I move—

“Growth” and “growth rate” are to-day the operative words in the dictionary of the economist.

In the less-developed countries, economic development is sometimes literally a matter of life or death, because the increasing population constantly presses against the limited national product. In some of the developed countries of North America and Western Europe the levelling out of the rate of growth in recent years is, for political and strategic as well as purely economic reasons, likewise causing concern. It is to be expected, therefore, that in any evaluation of economic, and more specifically fiscal policy, particular attention will be paid to its effects on the rate of growth of the national economy.

The tast of a Minister of Finance thus bears comparison—and has indeed been compared—to that of a gardener. The simile of the gardener who wishes to establish a healthy, fertile and balanced garden is neither too humble nor too fanciful. As a gardener will protest if his orchard is in danger of having to carry too many trees, so it is the duty of the Minister of Finance to resist if his colleagues wish to embark on too many growth projects which are likely to overtax the available resources. He has to be on guard against the harmful weeds of inflation and extravagance, which deprive the soil of the moisture and fertility it requires for yielding a rich harvest. He must protect the useful plants in his economic garden against damage from eroding winds or the scorching sun. He has to spray against pests and diseases and, at times, resort to judicious pruning. Occasionally he has to apply the financial equivalent of fertilizer and compost. But at all times he must ensure that his garden is protected against the insidious activities of moles, as well as the rapacity of man and beast. The central aspiration of both professions is to strengthen and increase the productivity and fertility of their respective kingdoms.

Growth, however, is a complex process, dependent on various factors, some of which still lack final analysis while others are beyond the control of the authorities. All too often the financial gardener finds his best efforts frustrated by economic whirlwinds from abroad, or other causes outside his sphere of influence. Even the financial horticulturist fails, at times, to provide answers to all the problems. The economic plants carefully nurtured by the authorities sometimes fail to flourish because of the absence of some trace element, while others which receive little attention flower profusely:

However limited the means and knowledge at his disposal, a Minister of Finance must try, to the best of his ability, to create a financial garden in South Africa in which the several economic sectors will grow side by side in luxuriant harmony. Let us, therefore, examine how the economy is shaping at present, and whether there are any features demanding special attention in the year that lies ahead.

Internal Economic Conditions

The gross national product for the calendar year 1962 is estimated provisionally at R5,973,000,000, representing an increase of 7 per cent above the 1961 figure. This is the highest increase for several years, and there was, moreover, a noticeable acceleration in the rate of growth during the second half-year.

Personal income increased even more rapidly than gross national product, but personal saving accounted for a large proportion of this increase and personal consumption rose by only 5.7 per cent. This, nevertheless, represents a considerable improvement over the previous year, when there was an actual decline in personal consumption expenditure.

Expenditure on durable consumer goods, which was on a relatively low level in 1961, rose quite rapidly, particularly during the second half of 1962. Consumption, nevertheless, still remains somewhat subdued, it being estimated that real consumption per head of the total population was no higher in 1962 than in 1959, i.e. the ground lost during the previous two years has only now been recovered.

Current purchases of goods and services by public authorities increased by 14.3 per cent from 1961 to 1962. As I anticipated last year, this made an important contribution to the economic revival in certain sectors of secondary industry, especially if it is borne in mind that taxation increased by a far lesser amount.

Gross private fixed investment in 1962 was only 1.6 per cent higher than in 1961. However, this figure conceals a noticeable improvement in the fixed capital investment of private manufacturing, which compensated for the decline in fixed investment in mining and in residential building. The large capital expansion projects in the public sector have as yet not reached their full momentum, and the fixed investment in this sector accordingly shows no more than a slight rise.

If we examine conditions in the principal economic sectors, we find that secondary industry in particular made good progress. The index of the physical volume of manufacturing production for 1962 was 5.9 per cent above that for 1961; in the case of transport equipment, metal products, and paper and paper products, amongst others, the increase was substantially higher. Prospects in the building industry likewise show a material improvement; and the index of building plans passed during the fourth quarter of 1962 was 50 per cent above the level for the corresponding period in 1961, although still below the record level of 1960.

Gold production once more reached a new record figure in 1962, and the value of production of other minerals, excluding uranium, showed a modest increase.

Agriculture again experienced unfavourable climatic conditions in 1962, but still the production of several agricultural products reached a high level and. in some cases, surpluses arose. The aggregate income derived from agriculture, forestry and fishing showed little change over the year.

In general, domestic economic conditions presented a clearly perceptible picture of economic revival during the past year. This impression is confirmed by other economic indicators, such as railway revenue, bank debits, transactions in real property, and employment. A particularly gratifying feature of this revival is the decline in unemployment: last month the number of registered unemployed Whites, Coloureds and Asiatics was 34 per cent lower than 12 months ago, and the present level can be regarded as about normal. According to a sample survey by the Bureau of Census and Statistics, there was a moderate improvement during 1961-2 in the profits of private undertakings, while the prices of shares on the Stock Exchange rose substantially. In some respects, such as personal consumption expenditure, the revival has not yet advanced far enough, and some financial fertilizer may have to be applied—if it can be afforded.

Before proceeding to a further examination of this aspect, I wish to take a brief look at—

The Balance of Payments

This nook of our financial garden has. in the past, been the source of some trouble, but I am glad to be able to report that it now presents a picture of health and vigour.

Merchandise exports registered a small rise to R944,000,000 in 1962, while imports likewise increased moderately to R 1,044,000,000. Gold production, however, rose by almost 10 per cent, and payments in respect of services and other net invisibles declined substantially. Consequently, the current account of the balance of payments rendered a surplus of no less than R295,000,000 for the year.

On capital account there was a net outflow of private capital of R72,000,000 in 1962, despite an inflow of overseas long-term capital of at least R20,000,000. The main components of the net outflow were the repayment of foreign loans by public corporations and municipalities, as well as in respect of uranium production (R36,000,000), and the purchase of South African shares abroad under the schemes which I announced last year, namely, those in terms of which the net price differential between the Johannesburg and London Stock Exchanges accrues to the Defence Special Equipment Account.

The net capital outflow on account of official and banking institutions amounted to R57,000,000, comprising mainly repayments in respect of certain official loans.

The Reserve Bank’s gold and foreign exchange reserves increased during 1962 by R 154,000,000 to reach a figure of R431,000,000 as at 31 December—the highest year-end figure in 15 years. Since the beginning of the year the Reserve Bank’s reserves have increased further to R460,000,000 on 15 March. In addition to these reserves, the Government and the commercial banks held R60,000,000 in foreign exchange on 31 December 1962, and this also forms part of the Republic’s official reserves. The total official reserves increased by R 188,000,000 during 1962.

Naturally, I do not expect the large current surplus in the balance of payments to continue at the exceptionally high level of 1962. Indeed, since the middle of 1962 imports have been tending upwards, as a result of the internal economic revival and relaxations of import control, while exports have been declining—partly because of lower prices. It is nevertheless anticipated that the current account for 1963 as a whole will show an ample surplus. As far as the capital account is concerned, certain public and private loans require to be repaid, but since other capital transactions are being controlled, and having regard to the high level of our reserves, I do not expect the balance of payments to cause us anxiety in the coming year, even if domestic economic activity should turn sharply upwards.

The large surplus in the balance of payments exercised an important influence on another aspect of our economy, namely—

The Monetary and Financial Position

Financial institutions attained an exceptionally high degree of liquidity in 1962, and credit accordingly became freely available. Interest rates, especially short-term rates, dropped sharply, and the Reserve Bank reduced its discount rate twice. Its present rate of 3½ per cent is the lowest for 11 years.

The excess liquidity in the economy created special problems for the money market. The Treasury deemed it advisable to afford relief by maintaining the weekly Treasury bill tender at a relatively high level—higher than was needed to meet Government expenditure— and its balances with the Reserve Bank consequently increased considerably. In addition, the commercial banks were permitted to invest limited amounts abroad on a temporary basis, under cover of “swop” agreements with the Reserve Bank. The schemes for the purchase of South African shares abroad naturally also brought relief.

In recent months, however, the financial situation has changed in response to the measures referred to above and also as a result of the accelerated tempo of internal economic activity. Thus total money at call with the National Finance Corporation and the Discount Houses declined by 22 per cent, i.e. much more than seasonally, between the end of October 1962 and the end of January. Over the same period the commercial banks’ ratio of liquid assets to liabilities to the public declined from 53.3 per cent to 47.7 per cent, while the Reserve Bank’s ratio of legal reserves to liabilities to the public dropped from 96.8 per cent at the end of October to 73.8 per cent at the end of February.

Thus it would appear that the country’s financial liquidity is no longer as excessively high as it was a few months ago, and this trend is likely to continue. Having regard, however, to the present absence of pressure in the money and capital markets, I do not expect any considerable scarcity of loanable funds, nor any substantial rise in interest rates, to occur in the near future. In other words, financial conditions remain fair for an acceleration of the economy’s rate of growth.

Fiscal Policy

Having completed this brief survey of the main aspects of the economy, the question remains whether the rate of growth is satisfactory in all respects and whether fiscal measures require to be applied in order to attain optimum growth in the various sectors.

While the current economic revival is encouraging, it has probably not advanced far enough. As I have indicated, personal consumption has, in effect, no more than recovered from a trough to the level of 1959. In recent months, the principal gains occurred in the field of durable consumer goods, and it is possible, therefore, that the growth rate will decline below the current level as soon as consumers have satisfied their immediate demands for these types of goods. It is also possible that the revival of consumption is due, in part at least, to temporary factors, namely, the tax holiday under the new system of income-tax payment, and the accompanying repayment of tax redemption certificates. Admittedly, the recent salary and wage increases in the Railway Administration, the Public Service, and other organizations, and perhaps also the repayment of loan levies to an amount of R 19,900,000 in 1963-4, will have a stimulating effect on consumption, but it seems to me that some slack requires to be taken up before an increase in consumption can lead to demand inflation.

As far as investment is concerned, it would seem that some more time is likely to elapse before the capital programmes in the public sector will make a significant contribution to total expenditure. In the private sector, investment may perhaps not increase substantially until entrepreneurs are convinced that a sharp rise in consumption is imminent. In any event, several investment incentives, such as the initial and investment allowances, already feature in our fiscal system for the time being.

I conclude that a stimulation of consumption is indeed desirable, particularly since our balance of payments and foreign exchange reserves are so strong that any resultant increase in imports can be accommodated with ease.

The effect of fiscal measures on the cost structure always demands close attention, especially in South Africa where the gold-mining industry is so sensitive to any form of inflation. There are several vulnerable gold mines, operating either at a loss or on a very small margin of profit, which would be hard hit by any increase in costs. Even in the richer mines there are bodies of low-grade ore the mining of which may become uneconomic if production costs should rise. It is estimated that an increase of 25 cents per ton in the average cost of production will entail the loss of 11,500,000 ounces of gold, valued at R287,500,000.

There are other export industries to which production costs are likewise of vital importance, and competition in our overseas markets is likely to increase in intensity. Britain’s deferred accession to the European Economic Community will afford some of these industries a breathing space, but we dare not for one moment relax in our efforts to achieve greater economic efficiency in order to become more competitive in world markets.

As I have indicated, I am convinced that there is little danger that a judicious stimulation of consumption will lead to general demand inflation. It is possible that some bottlenecks will develop as economic activity increases, particularly with respect to skilled labour, and that this may lead to rising costs in certain industries. Similarly, the salary and wage increases, to which I have referred, may increase the country’s cost structure: already they have given rise to higher railway rates amd other cost increases. It is true that retail prices advanced by only ½ per cent during the second half of 1962, but the wholesale price index of South African goods rose by 2.7 per cent. The danger of cost inflation cannot therefore be ignored, and we shall have to see whether something cannot be done to reduce the cost-structure—provided the financial position makes this possible.

I now proceed to a discussion of the Government’s accounts for—

Expenditure on Revenue Account promises to be somewhat less than originally estimated. Revenue, however, may be R19,000,000 higher, mainly as a result of increased receipts from income-tax on gold mines and companies, from excise duties, especially on motor-cars, from transfer duty, and from miscellaneous receipts. I expect the year to close with a surplus of R28,000,000.

Expenditure on Loan Account will probably fall considerably short of the amount provided in the Main Estimates, as a result of savings on Water Affairs, Housing, and Agricultural Technical Services. The funds available will be considerably higher in consequence of the bigger opening balance on Loan Account at the beginning of the year (R38,000,000 instead of the expected R13,000,000), larger subscriptions to our local long-term loans (R14,000,000 more than expected), higher receipts from the Public Debt Commissioners, and a bigger issue of Treasury bills to the public. This last-mentioned measure was, as I have indicated, a deliberate step to assist money market institutions in finding suitable investments for their liquid funds. In the final result, the financial year 1962-3 is estimated to close with a credit balance of R47,000,000—despite the fact that the Government did not utilize the revolving credit of R28,000,000 obtained from a group of American banks in January 1962.

I shall now present a review of—

The Loan Account, 1963-4

The estimates of Expenditure from Loan Account which I shall table amount to R298,800,000—R71,000,000 more than the Main Estimates for the current financial year.

This increase is due partly to the considerable amount provided under the Vote “Commerce and Industries” for the synthetic rubber project (R 16,000,000), and for the development of border areas (R5,000,000). Under the Vote “State Advances” an additional amount of R2,400,000 is requested for the farmers’ rehabilitation assistance scheme, while an additional amount of R2,100,000 is included in the Vote “Lands and Settlements” in respect of the purchase of land for Government water schemes—mainly the Orange River project. The provision for Housing has been increased by R3,000,000. An amount of R4,000,000 has been included under “Public Works” for payment to the Cape Provincial Administration in respect of capital assets taken over in conjunction with the transfer of Coloured Education, but a corresponding reduction has been effected in the appropriate provision under Loan Vote A, as a loan to the Province. R70,000,000 is provided for the Railways— the same amount as for 1962-3.

Under a new Loan Vote—Defence—we have provided for a contribution of R26,11 1,000 to the Defence Special Equipment Account. This represents a departure from our normal peace-time policy of covering all defence expenditure out of current revenue. But. for South Africa, the present time may almost be regarded as a period of cold war, calling for large expenditures over a relatively short period on expensive defence equipment. A large proportion of this equipment, particularly those items financed out of the Special Account, is of a capital nature and is not expected to require replacement in the near future. Finally, I might remind the House that when, in the early ’fifties, we experienced difficulty in financing the Loan Account, we did not hesistate to divert current revenue to Loan Account, nor to transfer certain services from Loan Account to Revenue Account. In this way we maintained our public debt at a low level. In the present changed circumstances when it should not be as difficult as in the past to finance the Loan Account, but when the Revenue Account is in need of relief, I consider it fully justified to charge the Loan Account with a portion of our heavy defence expenditure.

In the current financial year R 10,000,000 of the grant to the South African Native Trust for the purchase of land and the development of the Bantu areas was provided on Loan Account. I consider it justified, for the same reasons as those advanced in connection with the Defence Special Equipment Account, that the full grant—R25,000,000—he included in the Loan Account in 1963-4, as was customary prior to 1958.

In addition to the expenditure appearing in the Loan Estimates (R298,800,000), the following items have to be covered by the Loan Account:

Our total requirements, therefore, amount to R404,700,000.

Holders of the R40,700,000 of local stock will be given the opportunity to convert into new Government loans, and I am hopeful that the full amount will be subscribed to the new loans.

The issue of 4½ per cent tax free Treasury bonds will be continued, and the holders of the 1958-9 5 per cent bonds, now to be repaid, will be offered conversion into the 4½ per cent bonds, irrespective of their existing holdings in the latter.

The issue of blocked rand bonds will also continue for the time being.

The revolving credit loan of R28,600,000, from a group of American banks, expires in January 1964. Prospects for its renewal are good. We made no drawing against it during the current financial year, but the full amount will be available in 1963-4.

Apart from the revolving credit, it should not prove unduly difficult to negotiate new external loans, or the renewal of existing ones, for an amount of R20,000,000.

Treasury bills in the hands of the public increased by approximately R40,000,000 during the current year, but as the money market is unlikely henceforth to maintain the same high degree of liquidity, I consider an increase of R15,000,000 in 1963-4 to be reasonable.

The funds available to the Loan Account should, therefore, be as follows:

This leaves a credit balance of R600,000 in the Loan Account at the end of the financial year 1963-4.

I now come to the—

Estimates of Expenditure on Revenue Account, 1963-4

The Estimates which I shall table, amount to R841,500,000, i.e. approximately R42,000,000 more than the Main and Supplementary Estimates for 1962-3.

Under “Defence” provision is made for an amount of R 122,000,000, compared with R 120,000,000 for the current year. The total amount available for Defence in 1963-4 includes a further R26,000,000 which, as I have explained, will be voted on Loan Account, plus R7,000,000 from the 1961-2 surplus voted for the Defence Special Equipment Account in the Additional Estimates for 1962-3, plus a further contribution of about R2,000,000 to the Special Account emanating from the schemes for share purchases abroad—a total, therefore, of R 157,000,000. During the current year this last-mentioned source also yielded about R2,000,000. In actual fact, therefore, this year’s provision for Defence exceeds last year’s by R35,000,000. This is the formidable price we are called upon to pay for our protection against foreign aggression—but a price which I commend to the House with confidence. The garden created with so much toil by us and by our forebears must never be trampled by foreign intruders, but to prevent that we need strong fences and doubly guarded gateways.

This need has not diminished in any way during the past year of continued world tension. On the contrary! And the prospects are that we shall be called upon to pay this premium on our policy of national security on a considerable scale for some years to come.

A responsible Government also has to ensure the country’s internal security, and an additional R5,000,000 is being requested under the Vote “Police”.

This additional expenditure of R40,000,000 in respect of national security should, to the extent that it is incurred within the country, also make a direct contribution to the economic revival.

An amount of R4,600,000 is provided under the Votes “Coloured Affairs”, “Social Welfare and Pensions”, and “Public Works” in respect of the transfer of Coloured Education from the Cape Province as from 1 January 1964. The subsidy to the Province, however, has been reduced by R3,140,000.

Compared with 1962-3, there is a reduction of R8,700,000 under the Vote “Bantu Administration and Development”, but this is due to the fact that the full grant to the Native Trust for the purchase of land and the development of the Bantu homelands has been provided on the Loan Account. If this grant is taken into account, the provision for Bantu Administration and Development is actually R6,300,000 more than in 1962-3.

Apart from this grant, and the provision for Defence, the total amount requested in this Budget exceeds the corresponding figure for 1962-3 by R49,600,000. The increased salaries and wages in the Public Service (excluding Defence), and the consequential enhancement of the Provincial subsidies, account for R8,600,000 of the increase. The balance of R41,000,000 represents a normal expansion of approximately 6 per cent in Government activities, spread over various Departments.

There is one section of our garden on which it always pleases me to bestow abundant care but for which, unfortunately, the necessary means are sometimes lacking: it is the pensioners’ nook. I propose to include additional provision in the Supplementary Estimates in respect of—

Social Pensions

Our system of social pensions is really designed to be augmentative. The individual citizen is expected to provide for himself against old age and infirmity and he becomes eligible for State assistance by means of a pension or allowance only if his own provision proves inadequate. The pension, therefore, is not meant to meet the pensioner’s full needs; such a principle would impose on the Treasury an extremely onerous burden.

It has to be recognized, however, that there are many pensioners who possess no assets whatsoever, and who consequently find themselves in more necessitous circumstances than others who own a house or some other form of investment.

Because their need is highest, it has been decided to grant additional relief at the rate of R30 per annum per person in the case of White pensioners and beneficiaries who have no assets of their own and whose casual income does not exceed R60 per annum. Proportionate additional relief will also be granted to non-White pensioners and beneficiaries who fall in the same category. This means that the maximum amount payable to, for example, a White old-age pensioner who is eligible for this assistance, will now be in creased from R294 per annum to R324 per annum.

Maintenance grants payable in terms of the Children’s Act consist of a grant to parents and a grant in respect of children. The first-mentioned has, as in the case of social pensions and disability grants, been increased from time to time by way of bonuses, whereas the latter has remained unchanged. It has, therefore, been decided in the case of White persons to pay an additional allowance of R24 per annum in respect of a child attending a primary school and R48 per annum in respect of a child attending a high school. These increases are subject to the condition that the children must attend school, as parents have greater expenses in regard to school-going children, especially in regard to those attending high school.

Family allowances will be increased on the same basis.

In the case of a widow or other unmarried person who is a White person and who is in receipt of a maintenance grant, it has been decided to increase the present bonus from R 12.50 per month to R18 per month. In this connection proportionate increases will also be paid to non-White persons.

The capitation grants contributed by the State in respect of children in need of care, who have been committed to children’s homes by children’s courts in terms of the Children’s Act, have, since 1 October 1958 amounted to 64 per cent of the annual cost, as estimated at that time, of providing such child with a reasonable standard of care and education. It has now been decided to recalculate the State’s contribution on the basis of present unit costs. Furthermore, the percentage contribution is to be raised to 66 per cent, in the form of increased per capita and special allowances.

The rates at which grants to foster-parents are paid to private persons for the care of children in need of care, are the same as the capitation grants payable to children’s homes. Following the increase of the grants to children’s homes, corresponding increases in respect of foster-parents will be made.

The foregoing decisions will take effect from 1 April 1963 and the cost will amount to R4,100,000.

I feel that certain concessions are also justified in respect of—

Civil Pensions

A civil pensioner is eligible for an allowance if the amount of his pension and income from gainful employment does not exceed the prescribed means limit. In the case of a married pensioner the maximum amount of the allowance which may be granted is also determined according to the amount of the pension. For instance, the maximum allowance is R196 per annum in the case of a married White pensioner whose pension does not exceed R100 per annum: if the pension exceeds R100 per annum a maximum allowance of R294 may be granted.

It is now proposed to abolish this barrier so that in future a married White pensioner will qualify for the higher maximum allowance even if his pension is R100 per annum or less. A comparable concession is also being made in respect of Coloured and Asiatic pensioners who are married—as a matter of fact the majority of Coloured pensioners will benefit under this concession.

It has further been decided to increase the maximum allowance from R294 to R360 per annum in the case of a married White pensioner, and from R98 to R156 per annum in the case of an unmarried White pensioner.

I would, however, emphasize that not every civil pensioner will benefit as a result of these increases. Those who are at present in receipt of an allowance less than the maximum, by reason of the operation of the means limit, will not receive an increase. It is anticipated, however, that the overwhelming majority of civil pensioners who at present receive the allowance will benefit.

Where a civil pensioner is bedridden, or seriously disabled by ill health, his allowance is augmented by way of a further allowance, known as a “medical allowance In the case of a married White pensioner the maximum medical allowance is R38 per annum if his pension exceeds R100 per annum. It is now proposed to increase these maxima to R120 per annum. A proportionate increase will be made in the case of Coloured and Asiatic civil pensioners.

If a civil pensioner is admitted to a Provincial hospital as a non-paying patient, his medical allowance is withdrawn. His ordinary allowance is also withdrawn if he remains in hospital for more than six months. It is now proposed to abolish this rule so that a civil pensioner will in future continue to receive both his medical and his ordinary allowance while he is in hospital.

In order to ease administrative work, it has been decided that the granting or increase of temporary allowances shall take effect from the first day of the month in which the pensioner becomes entitled thereto, and that cancellations or reductions shall take effect from the first day of the month following the month in which the pensioner ceases to be entitled to the allowance or becomes entitled to a reduced allowance.

The concessions in respect of civil pensioners will take effect from 1 April 1963 and will cost approximately R630,000.

Additional assistance is also required in respect of—

Bantu Education

Since the annual contribution from the Revenue Account to the Bantu Education Account was fixed at R13,000,000, the latter Account has had to assume considerable further obligations, particularly in respect of higher education. It has accordingly been decided that an amount of R2,000,000 will be transferred to that Account in 1963-4 to cover expenditure on higher education up to 1962-3. To meet similar expenditure as from 1963-4, an annual amount not exceeding R 1,500,000 will be paid into the Account, but for 1963-4 the relative amount will be limited to R1,250,000.

The Finance Bill, 1963, will accordingly provide for the transfer of R3,250,000 to the Bantu Education Account.

It has further been decided that as from 1 April 1963 the full amount of the Bantu General Tax (instead of four-fifths as heretofore) will accrue to the Bantu Education Account. The previous arrangement under which one-fifth was paid over to the Native Trust now falls away.

I should add that the collection of Bantu taxes leaves much to be desired and ways and means are being examined of improving collections in European areas.

The total expenditure on Revenue Account, including the R4,700,000 for pensions and R3,250,000 for Bantu Education, is accordingly estimated at R849,500,000.

The next step is the—

Estimate of Revenue, 1963-4

The introduction of P.A.Y.E. renders it extremely difficult to arrive at an accurate estimate of revenue for the ensuing financial year.

Despite these uncertain factors, I have endeavoured to arrive at the best possible estimate, but the margin of error may be considerable. With this proviso, and on the existing basis of taxation, the revenue for 1963-4 is estimated at R835,200,000. This figure exceeds the revised estimate for 1962-3 by R26,000,000. The principal increases relate to income tax on individuals (R1 1,300,000) and companies (R5,700,000) and customs and excise duties (R8,500,000).

Bearing in mind the prevailing economic conditions, I propose to follow the same course as last year by retaining the estimated surplus for 1962-3 (R28,000,000) in the Revenue Account.

The total funds available to the Revenue Account thus amount to R863,200,000, i.e. R13,700,000 more than the estimated expenditure. This leaves some room for tax reductions.

The reductions selected should comprise those best calculated to promote our economic objectives, namely, the stimulation of private consumption and the repression of cost inflation. Before further examining the most suitable measures, I wish to announce certain steps for the further rationalization of our tax system and to stimulate our economy in other ways.

Although the expansion of consumption deserves the main emphasis, we should also try to stimulate investment. The first aspect demanding attention is the—

Investment Allowances

Last year these allowances were extended to 30 June 1965, in respect of equipment and machinery, and 30 June 1966 in respect of buildings, provided the erection of the buildings was commenced before 30 June 1965. For equipment and machinery the allowances will now be further extended to the tax year ending 28 February 1966 while for buildings they will be extended until the tax year ending 28 February, 1967 provided the erection of the buildings was commenced prior to 30 June 1966.

The enhanced allowances for the Bantu and border areas will be extended for similar periods.

Gold Mines

I have received strong representations for a general reduction of gold mining taxation. Whilst realizing that, in some cases, the tax rate under the formula can be considerable, I consider that a reduction which will primarily benefit the richer mines and their shareholders, cannot enjoy first priority under present conditions. But I desire to do something for the further expansion and development of the industry, and I propose three concessions.

Firstly, financial and prospecting companies will be permitted to deduct from taxable income, immediately as they are incurred, all exploration and prospecting expenditures (heretofore these items could be deducted only when the venture was turned to account or was abandoned).

Secondly, the concession relating to “new” gold mines (i.e. gold mines established after 28 February 1946), permitting them to deduct from taxable income any capital expenditure, as and when incurred, will now be extended to all deep level gold mines. This will assist the older properties to mine at deeper levels. Thirdly, the capital allowance of 5 per cent on unredeemed capital expenditure, at present applicable to all deep level gold mines, will henceforth apply to all new gold mines, i.e., mines established after 20 March 1963.

The loss of revenue should not be large in the initial stage—perhaps R200,000 in 1963-4— but I would hope that these concessions will, nevertheless, provide a positive incentive towards further expansion and development in this key industry.

A Cabinet sub-committee is at present examining the problem of extending the lives of gold mines having reserves of gold-bearing ore but operating at a slender profit, or even at a loss. The problem is not an easy one. Tax concessions offer no solution, since most of the mines pay little tax or no tax at all. Perhaps a Minister of Finance can make no better contribution than to keep inflation under strict control. The problem is, nevertheless, causing the Government concern and all possible measures will be considered.

Agriculture

Following representations received from, inter alia, the South African Agricultural Union, it has been decided to effect the following modifications to the basis on which the value of livestock is arrived at in determining farming income:

1. (1) Investigation has shown that in numerous cases, mortality allowance bestows a small benefit in the first year of assessment but that this benefit is normally wiped out in the last year of assessment, because of the fact that the allowance is not applicable when the livestock is sold or when the farmer dies.
   It has accordingly been decided to abolish the mortality allowance as from the commencement of the 1963 year of assessment.
2. (2) The provisions in the Act concerning livestock purchased for breeding purposes will be amended in the following respects:
   1. (a) The provision that livestock pur chased for breeding purposes are to be accounted for at cost, will only apply to livestock, the purchase price of which exceeds a specified minimum amount. The minimum amounts in respect of the different classes of animals have been determined after consultation with the several Livestock Breeders’ Associations.
      If the purchase price is lower than the minimum amount specified. or if the animal has been bred by the taxpayer, the appropriate standard value, chosen by the taxpayer, will apply.
   2. (b) A special discount will apply in the determination of the value of such livestock. This discount will be calculated at the rate of 10 per cent per annum of the purchase price, for a maximum period of ten years, and will replace the mortality allowance previously permitted. This discount will not apply in respect of animals bred by the farmer. or animals purchased at prices below the specified minimum prices.
   3. (c) On the death or insolvency of the taxpayer, the value of the livestock will be calculated at the full market value. As the Act now stands, the value has to be determined on the basis of purchase price, even if. as is usually the case, the purchase price exceeds the market value.

While these concessions will be important to individual farmers, the resultant loss of revenue will probably not exceed R100,000.

Export Concessions

The concession to exporters, which I introduced last year, only benefits those exporters who succeed in increasing their export turnover. Many exporters, however, have to battle hard in export markets and, despite their best efforts, may still fail to expand their exports. In my view they, too, deserve a measure of support, and accordingly I propose that, as from the 1963 tax year, all exporters (as defined) should be entitled to deduct 125 per cent of allowable expenses incurred in the development of export markets, irrespective of whether they succeed in increasing their exports or not. Those who succeed in expanding their exports by more than 10 per cent, will continue to qualify for the enhanced deductions. The loss of revenue for the financial year 1963-4 is estimated at R 1,900,000.

Donations

Representations have reached me from various quarters for an extension of the concession which I introduced in 1960 in respect of donations to universities for laboratory and other facilities in the departments of pure science and technology. It is, however, impossible to assess the relative merits of all the various religious, cultural, educational, scientific, or charitable institutions which wish to qualify for this concession, and the cost of extending it to all of them is too high. I wish to emphasize again that this concession was designed to meet a quite exceptional problem, namely, the provision of costly facilities for training and research in a field in which expansion is vital for the future of our country. I am, therefore, not prepared to extend the concession to other institutions or faculties. However, to enable donors to spread their donations over a few years, I propose that the existing concession be renewed for a period of five years.

Contributions to Pension Funds and Retirement Annuity Funds

At present an employee is permitted to deduct from his taxable income any contribution to a pension fund, up to a maximum of R400 per annum, provided such contribution is a condition of employment. This maximum limit was determined some years ago, and I propose that, in the changed circumstances of to-day, it be increased to R600. For the same reasons, and in order not to disturb the existing ratio, the maximum contribution by a self-employed person to a retirement annuity fund, which qualifies for deduction from taxable income, will be increased from R800 to R1,200 per annum. This concession will cost R300,000, and will be introduced with effect from the tax year ending on 29 February 1964.

Insurance Premiums

The rebate in respect of insurance premiums and contributions paid in respect of a provident fund, friendly society or the Unemployment Insurance Fund, amounts to 7 per cent of such premiums or contributions, but subject to a maximum deduction of R17. This maximum was fixed several years ago and I consider that an enhancement is justified. I propose that the maximum deduction be increased to R25. The loss of revenue will eventually amount to R400,000 per annum, but the cost in the financial year 1963-4. when the concession will be introduced, will only be R 100,000.

Interest on Arrear Transfer Duty

In terms of the Act, interest on arrear transfer duty at present requires to be calculated at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. In my view this rate is excessive, and I propose that it be reduced to 7½ per cent as from to-day. The loss of revenue will be approximately R 100,000.

Wine

When I introduced the tax on unfortified wines last year, I sought to adjust the tax to the class of wine determined price-wise. In the relatively short time available, it was impossible, however, to devise a suitable and equitable formula. Members on both sides of the House expressed regret that such a formula could not be found. However, I did not despair of finding a solution and my Department has, in the meantime, come forward with a practical formula which has the effect of increasing the burden on the more expensive unfortified wines, relative to the less expensive types, but rendering approximately the same tax expressed as a percentage of the price.

Details will appear in the Taxation Proposals which I shall table. Briefly, the suggestion is to classify unfortified wines into groups according to their wholesale free-on-rail price.

In lieu of the existing uniform excise duty of 15c per gallon on all unfortified wines, the following new excise duties will become payable—

This will have the effect of reducing by three-fifths the existing duty on the inexpensive wines—by far the largest quantity. The duty will now be only lc per bottle instead of 2½c.

Medium-priced wines will now bear four-fifths of the existing duty, i.e., 2c per bottle instead of 2½c. The most expensive wines, which consitute a small proportion of the total, will be taxed somewhat higher, viz., 3c per bottle instead of 2½c, but I am sure that this will not deter the consumer of this type of wine.

Naturally, these proposals will entail a considerable sacrifice of revenue, viz. R800,000 per annum, but I am convinced that the House, bearing in mind the justice of the proposals advanced on both sides last year, will reconcile itself to this sacrifice of revenue.

When the tax of 2½c per bottle was imposed last year on all unfortified wines, some merchants seized the opportunity to increase prices—in some cases by twice the amount of the tax. I make an earnest appeal to these merchants now to show equal enthusiasm in reducing their prices in appropriate proportion.

Imported wines will likewise be classified into value brackets.

Thus far I have given attention to the rather specialized treatment required by certain plants in our financial garden. I now come to a general application of fertilizer which will, I hope, promote soil fertility in the entire garden.

Petrol and Diesoline

Last year when I increased the customs and excise duty on petrol and diesoline by lc per gallon. I said that it was the only taxation measure in that Budget which would to a certain extent, spread its effect throughout the economy. The repeal of this measure, therefore, suggests itself as a means to combat cost inflation.

The customs and excise duty on petrol and on diesoline used for road transport (i.e., diesoline bearing the full duty) will accordingly be reduced by lc per gallon, and in this case, too, I expect the benefit of the concession to be passed on to the consumer.

The loss of revenue following the reduction in duty on petrol and diesoline is estimated at R5,100,000.

The proposals relating to wine—reduction and increase in duty alike—and the reduction of the duty on petrol and diesoline, will take immediate effect; that is to say, in the case of excise duty, in respect of goods removed as from this moment from manufacturers’ non-duty-paid stocks; and in the case of customs duty, in respect of goods entered as from this moment. The public should obtain the benefit of the reductions as soon as duty-paid stocks have been absorbed.

Income Tax on Individuals

Under present circumstances, a reduction of income tax on individuals will, in my view, provide the best general stimulant for consumer spending. Admittedly, it is of no benefit to the individual whose income falls below the taxable level, but obviously I cannot restore that which I have never taken away. In any event, nearly an equal amount is appropriated in this Budget to the various classes of pensioners. their total appropriation now being almost R70,000,000 per annum. I think the simplest means of benefiting the broad bulk of taxpayers and of stimulating consumption, psychologically as well as financially, is by allowing a discount of 5 per cent on income tax on individuals, and I propose accordingly. The discount will take effect from the tax year ending on 29 February 1964 and the loss of revenue will amount to R5,000,000. Provincial income-tax will continue to be calculated on this year’s basis, and no automatic loss of revenue is, therefore, involved for the Provinces.

Summary

The Revenue Account for 1963-4 may now be summarized as follows:

On the basis of these Estimates the year should close with a surplus of R100,000.

Last year, as also in earlier Budgets, I emphasized that economic and financial stability demands a measure of flexibility in fiscal and monetary policy. I repeat what I said on that occasion:

This is true of the budgetary mechanism as well. This year I again depart from custom by retaining the estimated revenue surplus in the Revenue Account, instead of transferring it to Loan Account. In addition, certain items of expenditure which are equally appropriate to either the Loan or the Revenue Account, are transferred to the former. This applies to the R26,000,000 under the Vote “Defence”, and to the R25,000,000 grant to the Native Trust Fund, which grant was, in fact, financed from Loan Account until 1958.

If I had been rigid, inflexible and doctrinaire in my budgetary practices, increased taxation would have been unavoidable if we were to meet the heavy demands of Defence in what amounts practically to a cold war. By imparting the necessary, strictly controlled, degree of flexibility to the budgetary mechanism, it has been found possible to avoid further taxation. By transferring the current year’s revenue surplus to next year’s Revenue Account—in itself a departure from our normal budgetary practice—I have been able to extend further relief to pensioners, to make a contribution towards lowering the cost structure, and to give a further incentive to consumption and investment in order to stimulate the general economic revival.

I should make it quite clear that while the budgetary mechanism should be flexible, it should never be permitted to become the tool of capricious management. If it is bent in the direction which will benefit the Revenue Account, this should be strictly justified by the needs of the economy, and it also presupposes that, if the economy so demands, it will be bent in the apposite direction to serve the interests of the Loan Account, as we have been called upon to do in the past. The Minister of Finance is expected to indicate clearly when he deems it necessary to bend the mechanism in one direction or the other, and to account for his actions. I am fully prepared to justify this year’s departures from normal practice.

This Budget puts generous amounts into the hands of the consumer for consumption or investment. There are the enhanced payments to pensioners (R4,700,000), the repayment of the loan levy for 1958-9 (R1 9,900,000), and reductions in taxation (R13,600,000), In addition, there are the increased salaries in the Public Service and the Railways (R31,000,000); and no call is made on the pockets of consumers by way of increased taxes. In my view all this can be accomplished, in the particular conditions prevailing at present, with little or no real danger of creating demand inflation or balance of payments problems.

If the additional means provided in this Budget for private spending are properly devoted to improving our standard of living and expanding our investment potential, I shall have achieved my objective. A Minister of Finance cannot, through monetary and fiscal measures—in the final analysis the only means at my disposal—do more to translate the vision of economic upsurge into reality—so that the Republic’s economic garden may become a paradise of fragrance and colour, a picture of productivity and growth, and a source of sustenance and refreshment.

This is my hope in presenting this Budget to the House and to the country.

I second.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE laid upon the Table:

Estimates of Expenditure to be defrayed from Revenue, Bantu Education and Loan Accounts during the year ending 31 March 1964 and conveyed to the House for its consideration the State President’s recommendation of the appropriation contemplated in these Estimates of Expenditure.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE also laid upon the Table:

1. (1) Estimates of the Revenue to be received during the year ending 31 March 1964;
2. (2) White Paper in connection with the Budget Statement, 1963-4;
3. (3) Taxation proposals;
4. (4) Comparative figures of Revenue for 1962-3 and 1963-4:

Mr. Speaker, last year the hon. the Minister confessed to having a surplus of R5,000,000; three months later that had grown to R16,000,000. In other words, it had trebled itself in three months. Then he budgeted for a balanced Budget, and that is what he has done this afternoon. He has come along this afternoon and told us that he expects at the moment to have a surplus on Revenue Account of some R28,000,000, let alone R47,000,000 on his Loan Account. If the same thing happens that happened last year, goodness knows what the final surplus is going to be. But I may point out that this surplus of R28,000,000 is a bloated surplus extracted from the pockets of the taxpayers last year against our advice, and of that R28,000,000 he is now with great generosity returning something like half of it in the form of remission of taxation in some shape or other. Mr. Speaker, what kind of budgeting is this? The hon. gentleman is the fourth Minister of Finance with whom we have had to deal under this Government, and all four of them have been completely reliable men in one respect and in one respect only. We have always been able to rely on them to be completely unreliable when it came to framing their Estimates—not over 12 months, but even over three months, as was shown last year, and that goes back to the days of the late Mr. Havenga. These Ministers of Finance have not only been reliably unreliable, but have also been consistently inconsistent, as the hon. the Minister was this afternoon, I believe. On the one hand it is the practice to give a glowing picture of the soundness of the economy and the prosperity which is just round the corner under this heaven-sent Government, of the paradise which the hon. the Minister referred to, the paradise which he has been preparing for us. If I remember correctly, the year before last the hon. the Minister was a doctor. Last year I think he was a general. This year he has gone back to Adam and he has become a gardener.

But you remain a leremiah.

It remains to be seen to what extent he is now leading the country up the garden path in this Budget. [Laughter.] While on the one hand they talk about the brightness of the picture and of the future in front of all of us under this heaven-sent Government we have, on the other hand they proceed to budget apparently on the assumption that there will be no improvement during the year in the country’s economy. They say one thing and do exactly the opposite. They tell South Africa that it is batting on an extremely good wicket. They then go in to bat and they behave as if it is an extremely tricky wicket, on which they just stand prodding and poking, keeping their right foot firmly rooted to the batting crease. Is it any wonder, therefore, that for years past the general effect of the Budgets delivered in this House has been a depressing one on the morale and on the economic life of the country? Because if you have no confidence in your own predictions, you cannot expect other people to have confidence in them either.

After the clear hint given by the hon. the Prime Minister last September that last year’s Budget was based to some extent on wrong assumptions and that probably, had they known what they knew later, extra taxation might not have been necessary, and after the hon. the Prime Minister’s emphasis on the importance of what he called economic budgeting, we and the country had been led to expect this afternoon something of a new approach to the financial problems of the country. I am bound to say, Sir, that on the face of it it seems to me that we have had this afternoon very much the same mixture as before, with a small taste of sweetening added to it to sugar the pill. However, we shall be able to examine that more closely and discuss it more fully when we have had an opportunity of examining the Budget to see what good points we can find in it. I therefore move—

I second.

Agreed to; debate adjourned.

This Bill, although a measure of public policy, adversely affects or may adversely affect the private rights of persons in the localities dealt with. It must, therefore, be treated as a Hybrid Bill and at this stage referred to the Examiners for report in terms of Standing Order No. 188. Subsequently, if allowed to proceed, it must in terms of Standing Order No. 189 be referred to a Select Committee after second reading.

Mr. Speaker, listening to the trend of this debate, one cannot believe that this is the same United Party which we have known for the past 15 years, the party which has attacked this Government on every occasion for allegedly applying oppressive measures against the Bantu and for allegedly discriminating against the non-Whites. There are the Leftists amongst them who still talk to-day about “baasskap apartheid That same party has now emerged in this debate as the protector of the White man in South Africa against the so-called Black danger. In South Africa, just as in other countries in the world and in the rest of Africa, there has been a national awakening amongst the Black nations, who have become obsessed by a desire for freedom, and the larger nations in the world, the Western nations included, have tried to encourage this awakening process with fanatical zeal. The fact that this awakening has also taken place amongst the Bantu in South Africa is proved by the fact that the communists and the Leftist agitators have seized the opportunity to make full use of this awakening in an attempt to turn it to their advantage, to abuse it in order to achieve their own selfish ends. The United Party with their black record have not only posed as the protectors of the White man but have done something which is far more immoral in this debate. They criticize the policy of the Government. the policy which is unfolding here for the future, against the background of the conditions that existed in the past, whereas they praise their own future policy against the background of the past—just the opposite to what they are trying to do with our policy. The position as we have known it in this country and throughout the world where Western civilization, the White man, has ruled for the past few centuries, where the White man has exercised authority in every sphere of life and under which the Bantu here in South Africa have been perfectly satisfied and completely happy under the control of the White man, has disappeared. That position has been disturbed as the result of world events, as the result of a world tendency but also because of communist agitation and the actions of Leftist agitators here in our own country. That agitation has resulted in the disappearance of the position which existed here previously; those times have gone forever. It is the duty to-day of every political party which is interested in this very important problem to adapt its policy to these changed circumstances and to try to seek security for all sections of the population in this country. The National Party seeks the solution to this problem in a policy of separate development. This Bill is a further step along that road. That road leads to the ideal which the National Party has always set itself—that ideal which will make it possible for future generations, if it suits them to do so and if it is possible to do so, to bring about complete territorial apartheid in this country. That will always be possible under the policy followed by this party. The official Opposition, the United Party, have also made adjustments in order to overcome the position which is developing as the result of circumstances. They have also made adjustments and they are following a policy by means of which they hope to achieve a certain ideal. These adjustments which they have made in their policy statements are leading them to that ideal which they have set out to achieve, the ideal of one big, multi-racial nation, a multiracial nation which can only be achieved in one way and that is by way of integration.

A hodge-podge society.

The game of bluff which has been going on in this Black danger debate in which all the Right-wing members of that party have so far participated, with one exception …

Except the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell).

Yes, I say with one exception and that is the hon. member for Wynberg who struck a discordant note from their point of view. I say that this game of bluff is quite obvious.

It makes no impression on the people.

Mr. Speaker, they can raise these cries; they can make this type of speech because the Leftists amongst them are perfectly happy. The policy advocated by them, their integration policy under their race federation plan, which will lead to one big multiracial nation, is one which entirely satisfies the Leftists and which will realize the ideal of the Leftists, the ideal which they hope eventually to achieve in this country. It is also clear that the dangers inherent in this race federation policy are realized and that is why they are putting up smokescreens; that is why those dangers are hidden under the smokescreen of fine-sounding slogans like “orderly advance” and “White leadership with justice”. I say that the United Party are aware of the fact that this policy will eventually lead them to a point just beyond the “foreseeable future” that they talk about—to the point where there will be complete Black domination in this country. When we analyze their adjustments we find that at first they were perfectly satisfied with three White representatives for the Bantu in this House. Then they eventually recommended, or rather stated it as their policy, that there should not be three White representatives for the Bantu in this House but eight representatives. They have already held out the prospect that the next step will be that those eight White representatives may or will be eight Bantu representatives.

They are becoming Blacker and Blacker.

But those eight are still not enough; together with those eight we shall still have the representative of the Bantu homelands, as we call them. In terms of their policy those Bantu homeland representatives, who will be either White or non-White—they have not yet told us what the position will be—will come to this House. This is a further step along the road towards their eventual aim of one multi-racial nation under their race federation plan, and non-White supremacy in this House.

Where do you get that from?

I would recommend that the hon. member study the policy statements of his own leader. Those Black representatives whom they envisage and whom the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) also envisaged and who must inevitably come to this House, will come much sooner than many of them would like to see, because the hon. the Leader of the Opposition himself has said that there is a “growing body of opinion” in the community, not only in their ranks but also amongst other Opposition groups. That is in favour of giving the Bantu representation by their own people in this House. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) also made a similar statement the year before last at a meeting here in Rondebosch, the constituency of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, when he said that part of the United Party was already in favour of that policy. He was quite right because a number of items were set down for discussion on the secret agenda of the National Congress of the United Party held in Bloemfontein in 1961, items which came not from United Party individuals, not from branches but from constituencies and which asked specifically that the Bantu should be represented by Bantu in Parliament. They are trying as fast as they can to condition their own people to accept this idea. They are successful in their efforts and I do not doubt that eventually they will also convert the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) to that idea.

They have already softened the hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst).

This idea of representation of the Bantu by Bantu in this House is still a very sore point with the United Party. That is why promises are being made and undertakings given to the White voters, who have to place them in power. They are being promised that a referendum or an election will be held before non-White representation in this House is either increased or changed, apart from the representation which has already been announced in terms of their plan. These promises that are being made are of a twofold nature. In the first place the promise is being made to the White voters, the Rightwing White voters, that non-White representation in this House will not be increased without a specific instruction by way of a referendum or an election. But promises are also being made to the other side. We find that the hon. member for Yeoville had the following to say at Rondebosch on 1 May 1962 when he held a meeting there—

A completely different norm is now being applied; it is no longer a question of eight representatives; it is no longer a question of a guarantee that a special instruction will be asked for from the voters by way of a referendum or an election. No, a very clear policy is being laid down here. In other words, the new norm is that the stage of development will determine how many of those people will have direct representation here. I say that these promises are misleading and that they are nothing but a bluff. Why are they misleading? I want to prove this to the House. In the first place, if they come into power, they will come into power on the vote of people who already hold the view that this race federation plan of theirs must be implemented. After all, that is the policy that they advocate; that is what they have told the world.

Tell us something about the Bill.

I know that the hon. member does not want to hear these things. I know that he wants to hear something completely different; it does not suit him to hear these things. That hon. member must not tell me what I should say; I prefer to make my own speech.

Make your own speech then but make it about the Bill.

That hon. member is still waiting for the shock from outside. That is just a little foretaste.

The United Party have already conditioned their voters.

What clause is that?

I am grateful for the great wisdom that that hon. member has learned by this time. There are other examples that I can mention to prove that these promises are misleading. They will have in this Parliament members elected under their policy who will not permit them to carry out those promises to the Right-wing section or to the White voters. There will be eight representatives of the Bantu in this House; the representatives of the Bantu homelands will sit in this House and the representatives of those constituencies where the Coloured vote is the deciding factor will sit in this House who already believe in this new idea. My second reason for saying that this promise boils down to misleading the voters is this: As the United Party have become more and more liberal, they have stretched this promise more and more. In the first place the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made this promise to the members of his Congress at Bloemfontein and here I would like United Party members to correct me if I am wrong. According to evidence that I have the hon. the Leader of the Opposition promised those who attended the United Party Congress at Bloemfontein that it would only be the White voters who would have a say in regard to the question of increasing Bantu representation in this House. Is that so? I want to ask those hon. members whether the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that. A second similar statement is contained in an election pamphlet issued by that party prior to the 1961 election in which they state most emphatically that it will only be the White voter who will be consulted. Only last month we again had two examples of a deviation from that promise; now it will no longer be the White voters only who will be consulted; it will be the Whites and the Coloureds who will be consulted. The hon. member for Yeoville said this at a meeting at Carnarvon on 23 February. On 25 February a letter appeared in the Burger in reply to an attack by the hon. member for Innesdal, a letter from Mr. Bowring, the Secretary of the United Party in the Cape Peninsula, in which he said precisely the same thing, that the Whites and the Coloureds would decide whether Bantu representation in this House should be extended or not.

Since those promises have been made, I say here that the United Party is trying to pull wool over the eyes of the voters.

Order! The hon. member must come closer to the Bill. The hon. member is now discussing general policy. He can discuss policy in connection with the Transkei but he cannot discuss general policy.

On a point of order, may I have your ruling? During a second reading debate we have always been permitted to discuss tactics as well. The hon. member is now exposing the tactics, the technique of that side of the House, and I want to suggest to you that that is permissible to discuss these matters during a second reading debate.

The hon. member was discussing policy matters in general.

I will submit to your ruling, Sir. I just want to make this point in reply to what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said, namely that their policy, as an alternative policy to the Transkei policy of the National Party as embodied in this Bill, holds out less danger for South Africa than the policy of the National Party. I have already said that the promises that were made by them amount to nothing but bluff. They first said that only the Whites would be consulted in connection with Bantu representation in this House but at a later stage they said that both the Whites and the Coloureds would be consulted.

Order! The hon. member has now returned to the same point. The hon. member may discuss policy, but only in reference to the Transkei.

On a point of order, may I have your ruling? Is it not a fact that the hon. member is now discussing the Transkei plan as well as the policy advocated by the United Party as an alternative to the Transkei plan? We are dealing here with two policy directions. In order to prove the one, the hon. member must analyse the other. That is how I see it and I should like to have your ruling in this regard.

The hon. member is now discussing the representation of Coloureds in this House. He must come closer to the Bill.

May I just make this last point? The United Party have promised that they will increase Bantu representation in this House with the consent of the White voters. I say that in making that promise they simply tried to pull wool over the eyes of the voters, because in their own election paper, Election News of 1961, they gave a solemn undertaking. In this article they discuss Progressive Party policy and amongst other things they have the following to say—

They ask the Bantu to tell them what they want, but they do not want to consult the Bantu about their own representation in this House. In saying that this is a game of bluff, I think that I am correct therefore.

I am sure that the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Sadie) will forgive me if I do not deal with his remarks in this debate. I am sure that there are other members on this side who will in due course answer some of the fatuous statements that he has made. I want particularly to confine my remarks this afternoon to the unfortunate position of the Coloured people living in the Transkei who will be seriously affected by the terms of this Bill. Sir, as a representative of the Coloured community in this Parliament, I feel that I would be shirking my duty and responsibility to them if I did not record at once my protest against this measure. This Bill seeks to establish a constitution for the Transkei and seeks to confer so-called self-government upon the Bantu resident in or deriving from the Transkei. In due course I hope to deal with the Government’s idea, as envisaged in this Bill, of an adequate constitution and of what they regard as so-called self-government for the people living in the Transkei. For the present, however, and as a representative of the Coloureds, I want to confine my remark to the abject failure—I repeat, “the abject failure”—on the part of the Government to make any proper provision for the rights and privileges of the 14,000 Coloured people now living in the Transkei. These unfortunate people have been referred to, and rightly so, as the forgotten people of this country. This Bill certainly confirms that appellation. Sir, one is struck forcibly, almost with a sense of shock, by the manner in which the Government has ignominiously failed to deal with the rights of these unfortunate people. Much has been said in this debate, rightly so to my mind, about the Government’s failure to protect the rights of the White people living in the Transkei. I want to associate myself as an ordinary citizen of this country entirely with that criticism. There are as we know, some 20,000 White people now living in the Transkei who have the right to expect the utmost protection from any South African Government. What protection do those White people receive under this Bill? I suggest none whatsoever. In the light of the recent statement made by Chief Kaizer Matanzima, the chairman of the Transkeian Territorial Authority, to whose tender mercies, I suggest, these unfortunate people have now been left, one can imagine what protection they will receive. You can imagine. Sir, how much worse it is going to be in respect of these 14,000 Coloured people who are completely overlooked in this Bill and who will be left entirely to the mercy of this new Bantu Government which the Government seeks to establish in the Transkei. This Bill seeks to make provision for the so-called constitutional rights of large numbers of voters living outside the local geographic area but specifically excludes all non-Africans living inside the Transkei. This, to my mind, is one of the absurd and abnormal features of this Bill. The Government in this Bill seeks to include millions of people living outside the Transkei but specifically excludes the citizens who for generations have lived and are still living in the Transkei. To my mind this is one of the absurd situations which strikes one as one reads the provisions of this Bill. But for the present I want to confine my remarks to the situation of the Coloured people. Sir, according to the 1960 census, 13,716 Coloured people were then living in the Transkeian territories. I have no doubt at all that this number has substantially increased since that time. What is to happen to these people? How does the Government propose to deal with them? The only information that we have received officially from the Government in regard to these unfortunate, forgotten people is a rather vague statement made by the hon. the Prime Minister in this House on 13 April 1962. On that occasion, in response to appeals that were made by hon. members on this side of the House to the Prime Minister for a policy statement on the future of the Coloured people generally in South Africa and also for a declaration concerning the destinies of these unfortunate Coloured people living in the Transkeian territories, the hon. the Prime Minister made an official pronouncement. I quote his statement, which appears in Hansard, Vol. 3, col. 3923; this is what the hon. the Prime Minister said in referring to the Coloureds of the Transkei—

The hon. the Prime Minister admits now, Sir, that these people present a special problem.

This was what the hon. the Prime Minister said in April 1962 and other than that and a further statement to which I shall refer later, we have no official information as to what the Government has in mind in regard to those Coloured people.

Let me confine my inquiries to-day to those Coloureds who present this special problem to which the hon. the Prime Minister referred. I refer to the Coloured people who have not become assimilated with the Xhosa citizens but who have retained their identity as Coloured citizens and who have occupied farming areas in the Transkei all their lives. There are many of them, Sir. The hon. the Prime Minister told us that their problem could only be solved by means of some form of re-settlement. I ask the hon. the Minister in charge of this Bill where does the Government intend settling those unfortunate people? Have these people ever been consulted about where they are to be re-settled? Has any new area been determined for them? The hon. the Prime Minister told us that an inter-departmental commission had been appointed to inquire into the destinies of the Coloureds in all the Bantu areas of South Africa with special reference to the Coloured people living in the Transkei. I want to ask the Minister whether their report has been received?

Yes.

Has the Government seen this report? Why have we not seen it? I want to ask the Minister whether this Bill should be proceeded with until such time as the Government has decided what to do with those unfortunate Coloured people in the Transkei. They have lived there all their lives and they have retained their identity as Coloured people. Is it right that this Bill should be proceeded with with a total disregard of the political and economic rights of these unfortunate people? The Government must surely realize that there is a considerable number of these Coloured people who will not wish to continue to live in a Bantu state. I am sure there are many of them who will not wish to do so. Surely, Sir, we are entitled to know what the Government intends doing with regard to those people before we create a new state and deprive those people of their basic rights as citizens in their own country—and that is what is happening here. The Government is determined to establish a new State with a total disregard of a large number of people who are already living in the area concerned and without having made up its mind as to how those people are to be protected or what is to happen to them. Has the Government given consideration to the possibility that the Bantu leaders in this co-called independent Bantu state may not wish to permit the Coloured people to continue living there? We are giving the Bantu so-called complete autonomy in that area according to this Bill and it may very well be that the Bantu leaders there may not wish to allow the Coloureds to continue living there.

We have already had pronouncements by these Bantu leaders as to what they think of the White people who are to remain in the Transkei. I want to ask how much worse it is going to be for those unfortunate Coloured people. To my mind, Sir, it is surely unconscionable that the Government should proceed to deal seriously with the establishment of a new State without taking every precaution to see that our own citizens who have been resident there all their lives receive the fullest possible protection from this Government. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether there has been any consultation between the Government and the Bantu leaders in regard to the position of these unfortunate Coloured people? If so, I think this House is entitled to know what consultations have taken place. We are entitled to know how the Bantu leaders feel in regard to the Coloured people continuing to live in this new State. We have no information whatsoever from the Government as to whether any consultation has taken place with the Coloureds or with the Bantu leaders regarding the future destiny of those unfortunate Coloured people in the area affected.

Last year we were informed by the local Press that the Government had set up a special committee to investigate the possibility of removing Africans from the Western Cape. It was reported that this committee had considered the exchange of Africans in the Western Cape for Coloureds in the Transkei. I want to say that one was shocked at the time to have read of such a possibility. I would remind the hon. the Minister that we are dealing with human beings not with cattle. Were the Coloured people of the Transkei consulted about this proposed exchange? Have they had any say in the matter? Have their views been considered at all by the Government? No, Sir, this House and the country have been kept entirely in the dark by the Government in regard to all these matters. Surely it is time that this House is taken into the confidence of the Government and that we are told what the Government intends doing with those 14,000, or more unfortunate and forgotten people of this country. Surely it was necessary for the rights and destinies of those law-abiding people to be satisfactorily settled by this Government before it came forward with a constitutional Bill of this sort which gives no consideration whatsoever to those 14,000 Coloured souls who are gravely affected by the proposed constitutional changes envisaged in this Bill.

As far as I know the Coloured people living in the Transkei—and I refer to those who are particularly desirous of retaining their identity as Coloured citizens—have up to the present not been consulted one iota in regard to this proposed exchange or with regard to the diminution of their civic rights as citizens of this country. A member of the Coloured Advisory Council, Mr. C. I. R. Fortuin, who is a Government nominee on the Council and who, I understand, lives at Kokstad, has publicly stated that if the Coloured people have to move, which he hopes not, they would prefer to be given land near Kokstad and Umzimkulu adjoining the Natal border. I do not know with what authority Mr. Fortuin speaks on behalf of the Coloured people living in the Transkei, but at least, Sir, he is a Coloured man who may well be voicing the sentiments of those people. Has the Government given any consideration to this proposal? If so, should not this House be told what the Government intends doing in regard to that suggestion? No, Sir, the more one examines the position the more does one become convinced that the Government has come forward with this ill-considered measure without giving the slightest consideration to the grave implications involved. Grave implications, Sir, not only as far as the Bantu are concerned but also as far as the Coloureds who have lived there for so many years and whose rights have been totally disregarded. It may, of course, be that the Government was motivated in bringing forward this Bill in order to influence the outside world towards taking a more favourable view of our country and of our Government. I am afraid that this attempt to influence the outside world will misfire. Even a cursory examination of this Bill will show that it is a piece of window-dressing on the part of the Government to give a very limited form of self-government to a very limited portion of the territory of our country so as to try to justify withholding all political rights from the non-White people in the rest of South Africa. No self-thinking person in this country or outside this country is likely to be misled by this measure. The granting of this limited form of local government to a confined and comparatively small area will by no means satisfy the considerable large number of voters living outside the Transkei. Those people, and I am now referring to the Bantu people, who are living outside of the Transkei will still have no rights whatsoever to participate directly or indirectly in the government of this country. It is necessary for me to remind the hon. the Minister again that outside the area concerned, the area which the Government regards as the Bantu homelands, there are some 6,000,000 Africans who constitute a majority of the total African population of our Republic. Does the Government really think that this majority of the African people living outside of the Bantu homelands are going to be satisfied with the exercise of what really amounts to a postal vote for a government of an area in which they no longer live? Is that how you are going to satisfy their political ambitions? Does the Government really think that this Bill is going to satisfy those 6,000,000 Africans in regard to their political rights? I ask the hon. the Minister in all seriousness how can the postal voting of these 6,000,000 for a government of an area in which they no longer live, be regarded as a participation in the Government of this country? Sir, the Government is deluding itself if it really thinks that this measure is going to satisfy the masses of African people living outside of the reserves. How can a vote for a local government by Transkeian citizens living outside the Transkei, compensate them for the lack of a vote or for any say in the central Government of the country whose decisions and laws vitally affect their livelihood? Yet, we are asked to believe that by giving them the right to vote by post for a government in the Transkei which they have long left behind them, we are going to satisfy them.

Where do you want them to vote?

I am glad the hon. member raised that point; I shall deal with that in a moment. I suggest that the people living outside of the reserves really have no true interest in those reserves which they have long left behind them. There is really no community of interest between the people living in the Transkei and the considerably larger number of Transkeians who live outside. I say that the Government has totally overlooked the fact that these urbanized Africans are not going to be satisfied with a remote say in the limited autonomy to be given to the Transkei and being denied any say, direct or indirect, in the affairs of the country in which they work and live.

I am convinced that this Bill will not solve the problem with which the Government is confronted. It will, to my mind, not influence the outside world to the slightest degree towards taking a more favourable view of the Government of this country. Even if this Bill is to be the forerunner of similar measures, which the Prime Minister has indicated it is, I suggest that it will not be a solution of the human problems of this country. Can the hon. the Minister conscientiously tell us that he feels that this Bill will help to solve our political and economic problems? I think not. To my mind it will only weaken the position of the White man in South Africa and it can only retard the economy of the country It will certainly weaken the position of the White man in the Transkei and it will certainly overlook in every respect the unfortunate 14,000 Coloured people who live in the Transkei who, as citizens of this country, have every right to expect the fullest possible protection on the part of the Government. To my mind this Bill cannot in any way solve the difficult racial problems with which we are confronted in this country. The Government is deluding itself if it thinks that the majority of the African people will accept the proposals contained in this Bill as an answer to their request for some political recognition in the affairs of South Africa.

I want to say this that even the moderates among the African people—and thank heaven there are still many Africans who have a moderate outlook—will not be satisfied ultimately with this Bill. I am ignoring for the moment the large number of Africans who are clamouring for one man one vote. This Bill will certainly not satisfy that element. Nothing short of equality of votes and equality of rights will satisfy that element. But I am trying to see whether I can approach this matter in respect of the claims that have been made by the moderate section of Africans who have asked for some say, however limited, either indirect or direct, in the affairs of this country.

I am afraid, Sir, that even that large moderate section of the Bantu people will not be satisfied with this Bill. We must not lose sight of the fact, Sir, that nearly two-thirds of the African people are living outside of the proposed state. I am afraid that notwithstanding anything that the Government may decide they will continue to live outside the proposed state for the foreseeable future anyhow. Are those people going to be satisfied with the limited right which this Bill gives them to vote in elections for a Parliament for a territory which they have long left behind them? I am convinced that the sooner the Government realizes and faces up to the fact that the real problem which confronts us is to give these people some say in the affairs of the country in which they work and live, the sooner will we be likely to solve our racial problems and the sooner will we be likely to have racial peace in this country and the sooner will we be likely to win back world favour which we have lost.

I want to say this to the hon. the Minister in all seriousness: The era of electoral restrictions has come to an end. In this modern world you cannot continue imposing electoral restrictions upon human beings. I think the sooner the Government realizes this the better for our country and for our future.

One man one vote.

No, not one man one vote; I shall deal with this in a moment. Is the Government not prepared to learn lessons from what has happened in other parts of the world and what is happening on this continent to-day? Other countries which have endeavoured to impose electoral restrictions upon the populations have been forced by internal and international demand to remove those restrictions. I can see no reason, Sir, why our country should be any different. For heaven’s sake let us try to benefit from the mistakes which have been made elsewhere and above all let us try to derive this benefit while there is still time.

I now want to deal with the one man one vote aspect. This Government has taken away from the Bantu of this country every form of representation, direct or indirect, which they had in the Central Government of this country. Has the time not come for us to reconsider the Government’s decision in that regard? I think it is dangerous for us to proceed along the lines indicated in this Bill because that will not satisfy the tremendous masses of African people who are living outside the restricted area to which it is now proposed to give constitutional rights. I think it is dangerous for us to prolong the political muteness which has been inflicted upon these Bantu people. I think this is a dangerous scheme upon which this Government is embarking. I say that the sooner we remove that political muteness the sooner are we going to win over to our side the moderate element amongst the Bantu people. The granting of a limited form of local autonomy to a minority section of the Bantu people and at the same time ignoring the majority of the Bantu who live outside the Transkei in rural and urban areas, will in no way solve this great problem. If the Government really wishes to do something tangible for the Bantu I think that every means should be explored whereby the elected leaders of the Bantu people can meet the elected representatives of the White electorate in a properly constituted forum to discuss and decide matters of common interest. In this way there could be established a National Native Assembly elected in our Republic, not in confined areas where the majority of the Bantu people have left, elected by the popular vote of the Bantu themselves. This Assembly could in due course appoint a liaison between it and the central Parliament of this country.

When are they going to take over the central Parliament?

They will take it over much sooner than you think if you go on with this Bill. My suggestion is that if you allowed them to establish their own National Assembly and allowed that Assembly to elect a gathering which could be a liaison between that National Assembly and the Central Government you will achieve far more in a harmonious and co-operative manner than by proceeding with this Bill which denies to two-thirds of the Bantu living outside that territory any political right whatsoever in the country in which they work and live and in which they are going to continue working and living for many years to come. I do not suggest that this is by any means an ideal solution but it would at any rate give to the Native people a method by which they could find political expression and by which they could aspire to political maturity in their own Parliament. That would be a genuine attempt on the part of this Government to give them some say in the affairs of this country in which they work and live and in which they play an important part without coming into the Central Government. To my mind, Sir, it would have the merit of keeping our country intact as an entity; it would not have the demerit, which this Bill has, of breaking our country up and it would avoid the creation of a number of separate states within our borders. It would have the merit of giving a vote to the Bantu people throughout the whole country for the election of their own body politic which would co-operate with the corresponding body in the European political field.

I think that this Bill, standing on its own as it does now, evades the fundamental issues of our basic problems in this country. That issue is that every section of our population should have the right to participate in some form or other, not on the basis of one man one vote, directly or indirectly in the Government of this country. I am sure that if the Government were prepared even at this stage to grant to the Bantu people the right by law to have their own National Assembly, elected by popular vote and not appointed by the Government, and if that National Assembly had the right to elect a fair number of White representatives to represent their National Assembly in the central Parliament, the Government would be achieving far more in the solution of this difficult problem than anything that they can hope for under this Bill.

I want to return briefly to the position of the Coloured people whose cause I pleaded originally. The hon. the Prime Minister made another pronouncement in relation to those Coloured people a few weeks ago. On 27 February 1963 on the occasion of the Joint Sitting the hon. the Prime Minister in answering the hon. the Leader of the Opposition with regard to what was going to happen to the Coloureds in the Transkei, said this—

In effect the hon. the Prime Minister said this that the Coloured people in the Transkei were not in an area where they could expect to have any permanent residence. I want the hon. the Minister to tell us why not? They have been there for generations; they own their own land there; they have established their own farms. Why should they be deprived of their homes? Why should they be deprived of their farms and their businesses and their permanent residences? Why? Only to satisfy the Government’s grandiose scheme for the establishment of a Bantustan. That is the only reason. There is no other valid reason as to why those unfortunate people should be deprived of those basic rights to which they are entitled as citizens of this country. Mr. Speaker, are they not citizens of South Africa? Have they any other homeland to go to? Is there any other country to which they can appeal or go to? Are they not entitled to the same consideration as the Government is now, at long last, seeking to give to the Bantu? No, Sir, in their own way these people have contributed to the development of the Transkei. I say there is no reason whatsoever why they should be deprived of their homes, their land and their business in the Transkei.

But the hon. the Prime Minister continued and said what I have just read a moment ago. The effect of this pronouncement is that one or two things will happen to these 14,000 unfortunate Coloured people in the Transkei. They will either be absorbed in the Bantu or they will have to disappear from that area. Sir, have you ever heard anything more vague or more uncertain …

Or more merciless.

… or more callous? The Government seems to be totally unconcerned as to what is going to happen to those unfortunate people. The Government seems to treat almost with contemptuous disregard the fact that those people have for generations built up for themselves their homes, their farms and their businesses in the Transkei.

I say this in all seriousness to the hon. the Minister: surely a more human approach would have been for the Government to settle the destiny of these Coloured people first, to settle it securely with their co-operation and their consent, before embarking upon this grandiose scheme which can only lead to uncertainty and the ultimate destruction of their long-established homes in areas which they have occupied for generations and generations.

I think that this Bill is an ill-considered measure. It fails to give the protection to our citizens which is vitally necessary and to which they are entitled; it fails to give the protection to our White people living in the Transkei which they need and it ignominiously disregards the rights and the privileges, the civic rights at any rate, and human rights of the Coloured people in that area. [Time limit.]

Mr. Speaker, you will realize that I am not very interested in following the arguments of the hon. member who has just sat down. But if the hon. member will kindly listen he will hear that I will, at a later stage in my speech, return to what he has said. I just want to say this that I think the hon. member ought to be ashamed of himself for coming on this occasion and trying to create the impression that this Government intends to apply its policy in the Transkei and is not prepared to take either the Whites or the Coloureds who are living there into proper consideration. The hon. member knows that assurances have repeatedly been given from the Government side to both the Whites and the Coloureds in that area that they will not be left in the lurch and that when the time arrives they will be withdrawn from the Transkei under the guidance of the Government in a way which will suit them.

I think, however, that it is much more important for me to pay attention to what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said. I am grateful for his attention and his presence here. In his second-reading speech the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said the following—

I wish to say this that this Transkeian Bill is not the first occasion on which it has become impossible for this side of the House and that side of the House to approach racial matters in the same way. Since the day General Smuts died, that has been impossible. Because up to that date the United Party had maintained a certain principle, a principle which the present Government has followed since then and tried to carry out to the end but a principle from which the United Party has departed.

Why since the death of General Smuts?

I shall come to the hon. member for Yeoville. The all important principle with which we are concerned as far as this Transkeian Bill is concerned is the right of self-determination and self-preservation of nations. That is the principle which is involved, and all the other matters which hon. members opposite talk about, are minor matters …

What about the Coloureds?

I say that all the other small matters are administrative matters which will be ironed out as we go along. We are not concerned at the moment with the rights of traders, nor are we concerned at the moment with the Railways in the Transkei, nor are we concerned with the question of how and when the Coloureds will be removed from the Transkei. We are concerned here with a basic right of nations, namely the right which every nation has of self-determination.

And the Coloureds?

We are dealing with the Bantu at the moment.

The policy of the Government keeps count of certain basic facts, also in the application of this legislation, and I think that where hon. members opposite talk so airily about these matters, we should draw their attention to those important facts which are involved here. The first basic fact which is involved is that the Whites in this country constitute a nation of their own; similarly the Bantu nations constitute a nation of their own. The White nation and the Bantu nations in this country differ basically from each other; the Bantu people and the White people of this country differ fundamentally from each other culturally. They also differ basically as far as their sentiments and innermost feelings are concerned. That is a hard fact which hon. members opposite should also take into account when they argue lightly about this Bill. This difference is a law of nature. I want to show hon. members how this law of nature manifests itself not only in South Africa but in the whole world. This is the law which, when they acted against this law of nature, it became necessary for America to use 14,000 soldiers to keep one man on the school benches against the will of the people. It is the same law of nature which made it necessary for England to protect, by way of legislation, that which she advocates in the forums of the world outside. It is the same law which, in spite of ideological principles and in spite of dogmatic doctrines, has even caused racial clashes behind the Iron Curtain, as a result of which the nations behind the Iron Curtain, where they had to live with non-Whites, pushed the latter out. The non-Whites had to depart because they were reviled and called baboons in communist countries who should live in the mountains. It is the same law which I am talking about which also manifests itself in other countries, also in Africa. Hon. members opposite cannot mention one single country in Africa which has recently accepted the principle of multi-racialism. Not a single one. If there is one I should like to hear about it. Wherever those countries have had the opportunity of determining their own future they have discarded the principle of multi-racialism. I go further: Hon. members opposite cannot mention a single responsible Bantu organization or responsible Bantu leader who supports multi-racialism in our own country. Not a single one. That is not what the A.N.C. or the P.A.C. has in mind. Multi-racialism is a naive, obsolete idea which is only to be found amongst a small group of people in power who are trying by means of the world Press to condition world opinion in their own interests. In South Africa it is the United Party, who with its multiracial attitude, is to-day following this plan of that small group in power and playing into their hands.

And they bolster them up in the Press.

For the reasons I have mentioned we wish to remain White; we want to keep this country for the Whites. But we also recognize that sentiment and that ambition in the Bantu; we are also prepared to give the Bantu races an opportunity to develop and to give them that opportunity in the area where they have their roots and where they can start to build a new nation of their own. I wish to add this that administrative problems will crop up along this road which this Government, together with the Bantu people, are following, but they will be solved.

We have recently seen in Africa how colonial powers have tried to place Bantu states on the road to independence. I want to say this that doubts are raised as to the possibility of our succeeding where other countries in Africa have failed, and that the question can justifiably be asked what right we have to think that we shall succeed where others have failed. For certain good reasons, certain basic reasons, I am confident that, having been in the privileged position of being able to learn from the mistakes made in Africa and provided we too do not make those mistakes, there is no reason to think that we shall not succeed where others have failed.

I shall tell you, Sir, what was the first basic mistake made in Africa in principle. The first basic mistake made in Africa was precisely when colonial powers tried to create multiracial societies and, from the establishment of those multi-racial communities an important natural process developed. And what was that? There was immediate tension when the White minority groups organized themselves into a resistance group in the event of an evil day dawning for them; that was why, on the other hand, the non-Whites organized them selves in order to take from the small White groups by force that which they themselves have had to go without for years. Because the principle of multi-racialism was applied in those countries there was tension. The first and most important basic mistake made in Africa, was when colonial powers overseas prescribed to the White races inside Africa how to constitute their society. The society which they wanted was a society which clashed directly with nature itself. That was why it failed.

There is a second reason, a second mistake which was made in connection with the process of becoming independent in Africa and that was that when the colonial powers had to choose their leaders and their people, they chose the agitators of Africa as the mouthpieces of the Bantu nations. That is why, as we know, a person who was in gaol in America, was released and made President of Ghana and a man who lived in England far away from his people, the greatest sadist which this continent has ever known, was made the leader of the Bantu people in Kenya. I am referring to Jomo Kenyatta. I am talking about these doctors and advocates who were trained behind the Iron Curtain, people who are regarded as representing the will of the people and who are then made rulers. The first thing these newly crowned rulers strive for is to destroy the structure of the nation itself. You can understand, Sir, that if a mistake is made in the first instance in regard to the composition of the society and if in the second instance agitators are appointed to lead that society you cannot expect any success to be achieved in Africa.

Other mistakes were also made, and another important mistake which was made was that in the process of becoming independent those non-White Bantu nations in Africa were given money and material far in excess of their ability to utilize. It was a mistake to have given so much money to the Bantu and to have given it in a way to which they were not accustomed; they did not know what to do with it. Just as it is a mistake on the part of any parent to give a young child too much money, before he has learnt how to spend money, it is a mistake in the case of a nation.

What about the Transkei?

In the case of the Transkei this one important principle will be observed that the Bantu nation will only be given as much as they need and they will also be taught that whatever they require in excess of that they will have to earn for themselves. The principle of earning for yourself will be observed. If you do not observe that principle you commit a crime against such a nation. That is why I say that we shall succeed in the Transkei where others have failed because the Government is not prepared to give the Transkeian Bantu more money than they need thereby spoiling them.

You can prepare yourself for a shock.

I want to refer to another reason and that is that the Bantu states in Africa, the Black areas in Africa, were handed over overnight to nations which were not ready to cope with what was given to them. It was given to them at such a pace that it had of necessity to form a vacuum. I mention the Congo as an example. Because the White people immediately left the Congo a vacuum was formed, a vacuum which can only be filled by one man and that is the agitator. That was a crime which was committed there. As far as this basic mistake is concerned, our Government does not intend making it. That is why it can succeed where others have failed.

We are being accused of selling the White man in the Transkei and that this case corresponds with what happened in Kenya. Surely the two cases are not analogous. The White man who went to Kenya went to a country where the prospect was held out to him that civic Tights would be given to him and that he would be able to develop there. But that does not apply in the case of the Bantu states in South Africa. There are no Whites in the Bantu states in South Africa who could have gained the impression in the past, unless the Opposition told them so, that rights would be conferred upon them there. Surely that is historically incorrect and surely hon. members know that. Surely hon. members know that years ago this Government told the Whites in the Transkei and in other Black areas that they were there to perform a temporary service and that when it was no longer necessary for them to perform that service, they would have to get out. Surely they were told at that time already that they would not be able to enjoy any rights there.

How long have they been there?

I hope hon. members will not advance that argument again, because historically it is not right.

You are wrong.

They now advance another argument and that is that as far as the Transkei is concerned we shall lose all control over the tempo of development. We shall lose all control over the timetable, we are told. I want to say this: If we do lose control over the timetable hon. members must remember this: We may lose control over the timetable but then it is only in the case of the Transkei not over the timetable of the Republic of South Africa. If we should lose control over a timetable there is one other important thing that will also happen: No dangers will be created for the Republic of South Africa. And if, because of the loss of control over a timetable, dangers are created for the Republic of South Africa it will not be beyond the ability of the local population itself to cope with them. In other words, if control is lost over a timetable as far as the Transkei is concerned, we would have lost control of a timetable in respect of the Transkei as it exists and the Transkei will not be able to develop a power, a momentum, that will be beyond the local population. And if we have to lose control over a timetable we must remember that the ability of the local population is the deciding factor and I want to ask hon. members this: In practice what does that amount to? If their ability is the deciding factor, it means in practice that the development of the Transkei will not be dangerous to us in the military field, because, as I have said, it cannot create a greater danger than the Transkei itself will be able to develop on its own. I want to say this to hon. members opposite: In spite of everything it will always be a military machine that will have to face up to a big military machine in the Republic of South Africa. That is the comparison. If it is an economic threat, then it is only a threat which will assume meaning if there is at least technological, scientific and industrial development in the Transkei equal to the development in the Republic. I wish to say this to hon. members: If they are afraid that we may lose control over a timetable, if they are afraid that any threat from the Transkei may become a reality, if they are afraid that the Transkei will at least become equal to the ability of the Republic of South Africa, then I say do not be absurd! If that is your argument then you have no faith in yourself.

On the other hand we also have this picture: If we are accused and told that we may lose all control over the tempo at which things may happen in the Transkei, I find it ironical that hon. members opposite are so very concerned about the few Whites in the Transkei but not about the over 3,000,000 White people in the Republic of South Africa! That hon. members opposite are so very concerned about what the position will be in the Transkei in years to come but that they do not care what happens in the Republic of South Africa! I said at the outset that we have continued to build on a principle which hon. members have abandoned and I want to illustrate how they have abandoned it. I am coming to the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn). He wrote the following in the Cape Argus of 8 March—

The hon. member goes so far as to say it is an absurdity and that the White man in South Africa cannot afford to talk about two nations. If the hon. member talks like that will he tell me this: Does the hon. member believe that he belongs to the same nation, the same “people” as the Bantu? Is there no difference between him and them?

There is a difference between you and myself.

Mr. Speaker, you will agree that the hon. member and myself have much more in common than the hon. member and Mandela.

He is only much uglier than you are.

Order! Hon. members must not accuse other hon. members of being ugly.

When the hon. the Leader of the Opposition explained his policy in the no confidence debate he promised the Bantu the following on behalf of his party—

What are these “legitimate aspirations”? My time has nearly expired and that is why I only mentioned this point following upon what the hon. member for Yeoville has said. Before I sit down I just want to say this: Ever since hon. members opposite have started to talk about one nation, and to spread the conception of one nation in South Africa, they have been creating expectations amongst the non-Whites. But they wish to keep those expectations within limits. Do you know why, Sir? They want to keep them within limits in two ways. The one is that they want to try with their “leadership with justice and vision” to keep the non-White back. They want furthermore to consult the non-Whites at all levels. May I ask hon. members opposite this: When they compiled their federation plan did they consult them at all levels, on the Mandela level as well to ascertain what their legitimate aspirations were? Did hon. members opposite convince themselves that the Bantu at all levels were satisfied with the fact that they would have a lesser, a smaller share in this partnership between the United Party and the non-White and that they would accept the Leader of the Opposition as their “legitimate” leader? My time has expired, but I just want to say this that that hon. members opposite, with this policy of theirs, this new conception of theirs of a race federation …

Order! The hon. member cannot go too deeply into the policy of the Opposition. The hon. member must deal with the Transkeian Bill.

I will sit down by expressing this one idea, namely that the policy of the United Party is not a policy of race federation but a policy of human mongrelization and if hon. members go further it will be a policy of White extermination.

Just before I come to what I want to say, I want to go back to what was said by the second last speaker on that side, the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Sadie). He told us here what our so-called federation plan was. He told us that it was the plan of this party, when it came into power, to have eight Whites in this House as the representatives of the Natives. He went further and said that that would be apart from those representing the Bantu areas. Where does he get that from? Where did he read that? There is no such thing.

You tell us now what your plan is.

I am dealing with the hon. member for Winburg now. He said further that the Coloureds and the Whites would have to agree as to whether there would have to be an increase in the Bantu representation in this House. But there is nothing of the kind stated in the published policy of our party. It is a lie. The hon. member has taken it out of the air.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Transkei Bill.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No. These are the reckless statements being made. It is not the truth. Apart from that, according to him we are not now dealing with the policy of Bantustans. He was dealing with the policy of our party. That has nothing to do with the matter. The hon. member did not say a word about the Transkei Bill.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think this is a suitable time to address you on a point of order. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition in his second reading speech gave an exposition of the policy of the United Party as contrasted with our policy, as contained in this Bill. Now I want to ask you in this second reading debate to allow us the flexibility to discuss this matter against the background of contrasting one policy with the other.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has already been replied to repeatedly by hon. members on the Government side. Hon. members must now come back to the Bill, or else we will never finish this debate. The hon. member must deal with the Transkei Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am now discussing the Transkei Bill and I want to commence immediately by dealing with what was said by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. At the commencement of his speech he said that the Nationalist Party wants to grant to the Bantu in their part of South Africa that which the Whites demand for themselves in their own area. That means only one thing. It means sovereign independence. That is what the people of South Africa have obtained, sovereign independence. But then follows a very important addition. Almost in the same breath the Minister adds to it: “we are prepared to defend this principle against the whole world.”

What principle?

The principle of your policy. Fifteen years ago it was not necessary to defend anything against the whole world, but now South Africa must suddenly be defended. What has happened in the meantime?

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

I am reacting directly to the speech of the hon. the Minister.

The hon. the Minister’s speech has also been dealt with thoroughly already. The hon. member must now confine himself to the Bill.

Fifteen years ago we were held in high esteem by the nations of the world.

Yes, but that has nothing to do with the Bill.

Now the hon. the Minister wants to defend South Africa. What has happened in the meantime? Changes have come about in the policy of the Nationalist Party, and what has happened is that they have bumped their heads; they have become enmeshed in the network of their policy, of their slogan of apartheid. That is why we have this Bill before us to-day. The desirability, the necessity, has slowly penetrated to those minds afflicted with apartheid, …

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

… to the consciousness of the Nationalist Party, Sir. If you do not want me to continue on these lines, then I want to show how unfortunate it was that the Nationalist Party, in its search for a solution to the problem, has landed in the mire. That problem is the Native problem of South Africa. That is what I am dealing with.

What we are dealing now with is the Transkei Bill.

The problem is to find a solution for the Native problem in South Africa. This Transkeian Bill is one of the attempts made to do so. The hon. the Minister has made a stirring plea here for the Natives in South Africa, and particularly for those in the Transkei. Mr. Speaker, surely you will allow me to point out that the Nationalist Party was unfortunate in their choice of the man who had to deliver that plea. Surely you will allow me to say how unfortunate the choice of the Nationalist Party was in regard to the man who had to make that plea, a man who recently accused this side of the House of wanting to do everything for the “Kaffirs”.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the Transkei Bill.

He reproached us …

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

On a point of order, the Preamble to the Transkei Bill starts off by saying: “Whereas the policy of separate development envisages the gradual development of self-governing Bantu national units in the traditional Bantu homelands …”, and then it goes on to deal with the Transkei. I put it to you that in view of the fact that the Preamble refers to the development of self-governing Bantu national units in the traditional Bantu homelands, the debate must necessarily be wider and should not be limited merely to the Transkei itself.

Order! That point has been made already. We are now discussing the Transkei Bill. The hon. member must obey my ruling and discuss the Transkei Bill.

The crux of the Native problem in South Africa, including the Transkei, is the matter of their government, which is before the House now. That is why this Bill was introduced, to give the Transkei more self-government, and eventually to help it to develop to sovereign independence.

The Bill does not contain a single word to that effect.

In order to be able to do so the hon. the Minister sought precedence in the past for the eventual course of events in regard to the policy of the Government and of the country in respect of the Transkei. He went back into history and found numerous golden threads, as he found them, in regard to the measure of self-government which successive Governments in South Africa were prepared to grant to the Bantu. He says that this Government is faithfully following that golden thread, and he wants to strengthen it. But that golden thread immediately disappears in the fabric of his imagination. When he comes, e.g., to the detribalized Bantu of the Transkei who live in the White areas, will those people according to this plan be given some measure of authority, and what measure of authority will it be? It will be a vote for a man whom they do not know in a country where they do not live and where they are not at home. I ask what semblance of recognition do those people obtain? It is just a myth. That is where this golden thread of his disappears. Nobody, not even the Minister, knows what the rights of those people will be, and nobody on the opposite side of the House seems to devote the least attention to it. They are just getting the vote. They did not ask for the vote, and therefore it is solved. In every province of the Republic of South Africa there are more detribalized Natives than Whites. What rights have they? I am now talking from the point of view that rights are to be given to the Bantu. Where are their rights? Will the position remain as it is, or will dissatisfaction arise, and if it arises, where will they seek assistance? Will they seek assistance from the White man, or will they seek it from the Native tribes in the Transkei? The Minister is evidently not in the least concerned about that. He sees only golden threads. One of these golden threads is the measure of self-government granted to the Bantu in the history of South Africa. The Minister goes back into history and relies on the first Premier of South Africa; he mentions General Botha, and he completely confuses the position, but in the end he still has to come back to the fact that General Botha laid down that the Natives should develop and learn to govern themselves, but under the supervision of the Whites. This Bill is intended to be the first step towards the eventual granting of complete self-government and sovereign independence. General Botha said that it must remain under the supervision of the Whites. But then he went to General Smuts and sought a solution there, and the solution he obtained from General Smuts was that there should be one sovereign body to represent the interests of the weaker ones as well as of the stronger ones. In other words, there must be one sovereign Parliament in the Republic of South Africa.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

I am pointing out what this Bill will lead to, namely eventual independence. That is the stated policy. The minister himself said so, and surely he can reply to it. But the Minister went even further. He consulted another former Prime Minister. He told us what General Hertzog had said, namely that the Bantu should be allowed to develop according to their own nature, but under the supervision of the Union Government.

You really have not read the Bill.

He even told us what Mr. Strijdom had said. He said that they could have responsible self-government, but under the guardianship of the Whites. And there it ends. His whole attempt to find support in history was quite futile. He could find no support. The traditional policy is still the same as it was in the time of the late President Kruger, and just allow me to quote this, because it is useful. When he was elected in 1883 …

Order! The hon. member is now going very far indeed.

It deals with the same subject. When he was elected in 1883 he said the following in his manifesto—

Those are the people who are always proud to remember the days of President Kruger, but now they laugh at his words. The people will take note of that, and I conclude this quotation with these words—

This is the same thing that Langenhoven later sang in his “Stem van Suid-Afrika”. And what is our heritage? The country we conquered after it became necessary to do so is our heritage.

Order! The hon. member must now come back to the Bill.

I want to say a few more words. I want to say here, with the support of my whole party, not only in this House but in the whole of the country, that this new policy is not the traditional policy of South Africa. It is not even the traditional policy of the Nationalist Party, and I want to prove it. It was born out of the predicament in which their apartheid landed them. Ex-Senator Hennie Smit …

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill, or else resume his seat.

Mr. Speaker, surely you will allow me to say what the Prime Minister said on the same subject.

Order! No, the hon. member must come back to the Bill or else resume his seat.

May I address you on a point of order? When the Minister introduced the Bill he stated that this Bill is a development of the traditional policy of South Africa.

Now the hon. member wants to deal with that matter.

Order! I have already said that the Minister’s speech has been replied to, and the hon. member must come back to the Bill.

I am trying to confine myself to the Bill, and I want to quote something which the Prime Minister said in regard to this Bill. Surely I cannot get nearer to it than that. An ex-Senator objected to this Bill, and the letter he wrote contained precisely the same objections which the United Party are now raising.

Order! That has nothing to do with the Bill. I shall give the hon. member one more chance to come back to the Bill, or else he must resume his seat.

The Prime Minister replied to it. Unfortunately I have it in English only because this letter did not appear in the Afrikaans newspapers. He said this—

Order! What has that got to do with the Bill?

On a point of order, the hon. member is dealing with an objection to the basic policy, and he is now reading a letter by the Prime Minister dealing with his Transkei policy.

Order! I have been listening attentively the whole time and I know what the hon. member said. The policy of the Government can be discussed under the Estimates. What we are busy with at the moment is this Bill, and the hon. member must come back to the Bill.

Very well, I will confine myself to the Bill in so far as the Prime Minister replied to it—

What I want to emphasize is that what happened in Africa and in the world forced the Nationalist Party. It was not its policy …

Order! I must ask the hon. member to resume his seat. He cannot continue in this way.

On a point of order, do I understand you to say now that under the Estimates we can have a full debate on the Transkei policy of the Government?

On the whole policy of the Government, but not the Bill. The Transkei Bill should be debated now.

I should like to have your ruling, because we understood that we should discuss the policy fully now, and because this Bill is before the House we cannot discuss it under the Estimates.

Under the Estimates hon. members can discuss any policy of the Government.

In regard to the Transkei Bill?

No, the Transkei Bill must be discussed now. I have given my ruling.

Mr. Speaker, I trust that you will reconsider this matter. Surely in dealing with the Bill before the House we are entitled to discuss the policy of the Government as it is reflected in this Bill, seeing that we are not allowed under the Budget to discuss the policy which has precisely led to this Bill. If we cannot discuss the policy of the Government which has led to this Bill in the Budget, surely we must be allowed to discuss it now.

The Bill as such cannot be discussed under the Budget, but the Bill is under consideration now and can be discussed.

I submit that the Preamble is part of this Bill, and it has to be passed as the Bill has to be passed, and the Preamble clearly states the policy of the Government which has led to this Bill being introduced, leading to separate development and an independent state in the Transkei. The Preamble itself states that principle. May I read the Preamble?

I have the Preamble, and it has already been read to me.

May I suggest that the policy of separate development which envisages the gradual development of self-governing states is surely an indication of the Government’s policy and forms part of the background of this Bill, and under those circumstances I submit that you should reconsider the matter as far as the hon. member is concerned, who is simply giving the Prime Minister’s reply to an objection which was taken by one of his own people because the Government came forth with this proposal.

The policy of the Government in regard to the Transkei can be discussed and the Bill can be discussed but the hon. member was discussing the general policy of the Government in regard to the Bantu as a whole. But we have in front of us a specific Bill and we must confine our remarks to that Bill.

May I on a point of order say a few words? The Preamble says that whereas the policy of separate development envisages the gradual development of self-governing Bantu national units…. this Bill is not limited to the Transkei. It is the whole policy, affecting the whole of South Africa. And here the hon. member wants to quote what the Prime Minister replied to a supporter of his in regard to the Transkei Bill.

Order! The hon. member has raised his point of order and he can now resume his seat.

I just want to quote one more thing, namely the reason given by the Prime Minister for introducing this Bill. This is what he said—

That is what I wanted to mention. That is the basis of this Bill. There is no other basis for it. The policy was always different, but now it is what it is, and the Prime Minister himself says so.

You are taking the words out of their context.

Now I may not quote any further, because it is said that I am taking the words out of their context.

The hon. member should not take notice of interjections.

I just want to say that I am no economist, nor do I want to intrude in the economic sphere. There are enough hon. members here who can discuss economic affairs, but whilst the Prime Minister sees those dangers—he admits in the letter that there are dangers—I just want to refer in passing to the statement made by Matanzima. That is the start of the danger signs. In the past we also had these dangers, but this is now the beginning of the danger signs of the new dangers, and we should issue a timeous warning in that regard.

I still want to refer to one important matter which has not been mentioned here yet, namely that when this Bantu state has been established and eventually becomes independent, there are also other Bantu states which will follow the same course, and if we have regard to this complex of Bantu states on the map I just want to stress the fact that these Bantu states will completely surround that area which has the greatest concentration of White people. Does that not constitute a danger?

The Bill does not provide for that.

What control will the White man in South Africa have over those borders of these Bantu states, borders which are exposed to any invader or enemy, and there are enough of them. That constitutes a danger, but no thought is given to that. Nothing has been said about the fact that those Bantu states will have their borders exposed to any invader. Those of us who come from the North are the descendants of those people who were faced with similar difficulties. Many of the English-speaking members on this side are the descendants of the 1820 settlers, and they know what can happen if trouble ensues. And if trouble ensues and those states are not under the authority of the Republic, what can save the White man in South Africa? I mention these dangers, because they should be considered. We should not just think of coming to blows and using guns and shooting people down. Those things are only a temporary expedient, and the White people of South Africa have experience of the bitter consequences of such actions.

Mr. Speaker, I want to reply to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat in regard to what Gen. Botha is supposed to have said, and then I want to quote from Die Volkstem of 24 September 1912.

Order! I hope the hon. member will remember my ruling.

I just want to reply in one sentence to what he said in regard to Gen. Botha. Gen. Botha said that the Native problem was the most difficult one of all, but he believed that it could be solved be segregating the Natives in certain areas and there giving them a measure of self-government, but not elsewhere. I repeat “but not elsewhere”. That is what the Volkstem says.

In this Bill we are practically implementing our policy of apartheid, and we are changing the theory of apartheid into the implementation of apartheid. My point is this: There is no idea here of a new direction or a new policy, as the Opposition implied. All that is new is the phase. We are simply entering upon a new phase of our policy of separate development. We are changing over from the phase of planning and preparation to the final phase, the phase of completion and rounding off.

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to hold a conversation with this hon. member here. He thinks that all the time I am talking he can hold a conversation with me. I say we are passing from the phase of planning and preparation to the final phase of completion and rounding off. What was started by Dr. Malan and continued by Adv. Strijdom is now being completed by Dr. Verwoerd. The straight line of the policy of apartheid of the National Party is simply being taken to its logical conclusion of completion. To stigmatize as a new direction or a new policy that which is simply a new phase of an old policy, as the United Party and their allies, the so-called “Nat. rebels”, are trying to do to-day is not only so much nonsense but it is merely cheap politicking.

Order! The hon. member must now come back to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am trying to indicate that by means of this Bill we are giving expression to the policy of apartheid of the National Party, as is indicated in the Preamble. Accusations have continually been made during this debate that we are doing something here which is quite new and which was not done under Advocate Strijdom; that we have completely deviated from the policy of Dr. Malan and Advocate Strijdom, and I now want to reply to these accusations and to prove that this is not so, and that we are merely, by means of this Bill, taking this policy to its logical conclusion. I say that the misrepresentation made by the United Party, that this is not the case, is nothing else but cheap politicking with the object of causing confusion. I want to add that this stage of our history is not the most suitable time for cheap politicking of this nature and for such nonsense as we have heard from hon. members opposite in regard to this matter. I say the accusation that we have deviated from the policy of Dr. Malan and Advocate Strijdom is just absurd.

May I put a question?

No, the hon. member will have an opportunity to talk. He should sit down. I say this is not the most suitable time for the type of cheap politicking we have had in this debate on this Bill. We live in very critical and dangerous times. However, peaceful the country may appear to be on the surface, we in South Africa, like the rest of the Western world, are to-day involved in a deadly struggle for our survival and for all those things we have built up here over three centuries—our civilization and those material and spiritual values to which in many cases clings sweat and blood of our forefathers. That is the one great, predominating reality of the situation in which we find ourselves to-day. By means of this Bill we want to ensure that those things will be maintained.

Mr. Speaker, how was this situation to which I am now referring created? I think I can say without fear of contradiction that it is as the result of a revolution which the world has experienced since the Second World War, a revolution which was not waged with weapons, but one which has taken place quietly in the hearts of people. It is to this revolution that the British Prime Minister referred when he spoke about the winds of change which have blown over Africa. [Interjections.] Please keep quiet. I am not dealing with you. You are being rude.

Order! The hon. member who made that interjection should not turn his back on me.

I say it is the result of that revolution which the world has experienced and to which the British Prime Minister referred when he spoke about the winds of change which are blowing over Africa, and to which historians like Dr. G. D. Scholtz and other experts refer as the equalizing revolution of the middle of the 20th century.

These winds of change have also blown over the Black man in our own country. We would be following an ostrich policy and making ourselves guilty of self-deception if we imagined that the Black man had been left unaffected and that he would not approach us sooner or later with a demand for those things which have been inspired in him by this revolution, namely the right to self-determination, the demand for one man, one vote, the elimination of all forms of discrimination and the end of the period of colonization, with which we are faced and to which we must adapt ourselves, and which we cannot evade or exclude simply by closing our eyes to it. We have to adapt ourselves to it or die, and I deliberately say “or die” and not “and die”, because there are adaptations, like those which the United Party are prepared to make, which will lead to death. But there is also an adaptation which leads to life. We seek life for the Whites and the non-Whites in South Africa by means of what we are doing in terms of this Bill.

In these actualities to which we have to adapt ourselves, two things are diametrically opposed to one another, namely the desire of the Black man for self-determination, and the desire of the Whites for self-preservation, his demand for the right of self-determination as against our demand for the preservation of our right of self-determination. In any solution we attempt, as we attempt to do here, we must reconcile these two contradictory demands. It almost appears as if we are called upon to reconcile the irreconcilable. That is the dilemma in which we find ourselves in South Africa.

Obviously the easiest solution to our problem would be just to sit still, to do nothing and, as the United Party would like us to do, to lie down and to pretend that in the meanwhile no such revolution has taken place in the world and simply to hope that things will always remain as they have been, and when we discover that things cannot remain as they were, to strike the flag and to surrender and to abdicate in the face of the demands of the Black man, as the United Party is prepared to do. That may perhaps appear to be the easiest solution, but in the long run it will prove to be the most expensive solution. If we, as the United Party and the Progressive Party and the Liberal Party, want to do, wish to continue to live together with the Black man in one common multi-racial fatherland, then we must be prepared honestly to face the consequences and the implications of such a policy.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill. We are now dealing with the Bill, and not with the policy of the United Party.

I am just pointing out the dangers. The United Party is opposing this Bill and they do so because they adopt a certain standpoint, and I am merely referring briefly to their standpoint. I say the first indication of living together in such a common multi-racial state is that the Black man will eventually force us to give him the vote, either by way of revolution or by way of evolution. The further implication of that again will be that the Black man will rule because of his numerical superiority. The choice is therefore not as simple as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition put it here when he said: “what do you rather want, eight Bantustans or eight Bantu in this House?”. It is not as simple as that. That is not the choice; the choice is between either the eight Bantu homelands or one Bantu homeland (Bantustan), the whole of South Africa, one great Bantustan if we follow the policy of the United Party. We on this side say that when peaceful co-existence is not possible in one common fatherland, the only alternative is to live peacefully as neighbours in our various separate areas, in other words, as stated in the Preamble to the Nationalist Party’s policy of separation or separate development or apartheid. I therefore want to make this categorical statement: There is only one possible way out of the dilemma in which we have been placed in South Africa by this world revolution to which I have referred and as the result of which we are called upon to reconcile those two irreconcilable matters, and that lies in the implementation, which we are now busy doing here, of the policy of separation of the National Party. I want to motivate it in this way: Separation gives to the Black man in the Transkei what the world revolution demands for him; it gives him one man, one vote, but in his own area, in the Transkei. On the other hand, it retains one man, one vote for the White man, but in our area, in the White area.

For how long?

For much longer than that race federation policy which you favour, in terms of which you want to keep him in one common fatherland together with you.

Order! The hon. member need not take notice of interjections. In any case he should address the Chair.

Apartheid gives the Black man in the Transkei what the world revolution demands for him, namely the right of self-determination, but in his own area. It retains for the White man his right to self-determination in his own area. In other words, with what we are doing in terms of this Bill to-day we are complying with all the rightful aspirations of the Black man in the Transkei, his aspiration for self-expression, without us as Whites committing suicide in the process, and that is the difference between our policy and that of the Opposition. The policy we are implementing here is fair and just to the Black man, but evidently that is its deadly sin in the eyes of the so-called National rebels and of the United Party when they talk for foreign consumption—not when they talk to people in this country. It is a policy which is just to the Whites, and that is evidently what is so wrong with it in the eyes of the colour-blind liberals and in the eyes of the United Party when they address their remarks to people overseas and to UN. It is the one and only policy which is just to both the Whites and the non-Whites and therefore it is the only morally defensible one and the only policy which is defensible from the point of view of Christianity, when viewed from the standpoint of all the parties concerned. It is the only policy which is just when viewed from the standpoint of all the parties concerned in the matter, White and Black, and even those who are not concerned, and therefore it is just from any viewpoint. That now is the policy—just imagine that, Mr. Speaker— which UN calls a danger and a threat to world peace. This is the policy which the United Party, when they talk for foreign consumption, and which the progressives and the liberals in this country, describe as an oppressive and discriminating policy. It is the same policy which the so-called National rebels and the United Party, when they talk to the people in this country, call a negrophilist policy—in other words, precisely the opposite thing. That is how they jump about. Mr, Speaker, we cannot take this Transkei policy further than we are doing without committing an injustice towards the Whites. Then we say, as the late President Kruger said: “It is not the franchise you want, but my country”. Nor can we stop short of the implementation of this policy without being unjust towards the rightful aspirations of the Black man in the Transkei. We grant him the realization of those aspirations in his area. Therefore we say: Supremacy for the White man in his area; supremacy for the Black man in his area; and that is the only way out of our dilemma which will reconcile those two irreconcilable matters, the desire of the White man to maintain himself on the one hand, and the desire of the Black man to have the right of self-determination on the other.

I want to conclude.

Hurrah!

Yes, I think hon. members opposite are thankful, because I have touched on a few sore points. This cheap politicking we have had in this debate will certainly not take us a step further. I challenge the United Party members to get up here, and with reference to what we are doing to tell the world, not only the people in this country but also outside it: Does the National Party do too much for the Bantu, or too little; is it a negrophilist, or does it repress the Bantu? [Laughter.] That is hollow laughter. It is nothing else but play-acting. I challenge that hon. member who has just laughed to get up and to tell the world: Do we oppress the Black man, or are we negrophilists; or, to put it differently, are we Nationalists doing too much or too little for him? No, they will never answer those questions because in the first place they keep their eyes on the voters in South Africa. To them they tell one story, that we are negrophilists; on the other hand, when they talk to people overseas, they say that we oppress the poor African. As I said before, we are living in very critical and dangerous times. May history find us to have been great in the hour of our decision.

We are dealing here with a subject in which I have always taken a special degree of interest. Because of that, I participated actively, for several years, in the study programmes of Sabra, and even sat on its broad executive. That was, of course, before Sabra lost its teeth and a bit of its tongue as well. So it stands to reason that I would scrutinize very carefully the policy involved in the measure before us, and test it severely against the political beliefs I hold and have always propagated. I have consistently held that the problems of race relations in South Africa demand a certain priority approach, in that the settling of matter A would automatically ease matter B; while in reverse order the handling of matter B first, could seriously aggravate matter A. And if ever there was a case where the Government had the priorities completely upside down, it was this matter of the Transkei tribes in regard to which there was hardly any problem at all. I am firmly convinced that if the Government genuinely desired to extend the scope of political rights among the non-White peoples of our country, it would have started from the obvious point; and the obvious starting point for a programme of readjustment in South Africa is not the 1,500,000 tribal people of the Eastern Cape, but the 1,500,000 Coloured people of the Western Cape and the rest of the country. After all, the Transkei has long had a form a local Government. It needed developing, of course, but it was never anything in the nature of an urgent political problem. The main pressure for political justice in South Africa came, justifiably, from the Coloured people, and there was sympathy enough in the country for a big step forward in their position. It also came from the established class among the Bantu in our industrial areas. And there is no balanced judgment at all in the Government’s hurriedly setting up a Prime Minister and a Cabinet in the Transkei in a territorial Parliament of their own, while in the rest of the country it is telling a group like the Coloured people in cold terms that they will never have the right to sit in their territorial Parliament, which can only be this Parliament, and so never have an effective say in the vital affairs of their homeland. I have consistently held that the first priority in the political scheme of things in South Africa was that the Coloured people receive a fuller share and a direct representation in the Parliament of their country. The Bill we have before us aggravates the imbalance of political privilege in South Africa, and is thus another instalment of wrong judgment and bad Government. And I want to point out to the Government that if this Transkei plan was designed, as I believe it was, to try to impress the outside world, nothing would have engendered so much solid goodwill for South Africa as a dynamic step forward in the position, not of the tribes of the Eastern Cape but of the Coloured minority of the Western Cape. Something similar applies to the emergent class among the Bantu in our developed areas. Most of the politically advanced and educated among the Bantu are included in this class. But far from facing these facts this Bill knowingly bypasses the pressure of the legitimate aspirations of the Coloured people and deliberately denies the reality of the position of the permanently urbanized Bantu, to say nothing of the advanced section among the people of Asian stock. To me this glaring fact goes to prove that this Bill is really meant to create an image, the image of a brave solution of our whole race problem, while in actual fact it is a colossal distraction, side-stepping all the vital issues arising from the real problem of race relations in South Africa, and actually creating new ones.

My second objection to voting for the Bill is the political setting in which it is cast, and the ultimate plan of which this is only the beginning and not the end. When the National Party came into power, its declared policy was one of White baasskap over all; there can be no question about that. I was one of a few in the party who opposed it, and therefore know what it was meant to convey. I was firmly against the Black Africanist policy of Black baasskap and so was also against the White Africanist policy of White baasskap. Looking at the facts of our position in South Africa, I think it is true to say that, what we call our Colour problem is actually a White problem, namely the White man’s fear of the Black man’s numbers. I knew that a policy of naked baasskap could never succeed, but I also knew that unless some practical way was found in which this imbalance of numbers could somehow be overcome, politically speaking, the voters of the country would not easily do what they should do, and view matters in a rational way. I realized that there was no ready-made blue-print available, but I wanted the Government at least to work in the direction of a plan consisting of two interlocked parts. The first was to recognize that the so-called “White areas” consist of: a majority of Whites; a minority of half-Whites, i.e. the Coloureds; an even smaller minority of Asians; and a minority of Bantu already permanently settled outside of the tribal lands, and that the Whites and the responsible and advanced among these non-Whites could gradually and safely be accommodated together in the political structure of our “Western” community. The second leg of the plan was—then to develop with all the vigour possible, economically, socially and constitutionally, the tribal lands, so that eventually they would be able to accommodate a decent majority of the Bantu. These developments had to take place collaterally, because the one part was not intelligent without the other. It would have called for a decentralization of power, politically, but it would have left South Africa united in all things where unity is essential, that is to say. in a federal way, both as regards race and geography. I felt that this plan would bring us as closely as possible to security for the White man and political justice for the non-White; and certainly it would have brought about a vast improvement in race relations internally and created a new hope and help for us among the nations of the West. These ideas coincided with the essence of thinking in the Sabra leadership of the time and commanded a surprising degree of support, especially among Church and academic circles associated with the Government side; and for that reason, not because it also represented my way of thinking, the Burger openly pleaded for exactly such a line of policy. It pleaded for the establishment of Bantu territories “wat ’n deeglike meerderheid van die Bantoe moet bevat not all the Bantu, even in political theory, but a “deeglike meerderheid” and no more.

When business was suspended I was saying that I stood for a vigorous development of the tribal lands, but that such development should be part of an overall plan recognizing the fact that you have a permanently settled minority of Bantu in the industrial areas, and that the advanced group among them, instead of our trying to fit them in with the tribal lands, as this Bill is unrealistically trying to do, should be accommodated with the White majority in our “Western” political structure. I said that this was a line of thinking which had support in influential circles on the Government side. I proceeded to quote the Burger which pleaded for the establishment of Bantu territories “wat ’n deeglike meerderheid van die Bantoe moet bevat not all the Bantu even according to theory, but “’n deeglike meerderheid”, and no more. The Burger went on to say:

This was written on 6 May 1961. It came very close to my own expression of thought. But every effort to get the Government to move in that direction was extremely unpopular—unpopular for myself, for the active leadership of Sabra, and for the even more influential leadership of the Burger. The party was committed to White baasskap and it did not want to hear of anything else.

As late as November 1960 the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration made a speech to the National Party Congress in Windhoek in which he said that “in SuidAfrika word die Bantoe se vurige hunkering na politieke regte bevredig in die Bantoetuislande. Dit sal egter nog geslagte neem voordat hulle hulself regeer.” Listen to the choice of words, Sir. [Interjections.] Because if I am not mistaken the title of the Bill before us speaks precisely of “self-regering in die Transkei”. The question therefore arises: what had suddenly brought about the present change in direction, of which the legislation before us is the initial step, and whether this change of direction is not something which we as a tolerant and generous Opposition in the matter of human progress should in honesty support. As I see it, the sequence of events were more or less as follows: Despite all our warnings over the years, the restrictive measures continually applied by the Government in the name of apartheid led South Africa headlong on to the road to Sharpeville, and landed our country in the gravest crisis it had ever to face, and is still facing, in its world position. In such circumstances South Africa became a Republic, raising the question of our continued membership of the Commonwealth. Whatever the Prime Minister felt about our membership personally, he had made a promise, and it was his first excursion into international politics and his reputation for success was at stake. He had to succeed; and once in London he made the boldest bid of his political life and decided to replace the policy of White baasskap with the theory of baasskap for all— “baasskap vir elkeen op sy eie terrein”. This was how the Prime Minister put it to the South Africa Club in London at the beginning of 1961:

[Interjections.] There can be no two meanings about it. As we know, the Prime Minister’s objective to stay in the Commonwealth, did not succeed; but once home, he was speedily obliged to show his people and the world that his new formula could succeed in practice. And the Bill we are facing to-day, and the declarations about eventual free and independent Bantu states, which some of my friends opposite now wish to deny, are the direct outcome of his London announcement. True to fashion, this declaration was made as far away as possible from the four walls of his congresses and the caucus room.

Naturally it would have been a simple matter for the Prime Minister to put his London formula into practice, if separate “terreine” had indeed been existing for the different peoples of our Republic. But it is no use bluffing ourselves, Sir. Unfortunately for the Prime Minister no separate “terreine” had ever been reserved for the White man, or for the Coloureds, or for the people of Indian stock. And so the Prime Minister had to fall back on invention in order to try and give substance to his London formula, and this is the substance which he gave to it: The White man will have a “White state” which, as we know, will never be White at all. (There is no such thing. The Black people say South Africa is a Black man’s land, and the Government people say it is a White man’s land. Neither is correct. This is a multi-national country and will remain so till the end of our days.) The Coloured man will get “a state within a state” which, as we know, will never even faintly approach anything like a state. The South Africans of Indian stock will get another phantom “state within a state and the extra-territorial Bantu, those people who had over the years legitimately trekked and settled in the towns and cities in exactly the same way as the White man had trekked away from his tribal lands in Europe long ago, will become travellers and foreigners where they live. It evidently means nothing to the Prime Minister that, at the time he departed from his tribal home to come to South Africa, there were already 4,000 Bantu people settled in the four districts of the Cape Peninsula, to say nothing about the many thousands who had settled, even before then, on the Witwatersrand and in the other industrial areas of the country. The last leg of this plan of the Prime Minister’s is that the existing tribal areas will become self-governing units, free to become independent states “as the nations are”.

Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that this Bill is primarily intended to prove that this London recipe of the Prime Minister’s is a workable one. It is therefore no coincidence that he chose the easiest feature of the whole prescription because, after all, the Transkei is the only sizeable and compact Bantu Territory and has long had a recognizable political character of its own. The vital point is that this Bill does not stand alone. It is part of a pattern, a pattern which is based on, what I consider, to be the most fanciful political fictions which the world has ever seen. It cannot be isolated from its broader context and I say, therefore, that to vote for this Bill, is to vote for the whole fanciful fabric flowing from the Prime Minister’s London announcement. The Bill must therefore be rejected by all who reject the fancy pants in which the Prime Minister is now trying to clothe his doctrine of apartheid.

Another grave difficulty that I have with the Bill is, that experience has taught us that when it comes to race affairs the Government always complicates a simple matter in a way which makes its solution worse than the problem. It never seems able to give something without at the same time depriving; and more often than not it deprives, and intends to deprive, under the title of giving. The natural procedure in this particular case would have been to give the Transkei enhanced status without any complicating frills, and then to set about developing it economically by all possible means, with White capital, even with foreign capital if necessary, so that the people of Xhosa stock would in a natural way have wanted to go and live there. But, Sir, nothing of the kind. The Government can never give with two hands. When the one hand gives the other hand must take away, until all eyes are focused not on the giving but on the taking away. And the case before us is perhaps the most disgusting of all. In his last New Year’s message to the country the Cape leader of the National Party, the hon. the Minister of Finance, boldly made the following announcement—

I must admit I know little about this “five-year plan”, and I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister responsible whether it is intended that at the end of the five years, the Bantu territories should become completely independent. The Minister said—

What is the leader of the National Party in the Cape saying here? He says that this Bill is what it is, but that it is at the same time only a sub-division, a sort of spare part, of the plan to remove the Bantu from the Western Cape! It is quite interesting to note how proficient the Government is becoming in using different words to cover the same act. First, headlines announced “Die Verwydering van die Bantoe later on it became “die vermindering” of the Bantu in the Western Cape; and finally the operating word became “die weglokking”. But they all mean the same thing, namely the forcing out, which is in fact going on. And this Bill is so designed, with its Transkei citizenship, as to serve this overriding objective.

You see what I mean, Mr. Speaker? What could have been a wholly positive measure becomes part of a vast expulsion move, and even before this Bill is passed into law the disastrous results become apparent and the Government’s very solution becomes a problem. We all know how it has come out in open testimony recently that the effort to murder Chief Kaizer Matanzima was the result of the wholesale way in which the Government was endorsing away wives and children from their husbands and fathers and forcing thousands of people back to the Transkei. [Interjections.] Rightly or wrongly, Sir, the fact is that the culprits blame the leaders of the Transkei for co-operating with the Government in its over-all plans, and so opening the way for the easy execution of its big removal scheme. This in turn has now led to Chief Matanzima expressing his displeasure with the expulsion of his people from the Western Cape, and to retaliate by virtually serving notice on the White traders in the Transkei. You see. Sir, one ugly thing always leads to another ugly thing, and with this Government in power, tied hand and foot to policies of expulsion from jobs, expulsion from homes, and expulsion from areas etc., self-governing regions like the Transkei must become hotbeds of retaliation against the Whites, which under different circumstances and under a different Government would not have been the case.

Some time ago I had the privilege of meeting Chief Matanzima in his Great Place near Cofimvaba and discussing matters personally with him. A photograph of the Prime Minister stood on his desk while we talked. Let me say at once that he is a clever man and a vigorous nationalist, capable of playing his own game and getting away with it. It is my opinion that he is still going to become the biggest headache which this Government has ever had. But I think he does want to help his people, and I should like to help him to help his people. But I will not be helping him by voting for this Bill, as a vote for this Bill, is, among other things, a vote for the wholesale expulsion of people from the Western Cape which is unnecessary and which solves nothing at all. I think the chief will find that his main drawback is going to be the fact that he stands associated with the Government which the mass of Bantu hate and oppose. Whether he likes it or not, the race policies of the Government outside the reserves will force him in his reserve to take up an anti-White attitude in retaliation. There cannot be peaceful relations with any such self-governing territories while all the injustices and insults of apartheid hang so heavily over the land. The cynical thing is that up to now the White Africanists of the Government held all the weapons of action; now the Black Africanists will be given to hold some weapons of action—against the Whites if necessary. The inevitable result in South Africa will be a worsening of relations, demands and counter-demands, threats and counter-threats; and because the whole basis on which the Government proceeds in the matter of race relations is wrong and dangerous, we will steadily be moving along to a vast clash of organized nationalisms.

In the hands of the present Government legislation of this kind is a positive danger to peace and good order in South Africa and cannot therefore be supported.

Finally, Sir, I come to what I believe to be the worst feature of this Bill. As I have already pointed out, Sir, this Bill is a cog in a wheel; it is part of a separatist pattern of which the main underlying philosophy is “every man back to his homeland”. Basically this Bill is a back-to-your-homeland Bill. I cannot think of a more dangerous and explosive thing for the future of the White man in Southern Africa than this homeland concept of the Government in the mutually excluding way in which they propagate and apply it. Certainly, the reserves are homelands for those who live there and for those who are temporarily absent. It could also become homelands for those who wish to go and live there; but everywhere in the world a man’s home is where he is domiciled and where he was lawfully allowed to settle. There is no reason why there should be any basic contradiction in the position of a White settler and a Black settler. But the Government is bound to theory: it is drawing a line on the basis that “you belong where your forebears have come from a hundred years ago”. The area beyond that line becomes his homeland to which he must be artificially appended; and it is a remarkable fact that there are now two forces operating in South Africa propagating the same back-to-your-homeland principle. The one is the Black Africanists of the Pan-African Congress shouting at the White man to go back to his homeland, and the other is the White Africanists of the Government Party shouting to the Black man to go back to his homeland. The policy is the same; the principle is the same; the language is the same. The only little difference is the matter of date-line. The White Africanist talks in terms of what was 100 years ago and what should again be; the Black Africanist talks in terms of what was 300 years ago and what should again be. I say again that I cannot conceive of anything more dangerous for the White man than the acceptance of this principle of every man back to his tribal land. To satisfy his political inventions, the Prime Minister has already dropped out the Protectorates from his scheme of things; he did previously say that the Protectorates should become part of South Africa “ter wille van vreedsaamheid aan ons grense” and in that connection he has now swung round full circle in order to accommodate his latest pattern of ideas. And mark my words, with his policy of every man back to his tribal land this Prime Minister will yet talk South Africa clean out of South West Africa, because 100 years ago there was hardly a White man anywhere in South West Africa. It was a non-White country in its entirety. If there is one element in South Africa which should never stop asserting the principle that a man’s homeland is where he and his forefathers settled legally and permanently, it is the White element. But the Prime Minister has come up with ideas which, if applied by others who differ in colour but who think along the same lines, would spell the end of the White man in South Africa and of peace and order for the Black man in the country. This Bill is based on several of the most dangerous principles that the White man could support.

I conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying this: This Bill is part of a badly balanced policy. While a Prime Minister and a Cabinet are set up in the tribal land of the Transkei, the Coloureds are offered a booby prize, the Asians are ignored, and the advanced and educated Bantu settled in the industrial areas have every little bit of legal security that is still left for them, cut away from under them. At the same time a territory like South West Africa with a budget of R26,000,000 is to be satisfied with a small province-status executive and is even denied the privilege of having one of its own sons as Administrator because the Government does not consider it mature enough for that.

In the last instance the Bill is part of political conceptions and principles such as the back-to-your-homeland principle which a White man could only support at his peril and at the peril of all the people in the country. This is clearly a measure which must be opposed and fought in the country like nothing before. Members on that side are already beginning to bale out. Yesterday the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) presented us with a most revealing speech. He denied that there was any intention on the part of the Government to make the Bantu territories independent. I have already quoted the Prime Minister promising independence as the nations of Africa and Asia have. If that is not enough, Sir, let me quote a categorical statement made by the Government in the London Observer. The Government placed an advertisement in the London Observer which read—

What is wrong with that?

What is wrong with that! The question is why are you now running away from it—

That is this year—

A clearer statement that this Bill is a major step towards sovereign independence you cannot have. What is more, the hon. member for Kempton Park claimed that the Government’s goal was now a federal one. He used the term confederation. I felt particularly flattered, Mr. Speaker, because “confederation” is the term which the National Union has been using for years. [Interjections.] We had it in our election manifesto. The United Party always felt that, in the peculiar circumstances of South Africa the emphasis would of necessity fall not so much on a working together of geographical units as on a working together of races and peoples. We were therefore prepared to accept with our term of “confederation” its term of “race federation However, I have not got the time to quarrel with the hon. member for Kempton Park over the meaning of words, but I am sure he will not quarrel with me when I say that America officially describes itself as a confederation, so does Switzerland. I have heard the hon. the Prime Minister say in this House that he would have no truck whatsoever with any form of Federalism, and that the only basis on which he was prepared to build his South African commonwealth was that of friendly discussion between him as Prime Minister and the prime ministers of the Bantustans. Nothing more. But there is not a confederation where there is not a Parliament in which all the units and peoples are somehow represented. The hon. member for Kempton Park is the first to bale out, and I am convinced he will not be the last. If necessity was the mother of invention for the Prime Minister, this invention with which we are dealing here will yet be the father of his downfall.

I hasten to deal with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson). I say I hasten to deal with him because the hon. member for Bezuidenhout changes his policy so often and so very quickly that I am afraid that if I dawdle at all he will have another policy by the time I get to him. Mr. Speaker, one can perhaps best describe the hon. member for Bezuidenhout as a political hitch-hiker. As a student he travelled for a while with the United Party in the Republic; then he travelled with the United Party for a while in South West Africa; thereafter he travelled with the National Party; then he travelled with his own party, the National Union Party, and now he is again travelling with the United Party. I want to tell the hon. member with my compliments that if ever he found himself behind a wobbling bicycle, it is this time.

I do not know whether it will help much to take the hon. member for Bezuidenhout back to the various policy statements that he has already made because he will have another policy to-morrow. It may perhaps do his conscience some good if I refer him to a few points so that he will know what he said from time to time. He took particular exception this evening to the so-called “White baasskap”. He made out that “White baasskap” was such a terrible sin. I want to quote from a document drawn up and published by a certain J. D. du P. Basson, P.O. Box 186, Otjiwarongo, and printed by Unie Volkspers Bpk., Stuebal Street, Windhoek. The heading is “White Baasskap: Our Policy”. In this pamphlet the hon. member states—

Amongst other things he also mentions “anti-Asiatic immigration and fair treatment” and then says—

That was the policy of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. In this document he emphasizes Article 8 in the party’s then programme of principles which states amongst other things—

1. (a) In its dealings with the Natives the “baasskap” and superiority of the White man over the Native will be the fundamental factor.

He then tries to elaborate on this point and he qualifies it by saying—

[Interjections.] The hon. member for Bezuidenhout will say that it is unfair to go back to 1948 because that is quite some time ago. I want to take him back a little further than that. I want to refer him to his speech in this House on 31 March 1955, in which he describes the policy of the United Party, which he has just advocated, as follows—

He goes on to say the following, which is important. He says—

He goes on to say why he is in favour of this policy of separate development and amongst other things he has this to say—

Let me also say this: I do not want to waste time on the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. The hon. member approaches this matter further in this way; he says—

He goes on to say—

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout has taken particular exception this evening to the Bantu living in the White urban areas of South Africa. I want to put a direct question to the hon. member: If it were not for the Bantu living in the urban areas, would the hon. member have supported this Transkei legislation? I want to challenge the hon. member. He is not prepared to answer. Because if he would have supported the measure under those circumstances, I say that this matter is not one of principle as far as he is concerned.

But the hon. member is one of the few members in this House who must be careful in discussing the Bantu policy in regard to the Transkei either generally or specifically. I want to advise him to be careful because what he says in this House is recorded in Hansard. We will eventually have the position that he will have supported so many different policies that anyone in this House will be able to say, “Mention any policy under the sun to me and I will be able to show you in Hansard where he advocated that policy.”

The hon. member referred to the Bantu in the White areas. In the development in South Africa I see two clear directions, one dealing with the Bantu in the urban areas and one dealing with the Bantu in the Bantu homelands. I want to deal with both of these policies and indicate the difference between them. If one takes the policy which has been followed for ages in connection with the Bantu homelands, we find for example in Cape Ordinance No. 25 of 1894 that certain general councils were brought into being in the Transkei. After this the Transkei received certain rights of self-determination in the United General Council of the Transkeian Territories. These were given to them in terms of Proclamation No. 191 of October 1932. and in terms of this Proclamation they were given a great measure of say over-education, particularly in connection with the granting of busaries, health matters, agriculture, markets, veld fires, the administration and control of their own staff and so forth, which is an indication to my mind that the intention from the start was that the Bantu in the Transkei would have to undergo a certain natural process. And that legislation was not passed by the National Party or by the Government. I do not even talk about the Bantu Authorities Act, No. 68 of 1951, which gave even greater powers to the Territorial Authorities.

But in contrast to this let us take the position of the urban Bantu. We find that the policy in respect of the urban Bantu was one of restriction, restriction in the White area. If one takes this away from the start, one finds that prior to the establishment of Union the position was that with the exception of Ndabeni location in Cape Town and the New Brighton location in Port Elizabeth, Native locations in White areas were controlled by local authorities. This shows how important our predecessors regarded the question of the Bantu in the urban areas. It was only in the South Africa Act, 1909, in Section 85 read with Section 81, that the question of local authorities, including amongst other things the control over Native locations, was added to the powers of Provincial Councils. But take the various legislative measures which were passed from time to time. Take for example Act No. 38 of 1927 which established influx control as far as the urban Bantu were concerned; or take Act No. 45 of 1945 which provided for service registration and imposed restrictions upon Bantu coming into the urban areas. In these provisions we see two clear directions: In the Transkei and in the Bantu homelands there was a policy of development, of progress—of constitutional development as well—while in the Bantu locations in the cities there was a policy of restriction. Act No. 25 of 1945 was the only law which gave limited advisory powers to location boards; in other words, not only this Government but previous Governments, all the Governments that we have had in South Africa, regarded the development of the Transkei and of the Bantu homelands as a process which eventually had to end in independence, no matter how long it took. But as far as the urban Bantu were concerned, there had to be restrictions. The Bantu could not have the franchise and they were limited to certain areas. To my mind this was a natural development.

But what to my mind was not a natural development was the Native Representation Act of 1936, which gave the Transkei one representative in a House consisting of 154 members, one representative for an area which in 1951 had more than 1,250,000 inhabitants of whom only 4,190 had the franchise, This to my mind was an unnatural development, but I can understand it because it was an attempt to correct a mistake which had been made in the original Constitutional Ordinance of 1852, Section 8 of which gave the franchise to every inhabitant who was a British subject and who could comply with certain qualifications. But that granting of the franchise was an unnatural process. As Edgar Brookes stated in his “History of Native Policy in South Africa”, there was the possibility that that step was a mistake, an error; and the legislation of 1936 was an attempt to correct it.

The development of the Transkei, its natural origin, its background, its constitutional development indicates a natural process to my mind, as I have already said; a process which other states in the world, including South Africa, have been experiencing for 300 years. I believe that it may perhaps take the Transkei just as long to complete that process.

The opposition of the United Party to this legislation reminds me of the opposition of the imperialists about 60 years ago to the emancipation of South Africa, when they did not want to admit that South Africa was undergoing an emancipation process which would eventually lead to full sovereign independence. But those imperialists were to some extent far more sensible than the United Party of to-day. They refused to give representation in their own Parliament to those states which were becoming emancipated because they were afraid that those people would eventually outvote them in their own Parliament, while the United Party of to-day wants to give representation to those emancipated states, the Bantu homelands, in our own Parliament. I say that they are being almost as stupid as the French who applied a policy in their colonies in Africa which resulted eventually in the French colonies in Africa having representation in the French Parliament. But the mistake made by the French was eventually corrected in 1960 when they adopted legislation to remove all the Black representatives from the French Parliament. In any case the French were far more clever than the United Party because they corrected the mistake timeously by removing the Black representatives, while the United Party goes so far that when that situation does arise, it will be in a position where it will never be able to correct that mistake; it will be far too late.

Do you take Algeria as yor example now?

It is time the United Party and the imperialists of the world realized that where we have a homogeneous population with its own culture, with its own language, with its own background, we cannot prevent those people from eventually becoming emancipated and having their own independent state, no matter how long it may take them to do so. The process which is starting in the Transkei to-day, and which took South Africa 300 years to complete, is the process which many other countries experienced in the form of a revolution, while in the Transkei we want this to take place by means of a process of evolution, which means that it must take place gradually—as and when the Bantu in the Transkei are ready for it and are sufficiently capable, and prove that they are able to accept this process as adults, and are able to handle the emancipation process themselves.

Mr. Speaker, over the past few centuries the world has taught us various lessons. The world has taught us that nationalism, Black or White, knows no bounds. In saying this, I do not want to suggest that what is happening in Africa to-day is the result of Black nationalism. Indeed, I personally am convinced that it is a question of a small group of leaders who are acting as agitators and are trying to create the impression amongst the Black masses that they are experiencing a process of nationalism. But the world also taught us that it is only full nationhood—full language rights, full cultural rights, their own national boundaries— which will satisfy the nationalists, and even though it may be argued that what we have in South Africa is not the nationalism that we know, one can perhaps accept the fact that it is at least in its embryonic stage and that independence will soon follow. But what we must not forget is that once that process of nationhood, of emancipation has started, nothing can stop it, and such nations will not be satisfied with semi-nationhood. The Jews in Israel did not stop agitating until they had made Israel a completely sovereign and independent state. The Americans were prepared even by force of arms to achieve full nationhood. As far as the Afrikaner was concerned, he had the franchise over the centuries, but he did not leave it at that. He did not rest until he had his own flag, his own national anthem, his own head of state and his own form of government. That is why I say that man’s desire to remain faithful to his own race is one of the strongest natural human urges and must eventually lead to independence. The same argument holds good for Bantu nationalism to-day. Qualified franchise, limited political representation, race federation and so forth will never be the final solution; these will never be accepted by the Bantu. The lesson that the world has taught us is that what the Bantu in Africa want—and I want to mention South Africa specifically, too, because we are living on a continent in which we cannot cut ourselves off from occurrences elsewhere in Africa—is “one man, one vote”. They do not want bread; they want the franchise. Neither do they want petty apartheid. They do not want us merely to repeal the Mixed Marriages Act or the Immorality Act or those other measures which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout mentioned. No, they want the franchise. Nkomo, the Black leader in Rhodesia, said—

Hon. members opposite must not imagine that, by abolishing the so-called petty apartheid, they will satisfy the aims of Bantu nationalism or of the Bantu in South Africa. No, they want everything. Julius Nyerere said on one occasion—

But it is not only he who says this. The hon. Leader of the Opposition has also said this. In 1959, according to Hansard (Col. 6038), he said—

I want to quote now from a letter written by Colonel J. R. Bowring, M.P.C., which appeared in the Burger in which he explained the so-called federation plan of the United Party. He said this—

I am pleased that he qualified this statement by saying that as far as the United Party could see into the future, this would be the position. It is unfortunate that the United Party cannot see too far. Because the United Party is so short-sighted, this will not be the position and the Bantu in this Parliament will not be represented by Europeans but by the Bantu themselves. There is no Bantu in South Africa who unreservedly supports the policy of the United Party in all respects and I want to quote what one of their heroes or so-called heroes said in this connection. I am speaking now about Albert Luthuli and the way he describes the policy of the United Party. I quote here from New Age of 17 November 1957 in which he is reported as having said the following—

He goes on to say—

You see, not even Albert Luthuli is prepared to accept the policy of the United Party and I contend that if there is a Bantu in South Africa who is prepared to accept the policy of the United Party, it will be because he regards the policy of the United Party as a means for achieving his eventual end. He will only regard it as a half-way house towards achieving his eventual aim. The ultimate aim is not “one man, one vote” either. We can give the Bantu in Africa one man, one vote to-day and he will not be satisfied with that. What he wants is supremacy in his own area. And under the National Party he will eventually have supremacy in the Bantu homeland and this we wholeheartedly concede to him. But under the United Party it will mean supremacy in South Africa. And I believe that there are members on the other side of this House—like the hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren), the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) and perhaps the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) or the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell)—who are honestly of the opinion that the White man in South Africa must retain his position of authority. But they are being led backwards by the liberals in that Party. We must not forget that only a few years ago a group developed on the other side, in the ranks of the United Party, which eventually left the party because it was too progressive and too liberal for that party, but traces of those liberals are still to be found in that party to-day. We must not forget that the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) and the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) had Progressive tendencies but they returned to the United Party because they knew that they could lead the United Party from behind. The hon. Leader of the Opposition is under the impression to-day that he is leading his party from the front, that he is its head, but the United Party reminds me of a crab— it is going backwards and it is the tail which is dragging the head behind it.

I have no fear that the United Party’s policy will eventually impress the White voters of South Africa but I do have one fear and that is that the repeated argument of that party in regard to this matter will eventually result in the fact that we will have Black imperialists who will say: “But if we can have the whole of South Africa instead of only the Bantu homelands, let us support these people so that we can achieve that.” That agitator type amongst the Bantu is a real danger because they will also carry the peace-loving Bantu in South Africa, who are prepared to accept the policy of separate development, along with them to their eventual goal.

I say that the Bantu in Africa—and this will also eventually hold good for the agitator type of Bantu in South Africa—is not prepared to have “partnership” or co-operation with the White man in South Africa. He wants nothing of that nature. I read an interesting book by an American negro who claimed that because of his colour he was able to have intimate discussions with the Black leaders of Africa. The writer is Louis E, Lomax who has written an interesting book entitled “The Reluctant African”. He writes as follows—

That is his summary of the matter. In the same book he goes on further to say—

And listen to the language used by Tom Mboya. This is the direction in which hon. members opposite want to lead us. That same negro, Louis E. Lomax, asked him whether the White people would eventually be able to stay in Kenya if he came into power, and he stated that the Whites could stay—

But the question which arises in South Africa in connection with the United Party is this: When they have reached that eventual end, when their federation plan has delivered us up to the Black man in South Africa, when we have reached that point, there will no longer be any democracy in South Africa because inherently the Bantu in South Africa do not know any system of democracy. The occurrences in Africa have made this abundantly clear. I have a Sapa report here which indicates how things are progressing elsewhere in Africa. I do not want to waste time by reading the full report because my time has virtually expired, but I do want to quote what this same American Negro writes about Ethiopia and Liberia. He says that those two countries are a poor argument for independence and goes on to say—

This will be the position in South Africa when the policy of hon. members opposite has eventually delivered us up to the Black masses in South Africa. I just want to quote to you what a British Member of Parliament, Mr. McAdden, has to say. He states—

I direct this particularly at the hon. member for Bezuidenhout who has tried to make out that if we accept a multi-racial state in this country it will be the end of the trouble and that we will eventually be able to live together in harmony. The Indian, Madhu Panikkar, described the characteristics of the Bantu in Africa of resorting to an autocratic system of government, as follows—and I quote from his book Revolution in Africa—

Because this is the actual position and because we have learnt a certain lesson from the occurrences in Africa which we can apply to some extent in South Africa, I say that it is better for the ways of the Black man and the White man to be parted in South Africa so that the Black man will receive control over and eventual sovereign independence in those areas which are his due, and that the White man will retain what is his due and what he is entitled to. When we have eventually divided up those two groups in this way. the White man can tell a Wilson and a Kennedy and the rest of the world—he can shout it aloud from the rooftops—that he will defend to the last what he considers to be his own and that in those areas he will never be prepared to accept any other authority but that of the White man The policy of separate development is a policy for the future not only of South Africa; it is a policy for the future of the whole world. We have found that in countries like India and Korea the policy of separate development and segregation has been the only way in which eventual harmony has been effected. I have various extracts here from a paper entitled Southern Africa. The editor, Allan Gray, whom I met personally and who, in terms of our present South African politics can be described as a hardened United Party supporter, eventually accepted our policy. There have also been various foreign visitors to South Africa who have praised it. There is, for example, the editor of De Telegraaf, a Hollander, who made a summary of it and said that this system of Bantu homelands would be the eventual salvation of White South Africa. In conclusion let me read one paragraph of what was said by the American, Ellender, who stated—

The only people who do not want to accept it is the United Party. We have reached the stage where the world is accepting separate development but hon. members opposite do not want to accept it because they are being led from behind, as I have already said, by the liberals in their party whose hatred for the National Party is greater than their love for South Africa.

The hon. member who has just sat down has followed the pattern which we have seen evidenced through all the speeches here over the last few days in which this legislation has been discussed. Far from convincing this side of the House, or anyone, of the strength of the case of the Minister who has presented the Bill, he has in fact supported the contentions of the United Party. It is all these very dangers which he sees in Africa generally that we have warned the Minister and the Government side of the House against, because our objective is not to fragment the country; our objective is to maintain the country as a cohesive whole, and the hon. member himself in his peroration talked about the solution of sovereign independence, as many other speakers have spoken in times gone by. In fact when the Prime Minister in January 1962 addressed this House on the whole question, he himself said (Hansard, Vol. 2, Col. 84), dealing with the question of economic assistance, economic help for the Transkei—

There is no question, Mr. Speaker, that the purpose of this legislation is part of the general pattern which will put the Transkei, as it will the other states if they proceed similarly, on the road to sovereign independence, because that is obviously the intention of the Government side. So convinced am I that that is their objective, that one must have listened with considerable interest to the defence of the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) of this allegation that the Government is set on the road of sovereign independence, because he tried to take the limelight of that allegation by saying that the purpose is for these states together with South Africa to become part of a confederation. He is described by some of the newspapers as one of the back-bencher theoreticians of the Government and that he came into the debate deliberately in order to give a new concept to this whole question of sovereign independence by dealing with what he called a “confederation”. He gave as an example the Ukraine and showed how the Ukraine fitted into the U.S.S.R. which he called a confederation. But he is entirely wrong, because the Ukraine is one of the socialist republics which together with many others forms the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. There is no question of a confederation at all. It is a union of sovereign independent states. But he used that as an example of a confederation. I would like to give the hon. Minister some examples of what a confederation can mean. In the United States, for instance, there was a confederacy in 1861, a confederacy which was a union of half a dozen states who also by strange coincidence had an issue on the question of colour. The hon. member for Middelland (Mr. Van der Merwe) used the United States as some form of comparison. That confederation was formed in 1861, and in a very short time it led to a war, a civil war in the United States, a war between those states and the union, and the result was eventually that the confederacy disappeared, and we had the United States of America. Now I would like to know what does the hon. member for Kempton Park mean by saying that South Africa will assume the structure of a confederation. Does he mean that we will have a number of sovereign independent states which will fall into a union of some nature? Does he, for instance, know what the definition of “confederation” is? It is defined as “a term in modern political use; it generally is confined to a permanent union of sovereign states for certain common purposes”. Is that the intention of the Government? Is it their objective to eventually have a sovereign independent state and a further seven independent states, and then endeavour by some form of agreement to form what is called a “confederation”, as the “Confederation of the Republic of South Africa”? If that is the case why don’t they tell us? Why must they try and build a smoke screen and try and use the evidence of this legislation, which is to retain some power in the meantime, until they feel their way towards it? If the Government wants to be perfectly frank, it should, as was suggested by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, take the public into its confidence. If they have in mind a “confederation” and all that the term implies, then they should say so and not leave it to other members on the Government side to try and cloak their intention under other terms and words and leave the public completely confused. It seems to me that the hon. the Prime Minister, when he announced his new vision and made use of the very terms contained in the Tomlinson Report, namely, that there are only two issues, either a multiracial state or complete segregation, has in fact done a disservice to the country by thereafter precipitating the Bantu of South Africa into a complete political hiatus in preference to what was recommended by that commission, and that is to proceed with what they say are the first preliminary steps, and that is to deal with the economic development of those areas. They actually used these words—

They also recommended that a globular sum of money should be spent over a period of time to prepare them for it. If the Government wished to embark upon a programme of political rights for the Bantu in their own areas, they should have realized that they cannot do so with a people who are not properly prepared for it, which has had no experience, and which has no economy. Has not all the trouble of the emergent states in Africa been the fact that they had no economy of any value at all on which to found their state, and therefore they have floundered? Will not the same thing arise in the Transkei when we hand to them a form of government which will lead them to eventual sovereign independence and, at the same time, leave them with such a meagre economy that one can hardly contemplate, without tremendous financial assistance, how it will ever develop under their own guidance. The hon. member for Middelland (Mr. van der Merwe) actually said that he believed it would take 300 years for the Transkei to develop into a modern state—the same time as it took this country to develop. When the Commissioner-General for the Xhosa national unit, which is to be the Transkei, addressed the Transkei Territorial Authority in May last year, he said this—

He himself made it clear to them how important a strong economy was. Right throughout the address of the hon. the Minister, we have been given no information which can reasonably lead this House to believe that it is possible for a state to be established there, and for a modern government to be established there, on the lines laid down in this Bill. We believe that they have precipitated their action, that in a sense they have been spurred on by a sense of panic into providing this immediately in order, as they say themselves, to satisfy world opinion that they are giving political rights to the non-Whites and that everything in the garden is rosy. Surely we, who have had the experience, as was boasted on the other side, of so many years of close contact with the Bantu and of administration of the Bantu, and of getting to know them, do not need to be driven by world opinion into an action, the consequences of which we know nothing about at this stage and can hardly visualize. Surely if we felt, as this side of the House feels, that you must develop the homelands as part and parcel of the economy of South Africa, and that you must avoid any fragmentation of that economy, they could have embarked on a proper scheme by providing the necessary funds and building up the agricultural life of the country. Surely they must realize that when a country like Swaziland, which after all is still a British dependancy and which has only 300,000 inhabitants, and which has had R80,000,000 poured into it, in its industrial, agricultural and mineral fields, and it has only been able to find jobs for 15,000 persons, surely we must realize that when the Tomlinson Report talks of the economy developing, and it talks of 50,000 jobs a year, we must know that it is literally impossible to do so unless a considerable sum of money is poured into it. Surely when this side of the House contents that the policy of driving out White traders and entrepreneurs and White capital, save to make use of it only in what one might call the benevolent sense, where it has already been suggested by the Prime Minister that those who want to provide funds for it can do so, but with no profit motive, but merely to guide and help those people—surely if one drives away that capital and enterprise, how can this so-called state build up its economy by its own efforts and initiative? [Interjection.] We are not driving capital out of South Africa; you are doing so. Everything that has been done on the Government side for the last 15 years has certainly not brought about an increase in capital development every year, and, in fact, just recently the Minister of Finance warned the public that they must not put their money away into safe investments; the time has come to withdraw their money and use it as risk capital, because there is not sufficient capital coming into the country. If you compare the position of the United Party before 1948, you will know that capital was coming in at an inordinate rate, and that would have continued and this country would have developed fantastically because it has the potential.

If you are returned to power to-day there will be a flight of capital to-morrow.

No, there will not. But that should not divert us from one important factor, and that is that to give political rights merely as a sop is not honest government. It is not fair and right to the people, neither to the Whites nor to the Bantu. There is still time for the Government to withdraw from this legislation. Does not the Government realize what is taking place? I want to indicate also from the discussions of the Transkei Territorial Authority what the psychological background is of their future Prime Minister, because he makes a statement saying—

There is one example that this Government has given to the Prime Minister designate of the Transkei, and that was even before this Bill wormed its way into the House. We had the outburst which we had from him recently and which compelled the Prime Minister to repudiate what he said. What more is going to happen? How do we know that we are not building up a Frankenstein monster in the Transkeian areas which eventually will want to take over from the White leaders of South Africa, from the Republican Parliament which will retain certain powers in terms of this Bill? How do we know that they will not themselves feel that they are sufficiently strengthened, with all the adulation we have heard from the other side about all their years of experience, to want to take over themselves and to guide their own destiny? Has not the Minister himself in talking about the self-determination of a nation lauded the spirit of the dignity of a nation? Does he want to tell this House, as has been suggested by hon. members opposite, that the Transkei will merely be a little vassal state and that the reins of power will be held by us, when he knows himself, and every thinking man must know, that having started them on this course, as our leader rightly said, we who started them on this course will not be able to control the pace of events, nor will we be the masters in so far as their development is concerned. I feel that this course is dangerous for that reason. You cannot precipitate a people who are not economically prepared nor educationally prepared for government into government and allow them to believe that this now establishes them in the form of a modern state, and this gives them the opportunity to follow what is happening in other countries and to take over themselves, as no doubt they will.

The Government has talked about protecting the White traders in the area. The Prime Minister designate has said that the White traders must realize that they cannot be there in competition with the citizens of the Transkei. The Hekroodt Commission, which has not yet presented its report, before it even completed taking evidence, gave some extraordinary information to the Press. It told the Press that it is important to have White entrepreneurs in the Transkei and it is impossible for the Transkei to develop economically on any satisfactory basis at all unless you have the “know-how” and the technical equipment and the finance to build the towns and to set up the industries that are required. What one really wants to know of the Government is this: Is the Government merely going to satisfy the border industries, because it has already said that the economy of the Transkei will improve because its citizens will cross the border, work in the border industries, and earn sufficient funds to bring back into the economy of the Transkei and so help to bolster it up. But that is not the way wealth is created in a country. If a country is to develop economically it must be productive and produce wealth, and it must build up the national income in the country. To-day we heard that our national income has risen by 7 per cent. The national income of the country must rise. It cannot depend on wages earned outside, by serving industry in another country. You cannot tell me that the comparisons made in regard to the Italian workers who go to work in France, that because they go to France at the rate of about a million a year, by that means they play a big part in building up the economy of Italy. Surely the Minister must realize that with all his good intentions and all the goodwill he has towards them and all the dignity he wants to give them, there is no point in giving them an empty vessel, something which has no substance, like an empty shell. Surely the Minister must realize that he must do something substantial and then, following our policy, not the policy of sovereign independence, the wealth of that part of the country can be developed and can contribute to the general national wealth of South Africa, which will redound to the benefit of the Bantu as well as the Whites, so that our economy is not fragmented and is not unbalanced.

We must not forget that the Republic of South Africa still remains completely dependent on the Black masses for its labour, and that we cannot, in so far as our economy is concerned, risk disturbing and unsettling the whole of this labour force. Surely by the introduction of this form of political freedom, as it is called, we are doing something which can bring about restlessness in the country because there is other legislation to follow which must fit into this pattern. We will bring about unrest and disturb the stability of labour, and we can do a great deal of harm to the general economy of South Africa.

Having attempted to embark on this policy, surely the Government owes South Africa much more than merely indulging in quotations as to what one man said 20 or 30 years ago, or trying to justify what happened in other African states. Surely they owe it to the people of South Africa to give us much clearer detail and to satisfy us that the future of the country itself will not be affected. We have pointed out to them certain dangers. We have warned the Government of the difficulties that will arise. So far no one has answered that coherently. I think we are entitled to have an answer in respect of these various matters. Sir, if you have a look at the actual expenditure in the Transkei—unfortunately I was not able to get the information for the year ended June 1961, but for the year ended June 1959, R1,250,000 was spent by the Transkeian Territorial Authority, and as at 30 June 1962 approximately R2,000,000 was spent by that authority. Over a period of nearly 60 years the total amount that was spent in the Transkei was R80,500,000, an absolute pittance, which indicates immediately how sparse and meagre the economy of that part of the country is. And in getting rid of the White traders they are doing even greater harm to the economy of the Transkei, and that can really destroy everything which has been built up.

We on this side of the House believe that this legislation should not be proceeded with. We believe that this Bill will start something which we may not be able to hold back. We have asked that the Bill be read this day six months. We make an appeal to the Minister to consider carefully what is taking place in South Africa and to realize that the conflict which already is evident in the Transkei can spread. I am not saying that to be destructive, but there is no question that as we build further borders within our country, and what may eventually become new international boundaries, we are creating additional pockets of conflict in South Africa. We already have sufficient problems on our hands with regard to the security of the present borders of the Republic of South Africa. Do we want to embark upon an experiment—because that is what it has been described as by one of the hon. members opposite. I think the hon. member for Karas (Mr. von Moltke) delivered an important speech in South West, in which he said this was an experiment and a very serious one and if it failed it could lead to very serious consequences to the country.

Did I say that?

I read it in the Press. If you did not say it, deny it.

I did not say what you said just now.

Then the hon. member can explain to the House the contents of his speech. I have not got the speech here, but if the hon. member denies it—he has just come back from an important tour of his constituency to explain this Bill … [Interjections.] There are many people on the other side who are in doubt as to the eventual outcome. It has already been admitted, even by the Prime Minister, that they realize that we will have problems and difficulties and that this policy cannot be achieved without difficulty. Is it right now to immerse this country in new problems, when we already have sufficient problems on our hands? Our Leader has given a course and a direction. He talks about orderly advance. That is important. We have to right the wrongs. We have to put right what this Government has put wrong. We must have a policy of justice in regard to everything we do. We cannot merely think that we are going to artificially take human beings, millions of them, and move them about like checkers on a checker board. A complete social upheaval takes place when one endeavours to reverse the movement of events over a considerable number of years. The reversal of labour back to the homelands as against labour moving into the Republic will bring in its track social upheavals which can be most disturbing. I think one has to be extremely cautious, unless the hon. the Minister is prepared to tell us that he is quite willing to take the chance that this mass labour force upon which our whole economy depends can be removed from our economy and that the Republic will neither suffer financially nor socially or in any other way. It is important because it is not sufficient to introduce into the House one bit of legislation and ask us to consider it in vacuo. One has to look at it as part of the whole pattern. In my view it is the responsibility and in fact the obligation of the Minister to give us a broader picture of the pattern, so that this country will be fully aware of what is implied by this Bill.

The Minister knows, further, that the objections to this Bill are not raised only by this side of the House, but by members of his own party, and we cannot dismiss that lightly. It is all very well to laught it off, but there are thousands of Nationalists who are deeply disturbed at the possibility of what may happen, having done something which no other country has attempted. I should like to know where else in the world such fragmentation has taken place in a country. When France gave Morocco its independence, Morocco was thousands of miles away from France. When Britain gave independence to Nigeria and Ghana and those other states, that was thousands of miles away from Britain. They did not create new conflicts in their own country. But we South Africans, we as a young country, decide that in our own country we will create separate states and take the risk of shrinking the borders of our country and adding to what might possibly be the menace from the north, the enmity of a people who through the years of maladministration have become the enemies of the Whites. We must realize one important thing. The Government has got to tell us what it intended. The hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) spoke about confederation. Perhaps he might be able to ask the Minister to give us an exposition of what a confederation in South Africa will mean. As he was out of the House, it is only fair to tell him that this question of a confederation has been criticized as being something entirely different from what he intended to convey. He knows what it means—a union of sovereign states, the White Republic and the eight Black sovereign states forming a confederation. It may be that that is what he meant. It might possibly mean also that we might want to make treaties with the new independent Swaziland, Basutoland and Bechuanaland and with Mozambique. Is that what he means? Who knows? He might have in mind a confederation of all states south of the Sahara.

In conclusion I would like to say this. The Minister is embarking upon something which this side of the House believes sincerely and with the utmost conviction to be inimical to the interests of the people of South Africa, both White and non-White. We believe that South Africa has to be governed as one whole. The backward peoples of our country should be advanced along the normal avenues of a proper education, an expanding economy, and with some training which will enable them to take part, as time goes on, in their own local government, to rule their own affairs on the local government level, advancing as time goes on to a higher status. But it must be done gradually and on a proper economic basis and with wisdom. It must not be done for alien reasons, to satisfy the opinion of other people, because we are unable ourselves to work out a sound and proper basis of administration. Nor must we be guided, as unfortunately was evidenced on the other side, by a sense of fear for the future. The hon. member for Kempton Park said that this was a matter of life and death. It is an exhibition of fear. It is fear which is driving through this policy, and not the wisdom of the Government. If fear is to be the motive then I say that the outcome of action based on fear must eventually lead to destruction. We on this side owe a duty to the country to warn the Government that we want South Africa to prosper and to develop as one great country, rather than allow our country to sink into what might well be complete internal conflict over issues which at this stage are not the important issues facing South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, women are often wrongly accused of talking at random, but now I can understand why a lady during the general election in Houghton ousted the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, if he spoke there at random as he has spoken here to-night. At the commencement of his speech he also said, “We must not leave the public confused we should tell them where we intend going and what our policy is. Surely that is not a charge that can be levelled at us, for it is a fact that we have always tried to ascertain from that side of the House what their policy is, and particularly where their race federation will lead us. He stated further that we are being compelled by world opinion to adopt these measures. Like any civilized country, we also take cognisance of world opinion, but it is not world opinion that has compelled us to take these steps; there is a historical basis underlying this, underlying our policy as it is being implemented.

In this Bill we are more particularly concerned with the political aspect of our race relationships. However, it is a matter that can hardly be dealt with without our facing up to other aspects of our whole race pattern or our race relationships. The political aspect is merely a sub-division of a much bigger pattern, and the various aspects of this pattern have an important bearing and effect upon one another. The entire race pattern that has developed in South Africa is not a recent creation. It is not a product of yesterday or the day before, but it has developed throughout many generations and centuries and we are aware of the circumstances under which it has developed, so that I shall not deal with that any longer. It is sufficient to say that the Whites, in consequence of the great difference in the levels of civilization, have drawn a dividing line between themselves and the indigenous people. That is why in South Africa there has been developed a way of life that is peculiar to South Africa, a special White man’s code. It manifests itself in the social life as well. Miscegenation is regarded as a crime against the community. The customs and institutions of the Coloureds are simply not accepted, and in every respect a separation has been applied. Although we do not all see eye to eye regarding the manner in which the finer details of this way of life are applied and finds expression in our country, the fact remains that we Whites of all language groups, and the gentlemen on that side of the House as well, maintain this particular way of life that has developed through the generations, and observe this White man’s code, and those hon. members opposite also do not want to see that this way of life of ours and this White man’s code should be interfered with, particularly in the social sphere. No radical changes may take place there. It should be maintained in its present form. However, there are those also, even in this House as well as outside, who desire to bring about a disturbance in this order, and wish to see it set aside. But this social structure is not the work of a day or of one generation; it is a structure that has come to stay in South Africa and which will be preserved as it is.

But having made these preliminary remarks, we should note that this distinctive way of life, particularly as regards the social structure, is reflected also in the political set-up of affairs in South Africa. Partition walls were at some time broken down to a certain extent, but in other parts of the country those partition walls again were maintained. In the former Cape Colony and in Natal from about 1865, through the influence of certain schools of thought, and because commercial imperialism deemed it more advantageous for their purposes, and because it was regarded as a method of strengthening the position of one White man as against another, political equality between White and non-White in South Africa was introduced. That is as far as the south was concerned, but in the Boer Republics of the Transvaal and the Free State this new principle was rejected, and these people, the heirs to the views of the eighteenth century that developed in the south whence they had migrated, also applied this separation that existed in the political sphere, and in the social structure as well nothing was surrendered.

But, Mr. Speaker, these two policies, that is to say, the one of the north and the other of the south, although initially divergent, in 1910 eventually came together again. In 1910 these two policies came together under one and the same Government authority. On that occasion, too, these two policies were fully compared. But I shall return to this point later on.

There is another small matter I should like to raise which is closely related to the social structure and political development and exercises a great influence upon it. It concerns the establishment of separate Bantu areas in South Africa, or in other words, the establishment of the traditional homelands of the Bantu. We know that the Xhosa-speaking tribes in their migrations to the south subsequently, after contact with the White man, settled in a certain part of the country. This part of the country later developed into the homeland of the Xhosa as a result of wars, treaties and other historical circumstances. The Transkei as we know it to-day came into being under British rule during the years 1877 and 1894. The areas that were annexed at that time were annexed in the interests of the Xhosa and for the sake of the preservation of peace and order in that area, and for the sake of good relations between the Whites and the Bantu. A certain writer said the following about this matter—

That is what Mr. H. Rogers had to say on page 100 of his book: Native Administration in South Africa.

This separation or partitioning did not occur just arbitrarily. It was brought about by specific historical factors and as a result of the deep-rooted socio-economic position of the territories. An attempt was made to protect the weaker against the stronger. Had that not happened, the White man with his greater ingenuity, his superior power and wealth, could have become the eventual owner of the Bantu territories, and very little of his traditional home country might have remained for the Xhosa. The establishment of the Transkei would subsequently play an important role in the political order that developed—not only as regards the policy the White man would pursue, but also in respect of the measure of local self-government the Bantu would exercise in the Transkei.

I should like to return now to the position in 1910. One of the most important questions with which the creators of Union were confronted was the non-White problem. The conflict mainly concerned the question of whether the non-Whites should have and enjoy equal political rights with the White man. The negotiations very nearly broke down on this single aspect of the comprehensive problem, and that was why a compromise was arrived at. The franchise would simply remain as it was in the various parts of South Africa. Initially the entire matter was handled rather leniently, and the ultimate objectives were rather vague. There is no doubt that the matter was seriously considered and discussed. A solution was sought by way of the preservation of the traditional pattern of life that had emerged in South Africa, and in the direction of a separate territory for the Bantu—the then existing homeland had to form the basis. We find this school of thought as far as General Botha was concerned. On 24 September 1912, at Heidelberg, he said—

So we see here that tendency for the political development of the Bantu to be linked with their separate homelands. The solution also had to take into account the established White way of life, for if this process of political development were not applied properly, it could not only harm the White man in that his traditional way of life would be undermined, but care would have to be taken that the Bantu was not deprived of the traditional elements in his national existence, and in his conception of a State and its authority. We find also, furthermore, that this whole matter was regarded by both General Hertzog and General Smuts in the light of what was inherently peculiar to both national groups.

I should like to return to General Hertzog where he links the political development of the Bantu with his homeland. In Column 2,501 of Hansard, dated 16 May 1913, he says this—

In this connection there is another matter to which we may profitably also turn our attention. People set their faces—we find General Hertzog doing so already—against the idea of the joint say of the non-White in the management of national affairs. On 20 January 1913. at Pretoria, General Hertzog said this—

I am mentioning this because the United Party also resorts to what General Hertzog had said, but surely they want to apply under their policy that which he did not see his way clear to doing, namely that the various races should have common rights within the structure of one and the same Government authority, which then ultimately, in our view must culminate in the Bantu having a say within the area of the White people also. In this connection they could also note the words of H. W. Sampson in Hansard, Col. 2493, of 16 May 1913—

That was the line of thought in those days already. That is why we say that we should give the Bantu his political rights coupled with his respective homeland, but not together with the Whites in the White man’s area. Mr. Sampson was speaking when the Native Land Act was under discussion in Parliament, and with that legislation and in subsequent legislation of 1926. South Africa had already embarked on a road for which there could be no deviation, and of which the legislation now before us is merely the next logical step. As Dr. van Biljon writes in his “Grensbakens tussen Blank en Swart in Suid-Afrika”, page 451 [translated]—

And thenceforth the road was widened by the leaders of this party. I need not quote from their speeches again, for this has already been done in this House. But as from 1948 the threads were linked together again and we are now busy ensuring to a greater extent that the way of life we have developed in South Africa shall not be undermined and that the White man’s code will survive. Under the United Party regime, if ever that were to come about, there would be a great danger of our having to forfeit this way of life, which meets with their approval and which they do not wish to be undermined. I cannot see how they will be able to preserve it eventually. But the Bantu will also have to surrender something. If he were to share the say with the White man, those elements that are traditional to his form of authority, and which are fruitfully being retained and developed in this Bill, will have to fall away. So a harmful process of equalization, to which the hon. member for Midlands has also referred, will have to be set in train. I am convinced that territorial segregation and separation between White and Black cannot be achieved without political separation. If equal citizenship or even joint say were to be achieved, territorial segregation in any shape or form would not be consistent.

I should like to conclude with a final thought, and point out that throughout the years there has been a process of gradual constitutional development. It extends from the time when, after the annexation of the various territories, the Cape governors took over the executive functions of the paramount chiefs and acted through White officials. The Administration was moulded on Western ideas. Next we had the well-known Glen Grey Act—No. 25 of 1894—with a system of local self-government for the Glen Grey area, and district councils under the General Council for the Transkeian Territories. This body also underwent a process of development as with its expansion in 1931 by the addition of the Pondoland General Council. In the Bulletin for February, 1963, to the Africa Institute, it is stated as follows—

The further development of the Bantu constitutionally came in 1951 with Act No. 68, the Bantu Authorities Act. Here a new chapter in the history of the government of the Bantu homelands in South Africa began. Substantially it amounts to steps towards the gradual democratization and “Africanization” of the government. The next step followed in 1959 when the Prime Minister on 27 January 1959, stated in Parliament—

In 1959 then we had the Promotion of Bantu Self-government Act (Act 46 of 1959). Thence we come to April 1961, when the Transkeian Territorial Authority resolved to request the Government to give the Transkei self-government. And now we have this Act. I am mentioning these things, Mr. Speaker, to point out that the United Party also had a share in this gradual constitutional development of the Bantu areas in South Africa. They also admit that a separate nation is living there, a nation with its own separate way of life, with its own pattern of living and with its own existence, and that you have to guide this nation in this gradual constitutional development. But such a development will have to progress even further. You cannot call a halt to the constitutional development of a nation. If we do not give the Bantu the opportunity in his own area of developing to the highest constitutional level, we have to take him along with us and fit him into our own constitutional structure. But then, as I have already pointed out, the Bantu will have to give up a great deal. But it will not be they alone who will be impeded in their constitutional development, but we also, as Whites, will be impeded in our further constitutional development. As regards politics, there are unassimilable elements between the Whites and the non-Whites. There are things we cannot take over from them, because we ourselves have already progressed much further than they. Then there are the things they will have difficulty in taking over from us, because these things are as yet completely strange to them. Apart from that, it does not fit into their traditional system either.

That is why I say that with this Bill we want to secure three things: namely: The preservation of that traditional way of life which has been built up here in South Africa in the course of many centuries and through many generations, and to which hon. members opposite also adhere; that the boundaries of the Bantu homelands should not be destroyed and the whole of South Africa thrown open to all and sundry, for if we desire political segregation we must also have territorial segregation; and the opportunity for White and non-White to develop along their own lines constitutionally. In this development, the Bantu has now through this Bill reached the first step. By this Bill we should like to preserve for ourselves those things that we have acquired by our own industry, but at the same time we want to grant them the same things as their ability to bear the requisite responsibilities develops.

The hon. member who just sat down (Mr. Cruywagen) made an interesting speech of, what I may call, an academic nature dealing with certain aspects of the history of the question which we are faced with under this Bill. I hope, however, that he will forgive me if I do not follow his line of argument. There comes a time, Sir, when everyone has to make up his mind whether or not a particular course of action is the best; not as dictated by his own individual thoughts but best for the country which he represents. I believe, Sir, that this is such a time. While I was listening to the hon. member, I thought of the struggles and privations which his and my ancestors had to face in their endeavour to enshrine the particular territory with which we are dealing to-night into South Africa as a whole. The question came to my mind what they would think of the surrender which that hon. member and others opposite were now planning to make of the work which they, our ancestors, put into this country. I think the time is not just for academic talk of that nature but for seriously dealing with some of the more important aspects of the position we face.

In contrast with the attitude which was taken up by the hon. member tonight, the leading Government paper in this area, namely the Burger itself, is taking a far more realistic attitude with regard to this particular measure. As a matter of fact, it is taking a far more realistic attitude than I have heard from the majority of members on the other side who took part in this debate. The Burger, Sir, as the days passed, mobilized the full blast of its propaganda machine in an endeavour to build up the morale of the Government Party and. to calm the justifiable fears which were being expressed in Government circles as to the wisdom of the Government’s Transkeian scheme as it is enshrined in the Bill before us. In a moment of frankness the Burger in a leading article last week accepted the justice of the Opposition’s attack on the Bill and warned that it was not a political appeal which could be shrugged off with the same contempt with which the United Party’s propaganda could, generally, be shrugged off. The Burger went on to point out that for the first time after a long period the United Party was launching an attack which was adapted to unpleasant and important political realities. This, Sir, is exactly what we are trying to do. The realities may be unpleasant but that is no reason why we should shirk the problem. But the Burger went on to point out that this attack was a phenomenon which was not going to come to an end so easily. After telling its readers that what the United Party had so far given on this Bill was only a rehearsal of what was to come. The Burger said that it would like to remind its own people that it would be a long fight and an endless debate-—not “endless” in the sense of the time spent on the measure in this House but endless in the sense that it is a portion of the fabric of South African history which started when the Black man and the White man first met and would go on for many, many years yet before a final and satisfactory solution could be worked out.

I should now like to deal with this Bill itself. One of the greatest dangers, as I see it, flowing from the Bill, as we have it before us, is the insiduous manner in which the public of South Africa, White, Coloured and Bantu, in the Republic, as well as in the Bantu area which we are now creating, are being brainwashed into believing that this Transkeian Constitution Bill before us, not only means what it appears to mean but that it will be possible to translate it into reality without going outside the scope _ of the Bill as it is before us now. But, as a matter of fact, that is impossible. It will be irresponsible to consider this Bill without relating it to its wider object, i.e. the fulfilment of the Prime Minister’s widely publicized official intention of cutting up the Republic into nine or more separate Bantustans and to give them sovereign independence. What would then be left would be a so called White emasculated Republic which would contain within its borders millions of Bantu integrated into our economic life and domiciled within our borders. A very interesting statement was made some time ago by a leading spokesman of the Government which has a bearing on this particular subject. It bears out the contention which is being put forward from this side of the House and which I repeat now, namely, that it appears to be so easy for the Government to change its attitude in dealing with legislation which brings it into trouble. We find history almost being reversed overnight. As a matter of fact we found it here to-day in the speech of the hon. member for Kempton Park. The hon. member for Kempton Park, very significantly, delivered his speech shortly after returning from a visit to his constituency. I wonder what influence worked on him there. But his speech represented a complete reversal and about-face on the policy of which he was a very strong advocate a little while ago. I was referring to a very important public statement made by a very important spokesman of the Government. He made this statement when he dealt with the economic integration of the Bantu into the industrial life of South Africa. He made the following statement—

This statement was made in 1955 before a congress of the Nasionale Jeugbond by the State Minister who introduced this particular Bill into this House the Hon. Minister of Bantu Administration. This is a Bill which according to him and according to the Prime Minister is the cornerstone of their policy of totally independent sovereign Bantustans. This Bill, therefore, represents a complete reversal, a complete change of face and a complete reversal of history almost overnight. I wonder, Sir, whether the hon. Minister can reconcile his statement which I quoted earlier, with some of the things which are being done under this Bill. I wonder whether the hon. Minister can reconcile that, with, for instance the clause dealing with citizenship in this Bill. To me, Sir, it seems to be completely ironical that the United Party, the official Opposition, which only three years ago had to warn South Africa against the danger which was inherent into the establishment of a Nationalist Republic, should, after the lapse of so short a time be called upon to lead South Africa again in its fight to save the Republic itself from the ruination which must result from the fantastic dream policy which is being enshrined in this Bill. And, moreover, it is a policy which is being enshrined in this Bill by the same Nationalist Party which lead South Africa into a Republic three years ago. In doing that they laid claim to various accomplishments. But what they are going to accomplish now is the complete ruination of that very principle which they set out to establish in the Republic of South Africa. It is quite evident, Sir,—and I say that on the basis of the article of the Burger to which I have already referred and on the evidence of statements which were made in this House—that some of the more serious-minded supporters of the Government are to-day becoming alarmed at the dangerous implications of this policy if it is going to be continued. Their attitude suggests a retreat from the extreme policies of the Prime Minister to some policy which is coming nearer to alignment with the policies for which this side of the House stand. I do not, however, want to pursue this line of argument as it has already been dealt with by other speakers. It is, however, an astonishing fact, Sir, to find such a complete about-face on the part of some of the Government members when they stood up to speak on this Bill in this House.

I want now to touch on some of the practical implications of the Bill. For this let us look at the clauses which are covered by the first six pages of the Bill. Let us take the preamble and read that in conjunction with Clauses 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. These Clauses provide beyond a shadow of a doubt that this Bill is paving the way for the eventual extension to the Bantustans of complete sovereign independence. Even paragraph (1) of the preamble makes it quite clear. It says—

Let us read that preamble, in conjunction with Clause 4 of the Bill dealing with a Transkeian Flag, Anthem and official language. This Clause provides that there shall be a Transkeian Flag, the design of which shall be approved by the Legislative Assembly, and that it will be for the Transkeian Government to decide where this Flag is to be flown. We have no objection against any particular group of people having their own Flag. Not in the slightest. It is an accepted custom right throughout the world. But this, Sir, is a national Flag. Under our system of Government within the Republic, this elected Parliament of South Africa is the only authority within the area of the Republic to dictate the design of the National Flag and the manner in which it is to be used treated and flown. This Bill proposes that the Transkei will remain a portion of the Republic but at the same time it delegates to the Transkeian Parliament still to be formed, the authority to usurp the existing authority of this Parliament as regards both the design and the use of the Flag. This elected Parliament of South Africa will therefore have no say in the matter at all.

But let us go on to clause 5. This provides for a National Anthem for the Transkei. It is this Parliament which has to decide the National Anthem for South Africa. Although this Bill purports to say that the Transkei will remain a portion of the Republic it nevertheless gives the Transkei a National Anthem. But it goes even further and in this connection I should like to refer to Clause 7 dealing with citizenship. In paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (2) it exercises inside the Republic of South Africa the authority of the Transkeian Parliament by imposing Transkeian citizenship on thousands of South African Bantu whether they want it or not. The effect of this will be that there will be many thousands of Bantu within the Republic, South Africans by birth and not by virtue of having come in as visitors as alleged by the hon. the Minister who will all of a sudden find themselves citizens of another country and responsible to the laws made by the Parliament of the Transkei, a land which they perhaps have not seen and are never likely to see. They will also be subject to a certain amount of taxation imposed by a Parliament under whose jurisdiction they do not live but at the same time they will also remain answerable to the laws of this Republic under whose authority they live, rear their families and work. Clauses 4, 5, 7 and 8 are symbols which are the prerogatives and trappings of a sovereign independent State. These cannot be reconciled with the stated limited intention of this Bill, i.e. to set up a limited form of self-government. On the contrary. They go far beyond the widest powers ever given to such a body and thus they lay down a principle in this Bill which can not be ignored. As a matter of fact it lays down a principle which this Government has denounced more loudly than anything else, i.e. the principle of dual loyalty— one foot in this country and one foot somewhere else. Now, however, the Government is itself establishing such a principle of dual loyalty.

That is a false analogy.

It is not a false analogy; it is the only conclusion to which any sensible man can come to when he considers this Bill. The hon. the Chief Whip may delude himself that it is a false analogy but he will find that he will be just as wrong in his denial that the general conception of the provisions of this Bill will be deadly to South Africa as what his statement now is. There is no escape from that fact.

How can the hon. the Minister who introduced this Bill, reconcile his statement that these Bantu in our country will be regarded as visitors in our midst but who will remain in this country in their thousands whereas this Bill in a later clause establishes for them all the privileges and protection given to citizens of the Republic in accordance with international law.

At Twenty-five minutes past Ten o’clock p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate was adjourned.