Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, the Bill which is under discussion here, deals with the payment of members of Parliament and office-bearers of Parliament. The Bill does not contain particulars of the proposed amounts, but the subject of the Bill is the method according to which payment will in future be made to members of Parliament. Because this Bill contains the principle in respect of the payment of members of Parliament, you will permit me, Sir, to say a few words in this regard.

I think it is generally expected today, here and outside this House, that an adjustment ought to be made to the salaries and allowances of members of Parliament. The previous adjustment of this kind was made in 1971. Not only has the cost of living increased between 1971 and the present, but salary adjustments have also occurred in the Public Service and in the private sector. It is no more than fair to members of Parliament that we should take into account the change that has taken place in respect of the salaries of officials and of persons in the private sector when we consider the remuneration of the people rendering their services in the highest debating chambers of the country. We must not lose sight of the fact that members of Parliament are the people—to repeat this again—who are serving in the highest debating chambers of the country. They have to be treated accordingly. I want to add— something which is probably known to everyone—that the work of a member of Parliament has in recent times become a full-time occupation. There are people who are of the opinion that a member of Parliament comes here for four or five months in the year, that they attend meetings in the afternoon, and are free for the rest of the time. This may have been the case in the past. Each one of us who has been a member of Parliament for some time is fully aware of the fact that the work of a member of Parliament has increased over the years, on the one hand because of international developments and uncertainty and everything that is happening there and of which we have to take cognizance and, on the other because the demands the public has been making on a member of Parliament in the domestic sphere have increased in recent times. We must also take into consideration that it is virtually impossible for many of our members of Parliament to perform any other work. Those who have professions—medical practitioners, lawyers, or whatever they may be —have virtually had to give up those professions. They are no longer able to practice those professions and they are entirely dependent upon the remuneration they receive as members of Parliament. It is not only when they are here that they are occupied in a full-time capacity. When they return to their constituencies those people serve their constituents in a full-time capacity. They must be ready at any time of the day or night to comply with the demands their constituents make on them. I know of several cases of hon. members here who are losing thousands of rand every year because they are sitting here out of love for the service they are rendering to their country. It is the younger members in particular that we must not lose. They are the people who are eager to serve their country in its highest debating chambers. We dare not lose them because they are unfortunately not in a financial position to have representation here and render service to their country.

In recent times the cost of living has increased for our members of Parliament as well. For example, I have in mind the fact that members of Parliament have to travel extensively to serve their constituencies. Those who have small constituencies, do not have to undertake these journeys, but they are closer to their constituents and are therefore approached and visited and kept busy more often. Some of them have tremendously large constituencies. Members of Parliament have told me that they use up one motor-car every year. They travel between 80 000 and 100 000 miles per year, and in addition have to bear all the other costs such as fuel and reparis, subsistence and so on. I know of one member of Parliament in a certain constituency whose telephone account amounts to approximately R100 per month. All these expenses have to be borne from the remuneration he receives here. We know that in most cases members of Parliament have to keep two houses, one house where they are ordinarily resident and a house here in the Cape. We know that members of Parliament are usually the first people who are approached when a collection is being taken up. When such a collection is of a national, local or provincial nature, the member of Parliament must always be ready to make a contribution. In addition I want to add this final point, that the member of Parliament must have a status. We, who are jealous of our democratic institutions, who should be jealous of Parliament as the highest debating chamber in our country, we, as a people, should not shrink from the obligations this places on the people and on Parliament itself. Although we do not recommend excessive remuneration, we must see to it that the status of the member of Parliament in his own constituency and elsewhere is such that we, as a Parliament, may be proud of the fact that such a person is a member of Parliament. I also want to add to this that, in the democratic times in which we are living, a Parliament also forms part of the life of a people. A status should attach to Parliament and should attract and retain men who are held in high esteem by the people, not only in their own country, but also in the outside world. It will be difficult to achieve this, unless the remuneration we pay is an equitable one. A comparison is also drawn between members of Parliament and public servants, which I shall deal with in a moment. I just want to confirm that their position may to a certain extent be compared with that of public servants. I also want to add that public servants cannot in all respects be compared with members of Parliament, or the other way round. For example, on retirement public servants receive considerable cash amounts in addition to their pensions. Public servants also receive a fairly substantial vacation savings bonus. They receive this every year. Above all—and I think it is important that we should remember this—the profession of a member of Parliament is one of the riskiest professions in the world. The average period of service of a member of Parliament as such is a little more than seven years and in those seven years he severs all his outside ties. As soon as he ceases to be a member of Parliament he must therefore return to his former occupation and try to build up a new way of life for himself. We incur this risk partly became deliminations and redeliminations of our constituencies occur; in some cases a constituency may disappear completely; in some cases a member of Parliament has to make way for an aspirant candidate of his own party; in some cases a member of Parliament has to make way for an official or a candidate of another party. On an average we find ourselves being put to the test every four years, when it has to be decided whether or not we will return to this House. So there; is no permanence, absolutely no certainty, in the life of a member of Parliament and I think this must be taken into consideration when determining our remuneration.

Sir, in this Bill I am asking for the proposed remuneration for members of Parliament to be implemented as set out in the Bill. There are a number of main principles I want to refer to. The first of these main principles is that in future the salaries of members of Parliament and their allowances will be determined by the State President. Unlike what happened in the past when we had to introduce a Bill here and had to discuss our salaries across the floor of the House, these salaries will now be determined by the State President. However, this will not detract from the fact that, as is the case at present and has been in the past, the closest consultation will take place among all the parties in this Parliament. It is true, this is not being stated in the Bill but it has become tradition in our country that when an increase in the remuneration of members of Parliament is being considered, the closest liaison is maintained among the various parties, and joint deliberations take place. This principle, according to which the State President will in future determine the salaries of members of Parliament, is one which applies in other countries as well and not only in South Africa; this is a practice which one finds quite generally in various parts of the world. The second important consideration contained in this Bill is that the salary adjustments which are being envisaged, will be effected with due regard for the considerations, the principles and norms relating to the increase in the salaries of public servants, and it is this factor which will ensure that the State President will not simply, on the recommendation of the Cabinet, determine higher salaries for members of Parliament, but that there will be some correlation between the salaries of members of Parliament and those of public servants.

The third principle is that the salaries and allowances which are being determined at present, are regarded as being determined by the State President in terms of section 1(1)(a) and that the present salaries constitute the basis on which any formula for an increase in the future will be determined.

The fourth principle is that a change in the salaries will be considered as soon as possible after this Bill has been adopted and that, on this occasion, the salary increases received by public servants since 1971, when the previous adjustment was made in the salaries and allowances of members of Parliament, will be taken into account.

Sir, then there are also quite a number of other provisions which I need not mention; there are the definitions relating to who the office-bearers are, who the Whips are, who the members of Parliament are, who the Leader of the Opposition is; all these are definitions which are contained in the old Act and which are not being amended. Then there is also a provision in this Bill that the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Assembly, will be consulted when any adjustment to the salaries is made.

In addition, a minor amendment is proposed here in connection with the penalty clause relating to the absence of a member of Parliament from Parliament under circumstances other than those described in the Act. In the past the position was that a member of Parliament, if absent under the circumstances other than those prescribed in the Act, had to pay a penalty of R31 per day. What we are now proposing here is that the penalty should be R40 per day, but that this would apply under the conditions prescribed here and are in accordance with those which applied in the past.

Sir, these are the most important provisions. Quite a number of the old Acts fall away in regard to this matter and the measure which is being submitted to hon. members here is an entirely new Bill. I believe members of the House of Assembly will agree with the proposals contained in this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say on behalf of the United Party that we support and take our full share of responsibility for this Bill which introduces a new method of fixing the salaries for members of Parliament and envisages increases from time to time. I want to associate myself with everything that the Leader of the House has said: I agree with him wholeheartedly. Sir, discussions on the salaries of members of Parliament always place members in a most invidious position. Nobody will deny that the value of the rand, in line with other currencies, has been falling continuously, especially of late, and I cannot believe that there is anyone in employment who in the last three years has not received an increase in his salary. In that time this Parliament has authorized several increases in the salaries of officials and employees controlled by it and also increases in social pensions in an effort to compensate pensioners for the rising cost of living. Civil servants, the Police, the Railwaymen, Judges, and the employees of any department that you care to mention have received increases without complaint from anyone because the increases have been considered justified and in line with what is happening in the private sector. We members, however, are in the unfortunate position that we ourselves have to authorize an increase in our, salaries, and there is usually some criticism, the criticism generally is that the time is not ripe. The time, never seems to be ripe for an increase in the salaries of M.P.s. When I came to Parliament in 1948 the pay was £1 000 a year (R2 000) and we were also pald a sessional allowance. Since then there have been two variations in the allowances, and salaries were increased in 1951, 1961 and 1971—10-year gaps—but had we heeded the critics there would have been no increases. With every increase in the past the Leader of the House and speakers on the Opposition side have pointed out the increased duties of M.P.s with the complexities of modern-day living and the problems arising from scientific, industrial and other developments. The Leader of the House has already mentioned this so I do not propose to repeat. I do however, want to remind the public that in every other walk of life a citizen is entitled to expect an increase in his income at least once a year to improve his standard of living. He chooses his walk of life with that object in view; he does not expect to remain static. In the case of M.P.s, however, the newest recruit receives the same pay as the longest-serving member unless, of course, the member is lucky enough to become a member of the Cabinet or to occupy some other special position in the Assembly …

Like the Chief Whip.

… and even the youngest appointee to the Cabinet receives the same pay as the longest-serving Cabinet Minister or the one with the most responsibility. There is no provision for any increase for length of service, which of course is a deterrent to persons wishing to take up politics as a lifetime venture. As the hon. the Leader of the House has pointed out, it is a walk of life which is more precarious than most others. Sir, our nresent salaries were not arbitrarily fixed by us. Two independent commissions were appointed, the first one in 1961 and the second one in 1971, and these independent gentlemen of high standing in the commercial and legal world assessed and fixed the basis of our salaries. The Bill before us now accepts the last assessment but empowers the State President in future to determine and adjust our salaries, but only with due regard to the principles and criteria applied to any revision of the salaries of the public servants. This will ensure that any future increase of Parliamentary salaries will not be granted in an arbitrary manner. Sir, I have no hesitation on behalf of my party in supporting the measure which is now before the House.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. the Minister indicated in his introduction to this debate, the purpose of the Bill is to change the procedure whereby the emoluments, whether they be salaries or allowances, of members of this House and of the Other Place are determined from time to time. I want to say immediately that in so far as the procedures are concerned, we on this side of the House have no objection. We have, as the hon. the Minister is aware, misgivings as to how these procedures and the criteria stated in this Bill might be applied in practice. The new procedure, in so far as it alters the procedure which obtains at the moment, really falls under three headings. The first is that in the past there was no specific occasion on which the House could review salaries. It was entirely up to the House, perhaps on the initiative of the Government, to introduce measures to review salaries from time to time. If this Bill is passed there will now be a limitation on Parliament as to whether or when parliamentary salaries can be reviewed. They can in future only be reviewed on such occasions as the Public Service is having its salaries and allowances reviewed. To the extent it links parliamentary salaries to an important sector of the employees in society, I think this is a good thing. At least we will not again have the situation we had some three years ago, when parliamentary salaries were raised at the very time when the Government was calling on the private and on the public sectors to tighten its belts and not to press for pay increases. At least now the limitation will be that parliamentary salaries cannot be increased at a time when the Government is telling either the Public Service or the trade unions or other people to tighten their belts and not to press for increases in salaries. To the extent that there is now a restriction on the time-table for increases, we would approve of this measure.

Secondly, it does lay down that the criteria to be applied in determining parliamentary salaries and allowances be the same criteria as those applied to the Public Service generally. Once again we think that this is a correct procedure. Parliament should not stand in isolation to either the Public Service salaries, the public sector salaries or the private sector salaries. There are certain criteria applicable to the important public sector, and these criteria should apply to members of Parliament.

The third change is that in the past it was either the invidious or the embarassing or the delightful decision of hon. members of this House to determine their own salary. Now it will be by regulation by the State President on the advice of the Government. On the one hand this is a convenient procedure and is appropriate in the sense that it may remove areas of embarassment from members having to vote on their own emoluments, and at the same time it does remove a certain restraining influence of public opinion, where members of parliament in the full gaze of public have to determine their own remuneration. It is in this area that I would urge that in the application of this Bill should it become law, the Government should be extremely circumspect in interpreting the provisions of this clause in relation to the salaries or emoluments of members of Parliament.

The legislation makes provision for the adjustment either up or down, of the emoluments, salaries and allowances, in three major ways. The first way is that there could be a major restructuring of the salaries of members of Parliament, on the argument that there has been at any particular stage a major restructuring of the salaries or allowances of Public Service employees. In this regard I think we should take note of the fact that in 1971 the Bamford-Van der Horst Commission did the restructuring. There was a fundamental restructuring of parliamentary salaries then, and therefore in the application of the principle of this legislation it would be entirely inappropriate if parliamentary salaries were once again restructured only three years after they had been restructed on the advice of a commission consisting of two outside businessmen. I raise this, Sir, because it is going to be an area of concern. We argue that it would not be either in the interest of this House or of the public to apply principles of this legislation on the basis that the time is appropriate for a restructuring.

Secondly, there is the question of salaries. Quite clearly there has been a decline in the value of the rand and there has been an upgrading of salaries both in the private and in the public sectors, and a case can be made for some upgrading of parliamentary salaries. We in these benches, as the hon. the Minister is aware, would have preferred that in implementing this legislation one should have assumed that members came to this House, which is the fifth Parliament of the Republic of South Africa, on 24 April knowing that their emoluments were what they were and that therefore any adjustment should be those adjustments following upon the election and not be post-dated to a date three years before. In these circumstances it would have been appropriate for the Bill to refer only to variations in or the upgrading of the Public Service emoluments subsequent to the general election. I understand that there is a problem in this regard, because there have been, in fact two adjustments in the last three years. In 1973 a pensionable allowance of 15% became payable to White public servants and 17½% in the case of Black public servants in order to try to close this gap. That increase granted in April 1973 is now being taken over in a total restructuring of Public Service salaries as from 1 July. It is therefore very difficult to determine how much of it was applicable before the life of this Parliament and how much was applicable subsequent to the general election.

What I do urge is that in looking at this problem—it is a problem—in determining what is a just and a fair reward, taking these factors into account, one should be as parsimonious as one reasonably can be. I do not believe that members of Parliament should have an increase which is in excess of the average increase of the Public Service. I think that to select one or two posts within the Public Service will unfortunately be to the advantage of the individual members of this House and not to the advantage of the general public. I maintain that an increase, to the extent that it can be determined, should be related to the average increase of public servants.

The final point is in relation, not to salaries, but to allowances. It is assumed that from the Prime Minister down to the ordinary member of this House there will be allowances to cover out of pocket expenses involved with the special offices of Ministers, Deputy Ministers, the Leader of the Opposition or members of this House. I think it is assumed that this allowance is tax free, not as a perk to the individual member, but because it has been assessed that that is equivalent to the reasonable cost incurred by that member on the average in covering his responsibility in that office.

Once again the Bamford-Van der Horst Commission suggested some three years ago that this House accept specific allowances. While I think it would be reasonable to relate the decline in the value of those allowances to the increase in the cost of living or to the decline in the value of money since 1971, I think it would be inappropriate to have a radical restructuring of the allowances at this stage.

We concur with the problem which exists, the need to find appropriate machinery to upgrade salaries from time to time, but we do believe that, as a general rule, this House has a responsibility as the collective leadership of the total South African community to see that where salaries are awarded to it, it gives the lead to both the public and the private sectors not to raise those salaries to a greater extent than applies to other people in our society. If we want to set an example and if we want to try to get people to reduce the inflationary spiral, I believe that we should err, if anything, on the side of not increasing the salaries above the average increase which has been applied to the Public Service.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for Griqualand East for the support he has given to the Bill on behalf of his party. I do not think I need to reply to him any further.

The hon. the leader of the Progressive Party has stated a few points. In the first place it seems to me that he agrees with the general principle that there is a case to be made out for an increase in the salaries of members of Parliament. He also agrees with the way in which it is being done, viz. that there will be a formula according to which it will be done. I think the only matters on which he differs from us are the following:In the first place he said that we should be circumspect in regard to the allowances which we receive. I need not give the assurance, because it is true that this Government has always acted circumspectly in what it has done in this regard. We have never erred, on the other hand, by giving members of Parliament too high salary increases and allowances. I can assure the hon. member that that will also be the ideal of the Government in future. When the State President is to be advised by the Cabinet we will act in a very responsible manner. We know that there will always be people who will criticize us even if we increase the salaries of members of Parliament by only R100 per year. However, we will act very responsibly and with great circumspection.

With regard to allowances, I want to say to the hon. member that we will take into account what he has said. He has quite rightly said that we should take the decrease in the purchasing power of the rand into account when we determine the amount to be granted to a member of Parliament. It stands to reason that that will be the attitude we will adopt. The only point of real difference we have with the hon. member is that the Bill provides that salary increases for members of Parliament will be considered in relation to the last increase in 1971. In other words, 1971 increase will be taken as the basis, whereas the hon. member says that the increases should be calculated from the date of the last election and that only the latest increase in the salaries of public servants should be taken into account. That means that members of Parliament should only get increases which are in proportion to the increases granted to members of the Civil Service in this year only.

They were not here before this year.

We differ on this point, because we feel that a member of Parliament should not be worse off than a civil servant. If in 1971 there was a correlation between the salaries of a civil servant and a member of Parliament we feel that that correlation should be maintained. It is only unfortunate that members of Parliament did not get the increases in the meantime. Actually they should have received increases at the same time that civil servants got them, because then our salaries would have been in line with theirs. We can therefore unfortunately not meet the hon. member’s request. We agree with the hon. member in most respects however. It is only on this one point, viz. the date from when the salary increases should be calculated, that we differ from him.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

When Parliament passed the Part Appropriation Bill during the session in February this year, provision was made for an amount of R2 743 million for the financial year ending in March 1975. I have now come to Parliament to inform hon. members that this amount of R2 743 million is not sufficient for the period for which it was calculated by us. Consequently we are requesting another R224 025 000. I want to explain briefly why we are asking for this second addition. The first reason is that at the beginning of the year, in February, when the Part Appropriation Bill was being considered, we kept in mind that the amount we were requesting would only be sufficient to provide for the services of Parliament until, say, the end of September or the beginning of October, because it was anticipated that Parliament would adjourn earlier, as had been the case in previous years, and that the Budget legislation would be passed at an earlier date. However, it now appears that Parliament will not adjourn before the end of October and that we shall not be able to conclude our deliberations on the Budget legislation before the end of October and to promulgate it at the beginning of November. In order to cover that interim period we require the additional amount which is being requested here So the first reason is the time factor.

The second factor is that expenditure has taken place more rapidly during this period than we expected. In the first place, expenditure took place more rapidly in respect of contracts. Certain contracts of the State and of the provincial councils were finalized sooner than we had expected. This does not entail any loss, for it actually means that things are being done more rapidly. Consequently the State has to pay out an amount of R150 million sooner than it expected. This payment is taking place in respect of the provinces in particular, for roads and things of that nature.

In addition, we need a higher amount for universities, a higher amount for pensions particularly from 1 May, and we need an amount in respect of the flood damage caused by the extensive rains this year. These are factors which entail extra expenditure, together with the increase granted in the salaries of public servants this year, which was not included in that Budget either. I want to reassure hon. members that this will make no difference to the total Eudget. The total Budget is the Budget which appears in the White Book that has been issued to hon. members, and the items on which money will be expended are all approved items. The discussion of these items can take place under the various Votes when those Votes are being discussed. We only need money a little sooner because we have had to expend money more rapidly.

Mr. Speaker, I have been to some trouble during the last few hours to find out how many times in the past a measure of this nature, a Second Part Appropriation Bill or a Further Part Appropriation Bill, has had to be considered by this House. I am pleased to say that I found that a measure of this nature is extremely rare in the history of this Parliament. As far as I can see in the years since the last war, there has been only one occasion when a Further Part Part Appropriation Bill has had to be considered and that was when the session during which the late Dr. Verwoerd died had to be extended and the money had to be voted on account of that extension. I am glad to say that this is a rare procedure because I find the procedure of voting funds piecemeal in a globular manner to be unsatisfactory when the Budget, which deals with the position in detail and covers the operation of the State for the whole year, is being considered, and being considered at a time when more than half of the year covered by it will have elapsed before that Budget is passed. As a businessman I would say that this whole procedure is somewhat unbusinesslike to say the least. For that reason I am glad to say that it is a procedure which has been rare in the past and which appears to be rare in the life of Parliament.

Dealing with the contents of this Bill, we on this side of the House have had a close look at the figures which this House is being asked to pass for expenditure and we find that taking them in conjunction with the expenditure that was authorized in the Part Appropriation Act which was passed in February this year, the total figures which will have been authorized appear to be reasonably in line with the expenditure envisaged for the Budget as a whole. Taking that factor into account, as well as the reasons which the hon. the Minister gave as to why this money was not voted earlier and why it is now required, we on this side of the House, having expressed the reservations that I have expressed in regard to the procedure, will support this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to the hon. member for Constantia that we too are sorry that we had to introduce a second Part Appropriation Bill. It is something which is rather rare in our political life. The hon. member knows, however, that we have had the election in the meantime. In other years we had a Part Appropriation Bill and completed our deliberations on the main Appropriation Bill by June. However, it is not the case this year because we only have the Appropriation Fill before us now instead of at the beginning of the year as usual. Cur deliberations on this Bill can only be completed by the end of October. This year is, therefore, different from the normal years, and that is one of the main reasons for this measure. The other reason, as I told the hon. gentleman, is that if things happen faster, if the development goes faster and we have to spend faster, we have to have the money. We do not ask for any extra money; it is all money which is being asked for in the Votes of the main appropriation and which can be discussed under the Votes.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, the United Party levelled the charge at this side of the House that prior to 1959 there had never been any question of the areas set aside for the Bantu peoples being intended as future political units in which they could be independent. The first thing that strikes me as regards this charge, as it was set out by the hon. member for Edenvale, is that the hon. member was speaking exactly the same language as the Herstigtes do, for this is the language with which the Herstigtes fought us in the general election. I have here a leaflet drawn up by Mr. Beaumont Schoeman, Feite, in which he in actual fact makes the same statement, i.e. that there has never been any question of these homelands becoming independent. This is strange, and it is not only a similarity on paper. We in fact experienced it in the election as well, i.e. that as far as this matter was concerned, the United Party and the Herstigtes were hand in glove and formed a united front against the National Party. It is very strange, too, that as far as this point is concerned, a man such as the hon. member for Edenvale should be hand in glove with Mr. Beaumont Schoeman and Mr. Jaap Marais.

In giving these matters further consideration, I should like to call a few witnesses. I see the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is nodding. I think he knows what is coming. There are a few witnesses whose words did point in this particular direction. Last night I said that although the word “sovereignty” was not used and no prospect of independence was held out for these peoples in their own homelands, language had nevertheless been used which had no other implication and which held out no other prospect, i.e. if one wanted to be logical and consistent in the light of one’s basic point of departure, policy and principles. In terms of these there was only one direction in which things could go, i.e. in the direction of independence for these homelands. I pointed out that Gen. Hertzog had said in 1936:

He added to this that this had to be under the dominion of the White man, but he nevertheless held out the prospect of those people being able to exist within those areas, the size of which was indicated, as independent, self-governing peoples. From those words, I think, one can infer nothing else but that this was and remains the road headed for.

Yet the hon. member for Edenvale said that no such indication had ever been given prior to 1959. I think the hon. member knows what was written in the 1948 manifesto of the National Party. This was announced by Dr. Malan (translation)—

This was the official standpoint of the National Party, on the basis of which it won the election at that time, too. So it is no afterthought. He added to that (translation)—

He went on to say (translation)—

If there are words with tremendous implications, these are the words, i.e. that those areas which were known as reserves at that time, should become the true fatherland of the various Black peoples. We heard the same thing at the time of the 1949 election when the National Party went to the people with the same idea, i.e. self-government for the people within the areas set aside for them.

Let me come to Dr. Verwoerd. As I have said, the hon. member for Edenvale alleged, “Never before 1959”. What did Dr. Verwoerd say in the Other Place on 3 September 1948? He said—

And these are definable areas, and the ambitions referred to are not secondary ambitions, but the highest ambitions of a people which it must work out in those areas. I refer you to his speech before the Native Council in 1950. I quoted it here on a previous occasion as well. At that time a row was kicked up about the use of the word “baasskap”, but it is the word which was used by Dr. Verwoerd. I quote what he said (translation)—

We might possibly quibble about the word “baasskap”, but in essence this is what Dr. Verwoerd meant—the supremacy of the White man in his area and the supremacy of the Bantu in his. That area could be pointed out and would be extended with the application of the 1936 Act.

I can go further. I mentioned witnesses here. The Progressive Party is progressive only in name. If their progressiveness were to be applied, we would experience the greatest conflict in South Africa, a conflict of interests. We shall leave the capital letter “P” to that party opposite. If one spells it with a small “p”, then the true progressiveness in respect of the development of the White man and the development of the various Black peoples, the Brown people and Indians lies with this side of the House. This side of the House emphasizes—and that emphasis was perhaps applied negatively at the outset as a guard against the people who wanted integration and wanted to force everyone under one blanket—the idea of separation. Very strong emphasis was laid on the idea of separation. The idea of development is the new emphasis which arises from the application of the policy of the National Party. It is essentially a progressive, forward-looking idea for the White man as well as the Black peoples, and the Brown people and the Indians. This was also stated by Dr. Verwoerd. He said the following (translation)—

That is the point at which that party gets stuck. They believe that in their policy of federation they are escaping the idea of non-domination, but they are not escaping the idea of non-domination, the idea of non-subordination, for in the composition of their federal parliament, in which all the peoples are to be represented and in which each one will have a basic representation of three per body, that representation is going to be supplemented in proportion to the contribution made by the various peoples to the national income or the welfare of the country. So basically it means discrimination against those people who do not make such a large contribution. Secondly, when one comes to the point and those people advance according to one’s inherent policy—advance in their contribution to the country’s welfare—they obtain a larger proportion of representation in that federation. It simply means a predominance of the non-White numbers within that parliament. At that time the White man will be faced by two alternatives: Either he will subject himself to the domination of the non-White majority or he will decide to keep the lid tightly closed on the non-White majority which, in the meantime, will have become not only a numerical majority, but will have caught up with the White man in the spheres of economics, education and in other spheres to have become his equal and which will therefore lay claim to that larger measure of representation. One may say: We allow ourselves as a White people to be dominated in that Parliament by a non-White majority, or one may say: We decide to keep that lid closed. Where would one be in that case? One first alternative is capitulation and with the second one will create confrontation. That is, however, what we want to eliminate. No wonder calls are already being heard from those ranks for a third alternative. While the White man may initially be able to let his power hold sway—if he is forced into such a position—and then either has to be dominated or blown up into the air by a majority he is trying to suppress, there is a third possibility and that is to contract out at that stage and to choose emancipation or independence outside this federation. Sir, we are saying in anticipation: We do not want history—or the future—to take that course which will place us in that position where we have to contract out. We are saying in anticipation that we maintain the self-determination of the White man, and next to that we are opening up opportunities for the national aspirations, a national movement, for each one of the peoples in South Africa, a national movement which is a continuous national action in all spheres—social, economic, educational, scientific, religious and political—so that that people may grow up to become a people of full status, alongside other peoples, in this southernmost land in Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I rise to reply in brief to two speeches made here yesterday. Unfortunately one hon. member is not present, but I was informed by the Whips that he would be absent.

He tendered his apologies.

Yes, that is correct. I am referring to the hon. member for Pinetown.

Sir, permit me, in the first place, to say a thing or two about a speech made here yesterday by a representative of the new party which is represented in this House now. I think it is necessary for the country to take cognizance of this, and particularly the people in Sea Point. Yesterday afternoon I was obliged to listen here to what an hon. member of the Progressive Party, who wants to build a happy South Africa, said here when he wanted to compromise me—

Sir, I am not the first to have thought of moving away from discrimination; this has been said by much greater people than I, and it was said many, many years back already, and the National Party, in its entire policy, as it has just been stated by the hon. member for Waterberg as well, is moving away from discrimination. Sir, there is one thing I want the members of the Progressive Party to understand clearly. We understand one another incorrectly when we speak of discrimination. I think this has already been illustrated in regard to the qualified franchise which those hon. members want to hold up as being non-discriminatory. The first thing that struck me when the hon. member spoke yesterday, was that he adopted the same kind of tone as that adopted by someone from whom I personally find it regrettable, i.e. the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. Sir, I am sorry that an unfortunate incident, where the child of a Malawian diplomat was put off a bus, has been exploited here in this House for petty political gain.

That is my right as a Member of Parliament and I shall not surrender that right.

Sir, it is any man’s right to make a fool of himself even, if he wants to. Any man has the right to make himself ridiculous if he wants to.

Are you ashamed of the truth?

The hon. member of the Progressive Party who spoke here yesterday again exploited this incident here. I think the hon. member ought to do better. He could have quoted other things which were of more vital importance and which could not injure our country in diplomatic circles.

Are you going to rectify these things?

That is why I asked the hon. member whether he would be willing to accommodate Black children in his home. Mr. Chairman, let me say clearly that I have never yet regarded it as something new in this country to be decent and courteous towards a person with a skin of a different colour; I have learnt this since childhood. But there is one thing we should learn from one another before we start playing off one against the other to gain people’s favour —and we do not gain those people’s favour but in fact incur their resentment because we as Whites bid for their favour—and that is that we should not exploit this type of incident to which I referred and then say, as the hon. member did, “I received Blacks into my rooms; they slept with my children and became no worse than my children”, while they kick up a row when they have to put the Sea Point swimmingpool at the disposal of non-Whites. [Interjections.] I hope that hon. member will return to the people in Sea Point and tell them, “We won the election in Sea Point because we threw dust in your eyes. These people sleep in my home and they sleep there on an equal footing, and that is why you should allow them access to your swimming baths”. The hon. member may put his question now.

Did the hon. member not ask me the question? I did not have the information available. I was not boasting. He asked me the question.

Is he ashamed of it?

Sir, that is quite correct. What is more, I shall tell the hon. member what he said about it shortly before. I shall quote his exact words to him, and then he may come back to the facilities he mentioned here. He said—

†Now I come to the point. Dees this apply also to the “facilities” which you refuse to the Black people of Sea Point? Why do you not go and tell the people of Sea Point that you are going to provide the Blacks with a swimming bath, and not a separate one as you said before the election? [Interjections.] I read it out on previous occasions too, Sir, and if time allows me I will prove it. The hon. member can come and have a look at it in my office.

*I want to come to a second thing which I think is more important because yesterday, in a way I find regrettable, things were laid here at the door of the hon. the Minister and this department by a young member which I think should be rectified at once for the sake of the record. I am saying this especially to those responsible members of the United Party whose duty it was to warn a young member not to allow his enthusiasm to turn into rashness and even hysteria. He is the hon. member for Pinetown, who made a number of statements yesterday in connection with the area at the Pinetown/Cleremont complex which, as I want to indicate here, are not wholly true. I am sorry I have to do this in his absence, but it will probably be conveyed to him. I just want to say that from the beginning to the end of his speech, which I took the trouble to go and read up, he proceeded from assumptions which are totally incorrect.

Which statements?

I shall tell you and you can write them down one by one. In the first place, the hon. member—he tried to rectify it in the end—spoke of filthy conditions and of a stage when hate existed against the authorities, and after he had quoted all of this and after he had said he wanted to speak about this Pinetown complex, he said, “I am quoting from a report on Cato Manor of 14 years ago”. He went on to relate that to present-day conditions. He proceeded, if the hon. member should want to listen, and said he had examined the whole thing, and then he said; “I asked the hon. the Minister what would be done about accommodation in this area around Pinetown”. I am now going to test the truth of this. This question was asked, for the rest of the argument is concerned with it—

Where on earth did he speak of housing in the area around Pinetown? For I would be able to provide him with the information. I can give it to him now. He said, “I went to a lot of trouble to do research about this whole matter”. Now I want to tell the hon. member in his absence that the best way of doing research is to come to the department. If I do not have information, or I do have information which I may not disclose, I shall say that I may not disclose it, but in the department we shall not tell him lies. If he wanted to do research about this matter, he could have asked the officials or myself for information without even having to put a question in Parliament. He could even have asked the hon. the Minister, whose door is open to people who want information. I shall now give him this information; in fact, I want to give it to this House. He spoke of: “terrible conditions” and he described them in words which might as well have been left unsaid, but I leave it at that. In the end he said, challenging the Minister (translation)—

I just want to ask the hon. member whether it is not that side of the House which is constantly kicking up a row about the free movement of Bantu? And now that people have to go and recruit in Natal and the Transkei, a young member comes along and says it is the most terrible injustice to go and recruit people in the Transkei.

He did not say so. But what is your policy?

Our policy is that they may recruit labour in the homelands, as the mines do, and that hon. member ought to know it. But please do not interrupt me. I want to deal with this hon. member. The hon. member went further and said there was no accommodation. Is the hon. member aware that, after the visit paid by the previous Deputy Minister, there are 2 600 beds in Klaarwater now? And he speaks of 120 small houses! Is he aware that accommodation has been planned in hostels for 10 000 men, and that 3 000 of these have already been made available? Is he aware that a further 750 beds have been provided for single Bantu women at Kranskloof? He put his question in such a way as to try and prove a case which he could not prove. I expressly admitted—I admit it again today—that there are bad conditions in regard to housing. People can help us clear up these conditions. I want to make the statement, however, that what has been done by the previous hon. Deputy Minister and the department to improve conditions in those areas is deserving of the praise and thanks of people.

I should like to tell that young hon. member that the Cleremont area is privately owned. We constantly hear moans about “private ownership”. Cleremont is privately owned and those private owners have allowed people to stream into the area. Hence these deplorable conditions which were spoken about. If the hon. member wants to be consistent, he should say that private ownership should be abolished. There are older hon. members who know that the Cleremont township was laid out by the Natal Health Association. Only at the beginning of this year was this placed, by proclamation, under the control of Bantu Administration. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I wish I had the time to react fully to the remarks of the hon. member for Waterberg, but I am faced with the problem that I very much want to make a few remarks about the position of the urban Bantu too, and my time is limited. I must, however, point out that the hon. member made a remark yesterday in connection with a certain meeting, or whatever, which I had allegedly attended in the late Dr. Verwoerd’s office. As an honourable person, I want to point out to the hon. member that I am not aware of the situation he tried to outline here. He might have been somewhat confused and have thought of a stage when the late Dr. Verwoerd refused to meet a deputation of Sabra if I were a member of tnat deputation. The reason for that was simply that we had shortly previously returned from a round trip of two or three months’ duration on which we had made contact and held discussions with Bantu in the urban area and with officials of various municipal departments of Bantu Administration as well as members of the Security Division. At that stage, it was a generally accepted view in Government circles that it was the prerogative and monopoly of the Government to have discussions with Blacks. I just wanted to give this explanation to the hon. member for Waterberg.

The hon. member for Waterberg ought to remember the reaction in this House to Mr. Macmillan’s speech about the winds of change. He ought to remember, too, the speeches of the late Adv. Strijdom in this House in regard to supremacy. Surely I do not need to remind him of that. I nevertheless want to point out that I am grateful to be able to perceive that the hon. member for Waterberg has now openly dissociated himself from all forms of discrimination, and it seems to me now as if we shall in fact be able to move further away from this. I am referring here to his attack on the Progressive Party’s policy as though it allegedly amounted to discrimination.

I should like to say a thing or two about the urban Bantu. I have great appreciation for the standpoints adopted by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education. I believe everyone on this side of the House has been impressed by the earnestness and the dignity with which he has been handling this problem. I am particularly grateful for four positive things the hon. the Deputy Minister stated yesterday, namely the question of the foreign Bantu, his serious exhortation about the scope of the housing problem, the investigation into the pass-book system, and the necessity for continued contact and dialogue. I am sincerely grateful for these positive things which came from his side.

I want to repeat what I have already said on a previous occasion, i.e. that there is no such thing as a White part of the country. Every town, every city and every farm that have been developed in South Africa, have been developed jointly by Whites and Coloureds, Whites and Bantu, or Whites and Indians. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development said yesterday that we should remember that the 87% to which reference had been made was not land belonging to the Whites only since Coloureds and Indians were living there too. This is something so obvious that I do not want to debate it any further at this stage. The urban Bantu, however, is here to stay and their numbers are constantly going to increase because the urbanization process is inevitable. Of all the peoples in South Africa, the Bantu peoples are the peoples with whom this process has as yet developed to the smallest extent and made the least progress. By promoting urbanization in the Bantu homelands, we can temper that process somewhat in terms of our so-called White urban areas, but it is inevitable that an increase in the urban population is going to take place to a much larger extent, especially in the existing metropolitan areas.

Even if we should provisionally leave the ideological point of departure at that, there are still a large number of bottlenecks in our urban areas which I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister, arising out of the standpoint he expressed himself, namely that those Bantu will still be in our urban areas for a very long time and that we should make them as happy as possible there. There are about 13 of these bottlenecks I want to mention, but I know I shall not have enough time to deal with all of them in full. Therefore, I merely want to mention them in the hope that we can make some progress in this sphere. Firstly, there is the absence of the urban Bantu in the matter of taking decisions which affect their destinies and welfare. Secondly, there is the tremendous housing problem. The third aspect is education, to which I shall return later today. The forth is the tremendous lack of security, the uncertainty in the minds of the urban Bantu mainly as a result of the implementation of the present policy. The fifth point is the tremendous pressure of the cost of living in the light of the inadequate wages and salaries being paid to them. I do not blame the Government for all these things; I am merely mentioning them as bottlenecks. Then there is the problem of influx control and pass-books, with the resultant large number of technical offences for which people may be imprisoned. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education also referred to that. Another aspect is the incidence of crime, especially juvenile delinquincy; the absence of adequate social and recreational amenities; the problems of efficient transport; cases where the human dignity of these Bantu is not taken into account properly; the lack of encouragement as regards cultural activities and, finally, a lack of adequate commercial opportunities. I wish I had the time to deal fully with these 13 points here, but at this stage I merely want to associate myself with a plea made a few months back by Dr. De Klerk, the editor of Die Transvaler. He asked whether, in the light of the gravity of the situation, the time had not arrived for a properly constituted and balanced commission of inquiry to be appointed to investigate the position of the urban Bantu if we were really in earnest about eliminating these bottlenecks and creating a satisfied society in this regard. The hon. member for Rondebosch also referred to this. In this connectoin I may just read what Prof. Moolman said in an address he delivered recently. He said the following (translation)—

He continued in this vein and said it was unrealistic, it would not work and that we would simply have to accept that the urban Black complexes would simply keep on growing. In this regard he said (translation)—

I believe that the present policy, which does not make provision for family housing, will not succeed. The worst is not that he can not acquire rights of ownership here, but that he cannot build his own home.

Hon. members opposite know that it has long been the policy in Bloemfontein and a large number of urban areas for this, at least, to be allowed. Even in Johannesburg they initially had a leasehold of 99 years in respect of those premises. If we want to create a stable community, if we want to create a community which feels that it has a share in our society, and that it is worth their trouble to defend that share, we must meet two requirements. We must allow people to have their families with them and, secondly, we must allow them to build their own homes. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I trust the previous speaker, the hon. member for Edenvale, will not take it amiss of me if I do not deal in detail with what he said. There is another matter I should like to discuss. With great respect to the hon. member for Edenvale, I do not think that what he has just said is an exceptional contribution. What he said in regard to the thirteen problems is most definitely known to all of us in this House. The hon. the Minister and his Deputy Minister could add a few other problems as well, as they did in fact put forward. That hon. member’s speech was nothing but a repetition of what we had from several speakers on that side of the House, and that is that problems are raised without any attempt on their part to offer a practical solution to those problems and to put their point of view in regard to them. Consequently I leave that aspect at that. I may just express a final thought in pursuance of this member’s contribution. I think it is high time we refrained from dealing with the so-called urban Bantu in isolation. We should rather see the Bantu as a national group within the White area because the problem in the rural areas is probably as big as it is in the urban area.

In the light of all these problems I should like to exchange a few thoughts on influx control this afternoon. As regards influx control, which I should like to justify, it is probably essential to refer to a few cardinal principles which form the basis of our policy of separate development and multinationalism. In the first place we believe in a policy of multi-national development. I want to underline the word “development”, because to me it is a defining word in the sense that under this policy there already exists opportunity for each national group to develop, to link this development to his homeland and also to be involved with the future of that people. Every people is intitled to that. Secondly, it is also important to me to point out that every Bantu in the White area remains a member of his people. The fact that he is geographically separated from his homeland does not make him a member of another people. He remains a member of that people and will remain a member of that people upto his death. Consequently, no matter where he may find himself, the development of his people will be an ideal cherished by him. Linked to this, one has the fact that the civic rights of the Bantu relate to his homeland and not to the White country in which he sells his labour. This is subscribed by the Bantu himself. I quote what was said by Chief Mangope of the Tswanas. He said, inter alia (translation)—

So the Bantu remains a member of a specific people, no matter where he may find himself.

Fourthly, the Bantu is here, and this is something which is most definitely accepted by us all, to sell his labour. We know that this matter of selling his labour is regulated by law. I believe it is of cardinal importance for the White employer to pay his Bantu employees fair wages, i.e. in accordance with his achievements and with due regard being had to the services rendered to the Bantu in respect of accommodation, education, health, and so forth. I believe all of us also accept and acknowledge the concept of inter-dependence. We know that we offer the Bantu employment and pay him in exchange for his labour in order that the homelands and the Bantu himself may have the benefit of the sale of his labour.

Against the background of the above-mentioned, the question arises why we should want to apply influx control. The most cardinal reply to this question is clearly that we do so because by means of influx control we are also trying to promote good human relations, for it is perfectly clear that if we did not have influx control, uneasy conditions would be created, also for the Bantu working in the White area, as a result of the large number of Bantu who would come to this area. What is also important, and this, after all, is a world-wide phenomenon, is that every country wants to have as many of its own people as possible in its midst and as few as possible of an element which cannot be assimilated. It must of course be mentioned that provision should be made for various circumstances, for example, for the posibilities in their own country, for their own abilities, for the availability of means, and so forth. Consequently it follows logically from this point of view that we have to apply influx control. Without that it is impossible to proceed. Influx control should not only be applied in respect of the number of Bantu in White areas. In my opinion it should also be applied in the sense that we should move in the direction of the border industries as far as the decentralization of our industries is concerned, in order that the Bantu may be closer to their homelands. Another consideration is that the labour of the Bantu constitutes a major asset for his own homeland as well. That is why very close co-operation exists between the homeland governments on one hand and the Bantu labour bureaux in the White areas on the other. I should like to mention that influx control also prevents squatting and shanty living. Yesterday we heard of the major problem in respect of housing. Influx control is an important factor in coping with the housing emergency. Another point I want to mention is that influx control also benefits the Bantu in the sense that the wages are not reduced as it would have been as a result of the surplus of Bantu who would otherwise have poured into the White areas. After all, it is a very well-known economic concept that a surplus of labour causes unemployment, which goes hand in hand with sundry other evils. We had proof of this when the opposite side of this House was in power. I am referring to 1946 when, inter alia, 10 800 workseekers’ permits were issued and distributed in one month in Pretoria. In the same month there were another 9 200 unemployed persons. I want to proceed by pointing out that ineffective influx control would place an enormous burden on the shoulders of the prison authorities as well in that it could give rise to an extremely large prison population. Even with our influx control there were no less than 2 619 arrests and voluntary surrenders in Sharpeville alone during the period 13 August 1973 to 31 July 1974.

In my opinion some slight adjustments could possibly be made in the administration of influx control. What I have in mind in particular is that it is very important for us to be scrupulous in ensuring that all the Bantu in the White areas are in possession of valid documents. On account of the fact that they are here for labour purposes, I want to say that it is also important for us as Whites to realize that we should not seek our own advantage by protecting the Bantu if they do not have valid documents at their disposal.

Secondly, I want to suggest that the employer may become more involved in the matter of the local accommodation of the Bantu employee. If the employer does become more involved in this matter of his accommodation, I believe it will prevent the presence of unproductive people—I am speaking of Bantu—who may occupy that accommodation. Moreover, I believe that Bantu should not enjoy special privileges to a larger extent than even Whites do, because in that case they would never want to render service to their own territory. I admit at once that the human dignity and income of the Bantu must be acknowledged, but not at the expense of others. I want to say, for instance, that the rentals and other fees which have a bearing on the cost of living of the Bantu should, according to the earnings of each, be brought into line with those which a White with a similar income has to pay on the open market. [Time expired.]

I should like to concentrate on a matter more specifically concerning the Vaal triangle, as well as the future development of Bantu townships in the South Sotho area. I am referring to the township which is being developed there called Phutadijjaba—I do not know whether I am pronouncing it correctly. I am raising this matter here, in the first place, because it concerns the Bantu Administration Board of the Vaal triangle, and also because approximately 60% of the manpower employed in the Vaal triangle come from the South Sotho area. The development of this township is also closely bound up with the development of the Bantu township Sebokeng, as it is known in the Vaal triangle. As we manage to make a success of the development of this township, so there will be less need to spend moneys and funds on Bantu townships in White areas. I mention this matter in the third place in view of the fact that the administration board of the Vaal triangle is directly concerned in this development. I just want to mention that a few years ago an agreement to undertake the development of that township was entered into between the South African Bantu Trust and the old Sebokeng management board.

Before we go on, I should just like to furnish some statistics which I require for my argument later on. We know that according to the 1970 census the South Sotho numbered approximately 1,4 million and constituted the fifth largest ethnic group in the country. I just want to add that this homeland is relatively small in area. It is a relatively small homeland if we take into account the numbers of its population. If the required area of 7 000 ha—if this figure is correct—still has to be purchased and a further area of approximately 6 000 ha of Black spots is purchased in addition, the total extent of that area will be 70 000 ha. The present number of inhabitants is estimated to be 70 000 although the official figure is 55 000. There has been an increase of 26 000 over the past few years.

I just want to refer to the argument advanced here yesterday by the hon. member for Houghton, i.e. that it was the Government that was sending back the people to the homelands. In fact, we have here a voluntary repatriation in that they are streaming, in point of fact illegally, to the homeland to settle in Patryskamp, as it is known. In the homeland reasonable provision has been made as far as primary, secondary and other schools are concerned. The situation of this area is such, however, that one has to accept that the area will not have any great agricultural value. It is situated at the foot of the Drakensberg mountain range in a very picturesque landscape. We have to accept that with its situation and its number of people its most important source of revenue will be the labour which it will sell in the Republic of South Africa. Its situation is such that its sources of labour will for the greater part be employed in the Vaal triangle, in the northern Free State in the agricultural sphere and on the gold fields of the Free State. It is situated approximately 120 miles from the Vaal triangle. As I have said, labour will be the most important source of revenue and I believe, too, that we shall be able to house the workers in the South Sotho area in a proper manner on a family basis, which will have the effect that money need not be spent unnecessarily on Bantu housing in the Vaal triangle area.

How does he reach his place of employment?

I shall come to that. The hon. member must not be in so much of a hurry. He should just give me a chance. In the Bantu townships in the Vaal triangle 187 000 Bantu are housed, 50% of whom are South Sotho. If we take the whole area under the jursidiction of the administration board of the Vaal triangle, including the rural areas, we have approximately 275 000 Bantu, approximately 60% of whom are South Sotho. It is evident, therefore, that the vast majority of the Bantu who are employed in the Vaal triangle are members of the South Sotho people. I can also understand why this specific administration board has been designated to undertake the development of that Bantu township in the area. At the time when this agreement was entered into with this administration board and it was charged with building 4 000 houses in that township in the years to come, it was also agreed and this administration board was also charged with installing certain essential services in that area. I am referring to sewers, electricity, water supplies, etc. This administration board also received funds from certain sources—R100 000 from the administration board of the Central Free State; R110 000 from the administration board of the Vaal triangle; R50 000 from the periurban board—I am mentioning a few amounts only—and R730 000 from the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. It is an amount of approximately R1 million which they collected. It is estimated, however, that to complete this project, to provide the essential services and to build the houses, approximately R5 million will be required over the next three years. Consequently, with the R1 million they have at their disposal, they still need an additional amount of R4 million. In this regard I want to make a very serious appeal as to whether we cannot apply to the Treasury for that money. We can achieve a very fine end. I am sure that with this aid we shall be able to establish a model township in the homeland and at the same time bring considerable relief as far as the demand in the Bantu townships in the Vaal triangle area is concerned. However, it will be of no avail to us to do so without having the necessary connecting roads. In speaking of this specific area, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether something cannot be done to build a connecting road between Kestell and Witzieshoek. It is a most important aspect of the scheme. While speaking of that connecting road, I think we should see the picture as a whole. We can develop the Bantu homelands and make proper use of their labour only if proper means of transport, roads, and so forth, are established. I want to ask the hon. member very seriously whether the time has not arrived for us to constitute a commission on a national basis on which the Department of Bantu Administration and Development and the Department of Transport will be represented so as to inquire into the necessary means of transport, and so forth. I think this is one of the most important aspects in making a success of homeland development. If we were to have the connecting roads for enabling the Bantu to visit their families every weekend, it would be easy to house these people in the homeland area.

Sir, in the case of the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark confusion seems to become more confounded because he is now visualizing an entirely new system whereby we will develop towns in the homelands, something which in itself would be a very good thing because obviously the more we develop the homelands, the more advantageous it will be not only to the homelands but also to this country itself; but then the hon. member visualizes the building of huge highways and freeways in order to transport the workers from their homelands to the Vaal triangle or other industrial areas.

What is wrong with it?

Does the hon. member realize what tremendous problems will be created if workers from the homelands have to travel these long distances to and from their homelands every day? They would have to leave their homes early in the morning and would only return late in the afternoon or evening. One of the biggest problems that we face throughout the country today is the inadequacy of our transport system and the resultant fatigue of workers who have to spend a long time every day travelling to and from their places of employment. Sir, even to transport workers from areas like Soweto and from Langa in the Cape and from other townships close to the cities there are problems because of the tremendous fatigue that is involved in travelling. The hon. member now wants to make confusion even worse confounded simply because he believes that he has suddenly found a solution to the problem, a solution which will give us the best of both worlds, that is to say, both availability of labour in the cities and residential areas for the workers in the homelands but far removed from the cities. I do not think that that is much of a solution to the problem that we are facing. Sir, the issue that faces us squarely at the moment is the housing position of the urban Bantu himself. It has been admitted that there is a tremendous shortage of housing in the country. I know that in the Vaal triangle employers are actually being encouraged to provide housing themselves for their employees. The employers are being provided with land to enable them to provide housing for their employees in the urban areas so that the employees can be close to their place of employment. I think that Iscor has now embarked upon this scheme. However, I want to deal for the moment with the position in Soweto. There is a considerable sum of money available and waiting to be spent in order to provide the 5 000 or 6 000 houses which are needed in Soweto at the moment. The hon. the Deputy Minister says that this question of housing is the most difficult and important problem facing us. We accept that. We know that the provision of housing brings with it many sociological and other difficulties. Sir, with the establishment of the new boards we had hoped that the provision of housing in the Bantu urban areas would be expedited. Why is there this delay? At one time, before the boards were created, the hon. the Minister complained about the failure of the local authorities to apply themselves satisfactorily and efficiently to the provision of housing. In fact, one of the difficulties which faced the local authorities, and which also faces the administration boards themselves, is that they did not have sufficient labour available to cope with the tremendous amount of construction work that is entailed in the provision of housing. There is a serious housing backlog not only generally but there is an even more serious backlog as far as the urban Bantu are concerned. I submit that the hon. the Minister could make use of a system which was used many years ago by the Johannesburg city council. The Johannesburg city council provided facilities for the training of Black building workers and as a result of this it was able to get on with the provision of housing so efficiently that it was able eventually to build 50 houses a day. Sir, if that method were employed, there may be some hope of easing the present housing shortage. This shortage of housing is one of the most difficult problems that we have to face, and it is a problem that is becoming more difficult to solve every day. The hon. the Deputy Minister wants to know why the burden of providing housing is placed on the shoulders of the Government. Sir, it does not matter on whose shoulders the responsibility is placed, but at the moment the Government is completely in charge of the situation. After all, it controls the flow of labour; it controls the situation of that labour: it decides where the urban Bantu is to live; it decides to move the Bantu from one spot to another and it must therefore assume the responsibility to some extent. In any event, Sir, the funds for housing come from the Consolidated Revenue Fund; in other words, out of the pockets of the taxpayers. But if arrangements can be made, as are endeavoured to be made in the Vaal triangle, then there is an opportunity perhaps of some scheme whereby the State can ally itself with the employers, but that is something which has to be worked out and proper plans will have to be presented. At the moment all that is happening is that the backlog is growing worse and worse daily and nothing is being done.

Let me come now to another aspect with regard to the urban Bantu. Just recently— the matter was raised in the House—there was the question of the increase in rents. This has created rather a serious situation among the urban Bantu, who find that they cannot face up to the increased rents. The issue arose in Johannesburg very recently. The West Rand Bantu Administration Board finds itself, in its first important budget that it has presented, with a deficit of over R3 million, something which the hon. the Minister proudly said could never occur because the local authorities only had these deficits because their administration was inefficient and which they met out of their rate funds. But here the board is faced with this deficit of R3½ million and it has to find the money somewhere, so it proceeds to deal with its sources of revenue, one of which is rentals on houses. This increase has caused consternation. There was a protest meeting held and the urban Bantu council representatives pointed out to the administration board that they were unable to meet this increase in rent without seriously disturbing the standard of living of the people in Soweto. But a much more difficult issue arose, and that is that the whole question was never fully discussed with the urban Bantu council. It was only presented to them as a fait accompli and in fact the urban Bantu council, far from playing an important part as it should in assisting in the administration of a large urban area like Soweto, still remains, as it were, purely an advisory body, to whom facts are presented and who are then expected to act as a buffer between the administration and the residents themselves. I think this is a situation which the State has to look into and it has to find means of meeting the deficit otherwise than by finding it from the earnings of the residents themselves. I believe that the entire issue of the urban Bantu must be revised, the whole issue of wages must be revised, the whole question of the absorption of Africans into the labour market must be revised, before these people can be called upon to deal with deficits in a budget of this nature in the same way as we in the much more affluent areas of the country deal with such problems when budgets are presented.

One other aspect in regard to the urban Bantu which the hon. the Deputy Minister raised was that he called for assistance to help to legalize those who were living in the cities illegally, and so avoid having them arrested and sent back to their areas. Now, a report appeared in the Press not long ago of people who are sent to a place called Meadowlands Zone 4, a dumping ground for cast-offs of urban Black society, the homeless, the old, the widowed and the crippled. This is the Soweto transit hostel where 120 discarded people wait for whatever fate may bring to them. Now this issue was not raised by the hon. the Deputy Minister. Here is something which we know nothing about. Here are people who are sent to a transit camp because according to the administration they no longer fit into society. [Interjections.] The report appeared on June 26 this year. I have seen nothing at all, nor heard anything, from any department or Minister to deny or to answer the allegations that were made here. There is another case which is reported to have happened in South-West Africa. It was also well reported in the Press. This case involves a woman who is called Natalia Kauta. She is being described as “a non person in the bureaucratic jungle of proclamations which regiment Blacks from the cradle to the grave in South-West Africa”. She wanted to work in a town like Windhoek but she could not because she was a woman without a husband. She had no right to seek employment there. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Jeppe has collected from the newspapers a number of problems, or supposed problems, experienced by individuals. These people are treated with great sympathy, but the hon. member must realize that we have rules and regulations. There must be influx control, because it is absolutely essential, in the interests of the Black people as well. We have endless problems with women in the location in Windhoek who do not work or Who are not economically active inhabitants of the area. We must protect people against themselves by preventing the influx of too many persons. The case to which the hon. member referred most probably had something to do with this. However, the Press seizes upon these individual cases and exaggerates them. It must be remembered that the whole system serves the interests of the Black man as well. The same applies to the reference by the hon. member to displaced persons and his plea for the department to place these people somewhere. We are dealing here with people who find themselves in townships, but who in actual fact are unable to work and consequently cannot be accommodated. I do not want to take this matter any further.

The hon. member made a suggestion in regard to Black construction teams. There are in fact such construction teams in existence where buildings are being constructed for the Black people. There are teams of this nature in the homelands as well as in the towns in the White areas. Extensive use is being made of these teams. I should say that maximal use is being made of these teams. Extensive use was made of Black builders in the erection of the Ga Rankuwa hospital. Our problem with the hon. Opposition is that they are not very well informed as to what is happening, nor do they take sufficient interest in it, and then they come along to the House and relate stories they have read in the newspapers. The hon. members should please check the facts before making all kinds of allegations here. I shall not discuss the other matters raised by the hon. member.

I want to say in general that I think we have had a high standard of debating from both sides. Although we heard a false note here and there. I believe we have really had a constructive debate up to now.

I want to refer to the remarks made by the hon. member for East London North when he spoke about a “concentration camp”. If there is one thing in which we must be very accurate it is precisely this kind of remark. He did say subsequently that he was not the one who had made the remark in the first place, and that it was Chief Minister Matanzima who had referred to those places as “concentration camps”. The Chief Minister allegedly said that in a conversation with the hon. member. But surely the hon. member should not evade his responsibilities and obligations in this country by acting in this manner. Surely he should not come along here with a story of this nature. I may tell him, at any rate, that those towns are not situated in Chief Minister Matanzima’s area, the Transkei. Those towns are situated in the Ciskei.

I know that perfectly well.

Then these matters were no concern of his, after all. Apart from that, I wonder whether the hon. member has ever been there.

Many times.

At any rate, my basic argument is that hon. members should show greater responsibility in making remarks such as these.

I wonder whether you have ever been there.

I have often been there and I know exactly what is going on there. I told the hon. member for Houghton that she should go and have a look at what was going on there and that if she had a complaint, she should raise it. In spite of these dramatic stories in the liberal Press, about Dimbaza, Sada and Illinge, I have visited all these places and I can testify to the fact that these places, particularly Dimbaza, were established as part of a welfare service for people who were unemployed and who were squatting everywhere. That hon. member had a look at what was going on there and all she said yesterday was that the people there were unemployed. As far as employment is concerned, that need is rapidly being met at the present time. The Xhosa Development Corporation is engaged in great schemes there at the moment. Already there are several factories in existence and others are being constructed very rapidly. However, the hon. member for East London North just comes along with an irresponsible story and then sits there shaking his head. When he shakes his head, at least he has something to listen to. We are dealing with these problems, and I may proudly say that we are providing employment on a large scale in South Africa. Who told the hon. member that there were 40 000 unemployed in the East London area? I made inquiries at the department this morning and I found that this was not the case. Hon. members opposite made the most irresponsible statements. Our position in this country in general is that we need thousands of foreign workers for the mining industry. Now I have even received requests for Portugutse labourers to be allowed in the agricultural industry in Natal and on the Witwatersrand.

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

I have very little time at my disposal. In any case, the hon. member must not waste my time now after having made such a foolish statement. He must remember not do so again; that is all I have to say to him. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. the Deputy Minister the opportunity to finish his speech.

It is very easy to dramatize this question of labour and wages and to say that these people should be paid more. In this connection I should like to refer briefly to an article which appeared in To the Point of 6 September 1974. In this article Dr. M. D. Marais, a well-known economist, said the following, inter alia:

This is a separate problem and we shall have to approach it in a very sober and realistic manner.

Another matter that I want to raise very briefly is that that side of the House is trying very enthusiastically to influence the Black people. I have here an article which appeared in The World of 13.8.1974, in which the following was said—

It goes on to deal at length with a matter about which Mr. Epstein and the United Party are powerless to do anything at all. The point I want to make, however, arises from the statement made at the end—

Where have you ever heard a greater absurdity? The money for the province is voted by this hon. House. These homelands are budgeted for. The amount in respect of Lebowa is R6 529 000. The total amount for all the homelands is R56 800 000. The Opposition does not acquaint itself with the facts. The Department of Health, as the agent of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, provides that service in the various homelands, except in the Transkei, where they already have their own Department of Health. However, these people are now acting in an irresponsible manner, either to obtain the goodwill of the Black people or from plain ignorance, thus creating expectations which cannot be fulfilled. How can a senior man in the United Party ranks make such completely irresponsible statements? I want to warn against this.

You can’t do it.

We are doing it. We are spending that amount which I have mentioned, R6 500 000. Through the Department of Health we are organizing the clinics and hospitals there and we are building as fast as we can. Even if we could speed up the building operations, it is an undeniable fact that there are not enough trained doctors to staff too many hospitals. It will be said that the provinces may be able to help. This arouses expectations on the part of Black people, and they are unable to fulfil those expectations. I appeal to them: This is a problem we all share. Refrain from unnecessary attempts at making political capital and from acting in an irresponsible manner. This is what Mr. Epstein did in his article which appeared in a Bantu newspaper. These people believe that they are now going to get money from the province. But he cannot possibly get money from the province. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development has stated that hon. members on this side of the House should have made certain of their facts before they came here and made certain representations. I believe that we are sure of our facts. I believe we are even more sure of our facts than the hon. the Deputy Minister himself. First of all I just want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that Chief Minister Matanzima stated that he would not have the same type of housing scheme—if you would like to call it that—as Dimbaza and Sada in the Transkei. That is what he said when the hon. member for East London North referred to Sada and Dimbaza.

I am aware of that.

I do not blame the hon. the Chief Minister of the Transkei because I saw Sada when it was in its infancy. I saw Dimbaza in its infancy as well. They were both pitiful sights. I have been there since. Just now the hon. the Deputy Minister said they are now building factories in Dimbaza. In other words, everybody is given the impression that there is going to be vast development at Dimbaza. I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister, however, that from the facts that I have at my disposal, all that he has at the moment in Dimbaza is enough work for 120 people, and then this is the wonderful story he wants to present to this House, i.e. that there is great development taking place at Dimbaza. I shall quote from a newspaper report which states:

Big deal!

What is your source?

I shall give the hon. the Minister my source: This is the Cape Times of today and this is a report from Port Elizabeth. This report goes on to state:

Big deal! Another 40, when my hon. friend here, the hon. member for East London North, talked about 40 000 people who are out of work. The same report goes on, and I must assume that it is correct:

I wonder when the development is going to take place. Let me rather talk about the Xhosa Development Corporation which has been mentioned frequently in this debate. I believe that the Xhosa Development Corporation is doing good work. They are trying their very best. It rather astonishes the hon. the Minister to hear me saying that they are doing their best. They have dozens of managers—everybody seems to be a manager in the Xhosa Development Corporation—who fly all over the place, who have motor cars and who have wonderful offices. However, they are doing a good job. I think they are trying their best with the means at their disposal. This whole Xhosa Development Corporation is in fact a mini-Government department. What we on this side of the House are worried about is the fact that they have absolutely ad lib opportunities of spending the money of the South African taxpayers. Each year vast sums are voted to be utilized by the XDC. What do we find? We find that a report is annually tabled in this House which gives us a very attenuated financial statement of what actually transpires as far as all the money which is voted for the XDC is concerned. We have a small, attenuated profit and loss account which under one figure of R4 975 000 shows the gross profit, finance charges, discounts, commissions and rents, etc. Sir, this House knows absolutely nothing about the operations of the XDC towards which this Government devotes so much money. We believe that this XDC should quite definitely have some form of control over it. There should be some form of control in respect of unauthorized expenditure. There should be the same safeguards in regard to tenders as there are in Government departments. As I have said, this situation is utterly unacceptable to us and those members of the House who were here when the Act was passed in order to establish the XDC will remember that this side of the House objected strenuously to this Act because there was not going to be sufficient control over all these moneys which the XDC is using.

When the hon. the Minister spoke earlier on in this debate, he stated that he would make sure that the Government would adopt a policy of positive help and development in regard not only to the Black homelands, but also in regard to the Black people. He went on to quote a series of figures with regard to the amount of money the Government had spent over a number of years on the development of the homelands, but these figures probably meant little to those who were listening. It all sounded very good, it sounded very impressive when vast figures were mentioned, but I must admit that the figures were very confusing. It was very confusing because what he did was to take two corporations together, namely the Bantu Investment Corporation and the Xhosa Development Corporation; he lumped these figures together and then, probably to try to give the impression of what a gigantic undertaking this was, he reeled these figures off one by one. Of all these figures, the one that interested me particularly was the figure of R8 million, which was devoted by the XDC from its inception in 1966 up to now, towards the creation of an infrastructure in the Xhosa homelands. I presume that this expenditure was mainly directed towards the creation of an infrastructure at Butterworth and Umtata, which I believe are the two growth points in the Transkei. However, I must say too that I believe that a large amount of this money was devoted to the building of beautiful houses. There were pictures of them in the last report of the XDC, which showed that more than 80 of these houses had been built at Butterworth apparently at a cost of more than R20 000 each. These houses were for occupation by White people and I challenge the hon. the Minister to tell me that there is one Black who occupies one of those houses. I want to know from him too how many of those houses have stood empty and for how many months they have stood empty. This is money poured down the drain to create a so-called infrastructure in Butterworth. I want to know from the hon. the Minister as well how many of a similar type of house has been built for White people in Umtata and how much money has been spent there. I estimate that of that R8 million which has been spent since 1966 at least one-quarter has been devoted to building houses for White people in the Transkei.

Let me come back to the real question which I want to discuss with the hon. the Minister. It has to do with the development of the Ciskei. I believe that in the Ciskei there could perhaps be potential growth points such as Alice, Dimbaza, which I have just dealt with, Whittlesea, which is Sada, and perhaps Zwelitsha. I do not believe that any of these have been declared growth points, and I do not believe that any real infrastructure has been created in any of these towns in the Ciskei either. What I particularly want to know is what the position is in regard to Mdantsane. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to respond to the hon. member for East London City, for I believe that the hon. the Minister will be able to reply to the hon. member quite adequately in regard to the matters raised by him, the XDC and its problems in respect of the Ciskei. Where we are approaching the end of this debate, one’s strongest impression is of the seriousness with which the relationships between Whites and non-Whites have been discussed in this House and the predominant importance attached to them. In discussing this matter I believe that we shall welcome any contribution, from the Opposition side as well. However, I want to allege that the Opposition, and specifically the United Party, is approaching the matter with double standards. In their speeches in this House they talk about their federal concept and about the division of power, but when they are fighting an election in the rural areas of the Transvaal and Mr. Thys Badenhorst is their candidate, their federal plan is hidden away at the bottom of their pamphlet, and at the top they say “Thys Badenhorst says he stands for White leadership”. I do not believe that a single United Party speaker has said a word about White leadership during this whole debate. The hon. member for Yeoville has already said that the words “White leadership” will never pass his lips again. That is the ambiguity of the United Party’s policy.

I want to make a further allegation, and that is that the United Party, in its election manifesto, spreads a dangerous political doctrine among the people in the rural areas when it fights an election there. In this House they tell us that we are giving the Bantu only 13% of the land. They actually plead for more land; they say in this House that that land for the Bantu is not viable and that we should reconsider the matter.

What are you doing about it?

When it is fighting an election in the rural areas, the United Party’s chief aim is to be more right-wing than the Hertzogites, and then the argument advanced by every traditional United Party supporter in the rural areas is: “You are giving too much land to the Blacks.” Every time one enters into a conversation with a traditional United Party supporter, he tells one: “I do not vote for you because you, as a Nationalist, are giving my land to the Blacks.” I want to allege that it is dangerous politics on the part of the United Party to spread those stories among our people. The other aspect that they try to instill into the people’s minds, an equally dangerous aspect, is the suggestion, not in so many words, but by way of insinuation, that these Bantu homelands, or Black states, as they call them, are creating a dangerous position for us. This is the fear they try to instill into the people. I want to warn the United Party that in these times in which we are living it is very dangerous to introduce this idea into the minds of your supporters.

You are creating confrontation.

I want to tell the United Party and the hon. member for Edenvale, who alleges that we are being unrealistic in regard to the development of our homelands policy, that I shall take them to the Eastern Transvaal. There, from the Mozambique border down to Amsterdam in the south, on the tops of those mountains, through the well-watered valleys of the Komati and over the hills of the well-wooded Highveld, we are creating something realistic at the present moment. There we are creating a home for 500 000 Transvaal Swazis: more than there are in Swaziland itself. That is what we are providing for them in that area. There we are placing an area of 315 000 ha at the disposal of this Swazi people of the Transvaal. This has been granted to them. Let us make this clear: It has been granted to them by the Whites, with the co-operation of this National Government.

It is no more than your duty.

The hon. member says it is no more than our duty. I say that we should not be criticized for it. On the contrary. We deserve the greatest praise for acting in this way. Furthermore I want to assure hon. members that those Transvaal Swazis who are receiving these benefits are grateful for what is being done for them. They have been living in the Transvaal for generations. It is really an experience to sit with a Swazi around the camp-fire at an out span in the evening and to listen to this enthusiasm for this promised land of his. He accepts his presence here as being secondary. He makes no political demands; he accepts the White man’s word. He is a proud head of his family. He prefers his wives and children to remain in the Transvaal. He does not want them to emigrate to a multi-racial Swaziland to be seduced by unscrupulous foreigners, including people from South Africa. He is concerned about his fellow-tribesmen who find themselves in Black spots such as Daggakraal, Vlakplaas and Kromkrans, where they are still flocking, where there are no facilities and where they are being forced to pay 35 cents for a drum of water. During the last winter they had to pay R1-50 for a bag of coal. When we try to resettle them, when this planning takes place down in the new Swazi homeland, where 2 000 plots have already been measured out—and in this regard I want to give all praise to the Ministry, and particularly the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development, for what is being done to resettle these people there—then the hon. member for Houghton comes along and says that we should not resettle them there. So we should accommodate them in those slum conditions. We should allow them to stay there. There are 20 000 people living in Kromkrans alone, and there are only 30 land-owners. Under those circumstances it is absurd to ask us to allow the 30 owners to stay there. Why? To continue exploiting people. We are moving those people and planning ahead. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Ermelo will understand that I should very much like to say a few words about the interesting speech made by the hon. the Deputy Minister, so he will allow me to do so at once. Sir, I found it regrettable, not to say disquieting, after the positive, interesting and enlightened speech made here yesterday by the hon. member for Witbank, in which he stated some new initiatives, that other members on that side of the House who spoke after him were not able or competent or willing to follow the lead given by the hon. member for Witbank.

But we all agree with him on this side.

It is a great pity that this should be the case, for I believe that if hon. members on both sides of the House, when we are conducting a debate here on relations between the races, on relations politics, would confine themselves to the positive aspects of the problem and would show themselves to be consciously, sincerely willing to try to find solutions to the problems, we would begin to make some progress in South Africa. Sir, I just want to touch upon one or two points made by the hon. the Deputy Minister. He said—

Sir, I should very much like to put this question to the hon. the Deputy Minister: Does he mean to suggest by this that until such time as the Nationalist Party has carried through its policy to its ultimate conclusion, as it is viewed by them, that until that time comes—and we realize that it will never come—we on this side should not comment on the thousands of examples of cruel discrimination practised against members of other race groups in South Africa; that we should not perform our duty as an Opposition to draw the Government’s attention to the fact that as a result of and in terms of the provisions of their legislation there is racial discrimination which has given rise to resentment and hatred in South Africa? This is a very important point, for we consider it to be our responsibility to raise these matters. Then, Sir, the hon. the Deputy Minister went on to say that—

Sir, why is the Nationalist Party not prepared to admit openly and frankly and honestly—for if it were to do so, we could make some progress—that the so-called White South Africa is at this moment the homeland and will for ever remain the homeland of Whites, Coloured people and Indians and, to an increasing extent, of a majority of the Bantu population of South Africa?

We will never admit that.

Sir, during the past few weeks the debate on relations politics in South Africa has taken an interesting and important turn, tentatively in this House but less tentatively in the great debate outside, which I just want to discuss briefly. This new development we see in the ranks of our industrialists, financiers and economists; we see it in the ranks of the academics, and we see it in the columns written by the leading writers of the various newspapers, notably in the Afrikaans-language Press. Let us examine this new development, for it is of great importance. There is a profound realization of the fact that South Africa is entering upon extremely difficult and dangerous times.

And you are making them more difficult still.

There is a realization of the fact that our survival and our identity as Whites cannot be safeguarded by arms alone. There is a realization of the fact that if we want to safeguard South Africa’s future, and thus the future and identity of the White man, essential and urgent changes will have to be made in the socio-economic and political spheres in South Africa. It is realized that these changes have to be made rapidly and soon. It is realized that the research and investigation that this will entail can only be conducted on a basis of dialogue, where people of the various groups sit around a table and examine the problem sincerely and honestly, where they formulate answers and find solutions together. When these solutions are implemented in practice, they must be founded on the firm foundation of political consensus among all the groups in South Africa. It is clear that we have new circumstances in South Africa, circumstances created by events within as well as on the borders of our country. These new circumstances require a new approach from us all—from the Government, from this House and from us.

Sir, it requires the Government to take the bull by the horns and to meet the challenge presented to us by these new circumstances. It means that the hon. the Prime Minister must now be prepared to take active steps, and he is in a position to do so, for he has the support of more than 75% of the members on the other side of the House. He can now assume an enlightened attitude and take the initiative in doing what is urgently required in South Africa. He would lose a few men, but that means nothing. His party would support him, and in doing that they would paralyse South Africa’s enemies and place South Africa on a firm foundation in the outside world, whereas today we find ourselves in a very insecure position there. It would bring about unprecedented progress, prosperity and joy among all the population groups in this country. But would also mean a different role and a different responsibility for the Opposition in South Africa, and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has spelt this out clearly and unambiguously.

Because we realize that South Africa is in a dangerous position, because we realize that action has to be taken now, we are making it clear that if the Government is prepared to take positive action in removing discrimination in South Africa, discrimination based on the colour of a person’s skin, to remove supremacy of one group over another, to remove White supremacy, the United Party will support and co-operate with the Nationalist Party in this attitude. We will do nothing to undermine it in respect of any positive steps taken in the interests of South Africa and all its peoples.

Sir, let us look at these steps. There are a few practical and simple steps that we may take straight away. These would pose no threat to the White man’s identity, but would rather protect it; they would not endanger the White man’s survival, but would safeguard it. The very first step is that we should accept that the Bantu have citizenship in the urban areas, and that we should redefine the citizenship of the Coloured people and the citizenship of the Indians.

Let us accept—it is already being accepted—that the Bantu in the urban areas are there to stay. It is still being said on the other side of the House—the Minister, for example, says that he does not speak of “temporary” or of “permanent”, and another hon. member on that side said that they were permanent, but that the Government was not going to grant them permanence. Let us not bluff ourselves. Let us not bluff the world and our fellow-citizens. Let us accept that they are permanent and let us give them permanent citizenship and permanent rights in those areas. Let us do this, for in this way we could strike a blow for South Africa as never before. Let us give the people the right to own land and houses.

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

No, I do not have time for that. Let us accept their permanence, because they are in fact living and working there permanently and they have their interests there on a permanent basis.

And the franchise?

Let us accept their permanence as far as citizenship is concerned, and let us give them the right to own land and homes, so that they may enjoy security, stability and happiness there. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bryanston is a young Member of Parliament. He kicked up a terrible row here and adopted attitudes which surprised me. The first point made by the hon. member was that the National Party was guilty of cruel discrimination. I think that was scandalous. If we have to have frank discussions on matters and if we want to have a very honest approach to the weal and woe of the Bantu, and of all our people in South Africa, I want to point out to the hon. member that nowhere in the political history of South Africa has there ever been more discrimination against people than under the very policy of the United Party.

In their federal concept the United Party links a man’s income to his representation within a federal structure. It is the most blatant discriminative measure one can ever take against anyone, because one is granting him representation according to his earthly possessions. They discriminate, therefore, on the basis of a man’s possessions. But I leave it at that.

The hon. member said that we on the National Party side would have to acknowledge as soon as possible that the White area of South Africa, the homeland of the Whites, would in future have to be the homeland of the urban Bantu, the Coloured and the Indian as well. When the relations between different national groups, between White and non-White, are under discussion in a debate like this, it is obvious to me that the United Party has not even considered the basic concepts which should be applicable in South Africa. To me it is very obvious that the United Party proceeds from the point of view that South Africa is one large geographic territory in which a large number of people are living.

As a party that has been sitting in the Opposition benches for 26 years, they try, in the light of the changes which are taking place in the world, to make themselves heard and they want to participate in what is going on in the world and specifically in South Africa. In the process they are echoing the cry of change which is raised throughout the world. They do not know, however, how change is to be brought about in South Africa. I want to say to the hon. member for Bryanston that this process by means of which they want to bring about change in South Africa in such a rash and unthinking way, had the result that they destroyed themselves as the United Party during the last general election. These are the facts. This once powerful, great United Party was exposed to change to such an extent—the hon. member for Bryanston was one of the gentlemen who had a hand in changing the United Party—that change can now be read on their faces and that only these few of them have remained in Parliament.

What has remained, is quality. [Interjections.]

We on this side of the House, the National Party, are heeding these calls for change which are heard in the world. Since there is talk of change all over the world, the National Party is effecting change in South Africa. Over a period of 26 years we have been bringing about change in South Africa. There is, however, a world of difference between our point of view and that of the United Party. At the moment we in South Africa are, unlike the rest of the world, working out living space for each person in South Africa and for each population group. Our point of view is that each human being—Black, White, Brown or Yellow—in South Africa should obtain recognition. Our point of view is that a Bantu —whether he is a Zulu, a Xhosa or a member of whatever race—should retain his identity. It does not matter whether he is in Johannesburg or in Cape Town—the Bantu should retain his identity and we very much want to grant recognition to this. We are working out the good of the Bantu in South Africa by giving them every benefit and an absolute right within their homelands.

But not all of them are living there.

This is perfectly correct. Historically the situation has developed in this way, but we are nevertheless giving these people this opportunity and the recognition due to them. We will not, however, give to the Whites the same opportunities in the homelands which they have in the White area, tnencen.fIsattcsi same policy of parallelism applicable to everybody. We shall give the Bantu the right to vote in the homelands and to the White the right to vote in his own area. Each group will realize its civic rights within its own national group and in its own area. We have this as our ideal, and we are working with all the means and energy at our command to reduce the number of Bantu in the White area to a smaller number than the number in the Bantu area.

So is this parallelism?

I was speaking of parallelism as far as the rights of the Bantu and the Whites each in their own areas are concerned. We are doing our utmost, financially and otherwise, to rectify these numerical ratios. We are also settling the Bantu in the White areas, those who come here to work and to sell their labour in terms of the statutory rights they have obtained, in orderly and united communities in our urban Bantu residential areas. In respect of these people we are establishing a happy labour force within the Republic of South Africa. If anybody has any criticism to level in this regard, he may do so, for much remains to be done. However, the approach of this side of the House is that we want to settle our people happily and orderly within their residential areas. We want to establish for them in those areas the necessary transport and recreation facilities, and so forth, so that they will be able to realize themselves in those areas in a dignified manner. We recognize the right our Blacks have to human dignity and the right they have to an identity of their own. We should like these people to be happy in the Bantu residential areas. I am including the Bantu on our farms. The hon. members on the opposite side said nothing about them. For them the Bantu on the farms do not exist. Yet their numbers are almost as large as those of the Bantu living in the urban Bantu residential areas. These people, too, have a right which should be rooted in their own national context and homeland. We have already achieved a great deal of success and are organizing these people into a stable and proper labour force, which can lead to their achieving great and many things for themselves and also for South Africa. We have the labour bureaux, the aid centres, and so forth, to make life easier for them. In future we shall be required to provide transport to the Bantu from their homelands to their places of employment, and in this respect we shall have to make larger contributions. We consistently depart from the premise that the White is buying the labour of the Bantu here in South Africa. Whoever makes use of that luxury, also has to pay for it. We are purposefully working out in South Africa the living space and good of each population group. In the rest of the world the working out of a small home for each group, each nation and each people has more than once been accompanied by a blood-bath. We in South Africa are doing this peacefully. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, these are the closing hours of this very important debate. It is important in that we have not only heard a great deal of history, but have also seen the course taken by the debate and what it was leading up to. As far as I am concerned, one thing is as plain as a pikestaff. Mr. Chairman, you must excuse me when I say this. I say it in all humility towards the Opposition. They should understand that this country is governed by the National Party. It is not governed by the United Party. Least of all is it governed by that part of the United Party which should really be sitting with the Progressives. The Progressives are at least consistent about stating their policy. I listened to the hon. member for Bryanston. He said that we should be consistent and allow the urban Bantu to purchase a dwelling-place in the cities. He should be able to establish himself. Is that correct?

Yes.

Now the hon. member is causing the Bantu in the urban areas to feel that they will have the right to purchase houses for themselves, but the hon. member’s party conceals the fact that, as in the past, it would prevent the Bantu from having a free hand in deciding where he wanted to live. Therefore the Bantu will not be able to live in Bryanston, Brixton and Houghton, but he should be able to buy there if he wants to, that is, if one wants to be consistent. It is pointless to say that we as White people demarcate land for them there and then we discriminate against them. If the United Party wants to be consistent it should say: For the Bantu who want to move to the cities, we shall clear the way for them to be able to move to the cities. However, they should have the right to live where they like in those cities if they have the money to pay for it. Surely that is as easy as adding two and two. But I do not want to dwell on this point for long.

My problem is a practical one because, as I have said, the National Party is governing South Africa at the moment and our Bantu policy is very clear to everyone here and overseas. The image created by the overseas Press, however, is of such a nature that the unpleasant things such as those mentioned here late last night by the hon. member, are spotlighted. I do not want to refer to this again. However, they are things which are not correct, which are not true and to talk about them, does our country no good. He should rather come down to earth and take a look at what is really going on and not only at the fringes of the implementation of the policy of the National Party and the implementation of our development programme for those people. We are saddled with practical problems which are only being aggravated for us. Where I come from, in Northern Natal, consolidation was proclaimed in July last year. Now the department is starting to buy that land. We have certain difficulties, too, and I should like to state those difficulties. One of the difficulties is that as soon as the area is proclaimed and the proclamation is passed by this Parliament, those farmers whose farms are being bought out, want security. They want financial security because they will then immediately want to try and re-establish themselves at another place. Please note, they want to re-establish themselves. They do not ask that the State re-establish them. Nor do they ask that the State build them houses. All they ask, is that they be given a guarantee by Agricultural Credit, Bantu Administration or whatever, to enable them to go ahead and purchase land on which they can re-establish themselves. In the second place they ask that they be given the opportunity, at least, to dispose of their possessions and leave as soon as possible. In the third place they want to know that that land will be occupied by the Department of Bantu Administration as soon as they have left and that it will then be made available to the groups which have to be re-established. My constituency has co-operated in every sense of the word, and consequently the negotiations are by no means problematical. The people of my constituency are positive; even the United Party supporters are positive, so positive that they did not even nominate a candidate in the recent election. One can see that the people there are starting to realize how we live, because they can speak our language well, too. If a person is well acquainted with another’s language, one is able to get through to him. Because we of Northern Natal can all speak the language of our Bantu, we are able to get through to them. The Bantu does not ask for the things which are dogmatized about here, he asks for stability and he asks for the opportunity to order his life in his own community and to seek his own salvation. Lastly, I just want to express my thanks for the opportunity I have had to raise these few points.

Mr. Chairman, before the hon. the Minister replies to the debate, which I understand he will do when I sit down, I should like to attempt to bring the debate back to earth again. I want to mention one of the difficulties one has in a debate of this kind, a debate on Bantu administration. We have had just over two days of debate but for a great deal of the time we were talking past each other. In other words, we are not debating with each other upon a basis of accepted facts; we are debating as to what the facts are and we advanced facts which the hon. gentlemen opposite do not accept. They draw all sorts of conclusions which are to my thinking unrelated to the facts of the situation. I wonder if I can put a series of propositions to the hon. the Minister in the few minutes left to me with which he could deal in his reply, because if he would be good enough to do that, we will know where we stand and we can understand the direction the Government is taking and we can understand whether or not the policy which the hon. gentlemen stand by, is likely to provide the solution to our problems.

What are the basic facts of the situation? Firstly, I think all of us in this House accept that whilst there are the Bantu areas and the White areas, a majority of Black people are at this moment permanently settled in White South Africa. Whatever the de jure position may be in respect of those people, is it accepted, and I want to put this to the hon. the Minister directly, that de facto they are there for the foreseeable future? The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education has stated publicly that in his view they are, but when one listens to this debate, there is some doubt as to whether the rest of the National Party agrees with that point of view. I believe this fact is inescapable, and I have not heard a single argument in three days which suggests any tenable reason why that fact should not be accepted. I refer to the fact that the majority of the Bantu, some eight million, are de facto permanently in the White areas and will be so for the foreseeable future. What follows inevitably from that single premise? It follows inescapably that they will increase and that their economic, educational and their social position will improve. Indeed, it is rapidly improving under this Government at the present time. It follows that they will become a more sophisticated, a more permanently fixed community in White South Africa. Once that single premise is accepted, how can anyone in his senses seriously advance the point of view that the members of that settled population will not seek a permanent political outlet of some kind—whether at a local, regional or national level is beside the point—which will influence events where they live, which will influence events where they work and which will influence the administration and the authority which administers their lives where they live and work? To me it is as clear as day and it follows by inescapable logic that the acceptance of de facto permanence inevitably leads to that result. If that is so, and it is a pretty simple premise upon which to debate, how on earth can sensible men spend three days trying to persuade anybody, themselves even, that a permanent solution is given to that pressure by saying to those people: “You are a Zulu, you are a Xhosa, you wish to retain your identity and consequently your vote is exercisable elsewhere.” I quite agree that these people wish to retain their identity. That goes without saying. However, that begs the question. If I, as an English-speaking South African, go to live in Bloemfontein, I do not cease to be an English-speaking South African. I retain my identity as such and my family probably do as well. I would probably move into an English-speaking suburb in Bloemfontein because I like to live amongst people who are like myself, but that does not prevent my wishing eventually to get permanence there, to be accepted as permanent there and to have some influence on the authority that administers my affairs there.

I would like to ask hon. gentlemen opposite to consider the situation I shall now put to them. Let us reverse the situation in South Africa. Let us have the White community historically situated where the Black people are today and let us have the Black people in what is called the White Republic of South Africa. Let us find the White people having their freehold tenure in what are the Reserves or homelands today, let us have a permanent de facto White working population in the big metropolitan areas of South Africa. Can anyone then tell me that the White community would for one moment be satisfied to exercise all their civic and political rights through the homelands for the rest of time, they being a permanently settled majority in the Republic of South Africa? One has only to state that proposition to realize that it is utter nonsense.

It is!

If it cannot work with the Whites, which it certainly cannot by any stretch of the imagination, then it cannot work with the Blacks. The only difference is that, because of the historical background of the Black people, their innate conservatism and their lack of development in Western ways in many respects, it is going to take longer for those pressures to come home to roost. If we were to use our heads, what would we be doing? We would not be using the time that is available to continue bluffing ourselves that this is some answer to our problems; we would be using the time that is available to mould the situation to meet those requirements in the future.

I have started this afternoon from the simple premise of the de facto acceptance —not de jure—of the permanence of what is called the urban Bantu, i.e. the Bantu in the White parts of South Africa. I would like to hear from the hon. the Minister whether he accepts that premise. If he does not accept it, he must immediately tell us in broad outline how that permanence is to be prevented or diminished in the future. He must tell us how that Black population which I see as permanent, as permanently settled, will cease to be so. He must tell us what will terminate its present permanence.

There is one other matter that goes with this which was touched on by the hon. member for Bryanston. I believe that all of us in South Africa accept the fact that we have in South Africa at the moment an economy, both agricultural and industrial, which is equal in sophistication to many in the world. There is nothing more vulnerable than an economy of that nature. Its ability to survive is dependent largely upon a thing called confidence, the confidence of those who direct that economy, whether in the field of business, agriculture, commerce or industry. I want someone to tell me how it is envisaged, bearing in mind what has happened in Africa recently not 2 000 miles away from where I am standing today, if my basic premise—the de facto permanence in the White areas of these majority of Blacks—is correct, that this vital confidence will be retained in the future in the light of pressures which are bound to arise from the acceptance of the permanence of that community. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Eshowe put a certain question to me.

Umhlatuzana.

I beg your pardon, Sir, I mean the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. I must apologize very humbly to the hon. member for Eshowe. This has now been placed on record.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana—if he will remain that—put a question to me. A little later this afternoon I shall reply to the question put to me, because I want to work it in fittingly into what I want to say this afternoon. For that reason I shall not reply to that question right at the beginning. I hope he will accept it that way. I shall not say that I shall deal with it and then do what is done by many politicians, i.e. fail to deal with it at all. I will deal with it. But give me a chance to come to it when I want to come to it in my own planned way. I think that is fair, not so?

Yes.

Thank you. I want to make haste by starting at the beginning and saying a few words in reply to a few points put forward by some members.

First I want to make a few general comments on this debate. I think, with all due respect to everybody here, that I am a better judge of the tenor of a debate on Bantu affairs than is any other hon. member in this House. I say this because I have been connected with this Vote since 1961.

Too long.

It may be too long for that member, but I want to give him some bad news. It is definitely going to be a while longer. I do not think there is one single member in this House who can say that since 1961 up to today he has attended each of the debates on the Bantu Votes. I can indeed say this.

What about me?

Yes, but that hon. member runs out and then she offers this excuse: “I cannot be here tomorrow afternoon.” She has not sat here all the time. I could not even leave the Chamber; I had to stand and sip cold drink behind the Speaker’s Chair … [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, let me say this to you: In this debate the Opposition has put up a poorer and calmer show—and I am pleased about that—than was the case in any previous debate, and I want to say that hon. members on our side—and I want to congratulate all of them on this—have acquitted themselves excellently of their task.

Teacher is handing out stars.

We have a special situation this year; we have a great many new members on both sides of this House, and I pre-eminently want to congratulate the new members on our side—and older members should not take this amiss of me —on the contributions made here by them. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Houghton should not try to be funny.

Sir, the hon. member for Houghton did of course concentrate, just as she used to do initially, on denigrating and disparaging every single thing—suspicion-mongering and disparagement—and then there is a kind of sub consciousness which has now, in this session, welled up in her for the first time, namely that she is being overshadowed by six other people and that, in comparison with the position in the past, she only has one-seventh of the time she used to have for listening to her own voice; now she has here six other people in her party for whom she must also make allowances, We on this side, and I in particular, can see what a demoralizing effect this has on her. Sir, since her own people are exerting such a political demoralizing effect on her by their presence, this feeling of demoralization has been taking the unpleasant form that she is becoming more and more pungent in her comments. Sir, let us leave it at that. I want to make a little political diagnosis in regard to the hon. member for Houghton. She is, of course, still the way she has always been. She talks just as much as I do while she is sitting and I am standing. [Interjections.] Has the hon. member finished now?

Yes.

On a point of order, may the hon. the Minister interrupt the hon. member for Houghton?

Sir, I must say that this Chief Whip of ours is still just as much in form and just as wide awake as he was when I first saw him here. The hon. member for Houghton has once again made a fuss here about certain townships. May I just recall to mind a few names here. May I remind the hon. member of the name Limehill, and I do so with pride. Why? Because we never hear that name any more; because we never read that name in the newspapers any more. Why? [Interjections.] Yes, it will be remembered that the hon. member referred here to Stinkwater and Sterkgat the wrong way round on a certain occasion, and I had to think twice now so as not to do so myself. Sir, what has become of that wretched farm by the name of Mörsgat, with an umlaut on the “o”, which the people simply called “Morsgat” and of which the name has always been Madikwe? We no longer hear that name today. It has disappeared from the political language. Why? Because what we said would happen to it did happen; it has been developed into a Bantu residential area worthy of accommodating human beings. [Interjections.] No, Sir, the hon. member for Orange Grove should not be under the illusion that we took the advice offered by the hon. member for Houghton. If we had taken her advice, we should have had to undo all those developments. Sir, we heard a great deal here about Sada, and today, and also previously, we also heard here about Dimbaza. Sada is already in the category of places we no longer hear about, and the chances are that in due course we shall no longer hear about Dimbaza either. Why? Because those developments are taking place there. I want to tell this hon. member what I have so often told her in connection with those townships: Those townships do not consist of people whom we dragged there after removing them from their employment. We know that the people who landed at Dimbaza originally—i.e. the first group—came mainly from Middelburg and its environs in the Cape. They were not people who were removed from their employment and dragged by their hair or by their legs. Not one of these people was in employment. They are dependants of workers who were working at places all over the country, especially in the Cape Province—the Dimbaza people—and there we settled them in conditions far superior to the former most unhygienic and terrible abuses that prevailed in slums and were provided by exploiters. I can give many examples. Do you know that we had to provide up to 17 houses in Dimbaza to people who used to live elsewhere on one small plot of 5 000 or 6 000 square feet, They came from the vicinity of Middelburg, where they had to lead a barbaric life under conditions of exploitation. We had to provide 17 houses to people who used to live on one small plot, without reasonable hygienic conditions, without water, without shopping facilities, without schools, without clinics, without hospitals and things of that nature. But if you go to Dimbaza now— and the hon. member did pay it a visit— you will see that all those things are there now.

Yes.

And, what is more, you must realize that the people we settled there had not been in employment. Their breadwinners were elsewhere. These people were left untouched where they were. Mean-While we started creating employment at Dimbaza itself. Sir, surely it stands to reason that we cannot have such and such a number of factories at a place such as Dimbaza and have all the wheels turning before we have transferred the first people there. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana read us such a serious lecture here today on our having to make a point of being practical. But surely one cannot put a factory into operation before the people who are to work in it have arrived. What happened after Dimbaza had been built? Things developed very satisfactorily at that stage. I am sorry that the facts quoted by the hon. member for East London City today—I do not know where he got them from—do not tally with my facts, which I obtained directly from the Xhosa Development Corporation. My facts are slightly different I want to tell you that at Dimbaza we already have four factories in operation, in various phases of work. Some have just started and some have been in operation a little while longer. Amongst other things, they are producing clothing, beadwork, spectacle-cases and watches. You will probably laugh when I tell you that they are making spectacle-cases, but the first order received by that factory was for 500 000 spectacle-cases. I think many factories would be pleased to start with such an order. I do not want you to ridicule this again. I do not want anybody on the other side jumping up and saying that the Ciskei cannot subsist on 500 000 spectacle-cases. That is the type of disparaging argument which hon. members opposite usually advance in this debate.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, I am pleased that the hon. member has just made such a sensible observation. Occasionally the hon. member for Mooi River is sensible. Perhaps he is that more often. Sir, in those four factories there is, when they work to full capacity, employment for 400 workers. Now, I am not sure whether those factories are already working at full capacity at the moment. I hope so. But they can provide employment for 400 workers. In addition to that the hon. member for East London City should bear in mind that contracts for another seven factories have already been signed—inter alia, two clothing factories, a watch-making factory, a shoe factory and a plastic factory—and that the number of workers employed will come to 1 100, of whom the shoe factory alone will probably take up to 700 workers. In 18 months’ time I hope—I say I hope because we do not guarantee this, of course; after all, this is not our own undertaking— that there will be an additional 20 factories, according to planning. This is the growth of a planned township. And who are the people working in it? To a very large extent—I do not say 100%—it is those people who were originally brought to Dimbaza as unemployed persons. Now I ask whether this is a good development, yes or no? Now everybody is quiet. Everybody is zipped up on the other side. Surely the hon. member for Mooi River will admit that this is a good development.

Yes.

I thank the hon. member for Mooi River.

What was Dr. Koomhofs reaction there? He almost cried.

That was at Sada.

It does not matter where it was.

It does not matter what Dr. Koornhof said there. He was touched and emotional and then said something there which I would perhaps not have said or which the hon. member would not have said. [Interjections.]

I saw the place.

I saw it, too. In fact, I have seen it more than once. I want to ask the hon. member whether or not what I have reported here is a good development.

Yes, it is.

Very well, then we are at least making some progress, even if it is a struggle, with the Opposition.

You are struggling terribly!

Yes, I am struggling, but I am doing so with the Opposition; I do not struggle with my work.

The hon. member for Houghton made a terrible fuss about the Bantu Investment Corporation because it had instituted audit inquiries. She should in fact be praising the Investment Corporation for that. If misgivings arise about certain entrepreneurs or employees and the Bantu Investment Corporation orders an audit inquiry into its own affairs, I think it should get credit for it, and not scorn as we saw here.

The hon. member put certain questions in regard to the commission. I want to point out that the chairman of the Bantu Investment Corporation wrote to me in September—I have his letter available—asking that, with a view to all the disparagement taking place, a proper commission of inquiry be appointed to go into these alleged irregularities. The hon. member for Houghton was one of the most prominent amongst those who disparaged it, and certain newspapers were also extremely active in that regard. We reacted favourably to the request made by the chairman of the Investment Corporation, as I have already announced. I have asked my hon. colleague the Minister of Justice to assist us by seconding a person who will be able to do the work. I already know who the person is who will be charged with that task, but unfortunately I may not make his name known today. There are certain statutory procedures that are to be complied with first. The State President has to approve the proclamation and then a notice has to be published. The terms of reference are still to be drawn up, and the persons who are to assist him are still to be designated too. I am therefore not in a position to make this person’s name known at this early stage. In any event, it is going to be a one-man commission, a judicial commission under the Commissions Act. The commissioner will be a person with the rank of senior magistrate. It will therefore be a full-fledged commission.

The hon. member has proposed that it should be a broad commission on which experts such as economists are to serve so that investigations may be instituted over a wide field. I reject that request completely as being unnecessary. It is unnecessary to investigate the operation, administration, objectives and the procedures of the Bantu Investment Corporation. We already have people who accept responsibility for those things. In the very highest instance this is the Government, namely I myself with the assistance of my Deputy Ministers. Furthermore there is the board of the corporation which comprises businessmen and economists, people who are in actual practice, are experienced and have proved themselves. Then there are the senior members of the staff. The hon. member would like an economist to serve on the commission. The hon. member herself is an economist, not so? If I am not mistaken, she used to be a lecturer in economics.

In economic history.

She is, nevertheless, an economist. I want to ask the hon. member, who has had so much to say in regard to the Bantu Investment Corporation, to undertake to submit her evidence to the commission. She should give evidence before the commission.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, she should. One cannot simply run about like a person being chased by wasps and say anything and shout here, there and wherever one finds on self, and then, when one is afforded the opportunity of appearing before a judicial officer and proving one’s allegations, run away or fail to make one’s appearance.

I did not make allegations; I asked questions.

Now the hon. member says she did not make allegations; she only made inquiries here and there. Typical of a woman, the hon. member now says “even so”. I do not want to say any strange things to the hon. member prematurely. I shall bide my time, bide it calmly. However, I want to make a serious appeal to the hon. member to appear before that commission or to submit memoranda to the commission so that the commission itself will be able to decide whether the hon. member should be summoned to give evidence. If the hon. member does not want to do that, she should not blame me for what is said about her.

I will give them all the evidence they want …

There the hon. member goes back-tracking like hell from her seat, but I cannot hear what she is saying.

Order! I think the hon. the Minister must withdraw that word.

What word?

Hell.

I did not say “she was going to hell”. I said the hon. member was arguing like hell. This is merely a manner of speaking, but if it pleases you, I shall withdraw it and say that she is arguing from her bench like mad and like blazes, and you know, Sir, that is much worse than like hell. I am making an appeal here, not only to the hon. member but also to any person in the country, also to those zealous journalists who wrote so much on the Bantu Investment Corporation, especially in certain Sunday papers, that they submit their evidence, even their hearsay evidence, to that commission of inquiry. Now they are getting the chance of their lives, not to spread disgusting stories and just any old story, but to bring to light the true facts. If any fault is discovered, it will be to our credit and to that of the Bantu Investment Corporation that it has been exposed, and then it will be put right. If there is no fault, we shall be grateful for that fact. Let us all help one another to expose the position as far as possible.

That is entirely the commission’s job.

Now it is only the commission’s job, but to gossip and spread stories right and left is the hon. member for Houghton’s privilege.

May I ask the hon. the Minister two questions? Did the hon. the Prime Minister give evidence before the Schlebusch Commission? Secondly, do you not think that the allegations or complaints by the homeland leaders about monopolistic practices should also be investigated?

I am coming to the hon. member’s second question. She must not hide behind the Prime Minister. Now I come to the hon. member’s point in connection with the homeland leaders who have said all sorts of things in this regard. There are many Bantu persons who have commented on corporations, etc. What worries me in this matter is not so much what they are saying. In principle I dealt with this the other day already, when I said we had to realize that every applicant could not get a loan. There are security and all sorts of other things that have to be investigated. However, it worries me that that hon. member picks up and follows up the stories told by every person, including those told by disappointed persons, who is complaining about a corporation. She gaily takes up those stories and uses them as she pleases. She is not the only one; there are a few other persons who are also doing so, especially certain newspapers.

The hon. member for Griqualand East requested particulars on the independence agreements. He is afraid that there are going to be departures on the part of the House of Assembly from what was agreed upon by way of negotiations with the Transkei. Now, the hon. member should not expect me to announce today, even before we have had discussions with them, what all the final points of agreement in connection with the constitution are going to be.

Not all of them.

Oh, just some of them, then? The hon. member wants me to announce just some of the things today in order that he may at a later stage level the criticism at me that I did not conduct any dialogue with the Bantu on those things. Those are the tactics of that hon. member. The hon. member should wait a little and restrain himself. It is very clear that the hon. the Prime Minister outlined exactly what the procedures would be. There is a works committee, there is their own recess committee, there is the joint ministerial committee, and, ultimately, there are also this Parliament and their own Parliament which must take certain decisions and resolutions. The hon. member should not expect me to announce unilaterally here provisions in regard to which I have not even given the other party involved, namely the Transkei, a chance to conduct negotiations.

The hon. member for King William’s Town referred to a frontbencher of Chief Minister Matanzima who allegedly said that they would go to U.N. if their land demands were not met. I just want to ask the hon. member where he obtains his particulars.

I obtained them from the Rand Daily Mail [Interjections.]

That is the way it goes …

No, I beg your pardon. It was from the Daily Dispatch.

From bad to worse or, in the words of the old farmer who could not speak any English, from “brood” to “wors”. Now I want to give the hon. member some advice. He should rather look for this information in the Hansard of the Transkei. Now I want, firstly, to reassure him and, secondly, to astonish him. First the reassurance: That man did say those words, but what did Chief Minister Kaiser Matanzima say after that man had spoken? In his reply Chief Minister Matanzima said the following—

May I put a question?

No, you had rather sit down. Your face is red.

He only wants to ask a question.

A question? Very well then.

What assurance does the hon. the Minister have that Kaiser Matanzima will always govern in the Transkei?

The question of who is going to govern there in the future is their affair, but I know that the negotiations in connection with the independence agreements will be conducted under Matanzima’s government. He speaks on behalf of that government, and it is in that government’s time that that person referred to taking recourse to U.N. That hon. member is known for the wild things he can say. He should contain himself. It would be much more fitting for him to contain himself in regard to these things.

The hon. member for Mooi River asked whether the Minister of Finance would have to provide all the capital required for development within the Bantu homelands or whether it would have to come from outside. I hope these are sincere questions. The hon. member does to my mind have a good grounding in economics. I do rather have some respect for this hon. member’s knowledge as he has revealed it here in this House. Now, the Chief Whip should not get the idea that I am wooing the hon. member.

Two chances!

Not at all! I know the hon. member as a person who is quite intelligent enough to give the same answers to those questions as the ones I am going to give now. He knows what the answers are. However, I shall give those answers very quickly and briefly. Surely the hon. member knows, because our budgetary system does after all work on that principle, that what is produced by the Bantu homelands themselves is in the first place their revenue, and that this is supplemented by appropriations by this Parliament. This is the procedure we have been following all these years and this is also the one we are going to follow in the future. Incidentally, we are also prepared to follow this procedure in respect of a Bantu homeland which has become independent. The hon. member knows that we passed a statutory amendment here last year already so as to confer borrowing powers on homeland governments as well. The hon. member is nodding his head in assent. Then I am correct. He knows all these answers. Therefore the homeland governments have already been granted borrowing powers by statute in order that they may negotiate loans themselves. No restrictions have been imposed on where the loans may be negotiated. This the hon. member knows, too. It is also stated that such loans may be negotiated after I, in consultation with my colleague the Minister of Finance, have given my consent. Once again he is nodding in assent. He knows this too. He asks me questions to which he knows the answers. The last thing I am going to say he probably knows too, because by this time he has no doubt read both Bills which will be dealt with in this House this year. The hon. member ought to know that one of these Bills contains a provision stating that a borrowing power is also being introduced for us to be able to give guarantees for such loans negotiated by Bantu homelands and the corporations. The hon. member is nodding, thereby saying that he knows this too, and then he still asks me this question. Now hon. members can see how correct I have been in saying that the hon. member has a knowledge of these matters and that he has a good intelligence. However, he is just a cunning politician. That is all.

I take that as a compliment.

It is a compliment. Very well then, I have now finished with that argument.

I forgot to mention something a moment ago. I want to associate myself with hon. members on this side of the House who resented the hon. member for East London North very strongly for having referred here last night to “concentration camps” while he was speaking about Dimbaza. The hon. member calls it a concentration camp. I want to tell him that we know what concentration camps are. There are many people in South Africa who have knowledge of them. I want to ask the hon. member whether he or any other person has seen that Dimbaza has been cordoned off by means of wire fences or that the members of the Police or Defence Forces are standing guard there, at intervals of five yards, armed with Sten guns, cannons, etc. That is how a concentration camp is guarded. Has he ever seen that? No, the hon. member will not see that. There is no such thing, because there is no concentration camp. Has the hon. member ever been able to give me the names of Bantu persons who fled from Dimbaza, as the Leader of the Opposition was brave enough to flee from his captivity during the war? Are there such people who fled from Dimbaza? I say no, and he says yes. In that case, let me have their names and addresses, please. Do hon. members know what? There is a waiting list of Bantu persons who want houses and plots at Dimbaza. A waiting list for a concentration camp?

Give me their names.

They are on the waiting list. I shall give these names to the hon. member. Let us enter into a contract. I shall furnish the hon. member with the waiting list within a few days—I must have it forwarded to me since I do not keep the waiting list with me, because I am not the township manager—if he first furnishes me with the names and addresses of five persons who fled from that “Camp”. Just the names and addresses. How is that? Zip! He is zipped up, tightly shut like a tin of fish! He does not say a word. I am going to wait for that information.

The hon. member for Rondebosch spoke last night and he had a great deal to say. He asked one question which I regard as being reasonable and fair and to which I should like to reply. I want to tell him that the pattern of that has already been embodied in our legislation and that it will be developed further. He wanted to know how Bantu persons from homelands which were going to become independent, such as the Transkei, were going to be treated in general. In the Transkeian constitution, which they already have, which was not drafted for an independent country but, we may as well say, for a semi-independent country, it has already been built in—and our attitude is that this will be developed further—that Bantu persons who are members of the people of the Transkei will not be treated in the Republic of South Africa in the same way as foreigners who are Bantu persons from Tanzania, Zambia or other African states. We shall give them very explicit preferential treatment in South Africa because they are much more intimately involved in South Africa’s history, its existence, its economy and its entire setup. That is clear. The hon. member also had a great deal to say about what he called “discrimination”. I want to give the hon. member some very good advice, and in doing so I hope this will hot be like rubbing fat into a hot stone. The hon. member should be careful—and I did speak about this yesterday or the day before— not to describe everything as discrimination. But the sound advice I actually want to give him, is not that so much. The sound advice I want to give him is that he must remember that he should discuss this kind of thing which he called discrimination with a far greater measure of reserve, with a far greater sense of responsibility and far more circumspection than he did here yesterday. This is an extremely delicate matter which, coming from such a person as he, could be used with loud acclaim against our country by the enemies of South Africa. The hon. member should watch his step in matters of this kind. I want to tell him, as I said a moment ago, that none of these things which he calls discrimination, are discrimination. I dealt with this briefly the other day and I just want to mention it again now for the sake of completing the argument. As regards by far the majority of the measures, it is differentiation between people on the grounds of the basis and status of their presence in this White area of ours. I want to mention another example, although I could mention many. For many years we have had the practice in South Africa that there are separate coaches and separate trains which are used by the non-Whites—the Bantu, Coloureds and Indians. If a large number of Bantu were now to walk down to the Cape Town station to catch a train, they know that the Whites are not occupying all the seats in their coaches, and if a group of Whites were to walk down to the station to catch a train, they know that there is not going to be a number of Bantu occupying all the seats in their coaches. Even if the coaches are not of an equal standard, and even if there are not an equal number of coaches—the number depends on all kinds of circumstances—each person nevertheless knows that there is a reserved right or privilege or amenity for him. That hon. member, however, describes this as discrimination.

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

No, wait a minute now.

I just want to know why you have to make laws for this.

For many of these measures there are no laws.

This brings me at once to the next point which I must mention in regard to this matter, viz. that these measures, which the hon. member for Rondebosch and the like-minded hon. member for Jeppe, call discrimination, were established in the course of history, over the years These measures were not all established by law. This situation has developed over a period of 300 years. From the first days of the settlement at the Cape some of these things began to develop, without proclamations and without laws, through convention, custom or practice, and in regard to things which have developed over a period of 300 years it cannot be said that these could be changed all at once by means of a law. This does not mean to say, either, that with what may subsequently become operative it need take another 300 years to undo these things. The hon. members ought to know that.

Why, then, do you need laws?

Oh, keep quiet, Hymie.

No, this is important.

But what is more many of these things came into existence quite independently of our policy of separate development. Some of these measures, institutions and practices already obtained in the time of Simon van der Stel. Was it even at that time the fault of our policy of separate development? Do you know, Mr. Chairman, that this type of thing also occurs in other countries of the world.

Yes, in all countries without exception.

Yes, virtually in all countries of the world. [Interjections.] The hon. member must listen for a moment. Two or three weeks ago a photograph appeared in Die Transvaler, of the very large Munich railway station, in Germany. There are probably many members here who, as I have done, have been on that station. Where the steps lead down to the cloakrooms in that station building, that photograph shows …

Abafazi?

No, I shall tell the hon. member what appears on that sign. It states: “Ausländische Arbeitnehmer,” or “Foreign employees”. And it states “Yugoslavenski Radnici”—Yugoslavian workers. It is stated there in Greek, in Turkish and in Italian. It is very clearly stated in Italian “Lavatories for Italians”. It is printed on those signs. [Interjections.] I do not know; I did not inquire whether this is being done by law. But what I do want to ask is this: Is this apartheid now, which those people are applying there?

They are multi-national.

Yes, they are rather multi-national; I must admit that. The point I want to bring home … [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, I am very sorry to have to admit that hon. members are succeeding very well in making it impossible for a person to speak. I do not know whether their behaviour is called good manners or whether they are doing it deliberately. I regret having to say this openly here, but I think that what is being displayed here is very bad manners. If those gentlemen do not want to hear the truth, they must tell me so; then I can resume my seat. I would like to have this placed on record. The point I want to bring home, is the point I made a moment ago, viz. that not all these things constitute discrimination. Do hon. members opposite want to tell me that in Munich and elsewhere in Europe, and in America as well, where these things also occur, those people are doing this because of a desire on their part to discriminate against other people? Do hon. members want to tell me that they are doing this in order to discriminate? No; it is because they want to give a specific group of people privileges and amenities. I know that this same matter has been debated with a certain German. I know all about this case. The explanation this person gave was that these steps were being taken because those different groups of workers, to whom reference has been made, are so different to the local workers. They are different, as is also the case here in this country. Surely that is not called discrimination, because they are not being charged with it at the U.N. and other places.

May I ask a question? I want to know from the hon. the Minister what discrimination is then, and if it does in fact exist, whether it is going to disappear?

I shall now tell the hon. member very briefly what I regard as being discrimination, and we will hear what an outcry hon. members are going to make about this. Discrimination is when one says to groups of people: “You are all equal,” but certain groups are nevertheless cheated. That is discrimination. That is what the United Party wants to do under their race federation policy. [Interjections.] I was right in my prediction. Listen to that chorus! Their race federation is discrimination, for they say to all the groups of people in South Africa: “You are going to be equal.” Behind their backs however, they say: “Boys, we must stand together and ensure that the Bantu do not get to the top. In one way or another we must pull off this ‘trick’.” Discrimination is when one offers people equal rights and one allows only certain people to obtain the privileges and not the others.

The Sea Point swimming baths.

That is discrimination. Discrimination has many meanings, but in this political context, that is what it means. What is differentiation? Differentiation is when one says: There are people, but they do not all have the same claim; for that reason we draw a distinction between them.” [Interjections.] That is differentiation. Differentiation is to distinguish between people who do not have equal claims, and discrimination is to distinguish between people who do in fact have equal claims.

I now want to furnish the hon. member with a further reply to his question of a moment ago and also of yesterday evening, and tell him that these things which have arisen over this period of 300 years and which still exist today, are, as I have said, the product of all kinds of things. They are also related to the nature, the customs and the circumstances of life of these people. They are related to those things. That hon. member must listen when I reply to his question. Sir, many of these things which developed and existed over this period of 300 years, no longer exist today. I would prefer not to mention examples; it would only waste our time, but many of those things came to an end, perhaps by way of legislation, proclamations or notifications, or by way of ordinary practice. Sir, I want to repeat what the hon. the Prime Minister said, which is that where the need for such practices and measures no longer exists, they will fall away to an even further extent, and I want to tell the hon. member what the tendency very clearly is today, i.e. that practices of that kind are no longer increasing in South Africa, but are decreasing. This tendency has been reversed. I want to tell the hon. member—and this is the advice which I gave a moment ago—that we should be careful and reserved in regard to these matters. We are going to achieve far more success in ridding ourselves of these irritating things in our midst if we do it in a careful, evolutionary manner instead of in a radial manner, as some of the members on the opposite side want to do. Sir, that is enough on that subject.

Yesterday evening the hon. member for Edenvale tried, in a droll and pitiable manner, to justify his own policy switch. I am very sorry about this.

It was a very interesting speech.

The hon. member referred to the 1913 land percentages in South Africa, and he insinuated that they, and the so-called 13%, were very unfair. He need not shake his head from side to side; he implied it very clearly. He insinuated that it was unfair. Sir, may I remind the hon. member, as a person whose subject was this matter, although it no longer is but should still be, that when the Act was made in 1913, it was three years after the passing of the South Africa Act, as he ought to know. I am certain that the hon. member has in his time looked at the schedule to the South Africa Act.

He did not know it had one.

He did not know it. Sir, the hon. member for Turffontein, especially now that he is sitting on our side, is a person who can state something very correctly. Is that true? Does the hon. member not know that there was a schedule to the South Africa Act which made provision for the method of incorporation of the then Protectorates? [Interjections.] The hon. member must give me a chance now. I sat perfectly still and listened to the ex-professor. [Interjections.] Sir, heaven be praised that I never had to learn anything from him; from his predecessors, yes, but not from him. Sir, in that schedule to the South Africa Act detailed methods of how the three protectorates were to be incorporated in South Africa were set out. We know what the position was in 1910 when that schedule was drawn up. The position in 1910 was that in South Africa, which was then British South Africa, shortly prior to 1910, the land was divided almost equally between the Blacks and the Whites.

That argument became obsolete long ago.

No, it did not. I shall come to the hon. member’s statement that this argument has become obsolete.

Those territories were never under the control of any of the colonies in South Africa.

No, Sir, the hon. member’s facts are not correct when he says that those territories were not under colonial administration and were under British administration; he will have to go and ascertain what the facts are [Interjections.] The hon. member can come here and discuss that some other time; we cannot argue about this matter in a disorderly fashion across the floor of the House. Let me finish stating my point. In 1913, when that Act was passed, you must remember that the generally accepted premise of this Parliament was that it would be given the protectorates, for it was already set out in the schedule to the Constitution Act of South Africa how this was to take place.

That has nothing to do with my argument.

It has a great deal to do with it; it has a very great deal to do with it, for if that schedule had become reality in the ensuing years, if the three protectorates had in fact been incorporated, then we would never afterwards have heard this 13% story in South Africa; then we would have boasted today of the equal division of land between Blacks and Whites, and whose fault was it that South Africa was “done out”—I almost used a harsher expression—of those three protectorates? It was most certainly not South Africa’s fault, although I do want to say that certain political leaders of South Africa could have played a more decisive role in getting hold of the protectorates in time. But there is something else I want to tell the hon. member. In 1936, when the second round of legislation dealing with land was under discussion here and when the hopes in regard to 1910 schedule were still quite strong, the decision was made in this House concerning the additional 7¼ million morgen, which was an increase of almost 70% over the 1913 land. In other words, it is not the 1913 land which was 13%; it was far less than 13%. In 1936 we approved as the quotas in this Parliament what was almost a doubling of the then land quota, and this is what we are now trying to implement —in which attempt hon. members opposite are trying to block us. The hon. member must see his facts in the perspective of history. He must not speak without the perspective of history. There is another piece of advice I want to give the hon. member. He has more grey hairs than I have, but I still think he needs more advice than I do. The hon. member referred here to the Tomlinson Commission. I am not absolutely certain of this, but the hon. member could simply say “yes” or “no”, to correct me. Was he not a backroom boy of the Tomlinson Commission?

Yes.

Good. One would, if one accepted that he was involved in the Tomlinson Commission, not only as a member of the Commission, but also as one of the workers, together with others who are also sitting here on our side assume that such a person would know all kinds of things in regard to the workings of such a commission. Yesterday evening he alluded to a considerable number of personal aspects, developments and events, but he said nothing directly. He was very careful not to say anything; he said he was merely asking. I want to tell that hon. member that he must be careful. I think he has a skeleton in the cupboard. He must be careful, for if we were to begin pointing fingers at one another in this House on the basis of our personal records, then our members must be careful. I do not think it is an argument from that member to come here and allude to this person or that important office-holder in regard to the Tomlinson Commission period, and to ask what they did with this person or that person, and what were the relations between these and the relations between those. That hon. member might also have something which could be raked up by someone. Let us therefore leave personalities out of our argument.

You are also raking up something now. The argument concerned the question of land.

The hon. member should refer to that when it is his turn to speak again. He will have to look it up. But he made all kinds of allusions to all kinds of personalities in regard to the Tomlinson Commission. I know quite a lot about that matter, although I was not, like that hon. member, involved in the Commission’s work. But I know a lot about it, and I want to tell the hon. member that we should keep personalities out of this argument. There are enough facts and policies to argue about. In addition, I just want to tell the hon. member that on my bookshelf there is quite a lot of reading matter written by that hon. member in regard to Bantu Affairs, but as far as I am concerned. I just want to say that now that his scientific grounding has deteriorated to such an extent as a result of his ideological about-face, those old writings of his are of no value to me whatsoever, except when I want to quote something to him here to prove point to him, but I would prefer to leave that to other hon. members, who have already done so here.

The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark referred in passing to a matter which touched a tender string as far as I, too, am concerned when he pleaded for more funds for that town near Qwa-qwa i.e. near Witzieshoek. [Interjections.] I can see the hon. member does not know what I am referring to. I could tell him that I should, also like to receive more money to accelerate the development of that town. We are trying as hard as we can to get it, but it depends on circumstances in the country. The road to Kestell is also a very tender point which we would very much like to improve, and I thank the hon. member for having brought this matter to our attention.

The hon. member for East London City asked a few questions to which I want to reply. He spoke very disparagingly of course, but I shall leave it at that. He asked why such expensive and extravagant houses are being made available. He did not use the word “extravagant” but I think that was the drift.

“Beautiful” is the word.

He wanted to know why such beautiful houses are being built at Butterworth for employees of the XDC. It is Whites who have to live in those houses. We must appreciate fully that these Whites have to go to remote areas where there is not much recreation, nor any good amenities. We need Whites to act as key personnel and to ensure that large factories remain in operation. We cannot offer such people poor amenities. Many amenities have to be offered in such places. Butterworth is not even the most difficult place. The hon. member should visit places such as Katima Mulilo in the Caprivi and Oshakti or Runtu, to see what circumstances there are like. Good and attractive amenities must be offered in order to persuade those Whites and their wives and children to settle there and work there for long periods of time. We cannot expect these people to settle there under unsatisfactory conditions. The hon. member must also take note that we do not want to allow Whites to purchase or own properties there, for as everything is handed over to the Black people, we would subsequently have to buy out those properties.

How many houses are empty?

Surely there is nothing strange about it if a house remains unoccupied for a short time while one person moves out and another moves in. Surely one has to allow for that.

But they are standing empty for months.

If the hon. member were to direct those remarks at any major business undertaking, he would be attacked vehemently, for he is displaying a completely subversive approach. This is not the way in which the XDC should be assisted in its difficult but good work.

I have shares in that company and I want to know why those houses are empty.

The hon. member also asked me which are the growth points there. Umtata is a declared growth point, and so, too, is Butterworth and Dimbaza. However, I want to point out that apart from the fact hat certain places are already declared growth points, decentralization benefits, if there is any need for this, are also allocated to entrepreneurs in places other than already declared growth points. If there is therefore an entrepreneur who wants to make a start in some place other than one of the three I have mentioned— there have been such people at certain places—and he has to receive decentralization assistance, the Decentralization Board and the Cabinet Committee dealing with this matter may allocate this to him. This has already been done in certain places.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana asked certain questions. I should like to conclude by referring in general to the Bantu in the White areas. The first truth which we must fully appreciate in terms of our policy is that a Bantu in the White area remains a Xhosa if he is one. If he is a Zulu, he will remain a Zulu. Any Bantu in the White area remains what he is. That is the concept of our policy of multi-nationalism.

And if he refuses, what are you going to do then?

Not one of them is refusing. That hon. member must contain himself. He must sit still and listen. I shall reply to him in a nice way. Such Bantu remain members of the people to which they belong. They do not become members of another people simply because they live or work in Bryanston, Cape Town or wherever it may be in the White area. Experience has shown that they do not become anything else. In the metropolitan areas, with this tremendous measure of industrialization, particularly and pre-eminently at places such as Port Elizabeth, Cape Town, and the Witwatersrand, where the Bantu have over the years been exposed to this process of industrialization and urbanization, the Bantu of the various peoples have over the years typically adhered to their national identities, to a greater extent than many White people have adhered to their specific national identities. Let us admit this candidly, and I have said it on more than one occasion, that there are far more English and Afrikaans-speaking peoples who have, relatively speaking, lost their own specific character in the process of industrialization and urbanization in the cities than there are Zulu, Xhosa and Venda, etc., who have lost theirs in the same process. This is one of the best confirmations that our policy of the recognition of the national identity of each Bantu person is the right one here in the White area as well. For that reason we are stimulating and furthering this process. There is not a single Bantu person who, if one were to inquire of him here in Cape Town, Johannesburg, Uitenhage or wherever it may be, would not be able to tell you to which people he belongs or to which people his father belonged and what language he speaks.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Suppose there is a sophisticated and educated Bantu who has been living in Johannesburg for years and whose family has also been living there for generations. Suppose this person says to the department, or whoever it may be, that he does not want to be a Zulu, but that he wants to be a South African citizen and that he wants to settle permanently in Johannesburg. How is the department then going to force citizenship on him which he is not prepared to accept and which is not in any case logical under his circumstances?

Bantu are in any case South Africans in the broader sense, and half of the hon. member’s question therefore falls away. In addition, the hon. member will also be able to see that in every identity document issued to an adult Bantu person his identity is indicated therein in terms of his people. It is also entered in this way in the identity document registers. The question put by that hon. member is therefore highly hypothetical.

I want to make haste to complete my reply now, and I am asking hon. members to co-operate. Some people think that the Bantu in the White area are so different and have become so detached from their own homeland Bantu and their own homeland customs that it is necessary to devise and apply a policy of parallel development even in respect of them. I have already read this in certain writings. I want to repudiate this idea once and for all. It is not within the ambit of the policy of the National Party to devise for the Bantu in the White areas a kind of parallel development as is being applied in respect of the Coloureds. The hon. member for Bryanston must appreciate that it is simply the case, in terms of our policy, that we group and deal with all these people in accordance with their ethnic ties—each individual professes, in terms of his practical realization of certain views what his ethnic ties are. We classify them into certain categories on this basis and allocate them in this way to the various homelands.

There are of course other Whites who dream that the Bantu can be incorporated with the Whites. That is also a faulty premise, for then the Whites will in any event not retain their own identity; no more than the Bantu peoples will. It must be thoroughly appreciated that we are not seeking a recipe for the Bantu in the White area. In terms of our policy we have the recipe.

What is it?

The adherence of Bantu persons to the ethnic ties of their own peoples. These have to be realized in all kinds of ways. On a previous occasion I said that there are six ruling principles which we must bear in mind in this regard. The first one is that each Bantu person remains a member of the people with which he is to be identified. That is the crux of the concept of multi-nationalism. The Bantu persons who are here in the White area, are here in a casual capacity. They are present here secondarily, and not primarily, as we Whites are.

I come now to the question asked earlier this afternoon by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. He asked me whether the Bantu in the White area are here permanently or whether they are here temporarily. I do not use the words “permanent” and “temporary”, because it is so very easy to exploit and misrepresent these words. Whether the Bantu are going to be continuously present here in the White area and, if so, what their numbers are going to be, is a matter in regard to which one could make many projections, but I want to furnish the hon. member with a reply. I am not going to furnish the reply which the hon. Deputy Minister for Bantu Administration and Education has furnished, nor the one which I have already furnished to people. I am going to furnish him with a reply which he will certainly accept, and that is the one given by the late Dr. Verwoerd in this House. Before I quote that passage from Hansard to you, I first want to make a negative assertion. No one on our side ever stated that there would, within a stipulated period in South Africa, be no Bantu in the White area. [Interjections.] I say it is completely untrue that the late Mr. Blaar Coetzee said this. [Interjections.] No, Mr. Blaar Coetzee repeated what Dr. Verwoerd had said about 1978. Dr. Verwoerd had said that we would, in that year, reach the turning point. These are the kind of wilful untruths which are uttered which make matters difficult for us in South Africa. [Interjections.] Just wait a minute. Let us get this very clear now. The people on the opposite side must not become excited if their bankruptcy is exposed.

Let us discuss the turning point now. When will it arrive?

Contain yourself. I am still dealing with the permanency. I repeat: Neither Dr. Verwoerd, nor Dr. Malan, nor the late Mr. Strijdom, nor Mr. Daan Nel, nor I, nor Gen. Hertzog in his time, when he was the Prime Minister of the National Party, ever said that within a specified period in South Africa there would no longer be any Bantu in the White area. No one said that. If one of those hon. members can find this for me, they must come and show me. Then I shall withdraw my words here.

Now for my second assertion. To give you an indication of how Dr. Verwoerd himself viewed this matter. I want to quote what he said during the Tomlinson discussions. The quotation comes from Hansard of 16 May 1956, col. 5503. It is also recorded here in Hansard what the Opposition did after Dr. Verwoerd had spoken these words. They are going to do the same today. Dr. Verwoerd said—

I congratulate the Opposition. They did not laugh today as they laughed in 1956. It is recorded in Hansard that they laughed. It is simply because I warned them in advance. If that is not the reason, I want to congratulate them. What did Dr. Verwoerd state emphatically there?

It is an old story.

Now it is an old story. I have said this myself on many occasions. I could give you the quotations of what I myself said. I still say the same today. And what is more, as long as I can do anything about it, I shall make it my endeavour to make the position in the year 2000 even more satisfactory than that. Dr. Verwoerd said, times without number and we have repeated times without number, what our ideal is, what our aim is, what we are striving to achieve. We are working towards a goal, which is that we want fewer and fewer Bantu in the White area. Dr. Verwoerd said, and this, too, I can quote to the hon. member, that initially the numbers would increase. He said that he foresaw that it could happen by about 1978 that the turning point would be reached. He then said that he would be grateful if, in the year 2000, there would be as many Bantu in the White area as White persons.

May I put a question to the hon. the Minister.

No, I deal very fairly with the hon. member but then he must deal fairly with me too. Many of us subsequently said the same thing, and to want to imply now that it is only one person, a deputy Minister, who thinks this, and that we are, with our Bantu policy, heading for an abyss like a herd of Gadarene swine, is nonsense. [Interjections.] In regard to the Bantu in the White area, I want to tell the hon. members what I have said previously, which is that it is not so much a question of the Bantu being here “permanently”, or “temporarily”, or for what period they are here; what is relevant is the nature of their presence in the White area. What is relevant is the status and the conditions of their presence. If there will for all times be Bantu in the White areas, and this will quite possibly be the case, I say to hon. members that our policy is the only safe policy for such a presence, because our policy tells them that they are not members of the White Parliament and its people, but that they are members of their own people and their Parliament. We tell them that they can realize their political aspirations, in regard to which the hon. member for Umhlatuzana asked a question this afternoon, within their context, in their homeland where they have their Government and their people. That is what is relevant. Whether it is for a short period or for a long period, I maintain that what is decisive is the capacity in which they are here in South Africa, and that it is not on the same basis as we Whites. I am going to let this one principle which I have mentioned suffice, and leave the others. I shall not deal with them for I have dealt with them earlier on in this House, and hon. members can simply look it up.

In conclusion I want to say that although there are Bantu in the White area, it is the object of all of us to apply, in particular, the sixth principle which I mentioned. This is that there should be intensive and increasing liaison between the Bantu persons in the White area and the Bantu in the Bantu homelands, and that this liaison should be furthered as far as possible. For this reason we have the deputies of the Bantu Governments in the White areas. The system still has to be developed so that they are able to represent their governments to increasingly better effect in these areas. These deputies, with their councils, will be able to deal with an increasing number of matters, relating only to themselves. These representatives of the Bantu Governments will be given an increasing number of matters with which they can deal, for these matters will only be matters affecting themselves and matters which do not concern us as Whites. This development must be taken further in terms of our ethnic concept, and we will, with the passage of time, have to consider entrusting to them an increasing number of matters affecting them and their compatriots, here in the White areas as well. They will receive assistance from us, in regard to social matters for example.

I conclude by telling hon. members opposite that we can argue with one another about these matters as much as we like, but we must not—I have complained about this previously—argue on the basis of contaminated thinking and from different premises. The hon. members opposite, and the hon. member for Umhlatuzana in particular, told me today that we are talking at cross purposes here.

We have done so again.

No, we are not talking at cross purposes, but the hon. member must not talk from different premises. What do I mean by that? The hon. member should not adopt a completely integrationistic attitude, and then expect me to furnish explanations which will satisfy his integrationistic attitude. That he will not get from me.

Facts are facts, and they remain facts.

He must accept that as he places himself within a cadre of thought, so we as a Government place ourselves within a cadre of thought. We think within the cadre of multi-nationalism, and they must put questions to us and call us to account if we are not accomplishing our work in terms of our policy.

Votes agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 16 and S.W.A. Vote No. 6.—“Bantu Education”:

Mr. Chairman, please allow me to make a short announcement. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Education, Mr. Janson, will account for this Vote, as is proper, but, if necessary, I, too, might participate in the debate on the odd occasion.

Since I am on my feet I also want to mention another matter—and I do so with a sigh of sorrow—and that is to put on record our deep sorrow at the premature death, by human standards, of the late Dr. Hennie van Zyl, who was our Secretary for Bantu Education. He was our Secretary for Bantu Education from 1968—one of the many exceptionally outstanding and eminent anthropologists we have had in South Africa. Approximately one year ago he fell victim of an incurable disease, and in April this year he was called to higher service. Not only for the Department of Bantu Education, but for South Africa as a whole and for the Bantu peoples in particular, his, as I have said, premature death, by human standards, was a tremendous loss. I should like to express in respect of him the highest appreciation not only from me personally, but also, I accept, from everybody who knew him and had access to and experience of his work. I also want to express a word of appreciation for the fine, the devoted and the exceptionally inspired way in which he performed his duties. To me it was an inspiring privilege to have worked with the late Dr. Hennie van Zyl. I myself miss him tremendously.

There is an old saying that goes: The king is dead, long live the king! Mr. G. J. Rousseau stepped into the shoes of Dr. Van Zyl. Mr. G. J. Rousseau took over as Secretary for Bantu Education shortly after the death of Dr. Van Zyl. As I had the biggest hand in his appointment, I should like to congratulate him here on his appointment and put it on record here that I personally have known him well for many years. There are other members here who probably know him even better than I do. I also want to say that we have the highest expectations of him because he is a man who has been in the Department of Bantu Education for many years. Incidentally. I failed to mention that Dr. Van Zyl himself was a member of the staff of the Department of Bantu Education for 36 years. Up to now Mr. Rousseau has devoted a lifetime to the Department of Bantu Education as an official. It saddens me, however, to have to inform you that Mr. Rousseau is not sitting in his bench here, because he underwent a serious operation just over a month ago at the world-famous division of Groote Schuur Hospital. Fortunately he is already back in Pretoria and recovering well. We pray him God’s richest blessing and with him a speedy recovery, because we all need him in the prime of his life.

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the members on this side of the House, I should like to associate myself with the thoughts expressed here by the hon. the Minister in connection with the death of the late Dr. Hennie van Zyl. It was my privilege, too, to have known him, and I want to tell you, Sir, that in many respects he was an exceptional person. Not only was he a man who knew his subject, but he had the ability to convey to others in an unassuming manner the enthusiasm he had for the work he was doing. He, as few others, was responsible for the development of Bantu Education in a way which indeed made it acceptable to the Bantu people of South Africa. It was a great loss to education, our country and more specifically the Bantu suffered on his death, and the void left by him we shall probably feel for a long time.

We also want to convey our best wishes to Mr. Rousseau in the major task resting on his shoulders and also express our best wishes for his good health.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with what was said by the hon. the Minister and the previous speaker in paying (tribute to Dr. Van Zyl. I first met him in 1939, and in later years when he was playing such a leading role in connection with Bantu education, we became personal as well as family friends. He made his mark in Bantu Education. He was an outstanding anthropologist and educationist, and as an expert in the field of Bantu languages and the Bantu way of life he was known and loved by all the Bantu in South Africa as well as in South-West Africa. I think it was very fitting of the editorial staff of the Bantu Education Magazine to have paid a striking tribute to his memory in its August edition, the August 1974 edition. For 14 years he was on the editorial staff of that magazine and wrote most of the editorials of that magazine which has become a well-known publication. We should also like to convey our sympathy to his family. At the same time I want to associate myself with the words of welcome to Mr. Rousseau who succeeded him as Secretary for Bantu Education.

The hon. the Minister recently said in reply to a question that the establishment and location of training facilities for Bantu persons in medical and associated disciplines was being investigated. I listened with great interest to the answer he gave. Every one of us realizes that too few Bantu persons are trained to serve as medical practitioners exclusively among the Bantu communities where their services are of course particularly needed. The homelands especially are experiencing an acute shortage of doctors. At the moment medical students are studying at White universities with permission. In 1973 there were 201 Bantu students at the University of Natal studying medicine. During the period November 1973 to April 1974 21 Bantu persons graduated with a degree in medicine at the University of Natal. Sir, this number is far too small, especially if one has regard to the fact that the Transkei may become independent within the foreseeable future and that other homelands may follow this example in due course. Therefore it is really becoming a matter of urgency to provide more training facilities in the medical and para-medical professions in the homeland areas. Such training may be given with the assistance of White universities.

White universities could, as it were, serve as a support for such a medical faculty in embryo. In the past the medical profession did not draw many Bantu, on the one hand, I believe, because it requires a protracted and difficult study, and, on the other hand, because there were as yet not all that many pupils who gained matriculation exemption certificates with mathematics as a subject. Mathematics are of course a prerequisite for the student who wants to make medicine his field of study.

But, Sir, there has been a conspicuous improvement in the situation. Let us simply take a look at the statistics. In 1963 there were only 46 Bantu pupils with mathematics as an exemption subject in matric; in 1969 there were 206; in 1972 there were 505, and in 1973 629. So the obstacle of the past is rapidly disappearing. Sir, where and when this faculty may be provided, is a matter one would like to leave to the sound judgment of the Minister and his department. We know that it will require heavy expenditure, but under the circumstances, especially under the circumstances of a manpower shortage also as far as White doctors are concerned, it is very necessary that we move in this direction. But I want to go further; I have in mind even a faculty in dentistry as well as a faculty of veterinary sciences. These three faculties have been in existence for some time at the University of Pretoria, and although I am a member of the council of the University of Pretoria and cannot commit the university, I do believe that the University of Pretoria has the right attitude and will certainly serve as a supporting body in this connection when such faculties commence.

Sir, I should like to express a few thoughts on the idea of compulsory education for Bantu children. This is a question which is frequently raised in this House and which has often been raised in the past, and it is a matter which has also been raised in the Press and outside this House. Since I came to this House quite a few years ago, the matter of compulsory education for children of all population groups has been raised from time to time. The Opposition has always regarded it as their special prerogative to bring up the matter for discussion. They have always blamed the Government for the fact that it has not been possible to provide these facilities as yet.

Sir, the department concerned has always proved that it is very sympathetically disposed towards the idea of compulsory education. However, compulsory education was impossible and unrealistic at any particular juncture in the past as there were insurmountable obstacles in the way of carrying the idea into effect, but the assurance was given time after time that compulsory education was what it was striving to attain. We know that this principle has been accepted as far as Indian and Coloured children are concerned, but this has not happened as a result of the pleas delivered here by the Opposition; it has simply come within the boundaries of what is capable of implementation. Sir, the idea of compulsory education has been part of Bantu Education’s long-term planning for many years. In the period from 1954 up to the end of last year the department was able to increase the enrolment figures of Bantu pupils from plus/minus 850 000 to 3 312 000. The percentage of children of school-going age who do receive tuition, has increased from 45% in 1954 to 80%. The department is still not able as yet to introduce compulsory education as a general practice throughout the Republic. But, Sir, le: me emphasize what has been achieved in this regard. In 1963, as significant a percentage as 13,97 of the total Bantu population was at school; in 1968 this percentage rose to 16,52 and in 1973 to 19,86, an increase of 6% in one decade. I regard this as being spectacular.

Sir, how does the position in this country compare with the position in other African states—states which do not provide the facilities from their own means, but which receive sizeable gifts from developed countries, especially for education. The percentage of the population at school in the following three states is as follows: Botswana, in 1968, 13,5%; Zambia, in 1968, 13,9%; Kenya in the same year, 12,9%; Africa as a whole, in 1969, 10,9%, and this percentage includes South Africa, White and non-White. Now, compare this with the White population; 23% of the total White population in South Africa is at school, while the average in European countries is from 20% to 22%. [Time expired.]

In the first instance one wants to express appreciation for the increase in the appropriation for the Bantu Education Vote. It is undoubtedly time that education certainly is one of the most important aspects in the life of any group of people. I am particularly grateful to note that the contribution to the various Bantu universities has been increased considerably, i.e. from R6,7 million to an amount exceeding R8 million, and, furthermore, that the subsidies to the community schools have also been raised from R21 million to R30 million and those to State subsidized schools from an amount exceeding R7 million to an amount exceeding R10 million, in other words, we on this side of the House want to say that we shall definitely support and welcome in all respects this type of additional provision being made in the field of education.

It is undoubtedly time that in the development of the Bantu homelands, and especially in the task of causing the broad Bantu population to move in a direction of development, education as a development determinant plays an extremely powerful role, as it does elsewhere in the world. The problem facing us in this connection is well known, and that is that in other under-developed or developing countries in particular, it often happens that a too large part of their budgets is allocated to education while unaccompanied by adequate employment opportunities as well as insufficient funds for other development tasks. South Africa finds itself in the privileged position of that problem not applying to us.

But now we should see education not as an endeavour to educate the Black population in the homelands to a proper acceptance of development methods and techniques, but also in the light of the Bantu in the city actually being a totally different person who is faced with totally different problems and that education in respect of them should consequently have a different point of departure.

As far as the universities are concerned, I do want to ask whether the increases in the subsidy flow from the report of Mr. Lodder, and, if so, whether it is likely that that report will be tabled. We have also noted with appreciation that the step has been taken to appoint Bantu persons to the councils of these universities, but I am sure I am speaking on behalf of this side of the House when I say that we feel that this is a step that should have been taken a long time ago, and that much more rapid progress should be made. To this I should like to add that in my opinion differentiation in salary scales ought to be removed now. We believe that the time has arrived for serious consideration to be given to the appointment of qualified Bantu as rectors, registrars and assistant registrars of the Bantu universities, in line with the development we have had at the University of the Western Cape. I think it is really unpardonable that these important posts at these universities are still occupied by Whites after all these years. I believe there are Bantu who can occupy these posts with responsibility. The same applies in respect of the ratio of Whites to Bantu in the clerical and lecturing categories. It is indeed a great disappointment to me that at this stage the ratio still is so heavily in favour of White lecturing staff as against Bantu lecturing staff at these universities. Therefore I feel that the growth in this respect has been quite too slow. In 1962 there were 112 White staff members at universities as against 27 Bantu, and that ratio seems to have been maintained consistently. In 1973 there were 308 Whites and 76 Bantu. I have to point out to the hon. the Deputy Minister that there seems to be some disparity between the figure of 90 furnished by the hon. the Minister and the figure of 76 to which I have just referred. Furthermore there also seems to be a discrepancy in two places in the report itself in so far as these figures are concerned.

I should also like to know from the hon. the Minister whether any of the objectives envisaged at the lime of passing the Bantu Universities Amendment Act that was placed on the Statute Book last year have been carried into effect in any way. In other words, have any of the Bantu universities given consideration to, or are they in the process of giving consideration to, the extension of their activities to other centres as well? I should also like to know particularly whether attention is being given to the request that Fort Hare be moved to the Transkei, or that Fort Hare be extended to the Transkei. I am aware of the fact that there was talk of Ngoya possibly establishing a branch in Durban and I should like to know whether there is any truth in this rumour.

As far as ordinary education is concerned. I think it is a special achievement that more than 3 million Bantu children are attending the primary and higher primary classes at the moment. However, I want to express my concern once again about the double sessions which probably are unavoidable under the circumstances, but which cannot in fact lead to a proper system of education. From the figures it is evident that out of the 11 000 schools more than 5 000 maintain double sessions and that this involves 11 000 teachers and a total of close on 1 million children. I have already said that this probably is unavoidable, but it does seem to me nevertheless as though this matter requires serious attention.

I am also concerned about the high percentage of school-leavers, as is evident from the statistics. It is clear that as yet we have not dealt with this problem satisfactorily, although I am aware of the fact that the situation has indeed improved. Here I refer particularly to school-leaving in the lower standards and the fact that such a small percentage of pupils eventually reach matric. I am satisfied that until such time as we give proper attention to the pre-school child, we shall not be able to solve this problem. I know that this may fall outside the province of the Department of Bantu Education at the moment, but we shall have to begin to reveal a completely new approach to the pre-school child so that when that child gets to school, he may indeed be better prepared to benefit from the formal education system.

I also want to express our concern at the fact that as far as I know the department is persisting in the policy of actually not building new high schools in the urban areas. In this regard, too, I want to say that even if one were to admit that this might be in agreement with what one could call the ideological policy of this Government, it is basically unsound not to have high schools where the parents themselves are living. I want to plead for serious consideration to be given to effecting a change in this policy. We are likewise concerned about the fact that free school books are not supplied to Bantu children as they are supplied to other children. It was said in reply to a question here that that would cost an additional R16 million, but I am of the opinion that this is an item of expenditure which we should be able to afford from our general Budget. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, since it is very nearly time for us to adjourn I intend being very brief, and the hon. member who has just resumed his seat will forgive me if I am unable to reply to his questions this evening. Similarly there are certain things the hon. the Minister has to announce in connection with universities and he will probably reply to the hon. member for Koedoespoort in this connection in due course.

In the few minutes I have at my disposal I want to associate myself in the first instance with what was said here by the hon. the Minister in connection with our deceased friend, the Secretary for Bantu Education, and with everything he meant, also to me as Deputy Minister of Bantu Education, when he was occupying this post of Secretary for Bantu Education. At the same time I should also like to convey my congratulations and best wishes to the new Secretary for Bantu Education and the people who are going to work with him. I think it is necessary to say here this evening that the past year has been a very difficult one for the Department of Bantu Education and that we may on that account perhaps expect of members in conducting these discussions to keep in mind the background of what has happened in the department. I want to point out that Dr. Van Zyl was aware of his approaching end for a long time, but true to his nature he remained at his post until he could no longer do so. The Under Secretary, Mr. Clarke, notwithstanding the fact that he had asked to retire earlier because of ill-health, stayed on in his position up to the end of November last year when, he, too, was unfortunately unable to continue any longer. Following the death of Dr. Van Zyl, we had Mr. Joubert Rousseau who carried on his work in spite of ill-health. For these reasons, I just want to express, in the few minutes at my disposal, my sincere thanks to the staff who did the work that had to go on in the place of those people. Dr. Van Zyl was, inter alia, chairman of the so-called Van Zyl commission investigating industrial training. One could not tell him to give up his work and it was decided at a late stage only that Mr. Coetzee of the department would take over that work as chairman. He carried on that work under difficult circumstances and made a great deal of progress. Similarly, Mr. Du Preez and others of the department carried on their work and what has been achieved is thanks to the dedicated services of the officials for whom we can certainly be thankful, from the highest to the lowest.

When we discuss the Bantu Education Vote, I do want to ask that we should approach this extremely important matter from the angle of working out together, on the basis of the available means, the best methods possible so that we may make a success of our task in the future, as we have been doing up to now. With the friendly consent of the hon. member for Brentwood, I have here in my hand the fourth volume of the South African International Journal of the South Africa Foundation. In it, under the name of Mr. Martin Spring, the well-known writer and journalist, something is said, inter alia, of Bantu Education as compared to education in other countries of Africa. I think it was the hon. member for Durban Central who last year quite rightly pointed out the wide scope of the work of this department and asked whether we were not asking too much from these people. If he did not ask that, then it was another member of the opposition. It is not generally realized that the Department of Bantu Education is not purely a Department of Education. The Department of Bantu Education deals with industrial training as well, which is a branch of the Department of Labour in the White areas and constitutes a large part thereof. The Department of Bantu Education does not work as well. In addition it deals with examining and other work in the homelands and in the White areas. I hope to have the opportunity tomorrow of giving the numbers that have to be dealt with under difficult circumstances as a result of a shortage of funds and all the other factors. I am of the opinion, therefore, that the magnitude of the task of this department cannot be over-emphasized. It is a pity that unnecessary and untimely criticism is sometimes expressed and that we sometimes begin a debate such as this with a negative approach. I hope it will not be the case this year, but that we shall get more positive questions this year and that we shall look for positive solutions together. I have here a book in which there is an article by Mr. Martin Spring. He had, inter alia, the following to say on the South African kaleidoscope—

†This is not the Deputy Minister of Bantu Education speaking: This is Mr. O’Dowd of the Anglo-American Corporation. I hope we shall heed his words when we discuss this Vote.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.