a few of the most important things. I begin with health—

There are general clinics and casualty wards for out-patients attached to the Baragwanath Hospital, which is one of our finest achievements, where they can receive treatment at a low cost. There are family health services. There are inoculations against diphtheria, whooping cough, etc., for them. There are nursery schools over which voluntary organisations exercise control. There are tuberculosis services, permanent and mobile X-ray units, etc. I want to go further and point out the welfare services in this area. There are a large variety of welfare services, inter alia the rehabilitation of disabled persons. There are social workers. There are youth clubs established to combat juvenile delinquency. There are vocational training centres, of which you shall hear more later. Youth clubs have been established to make provision for the young. There are women’s clubs, etc. I go further. There are six public libraries. There are three sports stadiums, four swimming baths, 42 tennis courts and 24 club buildings. I am just quoting at random. There are 39 children’s parks, dance arenas and athletics stadiums, and there are two golf courses, there is a bowling green and there is an amphitheatre. There are 152 churches. Provision is being made for recreation in various spheres, as I have already mentioned. A large number of trained staff members organize recreation. I shall let this suffice. [Time expired.]

Following upon what the hon. member for Kempton Park had to say, I would now like to show what the health services are like in South Africa for the Bantu, particularly at the time when the health services have in theory, at any rate, been handed over to the Bantu authorities in the Transkei.

Not yet.

That makes it worse. Then it is the responsibility of the Minister entirely and there is no excuse for its being as bad as it is. If the Minister intends handing it over to the Bantustans at any time, then he has got immediately to improve the present structure of the health services as it now exists. We cannot even consider them as being nearly satisfactory. There is a shortage of doctors and there is a shortage of dentists. As a matter of fact, Bantu dentists do not exist in the Republic. There is a shortage of pharmacists. When I say this, I am understating the position, because I think at the moment there is only one. Para-medical services are not in the hands of the Bantu people at all; it almost entirely has to be done by Whites. There is a shortage of beds in every hospital. Where there are full hospitals, there is overcrowding. The clinics are few and inadequate. From what has been happening in the Eastern Transvaal, we know that there is difficulty in combating disease. We have just seen an illustration of bad planning and inadequate prevention from what has happened in the Eastern Transvaal in regard to the spread of malaria.

You had better be careful what you say.

I know what I am talking about. You gave me the figures.

They are not necessarily correct.

And they are not correct. The hon. the Minister gave us figures which are in doubt, because they do not take into consideration those persons who are or were ill, and who were suspected of having malaria but did not have their blood taken for examination. The numbers obviously were much greater than those given to us by the hon. the Minister. But I do not want to refer only to the question of malaria. For years I have been pleading here for better services in connection with the prevention of venereal diseases. This is bad enough as far as the White people are concerned; for the Bantu it is a lot worse.

Now what have they done to help? First of all, there was a perfectly good hospital at Edenvale in Johannesburg. It was a perfectly good hospital, giving a wonderful service. Only for ideological reasons this hospital is being closed.

Nonsense!

Only for ideological reasons. A new hospital is being built a matter of 23 miles further away. No clinic will be established at this hospital to serve the thousands of Bantu in that area. For the information of the hon. member who interrupted and said that this was not done for ideological reasons, I want to quote from the Hansard of the provincial council what the M.E.C. concerned said. He was asked: “What were the reasons for closing it?”. Before the sentence was even completed, the reply came by way of an interjection: “For ideological reasons”. A member then said to him: “Ideological?”. He replied: “Yes.” Again the member said: “Do you admit it?”. The reply was: “Of course, I have said it all along the line; it is part of our apartheid policy.” That is the sort of thing, Mr. Chairman, that goes on. What is going to happen to this hospital?

Let us not stop there. Let us see what is happening in other places. The King Edward VIII Hospital in Durban is bursting at its seams. It is absolutely bursting at its seams. It is overcrowded, and the extension in Clairwood consisting of, I think, 1 000 beds, is also overcrowded. A hospital was promised to be built at Umlazi.

We are still waiting for it.

There is the answer. We are still waiting for it.

They haven’t even started.

It hasn’t even been started. At Madadeni in Newcastle they have an old mixed hospital which is in a hopeless state. In order to provide for Bantu that are clamouring for admission, the provincial council of Natal are now seeking permission, I understand, to build a White hospital so that they can move the White patients into this hospital and make more room for the non-Whites. At Umlazi, as I have said, nothing is happening. At Empangeni very little has been done. Wards and kitchens have been built, but there are no X-ray facilities or operating theatres.

No staff either.

Of course there is no staff. That is why they are not getting on with it. This is the sort of thing that is going on. These are the sort of conditions that the hon. member for Kempton Park is happy about. He says that everything is lovely. Now what did I see when I went through the Transkei? I saw the Dimbazas and the Sadas. I saw people standing in queues for food, and outside the inadequate clinics. Those queues outside the clinics are going to get longer and longer as long as those people living Dimbaza and in Sada do not have work to do. They have to live on the rations that are given to them. Those rations are inadequate and the adults and the children are going to suffer. The queues for the treating of kwashiorkor and malnutrition are going to get longer and longer. When you have empty stomachs, all sorts of diseases can start, and there is no easy way of warding them off.

If at this stage the hon. the Minister is thinking of giving over a State hospital and health service such as exists now, I plead with him to start immediately to try to improve the conditions before he contemplates any transfer. I want to go further and say that he is not making sufficient provision to staff medically, through nurses and so on, the services he hopes to hand over in the future. I have the figures which were given here yesterday as far as the admissions to medical schools are concerned. I am not going to deal with the Whites at all, because their numbers are absolutely inadequate. For 70 per cent of the population only 113 medical students have been admitted to the Durban medical school. It has to serve the whole of the Bantu population. 50 per cent of those students, as the hon. the Minister of Health knows, will drop out. This means then that in seven years’ time, this years’ enrolment of Bantu doctors will only supply 50 doctors more for 70 per cent of the population. What is very upsetting to me, is that 390 Bantu applied for admission but could not get it, and they are not allowed to go to any other medical school. Apparently there is no room for them there. What do we therefore find? We find that there is going to be a (growing shortage of Bantu doctors to look after their own people. Yesterday the hon. the Minister said that in Soweto things are different. When I asked him why he does not allow Bantu doctors to practise in Soweto, he said that they cannot be compared to business people. Bantu business people are allowed to have shops there, but Whites only are allowed to practise medicine there. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just spoken is concerned about the state of health of the Bantu. I want to tell him and his colleagues that there is another person whose state of health and nervous condition they should be concerned about, and that is the hon. member for Wynberg. I want to ask hon. members on the opposite side where the hon. member for Wynberg is today. I now want to speak to them man to man. They have hurt and humiliated the hon. member for Wynberg. Only under special circumstances does one constrain one’s own wife to silence, but under no circumstances does one constrain the wife of another man to silence. That is what the hon. Opposition has succeeded very well in doing. They have constrained her to silence here, and after having done so and humiliated her, they told her yesterday that she could after all participate in the debate. I want to tell them that if we on the National Party side had had a beautiful female member among our number, this is not the kind of treatment she would have received.

There is something which to my mind is emerging very clearly in this debate again, i.e. that the United Party has up to now, and after all these years, not yet learned, does not yet realize that the Bantu are also entitled to their own intrinsic nationhood and their own national pride. I want to inform the House that as far as this is concerned, the National Party Government and the National Party is a unique government and a unique party. The National Party Government has set the Bantu on their own course of development. We are living today in a world where the cry of “one man, one vote” is with justification being raised. I find no fault with that. I want to say that the world can come and see in South Africa how the cry of “one man. one vote” is being realized and applied, where the policy of the National Party Government leads to every Bantu having his own vote in his own homeland, just as I have my own vote in my White area. His vote is equal to my vote. In this way the National Party Government is giving every Bantu one man, one vote, in the same way as the Whites are entitled to this. With this honest approach of the National Party and of the National Party Government we are achieving great success with out policy and its implementation, for the purpose for which we believe we as Whites have been placed here, viz. the Christianization of the Blacks in Africa. To prove this I want to dwell for a few moments on this and mention to the House what we have done and what we have already achieved in the Bantu homelands.

On 31st May, 1961, the late Dr. Verwoerd stated in Church Square in Pretoria, when we became a Republic: Now we have a Republic; from now on the people of South Africa will have to remember and be prepared for the fact that the Republic is going to make demands on us. Subsequently an old gentleman from the Heidelberg constituency asked him: “Doctor, what are those demands which you spoke of?” Dr. Verwoerd told him: “Now we have a Republic; the great ideal has been realized. The next ideal we want to realize is the full development of the Bantu homelands”. This will require sacrifices, physical sacrifices from us in future. If farmers and industrialists, under certain circumstances, will have to get along with less Bantu labour, they will have to realize that it is necessary. If we have to vote more funds for the development of the homelands, we will have to do so. Those are the sacrifices we will have to make.

I say that we have already made progress with the planning of the homelands. When we speak of planning, we come, in the first place, to the fixing of the boundaries of the homelands. The Government is working on that. This will reach finality at some stage in the future.

We come now to regional planning within the homelands. The homelands will be planned according to topography, according to the natural resources and climatic regions. There will be planning for municipal areas, for industries, residential areas and agricultural areas. Agricultural areas are and have already been planned into subdivisions, namely the irrigation areas, the agronomy and stock farming areas. I can just say that I have been told that some stage or another of planning has been reached for 59 per cent of the agricultural areas in the Bantu homelands. I can also say that this Government is changing the old stock farming approach of the Bantu. The Bantu believe that the larger the horns of an animal the better the quality of that animal. We are now working with 750 Bantu extension officers to change that old inborn belief among the Bantu and to change their approach to agricultural and stock farming. We are succeeding in doing this.

As far as industries are concerned, I can say that we have already made a great deal of progress. I should like to quote a short extract in this connection (translation)—

I can state that it is asserted here that there are 100 factories in production at Babalege. 107 factory units have already, or are still being built by the Corporation, and leased at very fair rentals. Loan capital is being made available at very low rates of interest, and other attractive concessions are also being made.

Why have we been able to make such progress with the implementation of our policy? We have been able to do so because the Bantu have confidence in this Government. This is not what I say, but I call as witness a Bantu leader. His words were—

He went on to say—

What about representation for the Coloureds?

He went on to say—

Why do they have this confidence in the Afrikaner? I give the hon. members the answer in the memorable words of a speech made by Dr. Verwoerd on 31st May, 1961. With which I also want to conclude. Dr. Verwoerd said (translation)—

This is what the Government is doing and will continue to do.

Mr. Chairman, I shall return to the subject raised by the hon. member who has just spoken in a moment. Before doing so, I want to complete the issue with which I was dealing when my time expired earlier this afternoon. I had asked him, as he was not prepared to give information to this House on how money paid by the taxpayer was being spent, to deny certain facts concerning the purchase of a transport bus service. I want to ask him further whether it is correct that after the take-over of this bus service by the Bantu Investment Corporation, the turnover of that bus service immediately dropped by at least 33 per cent. Why was this the case? The hon. Minister’s department, or one of his boards, had taken over a running enterprise and a profitable enterprise. Judging by the purchase price of that business it must have been profitable otherwise they would not have paid R250 000 for it. Why then did the turnover immediately drop if it was not as a result of bad management? I want to ask him further questions about the purchase of that bus service. I want to ask him why a figure of R8 000 was paid for road carrier transportation certificates. This Parliament altered the law to make those carrier certificates non-transferable in terms of that law. People were buying shares in companies in order to get carrier certificates and only last year the law was specifically amended to lay down that if the shares in a company were sold to a new owner, the carrier certificates had to be re-applied for by the new owner of the shares. This was the extent to which the Department of Transport was concerned with trading in carrier certificates. And yet a Government department values those certificates, places a value on them, and includes it in the purchase price. These are examples—and I could give others—of why I believe that Parliament is entitled to know what is happening to the taxpayers’ money. It is not good enough for the hon. the Minister to say “I am not going to disclose private business affairs”. These are not private business affairs; this is a Government corporation. A Government corporation purchased the business and is running it for the profit of the department, and not for the profit of a Bantu. In the case of E’zakheni the corporation bought a running business, a going concern, and continued to run it for its own profit. Therefore there is no private interest requiring secrecy about this. It is a Government undertaking and we should be entitled, as Parliament, to know what the Government is doing with the money of the taxpayer. It is just not good enough, and we do not accept the refusal of the hon. the Minister to give to Parliament, and to the country an account of the money for which he is responsible. On the Estimates we are being asked for more money to go into these corporations, millions of rands. We are going to have to vote on it. Later this very afternoon we are going to be asked to vote another R7 odd million to take out shares in these corporations. Why should we vote that money? Why should we blindly vote money to a Minister who is not prepared to account for it, who is not prepared to tell us what he is going to do with it? Then we get this airy-fairy, every-thing-in-the-garden-is-rosy story. What a wonderful show! According to the hon. member for Heidelberg, who has just sat down, and all the other members, it is a wonderful show.

Mr. Chairman, the issue facing South Africa is not that something has been done; it is that what has been done, is a fleabite. It is scratching the surface; that is all. The hon. the Minister gave us some figures this afternoon. He had the courtesy to send me the list of the occupations register. For the nearly four million Zulu people there are only 3 400 occupations registered.

That is a new thing; we have just started on it.

It is a new thing, but what about those 500 odd textile workers? Where are they? In the White area; trained by White entrepreneurs and foremen. And his Government declared this as a White job! The textile industry falls under job reservation and the non-Whites are employed by exemptions, but the Minister holds that out as an example that 500 workers are registered as textile workers for the Zulu nation. This is how we are going to provide employment and a register for the millions of people for whom he is responsible.

He challenged us on training. Of course, we want training. He asked us if we would agree to the services levy being used to train for trade purposes. That is something which can be considered. We want to see people trained for trades. But, look at what we find in all these three reports of the three corporations whose job it is to provide the infrastructure. Look at the Bantu Investment Corporation with over R22 million capital. They have spent in the whole year only R242 000 on investigation, aftercare and training of all the people to whom they have made loans. A quarter of a million has been spent—it is a fleabite!—for investigating propositions, for looking after them afterwards and for training the people.

The Bantu Mining Corporation’s total planning programme is four bursaries for geologists. It is a good thing; we are glad that there are people training as geologists. But the Xhosa Development Corporation comes to this conclusion, and I quote from page 4 of its sixth annual report:

This is what we have been saying ever since the Tomlinson Commission reported, namely that only White entrepreneurs with their know-how can do it. On page 10 we find the following remark:

Then we find the figure I quoted—in the whole of the Transkei, through the Xhosa Development Corporation 3 003 Bantu are in employment. That is as many as are employed in one textile factory. [Interjections.] Yes, how many are there at Good Hope Textiles? 3 000 odd? I can take the hon. member to three or four factories in Durban where over a thousand and up to 2 000 employees are employed. So we find that three factories, at the most, could employ all those 3 000 people. Then we talk of providing occupations for the people! It is pretty; it is a shop window; it looks lovely, but it is meaningless in the concept of 18 million Bantu. It is meaningless in the concept of 30 million Bantu, by the turn of the century. At this rate …

[Inaudible.]

But look at the figures, Sir, In the Transkei there were 2 500 applications for work, and jobs could be found for only 17 per cent. What about the other 83 per cent? And so I could go on from item to item, but I do not have the time. What is there looks pretty; it is something in a show-case. If you were to read this report of the Xhosa Development Corporation you would say: “What a wonderful job; it is well done and it sounds impressive.” But when it comes to tackling the root problem of employment for 18 million people it is a fleabite. It is no use saying that we have made progress, a hundred per cent progress, from one person to two. How many engineers, auditors and accountants are there? How many are there for these special jobs? I find four bookkeepers, and no accountants … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member said: “What a wonderful show we are putting up.”

“Show-case.”

Yes, but a moment ago the hon. member said “What a wonderful show” the lot of us and the Minister are. I shall accept this; we are a “wonderful show”. We have the right to say we are doing wonders, but what a tragic scene is enacted when that hon. member speaks! What a tragic scene is enacted when that whole party starts talking as an organism. There is surely something tragic in that. I wrote down a few words as I was following the debate. They are a lot of abdicators, afraid of everything. Throughout the 20 years I have been sitting here, they have left one indelible impression, i.e. that they are a lot of reckless abdicators.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member sitting there is renowned for the abbreviations he invents. For the word “adjunk” he says “ajjunk”, and when he was still Ossewa-General he simply called the Torch Commando the “Tjorts-komman-do”! He likes abbreviations, and he must not talk to me. He is actually the abbreviation man. Sir, not only are they a lot of abdicators—I say reckless abdicators—but they joined every Tom, Dick and Harry here in this country who booed our country. I remember the old United Front period, the tin torches and the Torch Commando; they were all a lot of hooters. They joined in the booing. Not once did they stand up and mention one favourable trend in connection with the development of the policy of separation between ourselves and the Black man. Not once did they show any favourable reaction to it. No, it appears to me they welcome every problem and snag which must inevitably occur in such a big development process. As they sit there they are at odds with a natural line of development and with development that cannot be stopped. Within that party there are conflicting elements. They cannot tell me that this is not so, because we know it. I found it this past week amongst their people in the interior. I talk a great deal to United Party men, and there is a clash in their ranks on the broad, horizontal level, and it is not only here that this is taking place.

Thirdly, Sir: Show me a party with as little faith as that party. Show me a party with a leader who is as vascillating and despairing as the Leader of that party. And then, Sir, they are completely unable to sell their policy. I say to them: You will never be able to sell your policy to the public; the public will not buy it. You may hawk it around a little. You know, an article one hawks one is sometimes able to sell, but that party can never build up any commercial goodwill with their policy, that is why they cannot sell it. What are the actual facts? Firstly, within the Bantu homelands over the past 10 years there has been an increase of Black people from 4,1 million to 6,9 million. That is as plain as a pikestaff, and the 1970 census proved it. That is the first point.

The second fact which is as plain as a pikestaff is that the percentage increase of the Bantu in the homelands was from 37,5 per cent to 46,5 per cent. That is the second big fact. The third point is that the increase of Bantu within the homelands has exceeded their natural growth rate. This ratio in the Bantu homelands is 78,7 per cent as against 36,3 per cent, this being their general population increase.

The fourth fact is that in the White area the Bantu increase was 16,8 per cent in the 1960 to 1970 decade. In the Bantu areas the increase was 68,7 per cent. Therefore, the Whites in the White areas are increasing in relationship to the Bantu. The ratio has changed from 223 Bantu per 100 Whites to 112 Bantu per 100 Whites. This is an important fact. Sir, these are not figures that have been conjured up. These are figures clearly evident from the 1970 census. On the basis of these figures I therefore want to state that we have gone beyond the line of no return.

“We are beyond the line of no return,” Sir, Because we are “beyond the line of no return”, they are becoming so panicky; that is where the panic lies. They will never be able to return. As far as we are concerned, this is an achievement, a wonderful achievement. We have dammed up the stream of Bantu to the White areas. [Interjections.] Yes, laugh; you are laughing at facts. The facts are sticking in your throats and you are now choking! That jeering laugh is actually a choking laugh. They ask whether 1978 is still the dead-line.

Is it?

Yes, that will be the dead-line; I still stick to that, but the point is that the National Party has never said it is going to be a revolutionary process; we have always said that it is going to be a gradual process. The whole history of the past two decades has been a history of gradual evolutionary development; that is what we can write behind our names, to our credit. We have three main objectives. The one is the settlement of the Bantu within the Bantu homelands. We have made a start as far as that is concerned; at present it is gathering momentum. The second is the correction of geographic boundaries. That will be done, as we have said. The third is to increase the suction power or the drawing power of the Bantu areas by the establishment of industries near the homelands or within the homelands. We are doing that at present, and that is something they argue against. Sir, I want to conclude. The four phases of the National Party’s policy, i.e. building up, consolidation, development in the homelands sand development in the political sphere, give us the moral right to say that within the White area today the Bantu are not having political franchise; secondly, that they are not having proprietary rights; thirdly, that they are not having investment rights. All these rights that we have allegedly deprived them of, are not rights we have taken away from them; this was a transfer of rights according to an ordered pattern of development, and this gives me the moral right to say—I have every moral right to say this loudly—that the Bantu have not been deprived of any rights. All those rights that they have, have been added, or given to them additionally, on a more ordered political basis within a framework of political, ordered development. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, you will remember that not so long ago, Rapport, in expressing criticism of the Government and of “Current Affairs”, said that all we received was “le woorde”. Rapport said—

Sir, that is what we had again from the hon. member who has just sat down. He says that the percentage of the Bantu in the White areas has decreased, and that the percentage of the Bantu living in the rural areas has increased.

Yes, decreased!

But that is no answer. The fact is that the numbers of Bantu in the White areas are increasing, and if that were not so, the Prime Minister would not have said that numbers are no longer of any account. Why have they abandoned that? [Interjections.] I am sorry, Sir, I only have 10 minutes. The hon. members says that 1978 is still the year in which the tide will turn. Why does Die Burger say that that year is dead? The hon. member’s own supporter says that that year is dead. He must not try to come and bluff this House with that sort of thing.

Before I deal with the rest of the hon. member’s speech, I want to ask the Minister some questions about the Revenue Account, in case I do not have time at the end of my speech. I want him to explain to us where the money is going to come from for the development of the Bantu areas. When we look at the Revenue Account we see that under Items A to Q there is an over-all increase of approximately R2 million. There is an increase of R49 million in the amounts paid direct to the Bantu Government. I understand that under the new system of government, the Bantu Governments are paid these amounts for administration. There is an over-all increase then of R51 million in the Revenue Account. When we look at the Loan Account, we find that there is a decrease of R47million. There is a reduction of R2i million in the money set aside for compensation to Whites in the Transkei, and I think that is tragic, Sir, Those people are now being told to submit their trading stations and properties to the Government next year because the Government has no money to pay this year. I say it is a sad day for them to find that the amount set aside last year has been reduced by half.

Then, Sir, we have the Loan Account. There we find that the item, “Development of Bantu areas by the South African Bantu Trust”, has been reduced by R28 million. The amount set aside for the development of the Bantu areas by the Bantu authorities is decreased by R14 million. In the Revenue Account we find that Item N, “Grants-in-aid to the South African Bantu Trust Fund”, has been decreased by R10 million. Sir, I thought that the increases in the grants to the different homeland Governments were for the salaries of officials but I see that that is not so, because in the Revenue Account there is an increase of R5 million for salaries. Taking the amount set aside in both the Revenue Account and the Loan Account, we find that there is an increase of R2 million, compared with the amounts voted last year. I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us where the money is to come from for the development of the Reserves and for the purpose of the land in terms of the 1936 Act.

I want to get back to the hon. the Minister now. The Minister introduced this debate on Monday. He has made two long speeches. He started in his usual arrogant manner and shouted that the day of reckoning had come. We pointed out to him that we were going to discuss his policy and that we were not going to be side-tracked. We have discussed his policy. From this side of the House we have put forward excellent criticism, criticism of every sphere of administration of that department and we have had no reply. We have had nothing but “le woorde en nog meer le woorde” from the other side. Sir, the Minister has not replied to the many questions that we have asked. There are obvious inadequacies in their policy, especially for the urban African. There is a lack of planning in the Reserves; there is a lack of training of Africans. The hon. member for Rosettenville dealt with the provision of hospitals. The one hospital which he did not mention was Mdantsane. I want to ask the Minister how he is going to staff Mdantsane. I understand that 108 doctors will be required for the Mdantsane Hospital. That town was established about 10 years ago. No provision was made for hospitalization. Sir, that is typical of the lack of planning by this Government and by this department in every sphere.

There is not even a district surgeon.

Sir, we have not had suitable replies from the hon. the Minister with regard to the settlement of the boundaries of the Reserves, the economic development of the Reserves, and the provision of efficient and sufficient Bantu labour in the White areas, and he has not dealt at all with the urban Bantu. Because of this, we hold this Minister responsible. He has answered to the best of his ability, but because of his impractical policy, he is not able to deal with this matter satisfactorily, and I therefore move—

Our first accusation is that the Government has not dealt satisfactorily with the question of the boundaries of the Reserves. Sir, there is growing hostility from the Bantu leaders on this land issue. The Minister has given no better reply on this land issue than the Prime Minister did. We still do not know where we stand. To show what is happening in the Reserves, this afternoon The Argus has an account of an interview with Chief Matanzima. I just want to read it out to the Committee—

I say this is typical of the attitude now of the Bantu leaders. In regard to the economic development of the Reserves, the hon. member for Durban Point dealt with the inadequacy in training and qualifying people to play their part in the Reserves. The hon. the Deputy Minister says they are just making a start. Are they making a start now, 24 years after they came into power? Why are they only making a start now? I say there is insufficient provision for efficient and sufficient Bantu labour in the White areas. The hon. the Minister in replying to my question as to what conditions would be laid down for industry and commerce to make use of this labour promised by the Minister of Finance, has said that they would first have to use the existing labour and then they could apply to this board and they would consider each application.

Sir, when the Minister of Finance made that statement in this House, he was applauded for it. Everybody thought that it was a breakthrough and that he was being flexible. That is one of the reasons why his Budget speech was praised, but we pointed out at the time that this was going to be this Minister who would kill that policy, and he has in fact killed it straight away. He made no reference to it before. He has not carried out the promises of the Minister of Finance.

As far as the urban Bantu are concerned, what did we have from the Minister? I asked him about housing. I asked him why they have done away with the 30-year leases introduced by Dr. Verwoerd, but we have had no reply to that. I asked about the supply of housing in the other towns. We have had no reply from these Ministers. They cannot deny that there is a shortage of housing for Bantu in all the White areas, especially in Soweto. We know that the municipality wants to build houses. What are these Ministers doing to see that suitable housing is provided for the Africans? [Time expired.]

Under normal circumstances I would not have stood up now because I am a person who can keep my word. The Whip on the other side and I agreed about when this debate should end according to the time we allocated for it. At a later stage we again agreed that each of us could include another speaker in the debate. I agreed because there was apparently some time left. But what I object to is that at the end a member is given the opportunity to move this amendment when no one else can reply to it except the Minister himself. [Interjections.] It is surely wrong for the Minister himself to have to come and speak about the question of his own salary. As I have said, I keep my word, but I condemn this way of doing tilings. What courage is now being displayed here? If those hon. members had the courage they would have moved at the beginning of this debate that the Minister’s salary be reduced. [Interjections.]

Order!

I say again, if those hon. members had the courage they would have done so at the beginning of this debate. But this debate apparently did not progress as they would have liked it to.

Squealer!

Order! What hon. member said “squealer”.

I did, Sir,

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District must withdraw that word.

May I address you on that, Sir?

No, you cannot. The hon. member must withdraw it unconditionally.

I withdraw it.

I say that no one has ever accused me of not being able to keep my word, but we cannot allow this in this House—we cannot allow this kind of sneaking action (sluipaskie) afterwards.

On a point of order, Sir, may I ask whether the hon. member may refer to the rules of the House and the use thereof as a “sneaking action”?

Order! For the maintenance of order in the House I shall ask the hon. member to withdraw that word.

I am prepared to withdraw it. I take the strongest exception to such tail-action, which does not show any courage. But we are used to that. I have the list. I quickly went to look for it when this step was taken. In 1949 this happened to Dr. E. G. Jansen, Minister of Native Affairs, and subsequently in 1950 again, in 1951 against Dr. Verwoerd, and subsequently in 1952, 1954, 1956, 1957—the same amendments, and in 1959 against Minister Daan Nel, and after that against his Deputy Minister, Mr. Frans Mentz, and again in 1961 against Minister Nel, and again in 1962 and in 1963, and all I now want to say is that we are proud of the fact that Mr. M. C. Botha’s name is also being added to that list. We have our policy to carry out. It is being handled by that Minister and we shall not allow such tail-action, a kind of stalking action, to be carried out here. We shall vote that amendment down because we have confidence in the Minister, and those hon. gentlemen must display more courage and give us an opportunity to discuss an amendment such as that, and they must not come along with it at the end of a debate.

I should like to express my thanks to my colleague the hon. member for Germiston for what he said there, but I want to tell the hon. Committee that I am by no means amazed by the fact that in the last moments of this debate, after a so-called “gentleman’s agreement”, the United Party has come forward with such an amendment. I am, as the hon. member for Germiston said, proud of the fact that such a motion has been moved in me. It does not worry me in the least, because this adds my name to a list of predecessors who distinguished themselves in this regard. Incidentally, this is almost tantamount to an honorary doctorate being conferred upon me by the United Party! But let me say this to the Opposition. A measure of courtesy would at least have been displayed if they had moved this motion at a time when a discussion of that amendment could still take place. But they did it in such a way that they afforded absolutely no opportunity of such a discussion taking place. I am not the person who will try to justify here why my salary, which is allocated to me on these Estimates, should not be reduced. I am not the one who wants to do so; it is this side of the House that ought to do so, and I am not going to justify it either. I want to tell the hon. members opposite that they are welcome to look at the way I replied to the questions. The questions put to me, were very faithfully replied to either by myself or by the two Deputy Ministers, in so far as they were not replied to by other members on this side as well. Sir, in the course of a hour debate, during which 44 members on the opposite side may speak—or 42, if they avail themselves of the half-hour periods— each of those 42 could put six or eight questions to me. That is impossible and it is also unnecessary. It is quite unnecessary for me to have to reply here to 200 questions in quite a limited time. This is done very ably by many members on this side of the House and by my two Deputy Ministers. Hon. members are welcome to take another look at the questions. The only questions that are omitted, are questions on inanities, questions which are asked for purely political purposes and to which replies have already been given time and again. The hon. member mentioned a few examples of questions to which I ostensibly did not wish to reply or which were not replied to by this side. In regard to the question of the Bantu in the White areas— or, as hon. members opposite say, urban areas, as though farms do not fall under the White area—we adopted a challenging attitude towards that side of the House. Just refer to my first speech in the no-confidence debate during February. From that side we do not get anything. We get the old, hackneyed lot of clichs—those things that were rattled off here by the hon. member for Turffontein this afternoon. They are all repetitions. We get no real discussion of our policy, and, least of all, a justification of the Opposition’s policy. Members of the Opposition would be well advised to go through the debates of the late forties to see how this party took advantage of its opportunities in order to state its policy in this Committee and in this House, and did not make use of destructive criticism only. The Opposition thinks that it can come into power by destroying without indicating what is to be substituted in its place. If it is not a fact that the Opposition should compare its policy here with ours, then I should like to know what use the Opposition wants to make of a Parliament in an attempt to come into power one day.

I shall now reply, for the umpteenth time, to the questions mentioned here by the hon. member. The hon. the Deputy Minister replied in detail to housing matters concerning the Bantu in the urban areas. He even announced new attitudes. That business of owning a house or a shop building was terminated several years ago, because it had brought about several anomalies, which were dealt with by us in this House on various occasions in the past. We know that, contrary to what the United Party wants, our urban Bantu residential areas are grouped into ethnic blocs. For instance, we have the Sotho bloc, the Zulu, the Venda, the Shangaan and the Xhosa bloc, and so forth. Now one has the case of a person owning a shop or a house in a certain part. It may happen that this person dies or has to move or whatever. He may not be able to sell that house, and then he finds himself in difficulties. Perhaps the only buyer he may be able to get, is a person who does not fit into that block ethnically. That is why we say that that system implies too many anomalies, and that if that house could be sold to anybody, it would also give rise to the proper communal basis on which urban Bantu residential areas are organized, being undermined to too great an extent. That is why we introduced the rule that such buildings—and it was particularly in regard to the shops that we had this problem—must be bought by the local authority. The local authority may then, in turn, let such buildings to other people. There is a very good reason for that, which has been furnished here time and again.

The hon. member for Transkei also asked me quite a number of questions. While I am dealing with him, I want to finish off all his questions. The hon. member asked questions about the Estimates. If the hon. member would study the Estimates very closely, he would notice that the Treasury introduced a changed pattern in that a much larger-amount was voted on Revenue Account than was done on the Loan Account. You will see that, as compared with the previous year, the Loan Vote was reduced by 54,8 per cent, whereas the Revenue Vote was increased by 4,3 per cent. I shall refrain from making any comments on South-West Africa, which is not really relevant here. This is a Treasury arrangement on which the hon. the Minister of Finance touched in his introductory speech. This is not a matter into which I need go any further at the moment. It is a point which the hon. member would be well advised to discuss with the hon. the Minister of Finance. He is the person who controls the allocations of the funds to the various accounts. The hon. member also wanted to know from me where the development funds would come from. He must appreciate that the Bantu authorities spend money which is accounted for in the Estimates. Does the hon. member want to listen to me?

I am listening.

But the member is carrying on a conversation. There are funds which are provided on the Estimates and which go to the Trust. The Trust has its own, if I may call it such, sub-estimates for such funds. The amount that goes to the Trust, has been included here and is reflected here. Then there are amounts which go to the various Bantu peoples. Some funds are reflected in the Loan Vote, some are reflected on the Revenue Vote, and funds for South West are reflected on the South-West Africa Estimates. Therefore, these funds are reflected on the various Estimates. This is a highly technical matter, and if the hon. member wants a technical explanation for all these things, and the exact amounts, I shall make a very fruitful proposition to him, rather than reading out in detail here all the various items from the various Estimates. Let him come to my office and I shall indicate to him where these things are reflected on all the various Votes, if he is interested in them for a technical reason. However, the real fact is that, broadly speaking, whether we put it on this account or that account, there is, all told, a net increase of approximately 2 per cent on the previous year, and one sees this when one compares the funds voted on the Estimates last year with those to be voted on the three Estimates this year.

With those on, the Loan Account?

Yes, those of all the Estimates taken together. The hon. member also wanted to know from me whether money had been voted for the purchase of land, and, if so, how much. It is reflected here in the Estimates, but perhaps the hon. member did not notice it. In the Estimates of Expenditure to be defrayed from the Loan Account the hon. member will see on page 79 that there is an item “Purchase of Land” for which an amount of R5 million has to be voted for the 1972-’73 financial year. This is a decrease of R3 million on the previous year.

Yes, but there is a decrease everywhere.

The hon. member should look at all the Votes, and not only at mine. There are reductions by the Government on almost all the Votes. In his Budget speech the Minister of Finance also dealt with this matter in detail.

But you now want to purchase large pieces of land in the Ciskei.

I did not think the hon. member was so ignorant. Where does one find a proposal to purchase land in the Ciskei during this year? There is no proposal before Parliament to purchase land in the Ciskei during the present financial year. The purchases that will take place in the Ciskei, are the normal purchases. The purchases that will take place in the Ciskei during this financial year, have no bearing on the proposals made by the Select Committee. The hon. member is a member of the Select Committee, but he does not know these simple facts. Those proposals which were made by the Select Committee, and which are still to be dealt with here and in the Other Place, are an indication of the areas that will be added to the homelands. Therefore there is no obligation to the effect that all that land must be purchased during this financial year. It may be that a few farms in that area may be purchased in so far as the provision on this year’s Estimates permits; however, it may also be that this will not take place during this financial year. However, the hon. member is confusing two very important matters. The one is the indication of future released areas, and the other is the availability of money for purchasing land. Did the hon. member think that we had to provide money on the present Estimates for all of that more than 100 000 ha of land?

Not for all of the land, but for a large portion of it.

No, now the hon. member is retreating to such an extent that one can see his whole back. His line of argument is totally wrong. That is the trouble.

This is the promise you are making to these people.

That hon. member is indulging in third-hand politics if he says such things.

The hon. member also complained that I had not replied to the question of the final borders. We had a discussion on this matter by way of a series of interjections made across the floor of this House. At the time I still referred to the statements made by the hon. the Prime Minister earlier this year. We explicitly said here that this step which we had now taken in respect of the Ciskei, was the first and, we hoped, the penultimate step in indicating the final territory of the Ciskei. I explicitly told the hon. member that the Ciskei was lagging behind the other two territories in the Cape Province. I told him that they first had to be brought on a more equal footing by granting more land to them. Subsequent to that the rest of the land that had to be surrended by the Cape Province, would be divided among the Transkei, Ciskei and Tswanaland. Does the hon. member not remember it?

Yes, but I asked you how much land they were going to get. That is all I want to know.

The hon. member asked me how much land and what land the Transkei was going to get. I told him that we would submit that matter to this House at a convenient time as those things were only being worked out at the moment.

Your answer is not satisfactory.

Order!

I told the hon. member, and I repeat it now, that the Ciskei matter had to be settled first. The matter will not be settled before it has been approved by the Other Place as well. The Ciskei matter still has to be piloted through the Other Place; only then will it have been settled. We shall only know then what the final figures in respect of the Ciskei are. Subsequent to that we may make calculations in respect of the distribution among the three territories of the rest of the quota due to them. The hon. member knows too little about these matters, and then he reveals his ignorance by the questions he puts. The hon. member must realize that we are making these land purchases through the Select Committee. It is being done in a very democratic manner. I do not know whether the hon. member has discovered this, for it seems to me as though he was a sleeping member on the Select Committee. He ought to know that the proposals submitted to the Select Committee by the department, were changed slightly by that Select Committee. I hope that we are going to accept them like that in this House. In other words, the Select Committee had a right to investigate that matter autonomously. It is not merely a rubber stamp on what has been proposed by the department. In fact, the department’s proposals to the Select Committee even differed from those we made known to the public. As we investigated the matter in an evolutionary manner, we gained a better insight into it. We still have to wait until the Other Place has finished deliberating on this matter. Or does the hon. member think that it is a steam-roller matter in the Other Place? There the hon. member is sitting now, as mute as at the hour of his death. It does not do a thing to him. The hon. member should make a more thorough study of these matters. He is the leader of his group in the Select Committee and he is also the Leader of his group in this debate. He is making a disgraceful fool of himself and of his party in this manner.

Now I want to start where I stopped dealing with the questions yesterday.

What about the urban Bantu?

Oh, please, go and catch yourself one! Like a stupid person the hon. member is asking me, “What about the urban Bantu?” He spoke here, but he did not have anything substantial to say on the urban Bantu. We still want to hear from that side on the question of the urban Bantu. We challenged them, but they remained silent about it. They are afraid to talk about it because they do not have a policy in that regard.

The hon. member for Turffontein and the hon. member for Durban Point asked me, “What about section 10?” I shall give the hon. member a reply to that. I have already given them a reply to that point on so many occasions.

There is no need to be sarcastic.

Where is the sarcasm? I have repeatedly said, and hon. members on this side have also said so, that section 10 does not grant any permanent rights to the Bantu in the White areas, no more than as any other section in any other law grants such permanent rights. The hon. member for Stilfontein put it very aptly here when he said today that these were not permanent rights. I want to put it even more clearly by saying that section 10 does not grant any rights of citizenship, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has called them on countless occasions. It is ridiculous to call section 10 a section which grants permanent rights, for section 10 does not even affect the Bantu on the farms outside the released areas. Do they not have any claim to permanent rights according to the mentality of the Opposition? No, I have said this repeatedly, and any person who studies it objectively, will know that this is true. Section 10 is merely a general exemption from influx control. That is all section 10 is. In addition to that I said in the past, and I repeat it, that if the United Party and others continued, as they are still doing, to hold up this section to the Bantu as if it granted permanent and entrenched rights of citizenship to the Bantu, they and everybody who suggested this would make it essential for us to review section 10. I said so time and again, and I want to say that today the United Party has once again made a further contribution in that respect. This will have to be done, for the United Party, and others who think as they do, including the Progressive Party, are holding up to the Natives a misrepresentation of section 10 of the Urban Areas Act. Section 10 provides that a Bantu person may remain in the prescribed area if he has resided there since his birth or if he has been working there for 10 or 15 years. If there is no work for a Bantu male in the prescribed area, whilst there is work in another prescribed area, or even outside a prescribed area, is this Bantu person now to remain in the area prescribed in terms of section 10, whether or not there is work for him? Surely this is no protection for such a person. This happens because the United Party interprets section 10 as a right of citizenship, and tells them that they should remain where they are because they have rights of citizenship. Why? Are they to enjoy the privilege of unemployment there? Are they to have the privilege of leading a life of thuggery and of being a burden on other people? Is that the reason why they are to remain there? Section 10 does not afford to Bantu such protection in prescribed areas as the hon. members of the Opposition are trying to suggest, and many Bantu realize that. In many cases Section 10 is a retarding factor, and this is where these greater controlled areas that will be established under the Bantu Administration Boards, will be a great improvement for the Bantu in comparison with what they are believed to get under section 10. This, then, is the only point raised by the hon. member for Turffontein to which I need reply; there is no need for me to reply to the other points.

Then we come to the hon. member for Durban Point, who asked me a few things about what had been accomplished by the corporations. The hon. member for Durban Point imagines that in this worthy Chamber he may argue and politicize in a soapbox manner, just as he would do on a corner in his constituency. He held up here the report of the B.I.C. and those of other corporations, and then he wanted to know what they had achieved. He said they had established two growth points and one holiday resort. By those means he may perhaps make a good impression on imbeciles, but he cannot make any impression …

I said “as example”.

He could not make any impression by those means if he would take this report in hand and give it to other people. The hon. member referred to the question he had asked on how many bus services there were. Then he said that there was a difference—as the hon. the Minister of Finance would say, a “discrepancy”—between the answer I had given him and the facts given in this report.

The credibility gap.

There is no credibility gap, but there is a huge credibility gulf in the United Party, and in a moment I am going to conclude with that. If the hon. member would examine this very report which he had in his hands, he would see that it was very wrong of him to say that nothing or very little was being done in respect of transport enterprises. In this report, which I have taken in hand, it is stated explicitly that in respect of bus services, with reference to new concerns only, 16 were established with the assistance of the as well as one transport service, i.e. a cartage service, and then there are still other kinds of comparable services, such as taxi enterprises, and so forth. The hon. member ought to know this. He misrepresented the facts here. The hon. member said that there was only one holiday resort for Bantu. We do not have only one holiday resort for Bantu in South Africa. I do not know whether the hon. member has ever been to Umgababa; I have been there. Umgababa is an excellent holiday resort, and one ought to know, surely, that a holiday resort is not a place which is visited every day of the year. It has its seasons too. Furthermore, there are other holiday resorts in South Africa, including holiday resorts at the seaside, to which the Bantu can go. If the hon. member and other members would just take another look at the tables furnised in this report, they would see what the Bantu Investment Corporation has in fact accomplished in a short time. The same applies to the Bantu Mining Corporation, which was only started recently, a year or two ago. The hon. members must appreciate, and this has been said repeatedly and is also stated in the report, that the Bantu Mining Corporation operates on a pattern different from that of the Bantu Investment Corporation. The Bantu Mining Corporation is not so much a self-enterprising concern. The task of the Bantu Mining Corporation is to find exploitable deposits, to evaluate and allocate them to White entrepreneurs applying for them under the agency system. The figures are furnished in respect of a large number of prospecting and mining applications that were submitted to the Bantu Mining Corporation. It is only on a limited scale, where the provision of employment justifies it, that the Bantu Mining Corporation will undertake things on its own.

The hon. member also asked me a question on a certain bus service at Ladysmith in Natal.

But first, what about the two bus services which differ from your reply to my question?

Yes, that is the question I want to answer. Earlier this year the hon. member asked me a question on how many bus services the

. had purchased and resold to Bantu. But there is a third category of bus services which was not included in his question, namely bus services purchased directly by the Bantu. In such cases they only receive a loan for that purpose. That was not covered by his question. Furthermore, the hon. member only asked for information on a certain period, namely three years. The B.I.C. has been in operation for more than three years.

[Inaudible].

No. That is why I told the hon. member, when he was dealing with that point, that those were two different matters. In his question on the purchase and resale of bus services, he only mentioned these two types of bus services, and a specific period, whereas there are other bus services as well. It often happens that Bantu purchase a bus service directly, and then a loan is granted to them. In fact, the bus service about which the hon. member asked me and in regard to which he suggested many things, is in fact such an example. Now I want to ask the hon. member this: I am sorry, but I ought not to—I can, but I ought not to—nor am I going to furnish him today with more detailed information, just as I did not want to do so when he asked the question on that bus service which has been taken over from the Indians. Certain investigations are in progress in regard to that matter, and I would be doing the most foolish thing under the sun if I were now to say more about it than merely what I have already said. The time may come when one could perhaps say more about the matter at a later stage, but not at this stage. That is all.

Then I want to try to reply quickly to the hon. member for Sea Point. He was very melodramatic on an emotional matter, namely Bantu labour on the farms here in the Western Cape. But I want to tell the hon. member that he should realize very clearly that it is our policy, and we are in earnest about it, that in the greater Western Cape the Coloureds should have preference as regards available labour. This does not only apply to the industries, but also to the farms.

Yes, I agree.

Of course, this is a difficult task, and we know it. For this reason all of us should stand together, employers as well as the departments concerned in the matter, my department as well as those of my two colleagues.

The hon. member also referred to children of mixed blood who were being born here. I want to tell the hon. member that this is a sociological phenomenon into which he should go much more exhaustively. The hon. member attributed the fact that children of mixed blood were being born here, to the Bantu men only. Our experience is that this cannot be attributed to the Bantu men only. It is not only a biological fact that this may not be attributed to the one only, but also a sociological fact. It is a sociological fact that the Coloured woman has a very important motivation as to why she goes out of her way to have children by a Bantu man. The hon. member should go into that matter as well. This is a very difficult social phenomenon, and it is not correct to say that those Bantu men are one and all responsible for those children. Here in the White areas of South Africa, on the mines, with large employers such as I scar, Escom and the Railways, we have tens of thousands of single Bantu men who are not guilty of those things which the hon. member is attributing to the Bantu men on the farms. There are two sides to this matter, and there is a very important sociological phenomenon which the hon. member should take into account.

Do you admit that it is undesirable?

It is undesirable, but that does not mean that we should, as the hon. member said, bring the Bantu families here—men, women, children and everybody—and then say that it will only be for five years. Does the hon. member think that it will be possible for us to send back again all those Bantu men, women and children after five years? It is much better for that man to come and go at regular intervals. The hon. member should rather encourage his farmers to help the Bantu men to maintain regular contact with their people in the Transkei, if they are married people. I just want to say in passing that not all of the men who come here, are married men. Many of them are single men. The hon. member should realize— what I want to tell him now, is very important—that in the greater Western Cape it is the position in almost all cases that the entire magisterial district is the prescribed area, and not only the municipal area, as is mostly the case in the northern provinces, and as may also be the case in the urban areas in certain parts of the Cape Province. It is not only the municipal area; it is the entire magisterial district. In other words, if those Bantu men, women and children are brought into a magisterial district the whole of which is a prescribed area, they are people who immediately qualify as section 10 cases. Our policy is—and we do not hide it—that we do not want the number of section 10 cases in South Africa to be increased.

The hon. member for East London North had a great deal to say here about agriculture, for which Bantu in the homelands were allegedly not being trained sufficiently. I just want to point out to the hon. member that we have quite a number of Bantu agricultural schools in South Africa at which more than 380 Bantu students have been enrolled as agricultural students at this moment. These are purely agricultural schools. Then, of course, we also have the agricultural courses offered in the system of school education; furthermore, we have a faculty of agriculture at Fort Hare, where a number of agricultural students have been enrolled. I do not have the exact figure with me at the moment. Then I want to tell the hon. member that at the moment as many as 849 Bantu persons are employed as agricultural extension officers in the service of the agricultural industry in the Bantu homelands. It stands to reason that these numbers must still be increased. Rome was not built in a day, and what Bantu homeland can be built in a day? Sir, we are not struggling. Those hon. members struggled in their time; all they could achieve, were cocks and bulls. Sir, in the Transkei and the Ciskei the Xhosa Development Corporation is also engaged in experimental units in which they had 150 tractors in the year 1970-’71, which they made available there along with Bantu drivers. Training is provided there, and elsewhere too, for that kind of work. Throughout South Africa we have in the Bantu areas co-operative societies and milk schemes, and we have all sorts of ways and means for activating the Bantu into participating to a greater extent, with the necessary knowledge, in the agricultural industry. In suggesting that we are doing nothing in this regard, the hon. member is making quite a big mistake.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central also referred here to the 13 per cent of the land-area of South Africa, just as his colleague the hon. member for East London City had done yesterday. I want to put a question to this hon. member; I know he cannot reply to it now, unless he just wants to shout “yes” or “no”. The hon. member sneered at the fact that only 13 per cent, as he said, of South Africa’s land area belonged to the Bantu. Does the hon. member want to give the Bantu 70 per cent of the land of the Republic?

Tripe!

The answer I get is “tripe!” As at least two members of the United Party, as far as I can remember, have referred sneeringly in this debate to the fact that only 13 per cent of the land of the present Republic of South Africa belongs to the Bantu, I want to state here categorically that this means that the United Party wants to give the Bantu more than 13 per cent. As the United Party always refers in the same breath to the Bantu as representing 70 per cent of the population, I suggest that, by implication, the United Party would even want to go as high as 70 per cent of the land area of the Republic of South Africa. Those hon. members ought to know—yesterday the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development briefly touched upon this matter here—why only 13 per cent of the Republic’s land belongs to the Bantu. This was not the case in 1909. In 1909, i.e. before Union, round about 50 per cent of British South Africa—to put it that way, to my disgust—belonged to the Bantu and 50 per cent to the Whites. That was when Swaziland, Botswana and Lesotho, together with our present Bantu areas, were still under British rule. We know that in the time of the Republics, the Transvaal had authority over Swaziland; this is a historical fact which was taken into account by the fathers of the Constitution of 1910, and for that reason they added a schedule to the Constitution to indicate in what manner the three protectorates of that time could be incorporated with the Union and how they would have to be administered. Sir, it is the Britons of Britain who are responsible for the fact that 13 per cent of the Republic’s land belongs to the Bantu; it is not our fault.

The hon. member for Umlazi asked me a number of questions on the Zulu Authority. He wanted to know how the Legislative Assembly, the council they have there at the moment, functioned. I am glad the hon. member asked me that question; of course, I cannot say this of his next question. As hon. members ought to know, there are very few facilities in the form of offices, etc., at Ngoma or any other place in Zululand where a start can be made with the administration. More than a year ago I discussed this matter personally, and also through some of our officials, with the Executive Committee of the Zulus, i.e. Chief Buthelezi and his five people, on more than one occasion, and since then I have done so again. At the time I told them, “Look, you ought to get a legislative assembly. We are going to work on the constitution. But do you realize that there will have to be office administration and things of that nature? You would like to have these things at Ulundi. One cannot build them overnight; it takes two years or more to build them. Do you want to wait with your promotion in political status until the buildings have been completed, or would you rather have the promotion in political status quite soon and then struggle along for two years or more until the buildings at Ulundi have been completed? ” I told them that in that case we would simply struggle along in the sense that two of the administrations, namely their own and that of Justice, had their headquarters at Ngoma, where buildings are available, and the other four at Pietermaritzburg. They decided on their own initiative that they would rather have the political status and an interim period of struggling at an earlier date, since the administrative buildings were not yet available. In the recent past we made provision in terms of which office facilities near Pietermaritzburg will in fact be available to those Exective Councillors who do not have such facilities at Ngoma as yet. We are therefore proceeding with the development of Ulundi as fast as we can. But this is planning which has to be undertaken from scratch. This is the full reply and there is nothing more to say about the matter. The hon. member wanted to know from me why magistrates of my department had to live in sub-economic houses. I take it the hon. member was referring to White Officials.

I was referring to Bantu magistrates in Umlazi.

I beg your pardon, in that case I misunderstood the hon. member. Those people are not provided with official houses. They may acquire their own houses as they please, and if they want bigger or better houses, they can get loans for that purpose from the Bantu Investment Corporation if the case justifies it. The only people provided with official houses, are the official members of the government, the members of the executive councils themselves.

The hon. member for Rosettenville complained that there were allegedly not enough Bantu doctors and chemists, etc. Sir, if we have to wait until there are enough Bantu doctors, Bantu politicians, Bantu surveyors, Bantu secretaries, accountants, nurses and enough of everything before the Bantu are to get their full form of self-government, we may as well stop thinking about the matter. In this regard it is a question of doing what the Bible teaches us: one does one thing and one does not neglect the other. The process of development of the political and administrative structure is in progress, and this goes hand in hand with the process of preparing these people for holding higher posts, and in the meantime we are replacing them by Whites. But let me say this to the hon. member. The administration of Bantu affairs, where the Bantu have their own governments, with the assistance of our borrowed officials, is on a much higher and better level than is the case in some of the independent African states in Africa; I would rather not mention names.

You have not replied to me.

I told the hon. member what I had to say to his questions.

I want to conclude by saying that in this debate we saw an Opposition at its weakest. We saw an Opposition at its fastest, in the process of evading and escaping. We saw an Opposition which, on their part, could not hold up anything to South Africa, to the Whites or the Bantu, as guarantees. But we saw here, from our side, the guarantees which we as a Government were holding up in terms of our policy, guarantees which were put forward in this debate and which are of vital importance to South Africa, guarantees to the effect that this Parliament of ours in Cape Town will remain a Parliament of Whites for ever. In regard to that guarantee the United Party looped the loop and muzzled people so that they could not talk, and they cut a sorry figure. We just want to tell the hon. members that the most they held out, was the statement by the Leader of the Opposition that this Parliament could become a communal council under their policy. To that South Africa says a thunderous “No, thank you”, and that is why that party will remain sitting there, a dwarfed Opposition for many years to come. In this debate the United Party missed a golden opportunity for showing South Africa and the Whites that it also realizes that the political organ which seeks to govern the country, should display a consciousness of its calling, and in that respect it has failed. The National Party has shown for the umpteenth time that it does have that consciousness of its calling to carry out the task we have in South Africa in respect of our various peoples for the good of each of those peoples. That is my task, and that is what we are going to vote on now; it gives me the greatest pleasure.

Amendment put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—41: Bands, G. J.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Cilld, H. van Z.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, A.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hopewell, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Kingwill, W. G.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Taylor, C. D.; Timoney, H. M.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: R. M. Cadman and J. O. N. Thompson.

Noes—73: Aucamp, P. L. S.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, S. F.; De Jager, P. R.; De Wet, C.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Jurgens, J. C.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotz, S. F.; Kotz, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Marais, P. S.; McLachlan, R.; Morrison, G. de V.; Muller, H.; Muller. S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Palm, P. D.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, S. P.; Prinsloo, M. P.; Rail, J. J.; Rail, M. J.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van der Merwe. C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Walt. H. J. D.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Viljoen, M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, G. P. van den Berg, H. J. van Wyk and W. L. D. M. Venter.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 25.—“Bantu Education,” R32 958 000, and S.W.A. Vote No. 11.—“Bantu Education,” R3 686 000:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to announce that the Deputy Minister will take charge of this Vote.

Mr. Chairman, I want for the most part to discuss with the hon. the Deputy Minister the necessity for the establishment of educational priorities. In the first plaice, I want to deal with a few other aspects which I consider important. I believe that it is essential, in the interests of the country, for the hon. the Minister to issue a statement in connection with the incidents which took place at the University of the North recently. When making such a statement, the hon. the Minister should bear in mind that this is an autonomous and an independent university. I believe the time has come for the hon. the Minister to take the wise step of appointing a Bantu person or Bantu persons on the council of this university. It is quite clear to me that this university is gripped in a crisis at the moment. I do not know where this crisis is going to end. I may say that if the hon. the Minister decides to appoint a Bantu person on this council, it would be much easier to solve this crisis. The Government is prepared to appoint a Bantu person as minister of education, but they do not have confidence in a Bantu person to appoint him as a member of the council of a university, and I think they owe this House an explanation. Furthermore, I want to warn the hon. the Minister that if it were found that the organization Saso had anything to do with these troubles, I feel that the hon. the Minister should not come and cry on our shoulders. He simply has to accept that an organization such as Saso is a direct consequence of the policy of separate development of the Government. He must accept that this is a nationalistically inspired organization and that we have found for many years in South Africa that hon. members opposite have encouraged the Bantu to seek their salvation in nationalism.

Finally, I want to say to the hon. the Minister that I find it quite strange that the hon. Senator Horwood has not yet started agitating in the Other Place for the subsidies for this university to be reduced. If this had been an English-medium university in South Africa we would have had a motion in this regard in the Other Place long ago.

I want to make haste and discuss with the hon. the Minister this question of priorities. I want to put it this way, that the socio-economic position of the Bantu at the moment is such that top priority should be given to education and that the least priority should be given to the development of a political structure. It is quite clear to me that, as far as the Government is concerned, just the reverse order applies at the moment. The Minister has to accept the full inplications of one fact, viz. that the Bantu population in South Africa increases at the rate of 400 000 per year. He must accept that this is not merely a question of how we are going to supply these people with food, but that it is, in fact, going to be a question—which is the major challenge at the moment—of how we are going to make these people economically productive. The whole of the economic and political progress will depend upon how well he and his department fulfil their task. If there is any doubt about the priority being given to education in South Africa, I am sorry to have to say to the hon. the Minister that there are far more and greater doubts about the priority being given to the various branches within the education system. I want to go so far as to say that the lack of distinct educational prioritieis between the various branches in education is something South Africa will have to pay for dearly. Let us consider the position for a moment. I am going to use the figures furnished in the report of 1970-’71. I want to say that we also have the figures furnished in the April edition of the Bantu Education journal. I want to mention the percentages furnished on page 56. When we compare this with the figures for 1971 the percentages remain more or less the same. For example, we find that 68 per cent of the Bantu are at present merely in the process of becoming literate. In other words, they attend school up to approximately Std. 2. More than 95 per cent of the Bantu pupils are, in fact, attending primary schools. Approximately 4 per cent of them are attending high schools. I think the time has come for the hon. the Minister to tell us in no uncertain terms what his immediate aim is. He does not have to tell us what his ultimate aim is. As I see it, he has three choices. He could say that he wants to obtain mass literacy within, say, ten years, or he could say he wants a significant percentage of the Bantu in South Africa to have general high school training. He also has a third choice. He could also say that he wants a significant percentage of the Bantu in South Africa who have received training in specialized post-primary school education. In this we include technical training, vocational training, and so forth. I do not want the hon. the Minister merely to make an announcement in this regard. I also want him to submit to us a specific plan. He must then tell us how he is going to implement such a plan with the limited funds at his disposal. I know his task is a difficult one, but it seems to me as though we simply want to run away from the flood at the moment and to find channels into which to divert it. I shall appreciate it if he would make a statement in this regard. I may tell him that I believe that mass literacy is probably the easiest way out, but I do not think that South Africa as such would derive much benefit from it. Suppose he decides to let a significant percentage of Bantu concentrate on general high school training. If he decides to do that, I want to suggest that high school training should be more readily available. Instead of starting off with free books and more substantial financial contributions in respect of pupils in the lower standards, this system of free books and funds should be reserved for pupils in the higher standards. Once you decide what aspect is going to receive priority, you have to try and cast the net as widely as possible. The net has to be cast as widely as possible and attention should be given to adult education as well. In this system it means the extension of evening classes and continuation classes for those groups qualifying for general high school education. Instead of throwing up our hands and asking where we are going to get all the people from to assist us, we must consider using the services of the thousands of White teachers who will be only too glad to be able to earn some extra money. There are thousands of White teachers who are trying to earn some extra money today by arranging classes for pupils after school hours. Attempts should be made to use services of these teachers in a system such as this on a temporary basis. The Department of Bantu Education may use their services in this way. After all, if we apply this system we will know that we are moving in a specific direction and after a certain period of time—I do not say that this will happen after ten or fifteen years—we will see the results of this. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, at the commencement of my speech I want to make a friendly but urgent request to the Opposition that if they intend to move that the salary of the hon. the Deputy Minister be reduced this should be done by the next speaker. If they want to do this I want to ask them to act in a more decent manner towards the Deputy Minister than they did towards the hon. the Minister. I want to leave it at that. I only wish we had more time to discuss this matter.

The hon. member for Durban Central asked the hon. the Minister to make a statement on the incidents which occurred at the University of the North. He said, inter alia, that the crisis would be solved if Bantu persons were appointed on the university council in question. Is that what the hon. member said?

The crisis would be easier to solve.

The hon. member said that the crisis would be easier to solve in that way. To my mind this is rather wishful thinking on the part of the hon. member for Durban Central if he thinks that a step such as this would solve the crisis. I did not want to discuss this matter and the incidents which took place at the University of the North, but the remarks made by the hon. member compels me to say a few words about this matter. We on this side of the House, the Minister, the Deputy Minister, people outside this House, as well as the Secretary of the department and his officials, the rector and the university council and everybody concerned with this matter, are most disappointed about what happened there and about the behaviour of the Bantu students at the University of the North. On behalf of this side of the House I should like to express our appreciation towards the rector, Prof. Boshoff, who, in consultation with his disciplinary committee, immediately took firm action. This was indeed a difficult decision to make, but it was essential to follow the course of discipline and order, coupled with reasonable concessions. Reasonable concessions were granted to the students, but these they rejected. They will now simply have to bear the consequences of their rash actions. The actions taken by the rector and the disciplinary committee at least set an example to other university authorities, both White and non-White, to take drastic action, where necessary, against students or a group of students getting out of hand. It was with displeasure and disappointment that we learned of the ingratitude of the students in question who, through their actions, gave their rector and their lecturers, to whom they owe so much, a slap in the face. In virtually all the cases those White lecturers can obtain posts or a livelihood elsewhere but they devoted their energies to this work because they wanted to render a service to the Bantu by means of university education. One also knows that the agitating and inciting type of student was present in Turfloop. They were most probably incited by agitators from outside the campus and it is possible that these agitators from outside were responsible for the incidents. It was these agitators who intimidated the ordinary students and unfortunately the majority of the students were young and inexperienced and became the victims of this mischief-making and intimidation. The people who suffer are the students themselves. What one should do now is to ask the Opposition what they think of the steps taken by the rector in question and his disciplinary committee. Of course, it is also quite clear that the enemies of both separate development and the idea of separate universities in this country and overseas derive great pleasure from this incident, because newspapers which are not well disposed towards this Government ask quite piously why there should be any separate educational facilities. We have people who suggest that the policy of the creation and the development of separate universities by the Government are, in fact, in themselves responsible for what has happened there. Whilst we have members on the Opposition side who may probably think in this direction, one has to ask the Opposition at this stage whether it will review the Extension of University Education Act of 1959 when they come into power. Anybody who answers this question …

Mr. G. J. BANDS; Why do you not start talking instead of asking a lot of questions?

I know that this hon. member cannot participate in an education debate, but he only has to reply “yes” or “no”.

Yes, but do not ask stupid questions.

This hon. member cannot distinguish between a simple question and a sensible question. Mr. Chairman, I want to raise a matter which concerns the University of the North. We know that the University of Zululand is intended exclusively for Zulu students in the same that the University of Fort Hare is intended for Xhosa students. However, the University of the North serves the other five population groups, viz. the North Sotho, the South Sotho, the Tswana, the Shangaan and the Venda. I have learned that some of these separate population groups, for example the Tswana and the South Sotho, would like to have their own universities. I have also learned that the Tswana have established a fund for this purpose. This in itself is a praiseworthy goal, but the cost for the relatively small number of students cannot be justified and the establishment of a university will have to be postponed for quite a number of years. What I want to ask the Minister is whether it is not possible to establish branches of the mother university for the various population groups in the most densely populated parts of their homelands. In this respect I am thinking of a densely populated area such as Ga Rankuwa near Pretoria or even an area such as Umlazi. In such areas one will definitely find large numbers of matriculants who want to study further but who cannot afford to attend the various universities situated further away. Bantu teachers who are employed in those areas and who are usually very eager to learn, will be in a position to improve their academic qualifications. The proposed branches of the mother university may, for a start, offer a limited number of subjects in human science for which expensive laboratories are, of course, not required. For example, it may suffice to obtain a B.A. degree with a limited choice of subjects. Such a branch of the mother university may probably also have a small number of day students, although the intention should be to cater for extra-mural evening classes. I do not think this should involve considerable expenditure.

Sir, the National Government want the Opposition here and the critics outside to understand that it is not prepared to sacrifice its policy of separate development. I am not saying this for ideological reasons; I am saying this for educational and ethnological reasons. The Government believes —and this we have emphasized numerous times—that a child, irrespective of the people it belongs to, must have the right to obtain education which is child-orientated or child-centric. That is why this side of the House is in favour of mother tongue education, because it is the only language in which a child can be successfully educated. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Koedoespoort has referred to the unfortunate incident at the University at Turfloop. I wonder whether this particular incident would have occurred had the Bantu themselves been given some sort of meaningful sense of participation in their own university affairs.

You were against the tribal colleges.

I am talking about the question of the advisory council and the advisory senate. Is it not time that the hon. member for Koedoespoort used his eloquence to ask the Minister to do away with these, so that Bantu can serve on the council and the senate? I want to come straightaway to the hon. the Deputy Minister in this regard, because during the debate on the Bantu Education Account Abolition Bill, I asked the hon. the Deputy Minister this very question. He was talking about the philosophy of apartheid, and I asked him what would be the intention, because the ethnic universities for the Bantu are situated in homeland areas. Would it therefore be the intention of the Minister and his department to see to it that they had this meaningful participation in education at that level, by doing away with the advisory council and the advisory senate? It is recorded in Hansard that the Deputy Minister said: “I will reply later”. I hope he will reply to it this evening.

Then I want to come to another aspect of the Minister’s speech during that debate, where he dealt briefly with the financing of Bantu education.

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

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, when the debate adjourned before the supper interval I was about to ask the hon. the Minister if he could give some clarity in regard to a statement he made in an earlier debate on the abolition of the Bantu Education Account. He indicated then that it was estimated that approximately R180 million would accrue from sales tax during the year 1971-’72. By implication I gathered that it was the intention that some of this indirect taxation in respect of the Bantu, would be allocated to Bantu education. I have been at pains to try to find out on what basis this could be arrived at. In reply to a question put to the hon. the Minister of Statistics I was told that no statistics were available which would indicate the extent of sales tax paid by the various racial groups. I made further inquiries from the department, and the impression I got was that it was virtually impossible to break down the total, because sales tax is imposed at the source. It is therefore impossible at that stage to say to which racial group the goods will be sold. Now, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is basing whatever amount he intends to allocate for Bantu Education from the sales tax, on guesswork or on a formula and if so, whether he would disclose the basis of his formula.

I want to come back to the Vote. Last year when I asked the hon. the Minister whether he could indicate the salary paid to unqualified teachers who were employed on a fixed salary basis, he said that he would furnish me with the required particulars. But up to the present I have not heard from him. I therefore want to ask him whether he is now in a position to disclose details in that particular respect. I believe that we face a teachers’ crisis in Bantu education in the Republic. You do not have to take my word for it. I want to refer to the latest report of the Department of Bantu Education which says on page 1—

But, Mr. Chairman, when we read a little further on page 8, we find that in the Transkei, for example, only a very small percentage of the 6 500 odd teachers in the Transkei are unqualified. Now what is the position in regard to Indian education? This is in fact a very interesting comparison which I trust the hon. the Minister will take cognizance of. In 1968 there were 1 119 Indian teachers who were not qualified from the point of view of professional qualifications. By 1971 the figure had dropped to 439, only 245 of whom had a Standard 8 academic qualification. Basically it means that only 4 per cent of the total staff of Indian teachers have no professional qualifications, whereas as far as Bantu education is concerned, 17 per cent of the teachers have Standard 8 and no professional qualification. Then there is a further interesting aspect. During the last two years in Indian education, nearly R1 million was allocated to teacher training for a pupil enrolment of approximately 160 000. This hon. Minister proudly announced this session that over 3 million Bantu pupils were enrolled. I think that the hon. the Minister owes it to this House to disclose to the Committee what funds have in fact been allocated specifically to Bantu teacher training, and whether he is aware of the very favourable situation that exists in so far as Indian teachers are concerned.

While I am dealing with finance I want to say that I regard the financial situation in Bantu education to be in a continual state of imbalance. Funds for the universities appear to be almost unlimited. Up until November, 1968, R18,5 million had been allocated to the ethnic universities. On these Estimates you will notice that a sum of more than R5 million is also allocated to university education. However, what about the funds for vocational and technical training? What about the funds for teacher training? What about the bursaries for students? What about the libraries for the pupils of the lower schools and what about the school books for which they have to pay in many instances? I believe that the allocation in that respect is completely inadequate. It is time to stop boasting about apartheid showplaces like the universities at Turfloop and in Zululand and get our priorities right. If we do not do that, we will never get the adequate teacher training facilities that we need, we will never be able to supply a satisfactory standard of secondary education and we will never be able to provide a good and better intake for the universities themselves. At the moment a large proportion of the university entrants are undertaking diploma courses because their Matric passes do not qualify them for degree courses.

We find that a mere pittance is allocated to teacher training, and in this terrific crisis there have been granted only 365 bursaries for student teachers amounting to a sum of R170 000. What is the present position in regard to the universities? We find that we have a total enrolment of roughly 2 300 students and in the 12 years from 1960 to 1971, 5220 students enrolled for the first time. During this period of 12 years we find that 1 245 students graduated and 1 188 gained a diploma. This gives a total of 2 433 out of a total new student enrolment of 5 220. This is a substantial difference amounting to 2 787. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether these figures indicate that there has been a large number of students who are not completing their courses, who are dropping out, and if so—it would appear so—will the hon. the Deputy Minister tell this Committee how many students have dropped out and what the reason is for their dropping out?

I want to quote a specific case and that is in regard to pharmacy. Everyone will agree that it is absolutely essential that Bantu pharmacists should be trained. I do not think there is any question about it. However, at what expense, at what fall-out rate and what sort of results are being achieved? [Time expired

*Mr. F. J. LE ROUX (Hercules): Mr. Chairman, I miss the hon. member for Wynberg at the discussion of this Vote.

Gagged!

*Mr. F. J. LE ROUX (Hercules): Last year she took part in the debate on this Vote. This evening she took part in the division on the Vote Bantu Administration and Development, but I have noticed that she had been absent from the Chamber since this Vote came under discussion. [Interjections.] Instead of paying tribute to the department and the hon. the Minister of Bantu Education this evening the hon. the Opposition raised all kinds of objections, furnished figures which were incorrect and expressed criticism which was out of place. I shall tell you, Sir, what the reason for this is. It is because they do not understand or cannot understand or do not want to understand the nature and scope of the Bantu education service in our country.

In this respect I am referring in particular to the hon. member for North Rand who had a lot to say about Bantu education during the Second Reading debate; I am referring to the hon. member for Durban Central as well as to the hon. member for Berea, who has just resumed his seat. Sir, since the Bantu Education Act of 1953 this service has progressed with unparalleled leaps and bounds; it has made phenomenal progress. I hope I do not tire this Committee, but I should like to furnish the statistics—the correct statistics—once more. In 1954 we took over the system of missionary schools, comprising 5 700 schools, 21 000 teachers and 869 000 children. Since that date this service has grown into a giant organization, and what is the position at present? There are 11 000 schools, 52 000 teachers and 3 million pupils. In addition, three universities for Bantu students have been established with a population of 2 800—and I say this for the information of the hon. member for Berea as well as the hon. member for Durban Central. Sir, further criticism has been voiced. On 11th April, 1972, the hon. member for North Rand said that the Government should change its attitude as far as the whole question of Bantu education was concerned. The hon. member for Durban Central this evening associated himself with that statement. Their figures are wrong, Sir, I want to furnish the enrolment in round figures. In the lower primary schools in 1961 it was 72 per cent; today it is 68 per cent.

I said it was 68 per cent.

*Mr. F. J. LE ROUX (Hercules): That is correct. In the higher primary schools, i.e. up to Std. 8, it was 25 per cent in 1961; today it is 27 per cent. In the postprimary classes it was 3 per cent in 1961 and today it is 5 per cent. The position therefore becomes more favourable every year. The truth is that this 68 per cent does not progress much further than Std. 2; this is true, but this is nevertheless satisfactory. Let us consider why this is satisfactory. This 68 per cent represents 2 million Bantu who enter the labour market as literates. These Bantu are able to read; they are able to write and they are able to make elementary calculations. Furthermore, what is being achieved is that the 27 per cent of which mention was made here, supply almost another 1 million Bantu with education up to Std. 6 for the labour market. Employers speak highly of this. Hon. members of the Opposition need only go and inquire from industrialists and businessmen. These Bantu who are familiar with the official languages are able to maintain the records; they are even able to prepare elementary reports. They are therefore worth their weight in gold as far as the labour market is concerned. After primary school 5 per cent of them receive further training. I agree that this percentage appears to be insignificant, but this represents 160 000 Bantu and this is impressive.

Out of 10 million.

*Mr. F. J. LE ROUX (Hercules): Out of the 160 000, 25 000 obtained the Junior Certificate in 1971. These are people who go further to the high schools, who receive further training in the two year teachers’ course and who are also trained as nurses, etc. Some of these people are absorbed by the industries as factory operators and positions of that nature. Sir, I say again that the Opposition should express its appreciation towards the department and the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education as well as to the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. In industry these people receive further in-service training. Scholastic training makes it easier for these people to be taught the required skills. Hon. members need only inquire from industrialists what their views are in this respect.

The hon. member for North Rand as well as other hon. members expressed their concern this evening because only 1800 Bantu matriculate every year. The fact is that out of 3 757 candidates who sat for examinations in 1971, 2 345 passed. The pass figure is therefore 65 per cent; of this 35 per cent obtained matriculation exemption. In the White departments approximately 39 per cent of the matriculants obtain matriculation exemption. How do these figures compare with one another?

I mentioned this last week.

*Mr. F. J. LE ROUX (Hercules): Sir, the number of candidates for this examination increases by approximately 1 000 per year. I want to say in passing that whilst the Indians in Natal write the Natal matriculation examinations with the benefit of having a year mark, the Bantu, together with the best private schools and technical colleges, write the examination of the Joint Matriculation Board or of the Department of National Education without the advantage of their having a year mark. There are therefore no separate, easy matriculation examinations for the Bantu. Employment of matriculated Bantu for the most part takes place in the Bantu homeland administrations as civil servants, or otherwise they enrol at one of the three Bantu universities. Criticism was also expressed on the Bantu teachers who have such poor qualifications. Primary school teachers receive two years intensive professional training after Std. 8, and experience has taught us that when these teachers are given the necessary guidance and when they are furnished with the comprehensive graded set books for the various school subjects, they are quite capable of fulfilling their task. I do not know whether the hon. member for Durban Central has ever visited a Bantu school. Every year approximately 4 000… [Time expired.]

Sir, I am afraid I cannot share the optimism and pleasure of the hon. member for Hercules about the present state of Bantu education in this country. There may have been some improvement but the position is still pretty bad, and even the figure which he mentioned—I think 150 000 only at secondary schools—is a pathetically low figure out of the large African population in this country. The dropout rate is still far too high, and I believe that the pupil-teacher ratio has reached an all-high over the last year or so; so we have to go a very long way indeed before I will join the hon. member for Hercules in his congratulations.

May I also say that the number of students that he has just given us at the three Black universities must, first of all, be somewhat reduced by the entire student population of the University of Turfloop. The entire student population there has recently been expelled, and I would say that the recent events at Turfloop, together with the action taken recently against the editor of Wits Student in what must now be the most universally famous lavatory cartoon, provide yet another example of the Government’s natural propensity for what I call the “over-kill’’.

Now, what happened at Turfloop? The president of the SRC, Mr. Tiro … [Interjections.] Would you mind having your conversations outside? The ex-president of the SRC, Mr. Tiro, delivered an address at a graduation ceremony, in the course of which he made a number of provocative comments, criticizing the underlying principles of Bantu education. He objected also to the system whereby a White council and White-dominated administrative committees were running a Black university and he referred in unflattering terms to the Blacks who did co-operate with this committee. He also criticized the fact that the local bookshop refused to serve a Black man, and he questioned the rationale whereby White students and not Black students were getting vacation jobs at the university of Turfloop, and he asked, with what I think is a fair amount of justification, whether he in turn could be expected to be given a vacation job at the Pretoria University. He objected very strongly to the fact that the parents of the Black students were relegated to the back of the hall, that is, those who could be accommodated at all, on the occasion of the graduation of their children, and he ended, I might say, with a stirring call for liberation.

He started his speech, I ought to add, by quoting the Prime Minister, who, in talking some months ago to the ASB, said, it was reported, that no Black man had landed in trouble for fighting what was legally his. Well, Mr. Tiro certainly landed in trouble. He was summarily dismissed from the university. His fellow-students rose as one in indignation and, as I say, all 1 146 students were summarily dismissed. The university was closed and one of the hon. the Minister’s glossy showpieces has lost some of its gloss. Now, this is the second time within the period of four years that a major Black university has expelled all its students. In 1968, after the students at Fort Hare had painted slogans on the walls objecting to the appointment of the new rector, all the students were expelled. The Police came on to the campus, the students were put on to trains and sent home. All of them had to reapply to come back, and of those 21 were refused admission.

What happened at the Sorbonne?

And it is not the first time that there has been trouble at Turfloop or at the other Black universities. I want to point out that the independent celebrations at all the three universities were boycotted by the students. In the words of the resolution adopted by the students at Turfloop in 1969, many of the students saw independence in no other light —and I now quote from the resolution— except as another calculated move by the Government to drive the non-White students into a life of isolation, despair and perpetual frustration. That is hardly the picture of happy students at a university. Turfloop, I might say, which was founded in 1959, has a long history of student unrest. In 1969 the students presented the acting Rector with a long list of grievances. In September, 1970, all the students boycotted the independence celebrations and in July of the same year, 700 students marched on the rector’s office to protest after there had been a raid on their rooms. After the 1970 independence boycott the university council ordered the students to sign a declaration of loyalty. They issued a long rambling statement which every student had to sign before re-admitted after the July vacation, and that statement told us that the university was not only an institution for higher education, but also a community consisting of three bodies: the teaching staff, the administrative staff and the student body, and that all these three constituents of the university must pull together. Well, that is either done on a voluntary basis or it is not done at all, as I think we have learnt by experience. I want to say quite unequivocally that I think that the handling of the Black students at their universities, and particularly at Turfloop, has been singularly heavy-handed and stupid. I think it should be remembered that the Black students are a good deal older than White students, on the average. They start university at an older age, because obviously it takes them a longer time to finish school. Yet they are restricted at these Black universities in a way which no White student, Englishor Afrikaans-speaking, would tolerate for one moment. They are treated like glorified school children. [Interjections.] I want to give a few examples of the restrictions to which certainly first-year students, at any rate, are subjected at Turfloop University. They are not allowed to leave the campus without the permission of the Rector. They may not invite anybody onto the campus without supervision of the Rector. They may not publish any matter, hold any meetings, elect any committees, issue any Press statements or indulge in any student organizational work without the permission of the Rector. Can we imagine that anyone of our White university students would tolerate this sort of thing for one moment? Sir, Black students resent being treated like school children, and if one remembers that to the resentment which is already felt by young Blacks, who are fully aware of the lack of opportunities for them when they leave university and the fact that they are not going to get equal pay for equal work, of the fact that they live in a country where there is racial discrimination—if one adds to this existing resentment the resentment caused by the way in which authority is meted out at the university, it is not hard to see that our Black universities are fast becoming hotbeds of sullen resentment.

You are defending them.

I am giving the hon. member the factual situation. I have nothing to do with what has happened in the history of the Black universities. I am giving a factual historical account and I want to suggest some reason why this is so, and to suggest that instead of the sledgehammer tactics that this Government has been using, it should start treating the Black students at the universities of the North, of Zululand and of Fort Hare like adults and not like glorified school children. In every country of the world there is confrontation between students and the authority and the hon. member, the well-versed member of Venterstad, or Carletonville, as I think it is now …

I did not make a single interruption.

The rather hoarse tones that I thought emanated from the hon. member for Carletonville, emanated, it appears, from the hon. member for Krugersdorp. No doubt he is well-versed in what happened at the Sorbonne a few years ago. Well, let me tell him that there was violence there between the university authorities and the students. Nothing like that has happened here, and intelligent authorities ignore student confrontations unless they are violent. And that is what we ought to do here. [Time expired.]

I consider it a great pity that the hon. member for Houghton made a speech here this evening about a matter which actually ought to be handled with great circumspection, one which certainly does not belong here, because we know that the authorities involved with that matter will solve it again. But this is typical of that hon. member. She comes along here to give her support to a student agitator who abused courtesy and gestures of goodwill to act as an agitator, and she is now condoning that kind of conduct. I therefore regret very much that she remarked here that “the handling of Black students at Turfloop is singularly heavy-handed and stupid”. This is a great insult to the authorities there, who have a difficult situation to handle, and I therefore want to take very strong exception to those words of hers. We know that at the universities throughout Africa, where Bantu students are trained, this kind of thing takes place. The people are emotionally very excitable, and perhaps there are militant supporters of other organizations amongst them. They are easily incited, and as soon as those emotions have passed after a few days, they come back and say they are sorry and carry on with their studies. This happens everywhere in Africa. It happened in Zambia, which that hon. member is so fond of visiting. So why specifically come and make an exception here? It is for the world press that the hon. member is trying to speak here.

Mr. Chairman, I should very much like to convey my congratulations to the hon. the Minister and his department for the smart report the department has given us. It contains a great wealth of information, which has been arranged very neatly and tidily, as well as a great wealth of statistical data. For any person interested in this subject there is a great deal here to look at. Quietly the Department of Bantu Education is carrying out a grander and more spectacular educational task here in South Africa than is being carried out anywhere in the world in our time. Nowhere in the world is there an education authority, which deals with the training and education of the children of seven or more peoples in the making, which has an annual student increase of more than 200 000 and which annually has to find, realistically speaking, about 5 000 extra teachers. This is a tremendous task. The problems of finding the necessary number of teachers every year is complicated because only about 17 000 out of the total of 3 million school-going pupils pass the Junior Certificate Examination each year and only slightly more than 2 000 pass the Senior Certificate Examination.

Are you proud of that?

We are not proud of that, but it is in any case 100 per cent better than what happened under your Government. We are proud of what has in fact been achieved; one cannot churn these pupils out through a sausage machine; one must wait for the potential that comes alone. From the ranks of these few the prospective teachers must be found, the universities must be fed and the artisans and technicians must be found who are so necessary for the development of the homelands.

Now we hear, virtually every day, a kind of repetitive chorus from those benches, to the effect that this Government neglects, refuses or is not prepared to train Bantu in the technical fields. I should like to indicate briefly what is being done at present by the Department of Bantu Education in this connection. As far as trade training is concerned, there are 10 different trade schools as well as nine secondary schools, giving trade subjects. In 1971 a total of 2 800 pupils took courses at these 19 different institutions to be trained as artisans in the following subjects: Motor mechanics 306; general mechanics, 106; body repairs and car upholstery, 83; concreting, bricklaying and plastering, 691; electricians, 237; leather work and upholstery, 149; plumbing and sheetmetal work, 340; carpentry and furniture making, 618; dressmaking, 211; brick-making, 22; painting and glazing, 35. This gives a total of 2 798, which is just over 800 more than there were in 1970. This indicates, therefore, how there is a great increase in this training every year.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND EDUCATION; They are not even listening.

As far as technical education is concerned, a syllabus is offered containing mathematics, physical science and the theory and practice of technical subjects, over and above the three languages that are also necessary. These are offered at five different technical schools. The Junior Certificate course extends over three years and the Senior Certificate course over two years. During 1971 a total of 544 pupils attended these technical schools in the following subjects: Building construction, 37, electricians, 98, watchmaking, 39, woodwork, 126, plumbing and sheetmetal work, 30, motor mechanics, 163, radio electricians, 10 and general mechanics, 41. Apart from this there are a further two technical colleges where 236 students receive training in higher technical subjects, for example engineering technicians, surveying technicians, health inspectors, etc. Then there is still the training of operators, which is taking place at eight different training schools in accordance with the inservice training scheme of the department. According to the report quite a few others are under consideration. Crash training courses are also held for periods of ten weeks at these ad hoc training schools. In addition there are more than 1 000 Bantu girls who are instructed in courses such as home management, dressmaking, spinning and weaving and art. That, very briefly, is what is being done in this connection. However, one must remember that this training is expensive and costs a great deal of money. Therefore it embodies serious financial implications. From what I have already said, it appears that the department gives great priority to the training of artisans and technicians. It is the policy that in every homeland there should be at least one trade school, and this ideal will, it is hoped, be realized one of these days. And every homeland ought to have at least one technical school. At the moment Zululand is the only one that has such a technical school, while the other technical schools are in the Republic. It will therefore mean that if it is desired that this ideal be realized, six additional technical schools will have to be erected at a cost of about R2 million. It must be remembered that technical education is very expensive, much more expensive than commercial education or ordinary secondary education. Workshops, tools, electrical apparatus, etc., cost a great deal of money. In addition it must be borne in mind that success can only be achieved if the students have mathematical aptitude and manual skill. One cannot simply give any person a technical training. It is calculated that every people can only successfully train a certain percentage of its citizens. Therefore, when hon. members opposite again sing out this chorus about Bantu having to receive additional training in technical fields, they ought to keep these two aspects very clearly in view. The first is that the necessary money must be found to equip the institutions. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I will come back to the hon. member for Algoa in a moment. I know that hon. members are a bit anxious, but they must be patient for a few minutes. I want to refer to what the hon. member for Hercules said. The hon. member for Hercules has fallen into the same trap that this Nationalist Party has been in for 25 years. They keep looking over their shoulders and keep looking into the past but they forget to look into the future. When we look into the future—and the hon. member was so proud of the achievements of this Department of Bantu Education—we can only say that if there is anything to be ashamed of it is the drop-out rate. If I can have the hon. the Deputy Minister’s attention for a moment I should like to tell him that he ought to be ashamed of the fact that he has a drop-out rate of 95 per cent in Standard 6. Is he proud of the fact that he has a drop-out rate of 95 per cent in Standard 6? It is no good dismissing it with a wave of the hand because this is one of the questions he must answer when he replies to this debate a little later. I wonder whether he is proud. Is this not exactly what my hon. friend, the member for Durban Central, referred to when he spoke a little bit earlier about the system of education which is being applied, namely a mass literacy education system and not education for the sake of education or for the development of these people? I want to quote what the new Chancellor of the University of Durban Westville said earlier this month in a speech delivered at the university. He said that education for the masses had created an intellectual proletariat which was taking the place of the workers’ proletariat of fifty years ago. Is that what this hon. Minister is trying to achieve with this department of his? Prof. Van der Walt, the Rector of that university, went on to say—

He went further and said that the second result was the growth of the intellectual proletariat with its cry of “students of the world unite”. That is what this hon. Minister and his department are doing. The hon. member for Hercules went further and said how proud he was about the fact that there were 2 800 students at the three universities. But what he did not tell us was how many of them were under-graduates and how many of them were only taking diploma courses. He also spoke about the number of matriculants and how pleased he was and how proud he was, with these noisy members here in the kitchen, …

Mr. Chairmam, on a point of order …

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member went on …

[Interjections.]

Order!

… to say how proud he was. [Interjections.]

Order!

I cannot hear, Sir, Are you speaking to me? [Interjections.] I cannot hear a thing with this noise on my left.

Order! The hon.

member must not trifle with the Chair. I called for order. The hon. member heard me. The hon. member for Cradock may sit down. What did the hon. member say about “the kitchen”?

I referred to the noise (kitchen) here on my left, Sir,

There is no such place. The hon. member should not refer to any place in this House as a “kitchen”.

I accept your ruling, Sir, [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Hercules also spoke about the teachers and the fact that he accepts that their standard of education is not what it could be. The point that must be understood here—and I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will give us his views on this point—is that not only do we have teachers who are not fully qualified, but that we have possibly the highest student teacher ratio in the world. These teachers are asked to educate these people, but it is known full well that they have not been fully educated and are not fully qualified to do so. Is the hon. the Deputy Minister satisfied with the ratio of 60 to 1 that he has today as far as teachers are concerned?

I am very dissatisfied with you.

I know the hon. the Deputy Minister is dissatisfied with me because he does not like the criticism he is receiving.

I want to come back to the hon. member for Algoa who spoke about technical education. I am very glad he did, because if there is one thing that this Government has to be ashamed of, it is the standard of technical education for the Bantu undertaken by this particular Government. The hon. the Deputy Minister, speaking earlier today, had the following to say … [Interjections.]

Order! Only one hon. member at a time is called upon to speak, and the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District is speaking at the moment —Hon. members cannot all speak at the same time. The hon. member may continue.

Mr. Chairman, with respect, once again I did not hear you call me to order.

The hon. the Deputy Minister, speaking earlier in the previous debate, said the following—

What an admission to make after 24 years that they are only now beginning to launch such a plan. But we had the hon. the Minister himself in his summing up saying that if we must wait for sufficient doctors, politicians, accountants, dentists and other tradesman, etc., to be trained, we will never have any development for the Bantu. What an admission to make after 24 years in power! Both the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister have conceded the fact that they have sadly neglected this particular facet of the training of the Bantu to take over and control their own affairs. But now we come to the question of the technical training. The hon. member for Algoa boasted about this, but has he looked at the latest figures? According to the 1970 figures, there were 552 students in the technical training section. What is the position when you look at the 1971 figures? These figures show that this number has been reduced to 509. There was a reduction. This is what the hon. member for Algoa is proud of. He is proud of it that there has been a reduction in the number.

What is the percentage?

My hon. friend reminds me of the percentage. Let us look at the percentage. The total percentage of all Bantu students engaged in technical, secondary, trade and vocational and advanced technical training is 0,14 per cent. This is the achievement the hon. member for Algoa is so proud of. Really and truly he referred to a “netjiese ver slag” of the department but I want to say that if it was not for that “netjiese verslag” he would have had nothing to talk about at all. When I say that this is the percentage of vocational training which is taking place under this Government, is it any wonder that somebody like Dr. Wessels who is the Chairman of the Veka Group and also of Toyota South Africa says in regard to the training:

I heard somebody saying “Hear, hear! ”, I hope he still says “Hear, hear! ”.

No one

said so.

Mr. Wessels goes on to say:

Is this part of a deliberate campaign by the Government to try to force these people and industrialists to go to the border areas? What did the hon. Deputy Minister say when he opened the Transkeian Parliament? He said that he was now beginning to train apprentices in the Transkei and that those apprentices were going to be fully trained as full artisans so that they could be used in the border areas. Let us tie this to what was said by the hon. Minister of Labour in the Other Place a little earlier this session. He told the Senate that the Government could train Bantu to be skilled workers, but that it was politically unwise and it was not their policy to do so for political reasons. Certain questions arise out of these two statements. The hon. Deputy Minister said he is going to train artisans. What is going to happen to those artisans? Are they going to be employed in the border areas? Are they going to be employed as artisans? Are they going to get artisan status in the border areas? Will he acknowledge that they are artisans and will he see that his colleague, the hon. Minister of Labour, will see to it that they are paid the full rate or are they going to be exploited as this Government exploits all the Bantu people and allows them to be exploited? This Government allows them to be employed at lower rates. Is he going to allow this or is he going to treat them as full artisans with full artisan status when they are employed in the White areas and not in the Bantu areas? At this stage I am not interested in what is going to happen in the Bantu areas. When they are employed in the border areas and in the White areas, will they be afforded full artisan status and will they draw full wages in terms of the Industrial Conciliation Act? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman …

Oh no, not Rissik again!

… in the entire debate on Bantu Education, I was not at all impressed by the manner of delivery and content of the speeches of the hon. members of the Opposition. In my opinion the hon. members of the Opposition have not acquainted themselves thoroughly with what takes place within the Department of Bantu Education. I want to recommend to them that before we conduct the debate on the same subject next year, they should acquaint themselves more thoroughly with the Bantu Education Journal. While I am on this topic, I want to congratulate the editorial staff of the Bantu Education Journal on the quality and standard of what is published in their journal.

I want to say a few words in respect of a debate conducted earlier this year in which, inter alia, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout participated. At that stage legislation dealing with Bantu Education was before this House. The hon. members of the Opposition tried to create the impression at the time that in its approach to Bantu Education, the National Party was opposed in principle to education for the respective Bantu groups. I want to state very clearly this evening that the National Party was opposed to the policy which the late Mr. Jan Hofmeyr applied at the time in respect of national education in South Africa.

Can you …

Order! The hon. member for Durban Central must stop interjecting now.

In Alan Paton’s biography of Mr. Hofmeyr he said the following, inter alia:

Mr. Paton continued to say, inter alia:

Hon. members of the Opposition never want us to go back into the past, because they know that their own record is so black that it would shock the present generation in many respects if they had to know what they promised.

I want to come back to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. In an article on the petty apartheid issue, he said the following, inter alia, (translation):

With reference to that, I want to put the following question to hon. members of the Opposition: Last year this little work, called “Education beyond Apartheid” was published. This work was published under the editorship of the so-called “Director of Sprocas”. This is a study group that wants to study the effect of apartheid in our society. They said the following, inter alia:

The question I want to put to the hon. members of the Opposition, is whether any of them is a member of this particular study group. If they are not members of it, I should like to know what their attitude is in respect of the contents of this particular book, since the idiom in which the book is written and the idiom in which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout spoke, is more or less the same.

Are you looking for the father?

No, I actually only want to know whether the hon. members have a hand in these study groups, because the idiom in which these people write, is the same as that in which the hon. member thinks. In the light of the solution they want to offer for the population problems in South Africa, I am looking for the basic principles on which the hon. the Opposition want to place their Bantu education and White education in South Africa.

Now I should like to come to Dr. Eiselen. In recent times there has been a great deal of quoting from an article on an interview conducted by Dr. Eiselen. I want to state very categorically here this evening: I have great appreciation for the work Dr. Eiselen did inside as well as outside the department, but he is by no means the father of apartheid. He is by no means the father of the policy of separate development. Nor is it necessary for everybody to agree with everything he said. He himself said as late as in 1965 (translation):

The same Dr. Eiselen. if one wants to make a thorough study of him, said, when he wrote an article in Sabra’s Journal for Race Relations, the following, inter alia—he was referring to the essential changes in Bantu education which had been effected by the department—

He went on to say:

I want to say to hon. members of the Opposition that when they quote a man of the stature of Dr. Eiselen, they should not do so out of context. Hon. members should give a full redering of the man’s thinking. This is fair not only with a view to sound debating, but also to the person concerned.

Did you quote him correctly?

I quoted him correctly.

I want to devote the last few minutes at my disposal to present-day Bantu education. I want to refer in particular to the hon. member for Houghton, who raised the recent occurrences at the University of the North (Turfloop). It is surprising how many of the so-called intellectuals of modern times think that the Bantu had no educational system in its traditional way of life and that today one must simply go and project the entire liberal education theories of Rousseau and those of modern times on the Bantu just like that. I want to say to her that this would be one of the gravest errors which we as Whites would make and which Bantu educationists themselves would make if they were to do so. If we take the traditional Bantu education system—an education facet of their pattern of life—there are a few features I want to point out. The first is that in his traditional way of life, the Bantu taught their young people hardiness, something which was essential to them. Furthermore, they were taught to have discipline and respect especially towards the superiors in society. Thirdly, it was very important that they had to learn the values and patterns of what was right or wrong in community life. I want to say that in spite of all the modern inventions of man and in spite of all his technological achievements, there are certain basic elementary things which one should not disregard in a system of education. The change from the traditional way of life of the Bantu to that of modern man, with all the complications it involves for modem man, is so great that the Bantu themselves should exercise great care in accepting Western norms and Western standards of education. This is a lesson to be learnt not only by White universities, but also by non-White universities. A university is part of a particular national community. One cannot make one’s own norms as it suits one. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in the debate this evening hon. members opposite could not stop producing statistics in order to prove how well the Government was handling Bantu education in this country. But when it comes to a few miserable “verkrampte” votes, and I hope the hon. member for Randburg is here—the hon. the Deputy Minister does not hesitate to close down a Bantu school summarily and leave approximately 400 children without a school. The hon. the Deputy Minister recently informed a volkspele group in Pretoria that he regretted being so learned. If he thinks it is not good for him to have learning, I must point out that there are other people who would perhaps like to have learning and who want the opportunity of being able to attend a school. I am referring specifically to the Lebagong Bantu school. The hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Randburg are very well acquainted with this. The worst thing of all though, is that this school was closed down and that the hon. the Deputy Minister is now hiding behind an absolutely meaningless petition. I want to substantiate this. I am referring to the Lebagong Bantu school on the farm Bultfontein in the district of Muldersdrif, a school which has existed in that vicinity since long before the owners of the smallholdings in that area can remember. It is a school which was started by the Anglican Church and which later came under the control of the Department of Bantu Education. All of a sudden in 1970, at the time of the general election, the hon. the Minister received a petition which—I want to put it here this evening—was initiated by the hon. member for Randburg for the sake of a few miserable “verkrampte” votes. We all know how badly he needed those few votes. [Interjections.] A petition was submitted to the hon. the Minister, whereupon the school had to close down, because that was the decision of the hon. the Minister. The hon. M.P.C. for Randburg, Mr. Horace van Rensburg, and the manageress of the school, Mrs. Hobbs, and I immediately requested an interview with the hon. the Deputy Minister. We went to speak to him in Pretoria and obtained postponement for a period of six months before that school would be closed down.

Where was the school situated? [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. the Minister’s excuse was that this school had to be replaced by farm schools. The instruction of the hon. the Deputy Minister was that we should ascertain whether we could not get a few farmers to start farm schools in that vicinity. According to the Honeydrif News, the manageress of the school, Mrs. Hobbs, made the following statement to the newspaper (translation)—

She went on to quote these “verkrampte” people who had caused that school to be closed down, people who remarked (translation)—

That is not the truth; you will hear the truth in a moment. [Interjections.]

Order!

I do not find it strange. The information I obtained from the department, was that four or more owners of smallholdings who had been approached by the inspector, were prepared to register schools, but neighbours in the vicinity had objected to this. Is this the way we should set to work in respect of Bantu education in this country? They are extremely moral and quote reams of statistics to us, but when it comes to a few miserable “verkrampte” votes, they summarily close down a school. [Interjections.] After a year had passed, this school was closed on 1st July, 1971, and according to a reply from the hon. the Minister, 390 children were deprived of the privilege of a school education, children between sub A and standard 6.

Disgraceful!

What has become of these children? We hear from the department that a few have been taken up in other schools, but they also said (translation)—

Simply closed down just like that! I want to say this evening that if this action of the Nationalist Party and of the hon. the Deputy Minister does not create frustration and resentment of the White people among the Bantu people in South Africa, I still want to see what it will cause. What about this petition? Let me come to this petition. According to the information divulged by the hon. the Minister, 103 signatures were affixed to this petition. By whom? I want to quote Mrs. Jenny Hobbs once more. We were with the hon. the Deputy Minister in his office and I told him that if he closed down that school, he would not hear the end of it. What did this lady say? [Interjections.]

Order!

I quote—

I quote further (translation)—

Sir, this is what we got from these people. This school was just simply closed down and the reason the hon. the Minister gave us in his reply, to a question in this House was this; he said—

Where is the school situated?

Sir, I want to conclude by putting this question. If he received 103 signatures for the closing down of the school, did he consult the other farmers in that vicinity, because the stability of their labour in that area is affected by the closing down of this school.

I want to state most emphatically here this evening that I take no delight in depriving any Bantu in the Republic of South Africa of his school facilities. However, when I receive representations from the lawfully elected Member of Parliament of the constituency, who comes to me with a request on behalf of those voters, then I am obliged to have that complaint investigated by my department, and this is what I did in this case. There was a petition. There were successive representations by the Member of Parliament and others for the closing down of that school as it was causing disturbances, and after very thorough consideration, and after I had been very fair to that hon. member of Parliament and after I had granted him, as well as other parties he brought to me, an interview, and after the department had conducted a proper investigation, we decided, after we had given them a fair chance—six months or longer —to close that school for legitimate reasons.

What were they?

I shall tell you what happened, Sir, and then you will see how absolutely hypocritical hon. member on that side of the House are.

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister must withdraw that word.

Sir, I shall withdraw the word “hypocritical”, but the ambiguity of those hon. members is simply outrageous, because do you know what happened next? The next step was that I told the Member of Parliament and the parties concerned—and the hon. member for Turf-fontein was present when I said this—“Look, we must really try to provide alternative facilities for those Bantu there”. The hon. member for Randburg then came forward and found an alternative place. I can mention the place and the person’s name here in this House. Do you know what happened next, Sir? The United Party members on that side came forward and objected. They did not want the school at that place. [Interjections.]

Sir, on a point of order, may the hon. member over there tell me that I am a coward?

Yes, you are a coward.

Order! Who is the hon. member who said the hon. member was a coward?

I did. I withdraw it.

A Whip on that side

also said so.

Sir, I said the hon. member was a political coward.

That is not true.

Order! The hon. the Whip must withdraw it.

I withdraw that the hon. member is not a political coward.

Order! I want to point out to hon. members that Mr. Speaker. when he was in the Chair the other day, stated that an hon. member should not make a farce of this House. I shall take action against hon. members if they want to make a farce of this House. It applies to everyone in this House. The hon. the Deputy Minister may proceed.

Sir, what exactly they, the Opposition, are, I do not know, but they are very strange. But, Sir, I leave it at that. Now I want to come to the hon. member for Durban Central, who opened this debate this afternoon. I want to congratulate him on what I regarded as a very neat speech. As one young man to another, I want to express my appreciation to him for his reasonable presentation of this matter. I appreciate it. The hon. member asked in the first place whether we would say something about Turfloop. Sir, the hon. member for Houghton did a very strange thing here this evening. Contrary to what she usually does when this Vote is under discussion, she did not say one word about Bantu education. She delivered a deuced political tirade here, which was extemely unworthy of her. She said, “The handling of students at Turfloop has been singularly heavy-handed and stupid”.

Scandalous!

She levelled the charge that this Government was in actual fact creating a “university hot-bed”. She spoke of “the sledge-hammer tactics of this Government”. She did not say one word about Bantu education. She made a truly political speech. Now I want to inform the Committee what the position is. At that university we have White teachers and Bantu teachers who, to the best of their poor and modest ability, render services to those students who number more than 1 000. They are only human, too, Sir, At a function which was attended by these teachers and guests and at which this young Bantu student had to say a few words of thanks, he concluded his speech with the words I am going to quote in just a moment. These words of mine here this evening are meant specially for the hon. member for Houghton. I should very much like her as well as the country to take note of what happened in this case. I want to warn her to count her words in this responsible House; to be careful in what she says. Now I want to prove what I am saying. I am speaking seriously to her, and Sir, if you will allow me to do so, I shall talk to her in a fatherly way. This Bantu student said the following inter alia—

Sir, you must bear in mind what the situation was; he was expressing a few words of thanks to those people. He continued—

Now the hon. member for Houghton must listen to the following—

Now this is the language of someone who was supposed to have been saying thank you to his benefactors—

And now—

You must bear in mind, Sir, that he was leading up to the climax of his speech. He continued—

The rest of the story is well known and therefore I shall leave the matter at that, except to say that the Council of the University will meet on 15th May when a decision will be taken on further action in this regard. Various other bodies of the University have already met and have adopted resolutions and their recommendations will be submitted to the full Council which will meet on 15th May. In this regard I still want to say only this; everything that happened there, happened while there was the closest contact with the hon. the Minister, Mr. M. C. Botha. I have now given a full explanation here, and I hope the message, which is a serious one, will be brought home not only to that hon. member but also to the other hon. members on the opposite side.

But now the hon. members have come here in a spirit of being critical of Bantu education, and in this regard I just want to state the following facts to this House. Last year there were 827 580 White children at school in this country. Do you know how many Bantu children were at school last year? There were 3 036 750, or, nearly four times more than the number of White children. If that does not mean anything to the opposite side, then let me say that the percentage of the population at school, as far as the Whites in South Africa are concerned, is 22,1; the percentage of Bantu children at school is 18,2. Do you know that in Africa the percentage of the population at school is 9,7, and in South Africa it is 18,2 for Bantu? In Europe the percentage of children at school is 17,4. In South Africa the percentage of Bantu alone is 18,2 per cent. That is language which speaks very clearly and loudly.

Could you please tell us what percentages children, as against adults, represent in the various countries of the world?

That I cannot tell you. The hon. member is trying to side-track me. The position simply is that the figures I have just given this House, are official Unesco figures. I do not have the figures at hand for which the hon. member has just asked me. Now, the hon. member for Durban Central asked what our immediate goal was as far as Bantu education was concerned. Sir, our immediate goal, as we have proved in this department over the past years, is to give the Bantu the best education this country is capable of giving, as far as it is possible to do so in practice, in terms of the needs of the Bantu and in terms of the needs of South Africa and in terms of the needs of the Bantu homelands. This our goal and objective. I think we are largely succeeding in that. I think there has seldom been any field in which there have been so many praiseworthy achievements as in this very field of Bantu education. Do you know that there are more than 11000 Bantu schools in South Africa at the moment? Do you know that there are more than 50 000 teachers in Bantu education who are teaching 3 036 000 Bantu children? And do you know that last year Bantu teachers made up 98,4 per cent of those 50 000 teachers? In other words, the progressive withdrawal of the Whites from that field of education has already achieved that high measure of success. Hon. members complained about “drop-outs”. Let me tell the hon. member for Berea at once that I cannot give him the so-called “drop-out rate” at the Bantu universities, save to say that it is exceptionally low. I shall obtain the figure and give it to him at a later stage. But when the hon. members on the opposite side talk about a 95 per cent drop-out at Standard VI level, as the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District did a while ago, they should not lay that at the door of this side of the House or at my door. There are various reasons for that high figure. One of the most important reasons is that to a large extent the Bantu still make the mastering of the so-called three R’s their objective, whereupon they leave school at an early stage to take a job and earn a salary. With the best will in the world, my department and I cannot stop this. It is very difficult. Therefore this is a process which must take its course, and along these lines we shall obtain a higher pass rate at the various stages. And I can tell you, Sir, that the pass rate is improving appreciably. I just want to mention the following: In 1971 3 817 candidates sat for the Matriculation Examination, i.e. 991 more than in the previous year, Which represents an increase of 35 per cent in one year. That is no mean achievement. When one considers that nearly 4 000 Bantu passed matric in one year, an increase of 35 per cent, the country can at least take note of the fact that this is fine achievement. The corresponding increase from 1968 to 1969 was only 14 per cent and from 1969 to 1970 only 8,4 per cent; last year it was 35 per cent. If this does not prove that I and my department and the officials, whom I praise and thank for their hard work and their achievements, are pressing for good results in the higher echelons of education as well, then I do not know What will prove it. But the increase in the number of candidates was certainly not the only achievement in this regard. The number of candidates who passed the Matriculation Examination increased by 527 or 30 per cent and those who passed with exemption, increased by 339 or 34 per cent, as compared to the number who passed in 1970. So all in all 62,9 per cent of the candidates passed. I always try to bring something pithy and important to the attention of the House under this Vote. Therefore I want to do so now by telling you that, as in the past, there were quite a number of Bantu schools at which all the candidates passed. I take pleasure this evening in telling you, and let this be for the instruction and edification of all, that one particular school in the Lebowa homeland really deserves special mention because, for the fourth consecutive year, every single one of the candidates of that school passed. [Interjections.]

There were only eight matriculants.

One could show that hon. member the angel Gabriel, and he would still doubt him.

The hon. member for Koedoespoort asked a very important question and I reply to it gladly. He asked whether it was not possible for branches of the existing Bantu universities to be established in the densely-populated parts of the Bantu homelands, such as Ga Rankuwa, Umlazi and others. I want to tell the hon. member that the reply to that very important question is “yes”. It is possible. The Acts of these three Bantu universities make this possible. The hon. the Minister, Mr. M. C. Botha, under whom universities actually fall, although he has given me the opportunity of replying to this question, has spoken to the three principals of the three Bantu universities and has discussed this whole matter of establishing branches in these densely-populated parts. Evening classes may be held. For example, a branch for education and a branch for commerce may be established. Full-time teachers’ and commercial training may even be offered under the control of the mother university. If such branches are established at Ga Rankuwa, for example, the university will be Turfloop, and in the case of Umlazi, Ngoya. The principals of these three universities have also been asked to put forward proposals for establishing such branches at these concentrated population areas in the homelands as soon as possible. It follows automatically that the cost factor would be lower at those places and that the branches of the mother universities might develop into universities of full status in the course of time.

Then the hon. member for Berea asked what the position was in regard to authorities at the Bantu universities and whether we could not involve the Bantu in these university councils. My reply to that is very definitely and very clearly that it is the policy of this Government to have nonintegrated bodies of control, or, in other words, not to have a mixture of White and Bantu bodies of control at the highest level. The policy is to have a White body of control as a university council and to have an advisory council which is a Bantu advisory council. Our experience in practice after so many years is that this works very well. We keep to that system because it works well.

The hon. member also asked me what the salaries of unqualified teachers were. Let me give him the particulars. The hon. member said I had said on a previous occasion that I would give him these particulars. I think, although I am not quite certain, that I did give him these particulars on a previous occasion. Nevertheless, I gladly do so again. A male teacher with a degree only, gets a fixed salary of R900 per year and a female teacher with a degree only, R780 per year. A male teacher with a Std. 10 qualification gets R660 and a female teacher R492; a male teacher with a qualification below a St. 10 qualification gets R492 and a female teacher R408.

Then the hon. member also asked me about the question of teachers and the expenditure in respect of teachers. I also reply gladly to that. The unit cost for secondary education is calculated at R70 per year; teachers’ training is more expensive and can easily be in the vicinity of R100. So, if we assume that 8 789 students are enrolled for a two year course, the annual costs involved are close on R1 million, i.e. R880 000. That is the reply to that question.

Are you satisfied with that when it is compared with the figures in respect of the Indians?

We are doing everything in our power to face up squarly to the problem of the shortage of teachers. We are taking all kinds of measures to remedy that position as far as possible, and we have had a fair amount of success. Let me tell the hon. member that there has been a large increase in the number of teachers. It is not so easy to find solutions to that problem. For example, last year we established two new Bantu teaching institutions at which teachers can be trained and we are planning two more at the moment. So we are doing everything possible to remedy that position as far as possible. I have already told him that the so-called drop-out percentage at universities is not very large. I particularly want to express my gratitude to the hon. member for Algoa for the important details concerning artisan and technical training he furnished to this House. I also want to express my gratitude to all the other speakers on this side of the House. However, I was particularly impressed by what the hon. member for Algoa mentioned here in connection with artisan and technical training. I hope the House will take cognisance of that. To train one Bantu right from the start, and to make a full-fledged artisan of him, is not the easiest thing in the world. Hon. members have heard that thousands are already being trained. Hon. members have also heard that we are engaged in major plans so as to keep on extending this training of artisans. So I ask them at least to be grateful for the fine achievements which have been attained in this field, as the hon. member for Algoa mentioned. Now, with these answers I have given, I think I have replied to all the most important questions.

Where are those artisans going to work?

Those artisans can go and work at various places; firstly, of course, in the Bantu homelands. However, if they cannot realize themselves in the Bantu homelands, we are realistic enough to have them realize themselves also in the White area. Our policy is, however, to have them realize themselves in the Bantu homelands in the first place.

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

I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister …

Order! The hon. member for Durban Central must first give the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District an opportunity to put his question.

The Deputy Minister says that the registered tradesmen will now be able to practise their skills in the White areas, but at what wages?

This department has nothing to do with wages. We do not determine wages; they are determined by other departments and the hon. member must put his question to the department concerned.

I wish from the bottom of my heart that the Progressive Party …

Order! The hon. member for Durban Central may put his question now.

Can the hon. the Deputy Minister tell me whether it is necessary for artisans trained in the homelands to pass any trade test when they come to work in White South Africa?

Yes, they are subjected to trade tests. An elaborate system has been built up by the Department of Bantu Education in respect of this question of trade tests. The trade tests used to be conducted at Pretoria, at Olifantsfontein, but provision has now been made for trade tests to be conducted by the Department of Bantu Education. I gave a full reply to this matter in the Other Place, and I should like to refer the hon. member to the speech I made there on this matter.

I have read it.

The hon. member over there says she has read it. I want to conclude by saying that in actual fact a new dispensation has come into being in Bantu education. Hon. members will notice that a much smaller amount appears in the Estimates this year than the amounts which appeared in the Estimates in previous years. The fact of the matter is that the grand total—I can give full particulars to hon. members, but I leave it at that—for Bantu education as a whole comes to R77 078 300 this year. This represents an increase of R6 336 300 on the previous financial year. This amount does not include certain items, such as expenditure of a capital nature. However, I leave it at that. We are especially proud of the fact that the Bantu homelands themselves are accepting more and more responsibility for the education of their people. This evening I also want to pay tribute to and express my thanks and appreciation to that large number of more than 52 000 Bantu teachers who, in the service of many set a fine example in the teaching profession because of the dedication with which they work in the interests of their own peoples and for the development of their own peoples. The position is that there were 4 801 schools, 19 500 teachers and 1 126 000 Bantu pupils in the White area with its five regions at the end of last year. But in the homelands there were more than 5 900 schools, 31 000 teachers and 1 835 000 Bantu scholars. This serves as proof of the great, praiseworthy success with which this Government is giving shape through Bantu education to this policy of multinational development, which is the guarantee to both Whites and Bantu in this country of the maintenance of good relations, and is showing the world how, with each on his own course and side by side with one another, good relations and racial peace can be maintained here in South Africa. I am grateful an important contribution can also be made through the very medium of Bantu education to this fine and praiseworthy object of the National Party Government. On the other hand, I pity the hon. the Opposition on that side of the House.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Votes Nos. 26.—“Justice”, R22 881 000, and 27.—“Prisons”, R38 185 000, and S.W.A. Votes Nos. 12.—“Justice”, R760 000, 13.—“Prisons”,

R600 000:

Mr. Chairman, may I have the privilege of the half-hour?

Mr. Chairman, there are many matters which we wish to raise under this Vote. We want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will now make a statement, which he has not done, in respect of his apparent expression of opinion, and his intent, to appoint regional magistrates to the Supreme Court Bench. We should like to ask him some questions and have some explanations and some assurance about 180-day detention of witnesses, especially in the light of the Legodi case. We should like to have some more elucidation from him as to what he anticipates he can do and what he visualizes is his duty so far as interrogation under section 6 of the Terrorism Act is concerned. We would also like to have some better answers from him than we have had before about the payment by the State of the costs of the hon. the Minister of Community Development in respect of the defamation action. We should like to know something more from the hon. the Minister about speeches he has made outside this House about giving civil jurisdiction to regional magistrates. We should like to hear lots of things about legal aid. In the course of this half-hour I should like to deal with the first three matters, i.e. the possibility of regional magistrates being appointed to the Supreme Court Bench, the 180-day detention of witnesses section and section 6, the interrogation section, and the hon. the Minister’s duties and lack of participation in the administration of this section.

To come to the first matter, I want to say that the hon. the Minister made what is perhaps the strangest utterance since the late Mr. Erasmus was Minister of Justice, in relation to the Supreme Court Bench. When the hon. the Minister went to Tsumeb, he said, apparently as a result of something the Judge President had said at the opening of the building there, that he was the first Minister to appoint a woman to the Bench in South Africa. Then he said that he hoped he might be the first Minister to appoint a regional magistrate to the Supreme Court Bench. [Interjection.] The hon. the Minister of Information publishes the speeches of the hon. the Minister of Justice and other Ministers. This was not in that. Sir, the hon. the Minister reacted to what the hon. judgepresident said at that time. Immediately a storm was raised in respect of this. I heard the matter over the radio and I raised it immediately.

You started it.

Thank you.

It is a feather in your hat.

I started it. The United Party started it. I want to say that we have had the most marvellous support for the attitude we have taken up. The hon. the Minister will remember that he did not want to reply to my initial reaction. The hon. the Minister will recall that Mr. Justice Eksteen of the Eastern Cape Division of the Supreme Court then made a speech to a gathering in which he in fact supported the view we have expressed in relation to this matter. Hon. members will recall that the hon. Minister was still silent, as he has been up to the present day. I may say that his silence is even stranger than his initial gagged observation. [Interjections.] No, he is not gagged, but we shall deal with that just now. After Mr. Justice Eksteen had spoken about the matter it was apparently necessary, because the hon. the Minister was silent, for the Secretary for Justice …

Incredible !

… to make a statement in which he attacked what was said by Mr. Justice Eksteen. At this stage this is almost unbelievable that a Secretary of a department should be allowed to or obliged to make a statement in relation to this matter. Still the hon. the Minister remained silent. Then the Secretary for Justice was attacked by Mr. Justice Ludorff for making such a statement, who again supported the view that we have in this regard as to appointments to the Supreme Court. He felt constrained to say that this civil servant should keep a civil tongue. If I may say so, I want to say to the hon. the Minister that I think it is an absolute scandal in our public life that he could allow the Secretary for Justice to make a statement like this, and that he could allow him to be pilloried by another Supreme Court judge, or by anyone at all. I am not going to say one word about Mr. Oberholzer. This is not the tradition of our public life. The tradition of our public life is that the hon. gentlemen who sit on those Treasury benches are responsible to this Parliament and to this country for everything that is done in their departments.

That is where I shall reply.

The hon. the Minister says that that is where he shall reply. That is not the point. Hon. members will remember that we have discussed this before and that we have referred to the famous Crichel Down case wherein the then Minister of Agriculture in Great Britain, Sir John Dugmore was involved. In this affair where irregularities occurred within the department, although the Minister had nothing to do with it and could not have known anything about it, the fact that this has happened in his department caused him to resign because he was the Minister responsible for that. Because the tradition of that country is the tradition of this country, as we have the same Parliamentary system, the Ministers are responsible for the actions of their departments.

You would not think so.

One would not think so, if one sees a thing like the Agliotti case for example. It is exactly the same thing where the Minister ought to have known; he delegated his powers. However, there is no resignation or a suggestion of it. But I want to say to this hon. Minister that he was asked by the Press on innumerable occasions, he was challenged, to make a statement as to what the Government’s attitude in this regard was. He sat silent right through the piece and allowed the Secretary for Justice to make a statement. I presume that the Secretary for Justice would not have made a statement without the consent of the hon. the Minister. But he allowed him then to be attacked again by somebody else. This is not good enough. This hon. Minister has in more respects than this, in other matters which I will deal with, evaded what is, I believe, his responsibility as Minister of Justice. Here he makes a statement, suggesting, as regards this Supreme Court Bench that we have—which if I may say so, in this point of time of our history is the greatest asset we have so far as the outside world is concerned, for our image—that we tamper with the system which has produced that Bench, which has given lustre to our image as a Western civilized country. There is nothing in recent years which has done us more good than the actions of that independent judiciary which we have.

The hon. the Minister suggests that he hopes he might be the first Minister of Justice to appoint a regional magistrate to the Supreme Court Bench. You know, Sir, one can argue about this matter for days and days. I could spend an hour dealing with the whys and wherefores of this issue. I want to say just this: We have the Bench that we have in this country because of the system which has produced it, because of the centuries of this tradition of appointing from the independent Bar of South Africa, of taking the cream off the top of the silks of the Bar in this country and putting them on the Supreme Court Bench. The tradition of the Bar and the tradition of those appointments have produced judges of this calibre, without peer in this world. This hon. Minister now suggests that he would like to be the first Minister to change it, break it up and destroy it.

He did not say so.

That hon.

gentleman has not said one word. He has allowed it.

Who told you that?

Because he said it. He has never denied that he said that.

You are misquoting him.

I do not often challenge people, but I challenge the hon. member for Prinshof, and any other hon. gentleman in the legal profession on that side, but particularly that hon. gentleman from Prinshof, to stand up and defend the attitude that regional magistrates will be appointed to the Supreme Court Bench.

That is not the point. You are misquoting.

I challenge the hon. members to get up. They all know as well as I do, because we are all members of the legal profession, that not one of them will do so.

You are still misquoting the Minister deliberately.

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

I withdraw it, Sir,

I should think so. For a lawyer to say that! Anyway, the hon. the Minister has remained silent and we want to hear him on this subject.

You

will hear me all right.

You know, Sir, it has taken an awfully long time since those days, and nothing has this hon. gentleman said. Perhaps he will explain to us also why he allowed the Secretary for Justice to say the things he himself should have said and take the knocks that he himself should have taken; because that is his job and his responsibility as the Minister in charge of this department.

So far as the magistrates are concerned, they do a magnificent job in this country. In fact they are terribly overworked.

You did not say so originally.

Yes I did. Sir, the regional magistrates of this country do a wonderful job as well. It is no good the hon. the Minister wagging his fingers around the place; I know this, because I practise in the courts. I want to say further that I believe that the magistrates themselves do not believe that they should be appointed to the Supreme Court, not because they are not competent, but because their background is different, because their training is different and because they deal with criminal cases only.

You said because they are not independent.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL; That is also so. All our judges have been appointed from an independent Bar with a tradition of independence. Sir, there is nothing much that you can say about a system in the end except that it works. I want to tell this hon. Minister that that system works because of the system, because of that independence and because of that tradition, and I want to tell him that the whole of the legal profession is against him. The Association of Law Societies is against him; the Bench is against him; the Bar is against him. The magistrates, I believe, are against him, and if he dares to fiddle with this one remaining thing which serves South Africa and which serves our democracy and our civilization, despite everything that this Government has done, then I want to tell him that this country will not stand for it. I hope he is going to be man enough to tell us that what he said he should not have said, and that he did not mean to say it. This is the occasion for him to say it. We have to have the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Justice before us in this House, before that hon. gentleman will say anything at all. I think it is absolutely disgraceful. Sir, this hon. gentleman is the hon. the Minister of Justice. He controls the Attorneys-General of this country. The hon. the Minister is responsible for the administration of the 180-day detention of witnesses section, section 215 bis of the Criminal Procedure Act, which was introduced in 1955 and which we opposed, as the hon. the Minister will recall.

Sir, recently we had the case of a gentleman called Ephraim Legodi. Questions were asked in this connection by the hon. member for Houghton.

[Inaudible.]

If that is the hon. the Minister’s point, then he is even more inept and incapable of holding this office than I thought. [Laughter.] I want to tell the hon. the Minister and all those hon. gentlemen opposite who laugh like that, that one thing they must remember, and remember very soon, is that Parliament has a corporate personality and that we are all members of that Parliament. One of our jobs is to see that the administration is properly carried out. If there is an hon. gentleman on that side who will get up and defend what happened in Legodi’s case, then I would like to hear it. Because what happened, Sir? Legodi was an innocent witness apparently of a street murder. The Police knew that he was a witness. Someone thought that he might abscond or that he might be in danger, so he was taken in as a witness, and for 129 days, in fact from the moment he was taken into custody for his own protection or so that he would not abscond, he was put in solitary confinement—solitary confinement for 129 days from the day that this witness, an innocent witness of a street crime, was taken into custody.

Poor innocent witness …

Yes, I should think after 129 days in solitary confinement without employment, he was probably a “poor innocent witness”. But, at any rate, Sir, he was a witness and the State wanted him to give evidence. He was put into solitary confinement from the day he was arrested. You will recall that in 1965, when this provision was introduced and we opposed it, we said that this sort of thing could happen. Those hon. members said it could not happen. My goodness me, Sir, it can happen as long as this hon. gentleman is the Minister of Justice. I want to tell him once again that our attitude to this is not merely what we think. We are once again backed up by the best authority I can find, and I refer to the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Criminal Procedure and Evidence, the report of Mr. Justice Botha. Mr. Justice Botha says on page 57 of his report on this very question of the detention of witnesses under this section—

Note well what he says now—

Then he goes on to recommend that this power should not be invoked except on the authority and order of a judge of the Supreme Court. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that this Legodi case indicates how this can be abused and it is an abuse of that section. There is no one that can deny it is an abuse and I should like the hon. the Minister to deny it if he would dare. If you take a witness in, why do you put him into solitary confinement? What you are supposed to do is to protect him against interference from someone else or to prevent him from absconding. But he is put into solitary confinement! It is an abuse and that hon. Minister does not even know it has happened, or did he know it happened and did he approve of it? Let me remind the hon. the Minister that one of his predecessors in his Government, in his party, in his time introduced an amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act which gave the Minister the power to determine what the Attorney-General did, to undo what he did and to tell him what to do. But my goodness me, when you take a power like that, you also accept the responsibility that you know what your Attorney-General are doing and this hon. Minister knows nothing about it.

You are talking nonsense!

If you say that I am talking nonsense, are you saying that you agreed, that you allowed this to happen, that you consented to this man being kept in solitary confinement for 129 days? Is that what you mean, if you say that I am talking nonsense? Did you know about it?

I knew all about it.

You knew all about it? From the beginning?

From the beginning.

Then, my goodness me, you should resign here on the turn. [Interjections.] He calls himself the Minister of Justice and knew about it right from the beginning. How do you justify it? My goodness me!

Address the Chair.

I will address the Chair, but I want to say to the hon. the Minister that, since we are going to have a General Law Amendment Bill shortly—we always have one—I would like him to stand up and give a guarantee to this House that he will put in that General Law Amendment Bill the recommendation of the judge in relation to the 180 day detention of witnesses. His recommendation is in section 185 of the draft Bill which was published in the Government Gazette on 10th December last year.

I know all about that.

Having seen this, will the hon. the Minister then introduce it? I can say to him now that we shall give him the support of this House for that clause if he will put it in that Bill.

I do not need it.

The hon. gentleman says he does not need it. Of course he needs it! It must be taken out of his hands because he cannot cope with it.

You opposed it last time.

Of course we opposed it last time, but any amelioration of it we will support. If the ameliorations that a judge of the Supreme Court will decide whether a man should be detained as a witness for up to 180 days, then it is better in the hands of a judge than in the hands of this hon. gentleman, who now says that he knew about this right from the very beginning and allowed a state witness to be confined in solitary confinement for 129 days. I do not know when that hon. gentleman was last in court, but I want to say that I am not at all surprised that the witnrss’ evidence, when he eventually gave his evidence, was not accepted by the court. I must say that I shall be very surprised if anyone here who is subjected to this treatment, would be able to give evidence which would be acceptable in the circumstances.

I want to tell this hon. Minister something else. There is a tremendous problem in every court of law every single day to get a witness to come and give evidence. If his is what can happen to people and the hon. the Minister of Justice says he knows about it—“knew about it from the beginning”—then let us not be surprised if the ordinary citizen feels constrained not to offer to give evidence in an accident case, or murder case or any other case.

In this particular case there were false premises.

Well, that may be. I do not know whether the premises are false or not; I cannot see the falseness of the premises. I should like that hon. gentleman to explain what he has now said. I should like him to say whether he will in fact, as a matter of urgency, put into the General Law Amendment Bill the recommendation of the judge which is that within 72 hours, I think it is, the Attorney-General must bring an application on an affidavit before a judge for further detention of a witness. But then, this is the sort of Minister of Justice we have. If this hon. gentleman, who is not concerned with justice, can sit here and say that he knew all along that Legodi was in solitary confinement, then it lends support to the view that we have held for some time now and expressed, namely that this hon. gentleman should not be Minister of Justice any more. When we come to interrogation in terms of section 6 of the Terrorism Act…

You are going to repeat ten times over what you have said.

No, I have something else for you. One must remember that section 6 says that a man can be detained for interrogation for an indefinite period. There is another section which says that one must go to a judge after 14 days and get an order for further detention. They never use section 22. They use section 6 all the time. Since 1966 they have used section 22 only five times. And what is this hon. Minister’s attitude? He says it is a matter for the Police. What does he think he is sitting there for? Why does he think he is the Minister of Justice? What arose the other day as a result of questions asked by the hon. member for Transkei in respect of the Mbambo matter? Arising out of his answer, the Minister was asked whether he had laid down conditions, or rather, whether the Commissioner, with his permission, had laid down conditions in terms of section 6 for the detention of this person. And what was the hon. gentleman’s reply? His reply was: “I am not called upon to do so necessarily.” In other words, as far as he is concerned he can do so, but he is not concerned because this is entirely a matter for the Police to decide. Let me ask the hon. gentleman a question. We had the case of the Dean of Johannesburg. The Dean of Johannesburg, for whom I hold no brief whatever, was detained in terms of section 6 of the Terrorism Act for interrogation. But apparently as a result of diplomatic pressure, or anyway as a result of something, he was then released. Is there any evidence at all on the record to suggest that this person should have been detained under section 6 of that Act? As far as I am aware, there was no evidence which suggested that this was a necessary step. But the Police did this, and if I were a policeman I would use section 6; it is much easier, because I do not have to go and explain my actions to a judge. If there is no control over me, and if that is the hon. the Minister in the Act who “can” control it and who “can” lay down conditions, but does not, I am at liberty to do what I like. Does the hon. the Minister not appreciate that he has a responsibility to this country, to our democracy, and to our image? All the things he is doing are breaking down and destroying … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban North did not disappoint us at all this evening. We had expected absolutely nothing from him, and he came up to our expectations. As an advocate of the Supreme Court of South Africa, this member came to this House with a completely unprepared case this evening. As a lawyer, he should know that when he goes to court, he should submit the best evidence to that court; we call it “the best evidence rule”. But the hon. member did not do so this evening. He came forward, in the first place, with allegations concerning the Legodi case. However, it is very clear that the hon. member does not know the facts of this case; he does not know that that person is unemployed; he does not know that that man is without any address, nor does he even know to what degree of guilt that man had. The hon. the Minister will give him a detailed reply on this aspect later.

The hon. member raised another matter as well, and that concerned the so-called statement which the hon. the Minister made in regard to the appointment of magistrates to the bench. The hon. member does not have the facts, nor did he read that speech. The Minister never said he hoped that it would be the Prime Minister who would do so.

What did he say?

I recommend that that hon. member should first go and read and make a careful study of the speech made by the hon. the Minister of Justice before he comes to this House again and takes up our time here.

He himself does not know what he said.

I know very well what he said, but the hon. the Minister will reply to that personally. We expected the hon. the Minister not to react sooner to that provocation of the hon. member. We did not expect the hon. the Minister to react. It was not his task to react to that remark. But it is very clear what sort of game is being played here between that hon. member and the hon. member for Houghton. They are competing in order to see who can be the best intercessor for the agitators and the inciters in this country. Earlier this evening we had the hon. member for Houghton acting as an intercessor for that man at Turfloop. He had quoted her name there, and in the same way that hon. member’s name will also be quoted by agitators and inciters in this country.

But the time at my disposal is unfortunately slipping by quickly and I want to talk about a completely different matter. I should like to say a few words this evening about the Department of Prisons. The composition of the population in South Africa is completely different to that of the rest of the world. Our pattern is completely different from that of the rest of the world. We differ from all the other countries, and also specifically from the African states. Our successes and our failures, our problems and our co-operation differ widely from the pattern of the rest of the world. In the same way, as far as our administration of justice is concerned, we should see the laws and regulations in our country against this background. We should see these things against the background of the composition of our population in this country. We must also see the crime rate in our country against this background.

Now I want to dwell more specifically on the short-term prisoner situation in our country. As I have said, crime is crime and an offence is an offence and cannot be condoned. Laws are not made by the Prisons Department; laws are not made by the Police; laws are not made by the Department of Justice; laws are made by this House. Those departments are there to implement this policy. All too often we find in our newspapers and among the Opposition on that side that the Prisons Department is blamed for the short-term prisoner situation in our prisons. It is alleged that there are too many prisoners in our prisons. That allegation is continually made by the public, especially by the English-language press and that side of this House. My contention is that that is unfair towards this department, which performs a good task in our country. If one examines its task, especially as far as these prisons are concerned, one can in fact summarize it on three levels. In the first place, it is there as a rehabilitation centre. They are there to do education work. They do this education work thoroughly and to the best of their ability. I happened to read old reports last week about visits which had been paid to our country by lawyers from abroad. They described our prisons as of the best in the world. The education work being done there, is of a high quality. We have trained people in our prisons performing those tasks. Their rehabilitation work is excellent. One can summarize it as simply excellent. But in the second place, the prisons are also there for applying punitive measures. The public expects punitive measures to be taken when an offence has been committed. After all, there must be order and discipline in a country. We expect this order and discipline to be maintained. That is why offenders are kept in prisons. In the third place, the Prisons Department ensures that these short-term prisoners are separated from the long-term prisoners. The reasons for that are understandable. They do not want these people to be influenced by those long-term prisoners.

But now we ask the question: What is this Government doing in order to reduce that short-term prison population? I can inform this House this evening that this Government has done a tremendous job of work to reduce those numbers. We think especially of the Department of Bantu Administration, which introduced these rehabilitation centres. I have statistics in respect of the period 1st July, 1968, to 30th June, 1969. According to these statistics there were 5 239 prisoners in the Western Cape area. In August, 1969, the aid centres in Langa were introduced here in the Cape, and the following year, from 1st July, 1970 to 30th June, 1971, there were only 3 561 prisoners. This is a decrease of 1 678 and the trend is that these numbers will drop even further. I can only say that the effect of these aid centres has been dramatic. It is a great job of work which has been done in our country, but many more of these centres are still being established. At present there are 10 of them, and the idea is that many more must be established throughout the country. Surveys have shown that as a result of these aid centres there has been a reduction of from 83 per cent to 68 per cent in numbers.

In the second place I should like to talk about the utilization of prison labour in the national interests. So much is said about the labour supplied by the prisons, the labour which can be used to such a large extent on the farms, etc. Hon. members also know that this labour is trained intensively in our prisons and one can only take one’s hat off for the work being done by the Prisons Department in this regard. This labour is used, in the first place, by the department itself to meet its own needs. In the second place the labour is used in the interests of other Government Departments as well. Only then, when these needs have been met, may it be used by private persons and other institutions who need that labour. The training in these prisons, especially on our prison farms, is intensive. I want to ask the hon. the Minister a question this evening. We know that there are a considerable number of prison farms in the country already where people are trained as carpenters, builders, cooks and in many other trades. These prison farms have shown us what valuable work can be done by the Prisons Department. We want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he cannot extend this system and perhaps have it functioning on an agency basis in the homelands as well. Such prison farms could then be taken over later by the homelands themselves. These labourers could also supply valuable labour in the homelands. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Potgietersrus accused the hon. member for Durban North of being unprepared this evening. It is a very serious allegation to make against the leader of the justice group on this side of the House. What did the hon. member for Durban North do? He quoted facts. How can the hon. member for Potgietersrus suggest that he came to this House unprepared?

Who gave him the facts?

What we expect from that side of the House but what we never get these days, is an answer to the facts that we state in the debates. It is no good the hon. the Minister waving his hand; we expect him to reply when he gets up in this House. I suggest, or rather I go further than suggesting; I doubt whether we will have answers even from the Minister of Justice.

You will get an answer.

Above all we want to hear from the Minister of Justice whether he accepts the Botha Commission’s recommendation regarding section 215. Are we going to get that from the hon. the Minister? Is he going to amend this section this session?

You will get a reply.

Yes, we will get a reply, but he can tell us right now whether he is going to amend this section or not.

In the short time I have left this evening I want to follow up one of the themes ealt with by the hon. member for Potgietersrus, and that is the alarming prison population in South Africa. I want to make it clear to the hon. member for Potgietsrsrus that we do not blame the Prisons Department for the large prison population. They are not responsible for putting the people in prison; they are merely responsible for receiving them and looking after them once they are in prison. What we do blame are the laws of this Government which are causing this alarming growth in the prison populaion. By coincidence, a very important address on this subject was delivered this morning by Mr justice Steyn, the National Chairman of the National Institute for Crime Prevention and Rehabilitation of Offenders. There are the figures that he has quoted:

South Africa has 417 per 100 000. If this is not an alarming state of affairs, I would like to know what it is.

What is your basis of comparison? How do you compare them? Give us the facts.

These are once again facts. If hon. members on that side challenge the accuracy of these facts, let them get up and do so. Mr. Justice Steyn described this state of affairs in this way—

It is very, very strong language and a very strong condemnation of the administration of justice by this Government. The judge, who is an expert on the subject, went to great lengths to suggest ways and means of ameliorating this position. I have not. in the short time available to me this evening, the opportunity to discuss these at all, nor do I have time to refer to them. But I do suggest to the hon. the Minister that he owes it to Mr. Justice Steyn to consider this speech of his carefully, and to issue a detailed statement, not just cursorily in reply to this Vote, but after giving due consideration to the points made by Judge Steyn, and to reply, stating precisely what the attitude is of the Government to each of the proposals made by Judge Steyn. I believe that the Minister owes it to this judge. Above all, he owes it to the country; because more and more people are becoming alarmed at the growing prison population in South Africa in comparison with other countries. Now, Sir, I leave this matter and I hope to hear from the hon. the Minister that he will give this matter the consideration for which I have asked and issue in due course a considered reply to the proposals made by Mr. Justice Steyn. I will couple that also with the proposals that we have made from time to time from this side of the House, and which I cannot repeat.

Like what?

I have not got time. The hon. the Minister knows it. I ask and challenge him to look back to the debates in which we have dealt with this subject year after year, and to see the proposals that we have made, and deal with them and not try to slide over it as though it were a matter of unimportance; because more and more people are beginning to be alarmed by the position and regard it with far more importance than this Minister appears to do.

In the minute or so left to me, I would like to deal with a less contentious matter, but one which is also of importance. That is the present position, so far as the Government is concerned, with regard to sectional titles.