In this debate there has been a deviation from the custom and tradition in connection with Budget debates, viz. it is the custom on the first day to give preference to the financial debate, the discussion of the financial aspects of the Budget. Unfortunately, as the result of this deviation, the financial debate never really got under way. On the first day we had a number of speeches from the Opposition, after this deviation, dealing with financial matters; on the third day we had speeches from this side of the House dealing with the financial position, and on the evening of the fourth day, like a bunch of late grapes, we had the speech of the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje). That was unfortunate, because however urgent the matter might have been, which was the cause of this deviation, I nevertheless think there was no reason why that matter could not have waited until the evening, or at the latest, until the following day, particularly if one bears in mind that after one speaker had discussed it the Opposition had nothing further to say about it until the next day. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that this will not happen again, because the result of it was that we had the most haphazard debate from the side of the Opposition we have ever had in a Budget debate. I think it is also unfortunate for the United Party in another sense. The hon. member for Germiston (District) led the United Party to the brink, and the next day the hon. the Leader of the Opposition pushed them over into the ravine, and the reason for this fiasco is obvious. The Leader of the United Party thought that he had an opportunity here to score a political point against the Government. The United Party grasped at the report of the Snyman Commission as constituting an accusation against the Government, and particularly against the Minister of Justice. I think that was the wrong way to read that report. It is quite clear from the report itself that the Judge thought that the weapons available to the Minister were not suitable for effective action. The report does not blame him for not making proper use of the weapons he had available, but says that he was hindered by a lack of weapons, and towards the end of his report the Judge suggested what should be done to strengthen the hands of the Minister of Justice. The Minister was armed with a blunt instrument which did not enable him to do what he would have liked to do, and therefore the Judge recommended a sharp instrument, and because he did so hon. members opposite said that this was an accusation made against the Minister of Justice. The fact that the Judge himself recommended the adoption of a different method proves to me convincingly that this report contains no accusation against the Minister.

But I want to go further. I think if anyone reads this report objectively he will see that the obvious object of the Judge was to make the country as a whole realize the seriousness of the matter, and in order properly to motivate the recommendations he made towards the end of his report. He says how serious the position is, and that these are the measures he recommends, and this warning is intended as an appeal for support when the Minister proposes measures he recommends. After having pointed out the seriousness of the matter, he then comes, in paragraph 25, to the three proposals he makes. The first is that in order to obviate the difficulty which now exists, because it cannot be proved in every case that there is a connection between the P.A.C. and Poqo, suitable legislation must be introduced, and he says that obviously such a recommendation must have retrospective effect, otherwise the Poqo activities of the past cannot be dealt with by means of those measures. Here we have a far-reaching recommendation, to make legislation of this kind retrospective, and therefore the Judge had to motivate it properly and point to the seriousness of the matter, and then he comes to his second recommendation in paragraph 26. He points to the difficulty being experienced by the Minister and his Department under the existing procedure viz. that some of the witnesses disappear without a trace, that they are intimidated, assaulted and even murdered, and then he makes this far-reaching recommendation—

He was aware of the fact that such action by the Minister may perhaps be viewed in the wrong light and therefore he motivated it fully, and then he comes to his third recommendation, also in paragraph 26—

There are three recommendations which are all far-reaching, but the Judge considered that it was essential to take those steps, and in very grave language he gave the reasons why it should be done. The warning he issued was so serious that he hoped that with this objective approach to the problem there would be no opposition to the acceptance of any of these three recommendations.

May I ask a question? Is the Government going to recommend the establishment of special courts?

That is not a question for me to reply to, but those are the three recommendations made by the Judge. As far as I understood from the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker), the United Party was quite prepared to accept this report, and if they are prepared to accept it I take it that means that they also accept all the recommendations of the Judge, otherwise it would not be honest to say that they accept it and then to say no, they cannot accept these recommendations.

Does the Government accept all these recommendations, including the last one?

That would have been a fair question to put to the Minister of Justice, but it was never put to him. But I should like to know from those hon. members whether they still stand by what was said by the hon. member for Germiston (District), that they accept this report?

[Inaudible.]

I will resume my seat if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants to get up and say he accepts it.

I spoke for one and a half hours and stated my standpoint.

And you still do not yourself know what it is.

The Opposition is so obsessed with opposing the Government and its policy that they will grasp at anything in order to attack the Government. And this inference they draw from what was said by the Judge is in my opinion quite unfair towards the Judge, because if it is what they contend it is, viz. an indictment against the Minister of Justice, then I say it does not behove a Judge, least of all Judge Snyman who drafted this report, to give judgement as to whether the Government has done too much or too little, without hearing the other side as well. To infer such a suggestion from his words is unfair to the Judge. But those hon. members will have a further opportunity to discuss this matter and to show their bona fides. The United Party in the Other Place has already adopted a much more responsible attitude in regard to this matter. I am not going to praise those hon. members of the United Party in the Other Place for it. They merely did their duty. After this report of Judge Snyman’s, it is the duty of every South African to assist as far as possible to implement those recommendations. Therefore I say that I am not lauding any person for having done his duty, but I just hope that when the time arrives the United Party in this Place will not hesitate to do its duty.

When I now come to the financial part of the debate, I have not much to reply to this year, and still I have much to reply to, not because sound criticism was voiced, but because although in this debate so little was said by the Opposition in regard to financial matters, there was confusion of thoughts, more irresponsible statements, more gambling with our stability, and may I say that more financial gloom has been created on which I have to shed some light. Therefore I shall perhaps be longer than I usually am in replying, not because the criticism warrants it, but because the misrepresentations are such that I must in any case do my best to shed a little light on this financial gloom in which the Opposition finds itself.

This time you are a firefly.

In the first place it was said that the defence expenditure is unproductive and that it affords no stimulation to our economy. I want to point out that the first object of defence expenditure is to ensure peace. Peace, if we have it, does not afford stimulation to the same extent as war. Then there is much more stimulation, but we must ensure peace by taking the proper steps, as if we are preparing for war. Therefore I say that the stimulation in this expenditure lies in the fact, firstly, that 58 per cent of the R157,000,000 which is being spent on defence will be spent in this country. In other words, it is the South African industries and workers who will derive the benefit, and that must undoubtedly have a tremendously stimulating effect on our economy in general.

But this expenditure contains a further stimulation, because it engenders confidence in the minds of investors and immigrants from overseas. We need those people and we need that capital. But if they know that they are coming to a country which is not able to defend itself against anything which might happen, internally or from the outside, they will not have the necessary confidence to come here. The fact that they *are dealing here with a country the defence potential of which is being built up tremendously will give them the necessary confidence to know that they are coming to a country which will try to defend itself against any attack internally or externally; and the same applies to capital. Therefore this argument is a somewhat strange one, in my opinion.

There is another argument which is also used in connection with defence expenditure, namely that this large expenditure on defence would have been unnecessary if the Government had followed a different policy. I think the question can only be replied to in a wider perspective. Let us look at the expenditure on defence of other countries which do not have the same political and colour policies of this country, but in spite of that find it necessary to strengthen their defence in this world of unrest and disquiet in which we live. Here are a few figures of defence expenditure calculated as a percentage of the total State expenditure. This year, with our expenditure of R157,000,000, it amounts to 13.6 per cent of our total State expenditure from Revenue Account as well as from Loan Account. But whilst here it is 13.6 per cent, it is 26.4 per cent in Canada, 15 per cent in Australia, let alone the U.S.A., where it is 57.5 per cent, or Britain, where it is 20.9 per cent. In this way I can go through the list and it will be found that the defence expenditure of most comparable countries is much higher than that of South Africa despite the fact that they have policies different from ours. Therefore I say that when we have regard to the policy applied in other parts of Africa, we see the same sort of thing. The expenditure there is comparatively less than ours. One sometimes wonders whether it would not have been better if it had been more.

I come now to the second point which has been made, and when I refer to criticism I am not talking merely about what was said here, but also about what was said outside this House. That is the criticism in regard to the so-called over-taxation. On the one hand it is said that expenditure is consistently being overestimated. Well, let me remind hon. members that no Department may spend more money than has been voted. Therefore there must always at the end of the year be repayments, or else we must get approval for unauthorized expenditure. Money is voted in the Additional Estimates, almost towards the end of the financial year, to avoid the danger of over-expenditure, and we generally find that the amount of the Additional Estimates is more or less the same as the probable repayments. The important point, however, is this. The actual expenditure must approximate as closely as possible to the estimated expenditure on which I have based my Budget. In other words, what was the expenditure I mentioned last year when I submitted my Budget? That is the only real test. If I now tell hon. members how far their actual expenditure differed during the last three years from the amounts I mentioned in my Budget speeches, we find this record: In 1960-1 it differed by .3 per cent, in 1961-2 again by .3 per cent and in 1962-3 it is estimated that it will be .4 per cent less than I stated last year. It will be realized that where one deals with such large amounts a difference of .3 per cent or .4 per cent is a minor matter. This is not an exact science where one can act with mathematical accuracy, but that is as near as one can come to it. Let me just for a moment refer to the figures during the United Party régime, from 1945 to 1948—not the war years, but thereafter. In 1945-6 there was a difference of 6 per cent between the Minister’s estimated expenditure and the actual expenditure at the end of the year. In 1946-7 there was a difference of 8 per cent, and in their best year, 1947-8, the difference was still .9 per cent, more than twice the difference we have this year. But they are the people who make a fuss about it now.

The other important matter is the Estimates of revenue. It is said that revenue is being underestimated. The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) gave the reasons for the underestimation of revenue in 1962-3, and I think we can accept that the basic cause for the underestimating of this revenue was the tremendous increase of 7 per cent in the gross national production in 1962. It was much higher than anyone would have thought at the beginning of the year. But again I want to point to the difference between the actual revenue and the estimated revenue in the Budget speeches for different years. In 1960-1 the difference was 6.4 per cent. We underestimated by 6.4 per cent. In 1961-2 I underestimated it by 2.6 per cent, and this year, according to an estimate, I have underestimated it by 4.5 per cent. I have said that the main reason for that is the tremendous increase in the gross national production, but let me again go back to the figures for 1945 to 1948. We find that in 1945 it was underestimated by 8.2 per cent, in 1946-7 by 13.7 per cent, and in their best year by 7.8 per cent, which is higher than the highest figure for the past three years. As I say, it is impossible to estimate income absolutely accurately. Other countries also land in the same difficulty. There we also find a difference between the estimated and the actual revenue. In Britain, in 1959-60 they underestimated it by 5.7 per cent, but a much more tragic case is that of the U.S.A., which in 1962-3, according to the Estimates, overestimated its revenue by 7.5 per cent. That, I hope, will never happen here.

Now the hon. members say that these big surpluses only mean that the nation has been over-taxed. As I have said, it is very difficult to estimate accurately. If one has to make mistakes, and it is impossible to do it absolutely mathematically correctly, I would much rather err on the safe side, because so doing—and this is a very important point—we retain our reputation for financial conservatism and stability particularly amongst the foreign investors. But hon. members should not for a moment think that these surpluses of which the taxpayers have been deprived have been taken away from them permanently. Hon. members should just see what has happened with this year’s surplus of R.28,000,000. If we did not have that surplus it would probably have been very difficult to increase public service salaries by R10,000,000 and to grant concessions to pensioners to the amount of R4,700,000, and to reduce taxation by R13,600,000. That already accounts for the R28,000,000 surplus. It is given back. Otherwise further taxes would have had to be levied. But now that we have this surplus we could do these things.

In former years the surpluses were transferred to the Loan Account, when circumstances demanded it, and that had two very important consequences. The first is that our national debt was kept at a comparatively low figure, and the second is that the interest burden which we have to pay on the national debt every year was much reduced. I have the figures here, the expenditure on Loan Account for the period 1948-9 to 1962-3, whilst this Government was in power. The expenditure on Loan Account amounted to R2,778,600,000. But in the same period our national debt increased by only R1,572,100,000. In other words, there was R1,206,500,000 which did not come out of an increased national debt. Part of it, viz. R550,500,000, was obtained from the receipts from loan funds, the ordinary receipts we always have. But the other R656,000,000 came out of Revenue Account, and if it did not come out of Revenue Account it would have meant that in recent years we would have had to pay extra interest to an amount of R214,000,000. But because we followed this wise policy it was not necessary over these years up to 31 March 1963 to pay this R214,000,000, if we had not transferred certain amounts from Revenue Fund to Loan Fund. As the result of what we have done, the annual saving on interest, taken at 5 per cent, amounts to R32,800,000. Just imagine, Sir, if we still had to pay that extra interest per annum also, that would have wiped out our whole surplus of R28,000,000. But that is what we did while we were able to do so, and that is what the Opposition attacks us so bitterly on.

The further result is that the national debt was kept particularly low. When we came into power, the national debt as a percentage of the national income was 76.8 per cent. Now, in 1961-2, the last year for which we have the figures, it has been reduced to 57.3 per cent. In other words, with about seven months’ national income we can repay the whole of our national debt. The interest burden on the Exchequer, the portion which the Exchequer has to pay, as a percentage of the State expenditure on Revenue Account, was 9.1 per cent in 1947-8. Now, of our total State expenditure, we pay only 5.2 per cent in interest on the national debt. Therefore we have derived tremendous benefits due to the fact that we had those surpluses. It is not something which was lost. We used it, and to-day we are deriving the benefits from those surpluses we had in the past and their transfer to Loan Fund, when we could do so.

I now want to reply to some of the individual speakers. The hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) said that “private manufacturing gross investment remained static for the three years from 1960 to 1962”. The hon. member confuses gross capital investment, which includes stock on hand, with gross fixed capital investment, which excludes it. I was speaking about gross fixed capital investment, the figures for which are as follows. For 1960 it was R150,000,000, for 1961 it was R157,000,000, and in 1962 it was R176,000,000—the gross fixed capital investment in industry. I think that shows that it is not static. It was not standing still if it could grow at this tempo. The hon. member also said that evidently I expected a very small expansion in the national income for this year, because I provided for only a 3 per cent increase in revenue, and the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) made the same point.

The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) has already given certain reasons as to why there will possibly not be such a rapid increase in income-tax collections this year. The main reason is this: Under the P.A.Y.E. system companies whose financial year ends in June or later in the course of the present financial year will only have to pay approximately half of their total tax. The balance will remain over for next year. The position will adjust itself next year, but the fact that we have only allowed for a 3 per cent increase is attributable to a large extent to the fact that the full 1963-4 income-tax payable by those companies will not be collected this year, and that also applies to many persons who are not employees. The whole of the income-tax payable by them will not necessarily be collected this year. The fact therefore that we have only budgeted for a 3 per cent increase must not be interpreted as meaning that we are expecting a decline in the national income.

May I congratulate the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson). I am not the only one who assumed a new role this year; the hon. member also assumed a new role. He has now discarded the mantle of prophet of doom. I hope he has discarded it permanently. This year we have not had from him what we usually get, namely an effort to belittle the South African economy. Unfortunately his mantle has fallen on the shoulders of the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje). I shall come to that hon. member later on.

The hon. member for Constantia says that old-age pensions should be investigated, with special reference to the means test. Well, the question of pensions is considered every year with a view to making concessions where it is possible to do so. Many concessions have already been made since 1959. During the past five years concessions have been made amounting to R17,700,000. I merely mention the globular figure. Those concessions have been made, and we are grateful that we have been able to do so. This year we would certainly not have been able to make concessions if it were not for the surplus that we had.

The hon. member also pleaded for better control over defence expenditure, and his plea was supported by the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay). But the Government is fully aware of this problem. A committee has already been appointed under the chairmanship of a senior Treasury official to investigate the proper care and maintenance of defence equipment, and if it appears to be necessary further steps can be taken. But we are fully aware of this problem. As far as it is possible to do so the Treasury keeps a very watchful eye over this expenditure but it may be that we shall have to call in further assistance.

The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) complained here about the concession, as he calls it, which was made to the American-South African Investment Corporation. He says that that tax concession to them, as he calls it, has proved a failure and that it has entailed a great loss of revenue; I think he mentioned the figure of R6,600,000. As the then Minister explained here in 1958, if individual Americans had come to South Africa to invest their money here it would not have been possible to tax them on capital profits made on those shares. Because the investments were made by a company that was registered in America, the question was whether they should also pay tax or whether they were exempt from tax as individual American citizens would have been. It was by no means a foregone conclusion. The hon. member knows that when our own open trusts purchase shares here purely for investment and not for speculative purposes, they do not pay income-tax on any profit that they make on the purchase and sale of shares. This particular company gave an undertaking to us that they did not propose to buy shares here for speculative purposes but only for investment. In other words, if they had been a South African trust company and they had bought shares for investment and not for speculative purposes, they would in any event not have been subject to tax on any profits made by them on the purchase and sale of shares. The fact that no other company has followed their example is not a sign that this has failed. The intention was not so much to encourage other companies to follow that example and to ask for this concession; the real intention was to promote a greater interest in our shares, particularly in gold-mining shares, in the U.S.A., because if individual Americans own more gold-mining shares, then there is a better climate for representations in connection with the price of gold, and generally speaking it was felt that it would also encourage investors to invest their money here. But the shares of the American-South African Investment Corporation may not be sold here; they may only be sold abroad. At that time we also needed foreign capital very badly and under this arrangement which was entered into at the time more than R20,000,000 entered this country, which was very welcome in 1958 when our balance of payments position was not at all favourable. That is why this arrangement was made. It was by no means a foregone conclusion that if these shares were purchased purely for investment purposes they would be subject to a capital appreciation tax when sold at a profit. That is not a system that we follow here in South Africa.

The hon. member also spoke about the “niggardly concession to taxpayers, especially to the gold-mining industry”. Well, if this concession is niggardly, then I take it that if I increase by the same amount, the hon. member will not complain, because, after all, it would just be a trivial amount. He has now given me a yardstick as to what is a trivial amount, and I take it that he speaks on behalf of his party. In that case his party must not come and complain if it becomes necessary for me to increase taxation by the same amount perhaps, because I shall then be able to say to them: “No, this is just a trivial increase; when I granted concessions amounting to that figure you yourselves said that it was a trivial amount, and now that I am increasing taxation by the same amount it is also a trivial increase.”

As far as the gold mines are concerned I do not want to repeat what I said in the Part Appropriation debate, where I referred to concessions made to the gold mines by this Government since 1948. We do not begrudge the gold mines these concessions; I do not want to suggest for a moment that we are sorry that we did so, but I just want to say to the hon. member that he must not create the impression that the concession made to the gold mines in this Budget is the first concession that they have received. And when the hon. member weighs up the importance of this R200,000 he must remember that I stated very clearly that this R200,000 only represents the immediate loss of revenue; that amount may increase; it depends on circumstances, and eventually the loss of revenue may be a very considerable one. For example, this 5 per cent capital allowance may mean a concession of R500,000 to a single mine in one year. However, I do not think I should take too much notice of the hon. member when he looks this gift horse in the mouth. Let me rather refer to the Financial Editor of the Star who adopts a much more conservative attitude in respect of the value of this concession that we have given this year. In the Star of 25 March he says—

Sir, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) really amazed me. He says that this revolving credit that we have from a consortium of American banks and of which we have not made use this year, is unnecessary. Mr. Speaker, there we have one of these absurd statements which are almost beyond one’s comprehension. This credit has existed since 1950. At first it was R14,000,000 but in 1958 the American banks approached me and said that there were new banks that wished to participate but that the old banks refused to give up their quota. At that time there were only six banks involved. We eventually brought in all the banks who wished to participate. There are 11 banks involved to-day and the amount of the loan was then doubled from R14,000,000 to R28,000,000. This loan is a tremendous stabilizer for our balance of payments. We are very grateful for the fact that we have not had to make use of this credit but that it has nevertheless been available to us, because we are only paying three-eighths of 1 per cent on the amount of the unused credit. It is not as though we negotiated a loan of which we are making no use; the position is simply that we can draw upon this loan at any time when we need the money. They have to keep this credit constantly available to us, and for that facility we are paying three-eighths of 1 per cent, which is a particularly good investment.

The hon. member has also come forward with a further stupidity. He says that the true reason for the transfer of certain services from Revenue to Loan Account this year is the fact that we have this large credit balance on Loan Account. If the hon. member had listened he would have heard me say that this credit balance on Loan Account was deliberately built up by issuing more Treasury bills than we normally do so as to provide the money market with suitable avenues of investment. That is why there was a surplus of R47,000,000. These services could not have been defrayed from Revenue Account without increasing taxation. That is why we were able to defray R26,000,000 of the defence expenditure out of the surplus built up in this way and to transfer R25,000,000 to the Native Trust.

The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mrs. Weiss) complained that this Budget was merely giving a “pittance” to education. Mr. Speaker, the Budget speech cannot possibly set out everything that is contained in the Estimates. By merely looking at the Budget speech itself, one cannot form a picture of what is provided for in the Estimates which have been submitted here. The total amount spent on education by the Central Government and the provinces together—and hon. members must remember that we pay 50 per cent of the expenditure of the provinces—amounts to approximately R172,000,000 on current account and R30,000,000 on capital account. The hon. member sought to play off the amount spent on education against the defence expenditure, but in actual fact it is more than the defence expenditure. I have included the provinces be cause the provinces make no provision for defence, and it is only fair therefore to see what is spent by the Central Government and the provinces on education on the one hand and on arms on the other. The Government contributes about 70 per cent of the total receipts of the universities, if I may refer to higher education for a moment, and as a result of the increased salaries that we have decided upon, that contribution will probably rise to 75 per cent this year. If the universities are so concerned about autonomy—and I am also concerned about it—they should not come along at this stage and ask us to subsidize them further; they cannot expect us to do so. In Britain the contribution is 72 per cent, in Australia 69 per cent and in Canada 60 per cent. I think it is very unreasonable to level the reproach against this Government that it is adopting a “close-fisted, hard-hearted, shortsighted attitude” by only providing R110,000 for loans and bursaries. The hon. member knows that in actual fact the amount is approximately R450,000 and that does not include the amount of R700,000 or more which is made available by the C.S.I.R. out of its State grant for bursaries and grants to universities. She is entirely wide of the mark, therefore, if she thinks it is only R110,000. We feel that after all, it is the duty of parents and of the private sector to make some contribution to the cost of maintaining our universities. We are already granting an important tax rebate in respect of children attending university. Parents receive this children’s rebate until the student reaches the age of 24 years. This concession also costs a good deal and I have not even included it in my calculations.

The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) has asked whether it will not be better to build up our own gold market here. The position at the present time is that foreigners may come and buy their gold in South Africa, but they prefer to buy on a world market where they can buy large quantities immediately, and although foreigners are at liberty to buy gold here, not much use is made of this opportunity. We must remember that at the moment at any rate London is still the world market for gold.

The hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. S. P. Botha) complained that building societies were not following the interest pattern laid down by the ordinary commercial banks and the Reserve Bank. I just want to tell him that we appointed a technical committee whose final report has not yet been submitted. This is one of the matters that they are investigating.

The hon. member then went on to make a very interesting proposal. He suggested that the Minister of Finance should have the right to increase or to reduce taxation during the parliamentary recess. We know that that is being done to some extent in Great Britain to-day, but I think it is very doubtful whether taxation ought to be increased without parliamentary approval, except, of course, in the case of specific custom duties which are levied for protective purposes and which we do in crease or reduce from time to time. The question of reducing taxation is one which might perhaps be considered, but on the other hand there are many administrative difficulties. In this country, for example, we do not have the suitable type of tax that they have in Britain in the form of their purchase tax or their turnover tax, and it would be difficult, with the tables we have, to make provision in the middle of the year for a reduction of income-tax. Apart from that, the recess does not extend over such a long period; it is only six or seven months.

The hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Keyter) asked for concessions in respect of estate duty, donations tax and income-tax so as to place young farmers in a better position to take up farming. I just want to say to the hon. member that the question of taxation, including estate duty, is one which is continually under consideration, either with a view to increasing it or to reducing it, and his proposal will be placed on the list for special consideration when I introduce my Budget next year.

We come now to the third and most important criticism of the Opposition, and that is the criticism put forward by the hon. members for Constantia, Parktown (Mr. Emdin) and Jeppes that this Budget does not provide sufficient stimuli for our economy. They say that last year’s Budget did not stimulate our economy sufficiently either. As far as last year is concerned, I just want to point out to hon. members that the Budget was formulated early in 1962. At that time I had at my disposal the survey of the Stellenbosch Bureau of the prospects for 1962. At that time the Bureau predicted a limited improvement but by July, three months after I had introduced my Budget, they came forward for the first time with what they called reappraisal of the prospects for 1962, and there they painted a much more rosy picture. Everybody thought that there would be a tremendous upsurge last year, but it simply did not come about. This year the Bureau says—

The behaviour pattern of the public was contrary to the usual practice. People are usually reluctant to spend because there is no money available, but that was not the problem last year. If hon. members look at the figures in the deposit-receiving institutions and in the building societies and in the saving banks and elsewhere they will see that there was a great deal of money available, even amongst the lower income groups, but that money was not spent, nor was it invested. That is one of the things which, as the Bureau puts it, “was contrary to accepted theory and customary behaviour Well, that is what happened last year, and in any event it is doubtful whether further incentives would have had the desired effect. If in addition to this I had also proceeded to pump a lot of money into the private sector, what would have happened then? As the hon. member for Mayfair (Dr. Luttig) has explained, personal income, after taxation, increased more rapidly than expenditure on consumer goods. There was no difficulty therefore as the result of a shortage of money. The trouble was that the will to spend was lacking. I think that is a correct summary of the position, and I also agree with the hon. member for Mayfair that this year the psychological atmosphere is much more favourable to provide the necessary stimulus than it was last year. But I just want to point out that there is another danger. If we had done last year what hon. members suggest, then it is not unlikely that we would have been faced with an even greater liquidity problem. If that money that we took from the taxpayers by way of taxation had been given back to the public to be spent and they had not spent it—and we have no guarantee that they would have spent it or invested it—our liquidity problem would have been much greater than it actually was.

I want to come now to the hon. member for Jeppes and at the same time say a word or two about the rate of growth of our economy. I want to say at once that the Government is not satisfied with the rate of growth of cur economy, as I also said last year, but that does not justify anybody in exaggerating the position and making it much worse than it actually is. It seems to me that the hon. member for Jeppes adopts the attitude that when the country is doing well, things are going badly with the United Party, and that is why he wants to create the impression that the country is faring badly in the hope that things will go well with the United Party. He comes along with generalizations such as “the rate of growth is one of the lowest in the world “the rate of unemployment is one of the highest in the world”. Sir, imagine a responsible economist coming along with such generalizations! I propose now to use the very same figures that he used and to show that in his zeal to create the impression that things are going very well with the United Party and very badly with the country, he showed insufficient respect for the truth. The hon. member says that from 1912 to 1953 the real income per head increased by 2½ per cent per annum. I would advise the hon. member to go and do his arithmetic over again. He says that the increase was 2\ per cent and that from 1953 to 1961 it was only 1½ per cent. In actual fact, however, the increase from 1912 to 1953 was 1.8 per cent per annum, not 2½ per cent, and thereafter it was 1.5 per cent. The hon. member quite fortuitously, of course, took the year 1953. We have found on previous occasions that he chooses his dates, but I want to ask him now to take the year 1948. What was the rate of growth from 1912 to 1948? It was 1.6 per cent per annum, and from 1948 to 1960 it was 2.2 per cent per annum. Sir, the figures that I have quoted here are the hon. member’s own figures. I do not want to take other figures because then we may quarrel about the figures. It seems to me that we are quarrelling about arithmetic now. I suppose hon. members have heard about the man who went to play bridge at the Portland Club. When he was asked what people had said about him, he replied: “No, they said nothing except that one person did say later on” (after he had dealt the cards wrongly) “‘ the fellow cannot even deal properly ’ Sir, the hon. member says that our rate of growth is one of the lowest in the world. Here I have the figures: The figure for 1961-2 represents an increase of 3 per cent over the previous year’s figure. Over the period 1960-1 to 1961-2 Australia’s rate of growth dropped by .9 per cent. The hon. member says that our rate of growth is the lowest and I want to point out what the trend is. I say that we should look at the latest figures representing the rate of growth there. It may be that their rate of growth was higher in the past; I do not have the figures here. I have the figures here from 1950 to 1960, and over that period their rate of growth was 1.4 per cent—the same as ours. But in 1961-2 their real income per head of the population dropped by .9 per cent. In Canada the figure remained absolutely static for the year 1960-1. The previous year it dropped by .7 per cent. In Britain the figure was 4.4 per cent for 1959-60 but in 1960-1 it was 1.7 per cent. In West Germany, which the hon. member mentioned, there is a downward trend. In the period from 1959 to 1960 the figure was 12.1 per cent, but the following year it dropped to 4.8 per cent. One finds the same trend in France and Italy. In South Africa the figures are the following: 2.5 per cent for 1959-60; no change for 1960-1, and in 1961-2 it rose by 3 per cent. The hon. member makes the arbitrary statement that South Africa’s rate of growth is one of the lowest in the world. The comparable countries are Australia, Canada and New Zealand. In New Zealand the rate of growth in 1959-60 was 4.5 per cent, but in 1960-1 there was a drop of .2 per cent. That is why I say the mantle of Jeremiah to represent South Africa to the outside world in the most unfavourable light has now fallen upon the shoulders of the hon. member. It amazes one that statements of that kind can be made here.

The hon. member then went on to deal with the question of wages and said that the difference between White wages and Bantu wages had decreased very much during the National Party’s period of office. I do not want to give him all the figures now, but I take these figures again from the same Commercial Opinion from which he quoted. He says that from 1935 to 1948, that is to say, under the United Party Government, wages increased by only 65 per cent. He says that that represents an annual increase of 5½ per cent per annum, but he says that from 1948 up to the present moment there has been an increase of only 11 per cent; less than 1 per cent per annum therefore. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said to you that that period that he mentioned included four years of war, during which the increase was 40 per cent out of the 65 per cent.

On a point of explanation, I used the figures representing real wages which already make allowance for the increase in prices.

I am talking about real wages; I am not talking about anything else. There is no misunderstanding. Here is the table from which the hon. member quoted. He stated that from 1935 to 1948 real wages had increased by 65 per cent and that 40 per cent of that increase was attributable to the years 1942-3-4-5. During those four years the respective increases were 10.2 per cent, 8.4 per cent, 10.5 per cent and 10.5 per cent. What is left now? Forty per cent of his 65 per cent is accounted for by the increase during these four years. The following year when the war was over, the increase was 2.2 per cent under the United Party Government, a drop of 10.5 per cent on the preceding year. I say that it is unfair to represent the picture in the way the hon. member did, and no economist has the right to do so.

The hon. member goes on to say that over the past 12 years there has been a small increase and that the greater part of this increase has taken place over the past two years. According to his authority the figure is 4.5 per cent for 1959-60 and 4.9 per cent for 1960-1. These figures are favourable, but do you know, Sir, how the hon. member explains that? He says that this was after Sharpeville and Langa! His own figures point to the period June 1959 to June 1961, and the Sharpville riots only took place on 23 March 1961. But he says that these two years are post-Sharpeville years. I say that it is scandalous to suggest to the Bantu that if we want an increase again we must have another Sharpeville and another Langa.

The hon. member says, “There are not sufficient jobs for people”. On the contrary, the danger to-day is that there are not sufficient people for the posts that will become available. That is the dangerous bottleneck in our economic upsurge. The risk that we run is not that there will be a shortage of jobs but that there will be a shortage of people. That is a danger which the economists realize but the hon. member simply says, “There are not sufficient jobs for people”.

Did I understand the Minister to say that the Sharpeville riots took place in 1961?

Yes, in 1961.

They took place in 1960.

1960? Very well.

Then your whole argument falls away.

Not at all. The point is still that wages rose by 4.5 per cent before Sharpeville and the hon. member says that the last two increases took place after Sharpeville. I say, therefore, whether it is 50 per cent or 100 wrong, this is something that no person ought to say if he has any respect for his country. Why must he introduce Sharpeville here at all? What is the reason for it? He seeks to suggest that it is because of those troubles that the Government has suddenly introduced relaxations. That is the impression that he tries to create.

I just want to say that the stimuli provided for in this Budget are not at all as trivial as suggested by hon. members on the other side. Apart from the tax relief amounting to R13,600,000, there are still the pension concessions amounting to R4,700,000, the increased salaries for the Public Service amounting to R10,000,000 and the increased salaries for railwaymen amounting to R21,000,000. These are all things we have to take into account for the next year, as well as the repayment of the loan levy amounting to R19,900,000. Personally I feel that it would be dangerous and irresponsible to make even more concessions in addition to this tremendous fillip that we are giving the private sector.

I was pleased to see that the Financial Editor of the Argus said, “Some critics say that Dr. Dönges has not gone far enough. I am inclined to think that he has probably gone too far and that the Budget may later this year turn out to be inflationary and to have encouraged attempts to expand beyond the limits of the country’s resources of skilled labour, and that the authorities may well have to apply a damper”. Mr. Speaker, I welcome such responsible criticism. I am glad that both the hon. members for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) and Mayfair (Dr. Luttig) pointed to these dangers. But what does one get from the Opposition? Like parrots they just imitate the other people: More concessions, still more concessions, still more stimulation. That is what we get from the Opposition, and not any argument as to what the effect of it will be. We must remember that unless we restrict inflation the people who will suffer most will be the pensioners. If our currency depreciates in value, more and more gold mines will become marginal mines, as their costs increase. Our industries will not be able to compete on the overseas market if there is inflation in South Africa. Therefore it is my first task and that of the Government to ensure that there will not be the least encouragement of inflation. Therefore also I am glad that there are people who have almost reprimanded me for perhaps having gone further than I should have. I welcome that as being responsible criticism. It is always a difficult problem to retain the balance between stimulation and stability. It is not easy to know just when and how much one should concede. One thing we have to do in any case, when deciding how much to give, is rather to sin by not giving too much and in that way encouraging inflation.

I commenced with the example of the gardener, but that is true here also. If one over-irrigates one’s soil, one runs the danger of the soil becoming brackish, and it takes years and years to restore the fertility of that soil. If one over-stimulates and gets inflation it will take years and years again to put the economy on a sound basis. I just want to tell hon. members opposite that in this debate they have not revealed the necessary sense of responsibility which one expects from an Opposition. We have received no assistance from them. To entrust the care of our financial garden to them, Mr. Speaker, will be almost as catastrophic as to place the political leadership of the country in their hands.

The hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) was correct when he said that this was all a question of confidence. What we need is confidence in ourselves; the outside world must have confidence in our economy. We need capital and immigrants, and we cannot get those things unless we instil confidence abroad. If investors and immigrants were to listen to the United Party speakers, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it would not be asking too much of them to expect them to have any confidence in South Africa? Will they come to a country whose unemployment figure is one of the highest in the world? Will they come to a country whose tempo of development is one of the lowest in the world? Will that encourage overseas investors to come here? I want to give two examples of the type of speeches which do not attract capital for immigrants. The one is the speech of the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman).

I have noted down a few of the things said by the hon. member for Zululand. He said: “The mass of decent Bantu in South Africa … prefer to give their loyalty to a terrorist organization rather than to the Government.” The Snyman report makes it quite clear that it is by far not “the great mass”, and that in most cases these people were intimidated. But the hon. member says: “The great mass of Bantu in South Africa prefer…”, which means of their own free will; there is no coercion, “… to give their loyalty to a terrorist organization.” I say that is a terrible statement to make here. The hon. member went further and said: “Diplomatic relations with the Bantu have virtually broken down … Native administration in the Cape Province is about to break down … We are on the verge of large-scale violence and subversion.” I cannot find words strong enough to express my disapproval of this. Then he continues with a very suggestive sentence and says we have already lost the confidence of the vast masses, but what will happen if we also lose the confidence of the Bantu police? This is what he said: “We stand in danger of losing the trust of the Bantu policemen as well.” These are all quotations from his speech. He continues to say that we should remember that two White policemen usually go out with ten Bantu police to investigate matters, and he asks what will happen if we lose the confidence of those ten? That is so suggestive; that is as close as one can get to inviting them to lose confidence in us. I say, Mr. Speaker, that that is not the type of speech which will attract any immigrant to South Africa. It is just as well that not much value is attached to such speeches.

The other speech to which I wish to refer is that of the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell).

He is a Poqo leader.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw those words.

I withdraw, Sir.

I am sorry the hon. member for Wynberg is not here. I have here an article which I first saw in a British publication, Southern Africa. It surprised me so much that I looked to see where it came from in South Africa. It is an extract from the Eastern Province Herald of 31 October 1962. This is what it says—

Mr. Speaker, you will readily appreciate that people who make such speeches will not be prepared to condemn this terrible film, “Sabotage in South Africa”, because if they condemn that film they will be condemning themselves. I can understand why any person says he has no fault to find with it, because he is afraid of condemning himself by finding fault with that film. Fortunately for South Africa not much weight is attached to this type of speech overseas, except that it is manna from heaven for the Afro-Asians, for the communists and for the enemies of South Africa. They will grasp at it and welcome it, and they will shout it from the rooftops. As long as the United Party harbours such speakers and fails to repudiate such speeches, they should stop saying that it is our duty to encourage confidence in South Africa.

Question put: That all the words after “That”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion,

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—89: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, Μ. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, S. P.; Cloete, J. H.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Frank, S.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Louw, E. H.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and J. J. Fouché.

NOES—45: Basson, J. D. du P.; Bloomberg, A.; Bowker, T. B.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Holland, M. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Russell, J. H.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and T. G. Hughes.

Question affirmed and the amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

House to go into Committee of Ways and Means on 2 April.

House to resolve itself into Committee of Supply.

House in Committee:

The Committee proceeded to consider the Estimates of Expenditure from Revenue Account.

Vote No. 1.—“State President”, R88,000, put and agreed to.

Vote No. 2.—“ Senate”, R282,000, put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 3.—“ House of Assembly”, R792,000,

It is my intention to make my annual remarks under this Vote, but I want to do so more emphatically than I did last year and previous years in respect of F, Hansard. With your permission, Sir, I once again wish to convey my compliments for the umpteenth time to the staff of Hansard. I think they deserve it. They often have to report under very difficult circumstances but in spite of that I think all of us in this House can testify to the fact that those people are rendering an outstanding and excellent service to South Africa. When I say that they are rendering an excellent service to South Africa I want to plead once again—and I hope this time it will not merely remain a remark—that Hansard should be made more readily available to the public outside. The reason why I am asking for that, and asking for it more emphatically than in the past, is because Hansard is the only way whereby the taxpayer outside can get a complete picture of what actually happens in the House of Assembly. There are many newspapers in South Africa and each one tries in his own way to do his best, in the way in which he thinks he is doing justice to the House of Assembly, but I think the Committee will agree with me when I say that it is a very sorry picture that is presented to the public as to what is really happening in the House of Assembly. I do not want to exaggerate. but I think the Committee will agree with me that the apparent boycott which has gradually developed over the past 12 years in newspaper circles of the House of Assembly as such is being intensified every year. What I mean is this that these days the public outside is even less acquainted with what happens in the House of Assembly than ever before and I do not think that is right. I do not think that is fair towards the House of Assembly as such or towards the people nor is it fair with a view to the fact that there is a correct and faithful report of what happens here. Apart from our speeches, apart from the views which are stated on both sides, a torrent of questions are asked which provide a fountain of information to the people, to the whole country. When we consider the small number of Hansards which are available to the public outside you will agree with me when I say that we are not doing justice to what we call Hansard in respect of the public outside. It is of no avail our asking the newspapers to do greater justice to what happens here. They will simply again treat it as a joke. The whole Committee will agree with me that when you use a stupid word like “muishond” (polecat), for example, there is not a newspaper in South Africa which does not publish it, but when a decent speech is made on a subject, a speech which might very well serve as a model to any university and college or to any cultural circle, there is not room in the best newspaper in South Africa to publish even 50 per cent of that speech. I think that after all these years we must come to the conclusion that the newspapers are not prepared— they may say that they are not in a position to do so—to do justice to what happens in the House of Assembly as far as the public is concerned. That is why I want to insist more emphatically on this occasion that Hansard should be made more readily available. Let us take the example of Australia. In Australia Hansard is as easily available and sells at the same price as an ordinary newspaper with the result that many people get Hansard. The ordinary man in the street, however, cannot afford to buy it to-day at the price charged. I am not again raising this matter to-day just to take up a few minutes of our time, but I do so in all seriousness and I trust I shall get a little more support from the hon. members on both sides because I am sure there is not a member in this House who does not agree with me that we are committing an injustice towards the public outside by conducting this House of Assembly behind closed doors and keeping the public uninformed as to what is happening here. There is no alternative to a member of the public, to a taxpayer who wants to know what is happening in the House of Assembly, but to read Hansard. There is no other way of doing it and Hansard must consequently be made more readily available to the public.

I think Hansard deserves the praise of every member of this House. There is something else in connection with Hansard that I wish to raise. Once again this year we are budgeting for an amount of R110,000 for Hansard. We notice from the Report of the House of Assembly which is tabled annually that a large portion of that amount is spent annually on the translation of Hansard, which of course increases the printing costs. If a member speaks Afrikaans it gets translated into English and if he speaks English it is obviously translated into Afrikaans. Twenty or 30 years ago there might have been a very good reason for doing that because some members were perhaps not fully bilingual. Many members did not understand the other language and they then read the translation in Hansard and learned in that way what had been said. The question arises whether Hansard should not be printed in the language in which a member speaks, in other words, in Afrikaans and English mixed, depending on the language which the member used. There are various reasons which I want to advance in support of that. You have probably noticed, Sir, that in the past two years the State President has delivered his opening speech in that way. He speaks English and then Afrikaans and it is then not necessary for him to repeat it. I have various reasons for raising this point. There is, of course, in the first place the question of costs. We know that translation involves heavy expenditure. Everything has to be retyped and that entails a great amount of work. The translation itself indeed presents a great problem, particularly from Afrikaans. I have experience of that. The Afrikaans language is probably richer in idioms than any other language in the world. Take this one example for instance of being under the influence of liquor (dronk te wees). In Afrikaans you can say “hy is getik”. You can say “hy is geswael”, “hy is gekoring”. You can express it in 20 different ways and to translate that into English presents a great problem. I do not want to criticize the translation of Hansard in general. Last year I had a number of examples available which I did not use and I do not have them here this year, but the Hansard men must often sweat in order to translate the Afrikaans which they hear in this House. They first have to correct the Afrikaans to a large extent before they can translate it into English and the same applies as far as English is concerned. The question that arises is whether we in this House are not sufficiently bilingual so that those who speak in English can be properly understood by those who speak Afrikaans and vice versa? I think the public outside is also sufficiently bilingual to do that. Why is it indeed necessary to translate all the speeches which are made in English into Afrikaans and all the speeches which are made in Afrikaans into English? I think there are examples in the rest of the world, in other countries where they speak two or more languages who are already compiling their Hansard in the language used in the legislative chamber. Has the time not arrived for us in South Africa to do the same?

I think all of us in this House are greateful to Hansard for the work they do and we appreciate the way in which the work is being done. I think, however, that we should be careful about accepting the suggestion made by the hon. member or Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg), namely that Hansard should be made available at the same price as a newspaper in the bookshops of South Africa. I am afraid Parliament will incur the cost of having a greater number of Hansard printed only to be bitterly disappointed, or disillusioned, when it realizes how small the demand is.

The people will be much more disillusioned when they read your speeches.

That may be true, but the fact remains that until such time as you can determine what the demand will be, it will be injudicious to embark upon anything like that. Our own experience is that it is the student of politics, the person who is particularly interested in politics, who wants Hansard and Hansard is an extremely valuable publication as far as he is concerned and it is for the sake of the student of politics that Hansard must be published and distributed. But I think we are making a mistake if we think that merely by printing more copies and making it a little cheaper we shall make of Hansard popular reading material on the trains and buses in South Africa. The hon. member opposite is naturally concerned because the Press is no longer as interested in the House of Assembly as years ago. In years gone by the reports in newspapers like the Volkstem and the Cape Times concerning the happenings in Parliament could practically serve as a Hansard. In the years when it was not possible to publish Hansard the reports in the newspapers were so complete that they were practically officially recognized as Hansard reports of the proceedings. That is no longer the case to-day. Life is too fast for that. People are no longer interested in long reports. Secondly, our conception of “news” has changed. This does not apply only in the case of South Africa. It is not a question of the newspapers boycotting Parliament but it is a question of a different conception of what has news value and unless we make our speeches here in Parliament more interesting, more practical in the light of the needs of the people, we must be satisfied with the fact that we get less publicity in the newspapers.

As far as the hon. member for Middelland (Mr. van der Merwe) is concerned, I hope the hon. the Minister of Finance will also deal cautiously with his suggestion. One of the problems which confronts us in South Africa is that the standpoint which is stated in one language must be brought home to those people who speak another language. I should be very sorry, for example, if the English-speaking section of this country did not have direct access to the outstanding and brilliant speeches which are made on that side of the House. We on this side of the House can do everything in our power to make the English-speaking section realize what the attitude is of our friends of the Nationalist Party but we cannot do it as effectively as hon. members opposite, because that is their attitude, their ideas. One of the main reasons why the Prime Minister’s attempts to break through to the English-speaking section has failed so far is because the English-speaking section is able to read the speeches of hon. members opposite fully in English in Hansard.

May I also just pay a small tribute to the people engaged in the production of Hansard, and may I add, Sir, that on occasion of course they do add a little to the gaiety of nations by some of the reports in the unabridged form which one sees occasionally. I must admit I have enjoyed quite a good laugh sometimes when reading some of the reports of my own speeches, and I do not think it hurts any of us to have the chance to laugh at ourselves occasionally.

In regard to the two speeches that we have had from the other side, may I say at once that I hope that the hon. the Minister of Finance is not going to pay too much attention to what the hon. member for Middelland had to say. I agree in principle with what the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) has had to say, and I believe those two hon. members opposite are completely at odds in regard to their approach to this question. The hon. member for Krugersdorp pleaded in effect for a wider distribution of Hansard. Why? So that our speeches can be read by a wider public. I think that that is a fair way to put it. The hon. member for Middelland asks for the speeches to be printed in Hansard in the language in which they are delivered, except in respect of certain particular matters, like the address by the State President, and so on. But, Mr. Chairman, if we are to have our speeches read by a wider public—not other members of the House of Assembly, as the hon. member for Middelland says—hundreds, thousands of miles away from here, surely the public outside (whom the hon. member for Krugersdorp wants to give a chance to read his speeches), should be able to read the speeches of all Members of Parliament, whether they can read English well or whether they can read Afrikaans well. Therefore the speeches should be translated from English into Afrikaans or from Afrikaans into English, so that “die volk daarbuite” can read all the speeches either in the English translation or in the Afrikaans translation. Otherwise what is the substance of the appeal of the hon. member for Krugersdorp? The hon. member for Krugersdorp must mean the whole of the public, irrespective of political affiliations or language affiliations. That must surely be the basis of the whole of his appeal here, and if once we narrow Hansard down to be printed in the language in which the speech was delivered, then we are going to deprive a large section of the public from getting a chance to read Hansard, as the hon. member for Krugersdorp has pleaded for. I must say that I hope the hon. member for Middelland is not going to press this point. What is a few thousand rand at the present time? As the importance of the work ahead of us, as the years pass, increases, so will the importance of Hansard increase more and more. Where would we have been on this side of the House, Sir, in recent speeches, where would my hon. Leader have been recently in that magnificient speech he made, which brought home the enormity of the policy of the Government, if most unfortunately he had not been able to quote from speeches that were made by hon. members opposite? One of the most outstanding features of the weekly Hansard edition of the week just passed, will be when my hon. Leader was able to say to the Leader of the House: Stop playing the fool, and that goes for you too. That was a remarkable thing to have in Hansard for future generations to see, a most outstanding event. That is the kind of thing you want to have translated in both languages so that the public can see exactly what the situation is, the reality of Parliament, not those carefully selected items that the daily Press print, but what is in fact happening in Parliament here that the “volk daarbuite” know nothing about! Let them get at any rate some kind of realistic view of what is happening here by reading the whole of the speeches made in English or Afrikaans, translated and appearing in Hansard, in the form they can most easily understand.

I also want to pay my tribute to Hansard, but it has been done so fully already that I will merely second what has been said. During this Session we have had two examples of past speeches being quoted to hon. Ministers showing that what they said a few years ago was entirely different to what they say now, and, Sir, in view of this I would like to suggest that we ought to create a special society to be called the S.P.C.M. (Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Ministers), and that in that way we should provide that all Hansards after five years be destroyed so that you cannot have speeches thrown back at you which you made five years before. I think that is reasonable. We do not know what is going to happen in the future, and I would like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that to save the Government any further heartburns and laughs, legislation should be passed that Hansard after five years is destroyed.

If we are going to sell Hansard on the news stands as suggested by the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg), I think perhaps, in order to make it saleable, it should have advertisements and pictures like we see in the Landstem of pin-up girls so as to attract people to read it, because at the present moment I am certain not two people are going to buy a copy at 2s. 6d. a time with dull speeches in the present small print. I think it is completely irrational. But joking aside I want to support my hon. friends here that it would be a very great mistake to print the Hansard only in the language in which the member spoke, because not only is Hansard read in South Africa, but it is read all over the world, and whilst we are bilingual here in this country, newspapers overseas would have to get somebody else to translate the speeches again. I think it is a very good thing that the record should be in the language in which the speech was delivered, but also have a free translation in the other official language of our country. Do not break down the rule of the two official languages being used in our official publications.

I am really sorry that by raising this matter I have now placed the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) in the position where he has become allergic to the old disease from which they have been suffering, namely, to destroy old documents and old speeches. The hon. member knows that that was a disease from which his colleagues suffered. I want to make an appeal. We can leave no greater heritage to posterity when we are no longer here than the chance to delve into the annals of history to see what was said. How pleasant do we not find it to-day to read the old speeches of Prime Ministers and prominent men of the past and to benefit from them. Why does the hon. member for Green Point suddenly want that destroyed? It may be that he has it against the Ministers but if he wants to destroy what Ministers have said he must also destroy what hon. members have said.

No, I merely want to express the hope that this matter will receive the sympathy which it deserves, because the public outside is complaining more and more every day that the proceedings in the House of Assembly are like a closed book to them. The position is not the same as it used to be in the past. There is only one effective way in which the position can be changed and that is to make Hansard so easily available that the public outside can make use of it.

I think before we leave this point, we should have clarity on this matter. The hon. member for Middelland by way of interjection denied that he and the hon. member for Krugersdorp were at cross purposes. I want to suggest to the hon. member for Krugersdorp that he wants Hansard disseminated as a publication of public importance and general interest, but the hon. member for Middelland does not want the translation of speeches because he does not consider it a matter of public interest and public importance. But I also think that he should not have lightly raised the matter without raising at the same time that in order to carry out his suggestion, it would require an amendment to the entrenched clause of the South Africa Act. I would like to remind him of what stands in the South Africa Act, in Section 108 which deals with the equality of the two languages—

1. (b) All records …

and Hansard is a record—

It is quite obvious that if the hon. member is serious in his suggestion, it will require an amendment to Section 108 of the South Africa Act, which is entrenched by Section 118 of that same Act, and for that reason I must assume that the hon. member for Middelland was either not aware of the entrenched clause affecting the situation, or else he does not regard Hansard as a matter of general importance and public interest. If that is the case, may I suggest that he should meet the hon. member for Krugersdorp and settle this little difference of opinion. So far as we are concerned, Hansard is a publication of great importance to the public, a publication which we should like to see available to all our people in both languages. I want to admit at once, Sir, that sometimes the translations of Hansard are not of the highest standard, sometimes you even get little mistakes of fact and construction in a translation, but if one considers the number of words which these people translate and the speed at which they have to do it, the limited opportunities they have for revision of their translations, I think we should pay tribute to them. It is a quite a remarkable achievement. I do not want to say anything derogatory of my fellow-members of Parliament or myself for that matter, but sometimes when one gets one’s speech back, when you get your Hansard on Fridays, it is quite astonishing how Hansard somehow or other can make what seemed unintelligible at the time of delivery, appear intelligible at the time of reading it, and it is sometimes astonishing how a transformation takes place between delivery of a speech and the printing period. Let us be grateful to Hansard, and let us be grateful also for the fact that tradition has made the proceedings of this Parliament readily available to those who are thoroughly interested in the work of this Parliament and makes it available to them in the language which the people who are interested prefer to use.

Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned on Thursday 21 March I had said to the House that for 300 years we in this country had been attempting to make laws so that all the people of this country could live in harmony with one another. I said also that we could not honestly say that after 300 years of experimenting we have progressed in any way at all; that we in this country to-day cannot say that we have made either the Whites or the Blacks happier in their relations with one another. It is my opinion that during the last two or three years relations have deteriorated very rapidly. We in this country have gone through some very important changes. In 1910, when Union was brought about, we felt that this would be a happier land for all the people. We went through two World Wars, and when the Republic was established we were told that better days were in store for us and that we would be a happier and more secure people. Are we to-day happier and more secure? White people perhaps have been brought together to a certain extent, but in our relations with the Black people or the Coloureds we cannot say that we are happier. We cannot honestly say that those Black people for whom we are legislating are getting a better deal than they had before. These 300 years have gone past and have been wasted because we have not learnt by our mistakes. It is tragic at this time to hear references to cold wars and hot wars, and that our defences have to be strengthened and that more money has to be voted for defence. Against whom, and why? Those are the questions we have to face. Why should we in this country to-day have to prepare ourselves for some unknown future? What is there that makes us afraid of the future? Who are we doubling the supply of bullets for? For what reason? It is strange that in times like these the Minister of Justice should suddenly become a commander in the cold war. This picture is in direct relation to the new concept of South Africa. The changes that took place in the past, the establishment of Union and of the Republic and two World Wars, were designed to make South Africa a unified country. That was the object. To-day we find that suddenly there is a desire to split the country into a White portion and a Black portion. We have an enormous problem to deal with, and we on this side of the House are prepared to deal with this problem by ourselves in this country. The hon. Minister and the Prime Minister have a different solution for it. They wish to take this problem and to export it outside South Africa, and to get rid of it; and the only way they can get rid of it is to export this problem, i.e. the Black man, to some other part of the country and then say that that part of the country where the Black man lives is no longer part of South Africa. It is no good the Prime Minister telling us now that sovereign independence will not come to the Transkei. We hear two voices, the voice of the Nationalist Party expressed outside South Africa, and the voice of the Nationalist Party expressed inside South Africa. Here we are told that the possibility of the Transkei becoming a sovereign independent state is almost negligible; it is so remote that we should not even consider it. The hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) made it quite clear that we cannot expect the Transkei to become a sovereign independent state.

Nonsense. I never said that.

He then said that he envisaged a commonwealth of states in South Africa, a confederation of states. Why did we withdraw our application for membership of the Commonwealth? Because we were told that the weight of opinion by the Black states of the Commonwealth was so strong that there was no place for us in the Commonwealth. It was obvious that the voting would go against us. Is it going to be any better when we have seven or eight Bantustans voting with our one White State? Will we be happier with them around us? Or will not the same set of circumstances pertain then? Can this Government honestly tell us that every one of these Bantustans which will be established will have a different outlook? [Interjection.] The way the Government is taking leads to the splitting up of South Africa, and we do not stand a one per cent chance of succeeding.

Why not?

I will tell hon. members why not. One of the most important aspects of any country, for it to live in peace and happiness, is a sound economic basis, security and friendship. Those are the three things a country must have. Can we honestly say that the Transkei can be economically sound and that this Government is right by only advocating industries along the borders of those territories which will become sovereign independent states? We must remember that in the Transkei there is only one commodity for sale, and that is labour, and we have neglected the reserves in the past to such an extent that there is not sufficient industry or agriculture, and nothing else on which they can depend for their future without the help and the “know-how” and the finance of the White man. The Bantu in the reserves know it and they want us to remain there and be part of their structure, because they know full well that without the White man’s “knowhow” and our economy they cannot possibly succeed.

Who told you that?

It is a tragedy for this country to know what a mistake it is making and still to go forward with that mistake, because I cannot believe that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Bantu Administration cannot see failure staring them in the face. If the Transkei has only labour to sell, if that is its only export, if they are going to have a Government to run their own affairs, what is the obvious result going to be? They must get as much as possible for their commodity, and who is then to tell us that the Bantu cannot demand what he wants for his labour, whether he works inside or outside the Transkei; will hon. members opposite stop collective bargaining? We on this side of the Transkei depend no less on the labour that comes from the Transkei. We have to have it and if we do not get it from the Transkei we will have to get it from some other Bantustan, and what pertains in the Transkei will also pertain in the other Bantustans in regard to labour. They will dictate to us because they know full well that we require their labour. If we and they cannot agree, it will be a very unhappy day for South Africa. Our economy depends on their labour, and their livelihood depends on our “know-how” and our industries. We cannot do without these people and they cannot do without us, and as much as this Government might try, it will never be able to separate what the Black man has to give us and what we have to give him in return. They have to go hand in hand. It is for that reason that we on this side say you cannot do what you are doing. There is an alternative.

Tell us what? A multiracial country?

It is no good being obsessed with the idea of a multi-racial country, or a multi-racial Government. Hon. members opposite have got a fear that the Black man will take over this Government, but we on this side have sufficient confidence in the ability of the White man to know that we can still lead them along the right path, and we will never surrender South Africa to these people. I think it was the hon. member for Pietersburg who wanted to know what our policy was, and how was it that we could be confident in giving an alternative which would be much more acceptable both to the Black man and to the White man. Let me say that the principles upon which our party’s policies are based are quite clear. They have been stated over and over again by our leader and by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn), and I will repeat it for the benefit of the hon, member, but then he must listen. Firstly, there must be a willingness to share the fruits of Western civilization.

What does that mean?

I will answer that question, but no others. I want to say that you must not deprive any person living in this country of the “know-how” of the White man and the education of the White man and the good things the White man has learnt to enjoy. There must be White leadership here. That is necessary. We must consult with the Black people. There must be an acceptance of the dignity and importance of the individual. What would we do if we came into power? There would be immediate steps to relieve the racial tensions by means, inter alia, of the repeal or amendment of a mass of Nationalist legislation. We must go along the road of ordered advance—I am repeating what I said previously—and not only for the Black people, but for the Coloureds and the Asians. In the race federation every group must have representation in the Central Government.

What about Sir Roy?

Secondly, by introducing federal elements into the Constitution, some measure of rights must be given to the individual, to racial groups and to geographical units. We will see that the predominantly White and the predominantly Black areas are grouped for administrative purposes as political units.

More Bantustans?

The details of such a plan will be worked out.

By whom? By Mandela?

Not by the White people alone, but with those people who are directly affected. It will be done with patience and with the wisdom of the White man, with the help of the Black man, and it will be done with feeling for those millions who will always live with us in this land. We must remember that come what may, bring in what laws you like and what segregation you like, you will always have the Black man living here with us. You cannot avoid it. You can have ten or twenty Bantustans, but you need the help of the Black man and therefore you will have him with us. We cannot avoid it and we must face up to it, and the laws that this country passes to get rid of him are only temporary laws because he will have to stay here with us. This problem has to be solved soon but we must not hurry into it blindly. We must take an example from what those people in Zululand have recently said. Just recently we read that 200 Zulu chiefs rejected the plea of the Paramount Chief, Cyprian, to decide quickly on a territorial authority. They said it was too important a matter to be left to the chiefs alone; these people to whom so-called independence was offered. They should not decide alone on a Bantustan. They recommended that a referendum of the urban and the rual Zulus should be held. The Minister shakes his head and indicates that this is not true. What happened two weeks afterwards? But this is not quite as interesting as what Mr. Nel said there—not the Minister. The Commissioner-General said in his address that it was not good for one people always to be governed by another people. I would like to know whether he meant that they were going to get sovereign independence, beause it is not good for them always to be governed by others, or whether hon. members opposite say that they can have sovereign independence? Again we have voices talking, not in two keys, but against each other. [Interjections.] I am criticizing what those hon. members are saying. I have told you what we will do. We will not do the silly things they are doing now. We will be honest and we will not have two policies. I do not know how these various ways of explaining away the Bantustans will fit in with what the Minister is going to tell us later, but I take it that when he speaks to us his will be the last word on the matter and then we will know whether or not those people in the Transkei will be given sovereign independence or a small amount of rights to do a few things on their own.

This Bill we have before us will fragment our country territorially. That has been repeatedly said, but what is much more important is that the loyalties of this country are going to be fragmented, and this Government is helping in the fragmentation of these loyalties. What is going to happen when we go into the Transkei and see the Transkeian flag flying next to the Republican flag? What is the Transkeian going to say? He will say what the Nationalists said when the Union Jack flew alongside the South African flag.

Order! That argument has been used over and over again.

But the tragedy is that with this stimulation of nationalist feeling amongst the Natives in the Transkei, the White people in the Transkei will suffer. We have heard the fears expressed by the White traders of the Transkei, and they are not the only people affected. What about the professional people there? What faces them? The whole health set-up of the Transkei depends to-day on the Whites, and can the Minister tell me that he expects those people working in private practice, working for the province or for the Government, to stay in the Transkei if the threats of people like Kaiser Matanzima and others are going to be repeated? Can he expect a White doctor to travel in the countryside to attend a patient in those circumstances? Does he not realize that there will be an exodus of these people and that the whole of the Transkei, except for a handful of Bantu doctors, will be denuded of medical men? That is the tragedy which faces South Africa. It is in the Transkei that we see the spread of tuberculosis going on unchecked. I want the Minister to listen to this because it is very important. Bilharzia is coming through that area, and rabies, and if you take away the medical services from the Transkei we in South Africa will be faced with a very serious position in regard to our health. We are importing labour from that area, and if the Transkei Bantu is not looked after properly as far as his health is concerned, we will face a very serious threat in the Republic. To-day we are fortunate in having White doctors and White nurses and White missionaries doing a job of work there, but with this formation of an independent state there, and with the threats issued by certain of the so-called leaders, and encouraged by the Government, I cannot see any reasonable person remaining in that area. He will go to where it is safe. We cannot allow such things to happen. What will happen to the Blacks in that area? If the Transkei is not going to prosper, if industry is not going to be encouraged, if commerce and industry are not helped along, it can only be a poor country, a country of misery. The Black people amongst themselves will look for other ways and means to improve their position. How they will do it I do not know, but on labour alone, the labour which they will export, I cannot see them keeping the country going for any length of time. To-day these people are fortunate in being helped along by the White people. There is a White economy there. There is encouragement given to these people to help themselves, and we on this side have continually said: Do not put these industries on the border; put them inside, but hon. members opposite are so obsessed with apartheid that it is wrong in their eyes to go across the river and establish an industry in the Transkei. That is wrong. I cannot see why that cannot take place, and it will take place, because otherwise the Transkei cannot exist. I say again that we do not want to surrender our country, or any part of it, to any group within our borders or without it. It is our responsibility to keep our country intact and to keep it at peace and to keep it economically sound and content, so that all the people will be proud to have a stake in the Republic, a Republic which was created for unity and happiness. If this Government is going to do anything to disrupt the unity of the people and the desire for happiness and the security of the people, it will stand condemned for ever.

The hon. member who has just sat down spoke for some time about the period of 300 years during which attempts have been made to bring about favourable conditions here in South Africa and he asked whether we were happier to-day; whether we have succeeded in making people happy and in creating peace and quiet, and the conclusion to which he came was that people today felt far more unsafe; that they were not happy and did not have a feeling of security. It is very easy to draw such vague inferences and to make such general allegations. If one goes back a little into history one finds that there have always been disturbances and that there has always been strife. When we think back to the previous century, to the days of Dingaan and Chaka and Moselekatse when wars of extermination took place between the various Bantu races, it is perfectly clear that the Black people to-day are in a far more fortunate and a safer position than they were at that time. As far as the struggle of the Whites is concerned, when we think what the position was a century ago on the eastern borders of the Cape, it is clear to us that the people in the eastern Cape to-day are far safer and far happier than they were a century ago. No, the hon. member cannot come forward with such wild generalizations.

This Bill embraces two fundamental principles. The first is the establishment of their own area for the Bantu and the second is the granting of self-government to the Bantu in that area. These two fundamental principles contained in this Bill form the traditional policy here in South Africa and this Bill merely implements the policy which has been advocated over the years by the National Party and this Government. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition complained that the Government was not prepared to accept the co-operation of the Opposition. He alleged that the United Party had extended the hand of friendship and co-operation but that it was rudely struck aside by the Government. How did the Opposition offer that co-operation? Was that offer unconditional or were there certain conditions attached to it? They offered their help conditionally. In 1958 they offered their assistance through the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to develop the Bantu homelands but on condition that the Government dropped its policy of separate development or its Bantustan idea as they put it. As little as we are prepared to drop our policy under those conditions, so little are we prepared to accept the assistance of the Opposition on those conditions.

Mr. Speaker, the policy directions of the two parties are so irreconcilable that it is not possible to have co-operation unless concessions are made by one side or the other side and the Government is not prepared to deviate from its policy. The policy of integration advocated by the Opposition and the policy of apartheid advocated by us are completely irreconcilable policy directions. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition in his most recent speech here again spoke about a common loyalty—one flag, one national anthem, one united South African nation. We believe that if that policy is implemented, it will simply mean abdication by the White man, surrender by the White man, in his own homeland which he has built up into a highly developed and highly civilized country by means of his initiative, his knowledge, his skill, his capital and his energy and we are simply not prepared to forfeit part of our homeland.

Nor to share it.

This party is in favour of a policy which will ensure that the White man retains authority in his own area but we do not begrudge the Bantu his own area and we do not begrudge him development and the right of self-government in his own area as he develops and acquires the skill and the knowledge to enable him to assume that responsibility. We are prepared to assist him financially and that is already being done. We are prepared to put the knowledge of the White man at his disposal and to give him guidance. Now the hon. member comes along and says that we are not prepared to grant the fruits of Western civilization to the Bantu. He has no grounds for that allegation. That is being done.

Are you not handing over the control over medical services and education to the Transkeian Parliament?

If the control over those services is handed over it still does not mean that guidance and financial support will not be forthcoming. We fully realize that there are problems and difficulties. We have never said that there are no problems and no difficulties. There is no policy that does not produce difficulties and problems but we say that the policy of the Opposition will create far greater difficulties and far greater problems.

It is also more dangerous.

The difficulty is that while the Opposition are prepared to follow the results of our policy to its logical conclusion and to point out all the dangers implicit in our policy, as far as their own policy is concerned they are only prepared to go as far as “the foreseeable future They are not prepared to follow the results of their policy to their eventual logical conclusion. Let me make it very clear that this Bill does not give sovereign independence to the Transkei; it only gives self-governing rights to the Transkei. We are prepared—and agree—that the logical result of this Bill may indeed be sovereign independence. We do not close our eyes to that fact. We do not recoil from that possibility.

How would you stop it?

We have not said that we are going to stop it.

That is precisely what would give rise to conflict.

We have never said that we will withhold sovereign independence from the Bantu and we are prepared to say that that will be the logical result of this policy.

But the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) did not say so.

We will do everything in our power to assist that process and to try to prevent it coming prematurely. We are prepared to offer our assistance and we are prepared to guide these people step by step as far as we are able to do so.

The process of evolution.

We see the possibility, as they develop into sovereign independent states, of having friendly states on our borders. We shall do everything in our power to retain that friendship; that will be our whole attitude. The trouble with the Opposition is that they make such vague remarks. They talk about “leadership with justice”. What does “leadership with justice” mean? A leader is chosen. Who is the Opposition going to allow to choose that leader in the future? That is the question that must be answered. Take the question of “justice”. What is justice?

Who will judge?

In my view if one wants to treat people fairly, one must give them the right of self-determination. Is the Opposition prepared to give them the right of self-determination? We are prepared to give them that right in their own area. If the Opposition want to give them the right of self-determination in their joint area, in the White area, then this must eventually lead to “one man, one vote The hon. the Leader of the Opposition held another meeting last week-end at which he said that the Government was maintaining its authority by coercion.

That was a shameful speech.

Yes, it was a shameful speech. But he said that if the United Party came into power they would not govern by coercion but by consent, and that consent would be obtained by way of consultation. We would very much like to have an explanation of those terms because in my view “consent” and “consultation” mean that they will consult the Bantu and ask them what they want. The United Party state that they will govern by consent. In other words, after they have consulted the Bantu they will only take steps in connection with certain matters when they have the consent of the Bantu. If we have to follow that policy in the Republic of South Africa then I can see no other result than what has happened in the rest of Africa. Hon. members opposite are simply blind to the developments and happenings that have taken place on the continent of Africa. They refuse to learn a lesson from it.

You did not learn the lesson of the Congo.

No, you did not learn it.

Let us take a few of the states that were under British control. Take Kenya and the Federation. They started there by giving limited representation to the Bantu. In the Federation they even had an A and a B Voters’ Roll in order to ensure that the White man would retain the majority but that was not enough; they could not satisfy those people. Eventually they offered equal representation to White and non-White. They were not satisfied with that either with the result that Kenya, Tanganyika and Northern Rhodesia have Black Governments to-day. We do not know what is going to happen in Southern Rhodesia. We only hope that the White man there will retain the reins of government in his hands.

I say that the trouble with the Opposition is that while they follow the results of our policy to its ultimate conclusion and point out the dangers connected with it they are not prepared to do so in regard to their own policy.

Hon. members of the Opposition are so inclined to talk about a fear complex. The hon. member for Rosettenville again spoke about our fear for the future. Mr. Speaker, I do not call it fear. If one sees a threat to one’s survival, one cannot simply bury one’s head in the sand like an ostrich and say that there is no danger.

That would be recklessness.

If one sees a threat and one does not take steps to ward off that threat, then one is being reckless. I say that if we are accused of having a fear complex, then the Opposition should level that same accusation against our forebears from the earliest days of the history of this country. This policy of political integration is not one which is peculiar to South Africa; it is an imported policy. The White people of South Africa have always regarded separate political rights as the only way for the White man to maintain himself here. Let us look at the Transvaal and Free State Republics. When the first Whites settled in the present Free State, it was very clearly stated in the first constitution of Retief that only the White man would have citizenship rights in his area, and in 1854 when the constitution of the Orange Free State was drawn up one of the provisions of that law was that only Whites could participate in elections. We had precisely the same position in the Transvaal. Section 9 of the Transvaal Constitution of 1858 provides that there shall be “no equality between White and non-White in Church and State”. In Natal we had the legislation of 1865 and 1883 which for all practical purposes excluded the Bantu from political rights. In the Cape we had the so-called liberal tendency, but there too it was not an indigenous policy but an imported policy. We had the infamous Ordinance No. 50 which was introduced under Crown Colony Government, which the colonists of the time branded as a law creating equality between White and Black. This was one of the most important reasons for the Great Trek. But in 1854 the Cape received representative Government and although the non-White was given the vote together with the White man, it was not given voluntarily by the Whites, it was not the choice of the people of the country. This equality in the political sphere was the result of the despatch of Earl Grey. But the Cape rebelled against it because the people regarded it as a threat to their survival. There we also had what hon. members opposite describe as a fear complex. In 1886-7 we had the Parliamentary Registration Act which disenfranchised 30,000 potential voters in the Transkei. Why was that done? Because the Whites saw a threat to their survival in the non-White vote. In 1892 a further step was taken, the Transkeian Ballot Act, which disenfranchised all the raw Natives in the Cape in order to protect the White vote. It is a strange thing that people like Cecil Rhodes and John X. Merriman and Onze Jan were in favour of that legislation. These so-called liberals were in favour of it. In 1894 Rhodes said amongst other things—

But I go further. With the passing of the Act of Union in 1910, this colour bar was introduced into our Union legislation and limited franchise rights were given to the non-Whites in the Cape and none to the non-Whites in the northern provinces. But the Whites still did not feel safe even after this. In 1929 a Select Committee was appointed to investigate the Native question and in 1930 Mr. Nicholls moved the following motion on that Select Committee—

In other words, his proposal was that there should be no further registration of non-White voters; in other words, that the Bantu voters in the Cape would eventually die out. On 20 February 1931 Dr. Jansen submitted a Bill containing a provision of this nature to the Select Committee. It will be seen therefore that because of what hon. members of the Opposition call a fear complex, the Whites took one step after another to safeguard the White franchise. If therefore we are accused of fearing for our survival, we are in the good company of all our fine forefathers. In 1930 the franchise was given to White women only; the Coloured women and Bantu women were excluded.

But in the Transkei you are giving the franchise to the Bantu women too.

The hon. member is talking nonsense.

Read the Bill.

Unqualified franchise was given to the Whites in 1931. In other words, once again there was discrimination in favour of the White man. In 1936 the Separate Representation Act was passed, a further step to safeguard the White franchise. Later on, in 1951, the Bantu Authorities Act was passed which was the first step on the way to Bantu self-government.

I think that I have shown that this fear complex, as the Opposition choose to call it, has been noticeable throughout our history on the part of various people, on the part of various parties and various leaders. The accusation has also been made that the present Prime Minister is responsible for this step which according to the Opposition will eventually lead to sovereign independence. But this has always been the policy of the most important leaders of the various parties in our country who had thought and worked along these lines. Mention has already been made of the statement on similar lines made by General Botha. Take General Hertzog for example. In a speech which he made on 20 January 1918 he said—

On 3 December 1925 General Hertzog said the following—

What does this mean? If words have any meaning, it means self-government, and self-government must eventually be carried through to its logical conclusion. Let me take their great leader of the past, General Smuts. In his Oxford speech of 9 October 1929 he said—

There you have it again very clearly: “Parallel institutions.” It is also interesting to see that Mr. Madeley, the then leader of the Labour Party, moved the following motion on 26 February 1936—

You kicked him out of the Cabinet. Why?

That is not relevant here. If the hon. member would devote more attention to these matters he might perhaps learn something. I think that I have quoted sufficient to indicate the attitude adopted by former Prime Ministers. In 1948 the late Dr. Malan put our policy very clearly. When Adv. Strydom became Prime Minister he also put our policy very clearly. It was made perfectly clear on every occasion that these people would be given institutions in their own area, institutions that would be able to develop.

To independence.

We do not flinch from that possibility; we have never flinched from it. We simply believe that this development must take place gradually and that it must take place under the guidance of the White man. Guardianship cannot continue forever. There comes a time when the guardian must give up his guardianship and when the ward must become independent. That is surely logical reasoning and I say again that we do not flinch from it. All I ask hon. members of the Opposition is to analyse their own policy and to appreciate its consequences.

I do not think I have to follow the last speaker in proving that this is an entirely new policy on the part of the present Government because my leader did that adequately in the course of the recent speech. I also hope he will not ask me to go back 120 years as he did to find a solution for our present-day problems. Things have changed since then. The hon. member has admitted certain things. He has admitted that there has been no consultation with the Bantu. He has also admitted that they are going to have sovereign independent states and that he and his Government and his party are not prepared to run away from that fact.

When I was a young student and we discussed the future of this country I always felt that there would be no difficulty in time to come; I felt that we, the Whites, would simply lop off the Black Native areas and leave them to fend for themselves; I felt that there would be more than enough White men to keep those Black men who remained in what we called Black South Africa in order. If at any time, of course, the Natives in their independent Black states did not treat their White lords with the deference due to them, an expedition would be sent to punish them or if they were too powerful we would send for the English to do so. Those thoughts of my youth were very much on the lines of the thoughts of the hon. the Minister of Information who was recently reported as having said that if the Transkei, once it was an independent state, started to cause trouble it would be dealt with by South Africa as Cuba was dealt with by the United States of America. Can you imagine him, Mr. Speaker, with his chest out, declaring war on Russia, on China and all the countries behind the Iron Curtain! I cannot imagine him doing that, yet he says those things. Unfortunately we cannot call upon the English to save us now; the position has changed considerably. Now it is not the English who are to be called upon to help us but who are to be sacrificed; they are to be the burnt offering, firstly in the Transkei and then, according to Kaiser Matanzima, from the Fish River to Zululand. Then? I do not know. The other side of the House has not told us yet. One thing should be remembered. We so-called English have always had a way of getting out of our difficulties. Today’s enemy is possibly to-morrow’s friend. We are an adaptable race and in the long run we will not come second. Things have changed in so many ways in this country of recent years. We have had the advance of Black nationalism in the whole of Africa, and the inextricable mixing of Black and White in our economy has definitely wiped out any prospect of shedding the White man’s responsibility to the Black man in this country. What are the reasons behind this policy of sovereign independent Bantustans? The obvious reason to me is that this Prime Minister and the Government have given up all hope for the future of the White man in this country. They see him eventually in besieged areas into which he has gradually been driven and with the border areas of the Bantustans heavily policed. That side of the House says that the only chance is to divide and rule: to establish buffer White states between ethnic sovereign states of Black men; keep these groups at each others throats so that the White man can have peace. That might have worked many years ago but to-day that is a policy of despair.

I want to point out one thing to hon. members opposite and that is that integration is not a policy in this country, it is a fact. It has been growing over the years; it is not a policy, it is a fact. The tribal affiliations of hundreds of Black people have disappeared and they regard themselves as South Africans and not as migrant labourers, as hon. members are so keen to call them. These millions of Natives are now united and I am afraid they are united by one thing, and that is their hatred of us, of the White man. I say that that hatred has been caused by this Government and its policy. I do not claim that we would not have had trouble but we would have handled the situation in a way that would not have placed us in our present parlous state. All bridges between us and the Blacks have been broken down, and all goodwill between us has been lost, to all intents and purposes. This Bill purports to bestow Transkeian citizenship on many people who were not born there, have never been there, who will never go there and whose only possible link with the Transkei is a language or an allied language as set out in this Bill. This is a new method of bestowing citizenship, Mr. Speaker, of which I have never heard before. If you follow it to its logical conclusion then every American is an Englishman; every Scotsman is an Englishman.

The hon. member is going too far now.

With all due deference, Mr. Speaker, this Bill provides for a Native on the Rand to be classified as a Transkeian citizen if he speaks that language or an allied language. We are of course used to getting original thoughts from the Prime Minister but this must be classed as something above original—I cannot think what comes after original—if I could have I would have used that word.

Ultra original.

All right, ultra original. We must not permit the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration falsely to advise the people of South Africa that the Africans welcome this Bill.

The hon. member must withdraw the word “falsely”.

I withdraw the word “falsely I cannot think of another word. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration has assured us that he has consulted the Bantu at every level. He assures us that he has consulted the Bantu in the Transkei and those in the town and that they are all very happy at the thought of having their own homelands.

In passing, I should like to tell the House what happened at a recent passing-out parade of Black policemen at Benoni. I want to tell you about this instance because I think it revealed what the thoughts of the Black man are. This was a first class parade. It was attended by the Minister of Justice and many high-ranking police officers. The Minister made a good speech from his angle. He said to the men who were passing out that they had chosen a first-class career. He told them that the ranks they could reach were of course only non-commissioned but he pointed out to them that in their own homelands, that limitation would not be placed on them and that they would be able to rise to any rank. Why do I mention this at this stage, Mr. Speaker? I will draw further conclusions from it at a later stage. This shows how ridiculous the position is: At the conclusion of this parade the Africans sang the “Stem van Suid-Afrika” and I have never heard it sung more sincerely. If those men have not got love in their hearts for South Africa then nobody has. Many speakers on the Government side have drawn a parallel between migrant Italian and other labourers in Europe and our African labourers. They said that the Africans in our towns were in exactly the same position as the Italian labourers who worked in other countries. I have however not heard them suggest that the Italians formed a special police force in whatever country they worked specially to see to it that they did not break the laws in any way. There is a further question that I should like to ask: Those policemen have been well-trained to serve their people and us in South Africa. Whom are they going to obey when in due course this Transkei becomes independent and they get orders from their own Government? Who is the supreme authority? They have been told that they were limited as far as the rank they could obtain in this country was concerned but that they could go as far as possible in their own country. It has been drummed into their heads that they do not belong to us but that they belong to their heartlands. Very interesting possibilities arise as to what might happen in the future. If this Government is not buying trouble then I do not know what it is doing.

I want to return to the question of consultation. I do not want to use the word false but I want to accuse the hon. the Minister of giving wrong information when he says that he has consulted the town Natives and that they are in favour of this Bill and very happy about being migrant labourers. I have here the 1961 Annual Report of the C.S.I.R. This is a Government institution as you know and on page 25 of this report it says the following—

In other words, 90 per cent of those men are no longer migrant labourers in their hearts and in their being. It goes on to say—

If that does not cut the ground from under the feet of every member on that side of the House, then I do not know. The whole of the Government’s policy is on the basis that they, the Africans, are migrant labourers who are happy to have their roots in a homeland which they have never seen. I have said that 90 per cent have lost touch with their rural homelands and are detribalized. I do not want to mislead the House in any way. This does not apply to the mine Natives. Knowing my friends on the other side of the House I had better clear up this one point. This report goes on to say—

I suppose one or two hon. members opposite will know that all the mine Natives live in compounds on the mines. The new towns that are being built along the Reef and around every big town are not to house the mine Natives but the industrial workers. I want to ask the Minister a question: Has the hon. Minister read this report or has he switched himself off the way he does when he feels uncomfortable? I repeat the question: Has he read this report?

He switched himself off.

Has the Minister had the contents of this report submitted to him? This is a report by the C.S.I.R. The hon. Minister does not reply. I shall do the same when they pick on me again in future.

Is this Government going to force this so-called citizenship on those people? These are completely detribalized people and we have them in their hundreds of thousands in this country. Is this Government going to force them to pay taxes for use in a country in which they have no interests whatsoever? Is it going to force these people to be subject to laws passed by what is to them a foreign Government? I am afraid the answer is “Yes”. The Government is going to force them to do that by passing this Bill. This Government has the power, the physical force, perhaps, to enforce this but at what cost? At what cost to the relationship between Black and White? Every day it becomes more and more essential to try to build up goodwill. This is going to force those people into the ridiculous, humiliating position which this Bill provides for. Mr. Speaker if trouble does come with sovereign independent states; what a fifth column? Whom are they going to blame if they have to pay taxes to the Transkeian Government? Not the Transkeian Government, but they will blame us. This Minister knows the truth of the position in the towns. Why does he not tell the country the truth? Why does he not tell the country that in the towns it is only the older men who will even look at this proposal of Bantu homelands. Why does the Minister not tell the country that when the chiefs come from the Transkei to address their people in the towns, it is only the older men who show them any respect. The younger men howl them down; they jeer at them and break up their meetings. They do not want to listen to the chiefs; they have lost all respect for them because they have been cut off from them through circumstances. I am not allowed to use the word false; I cannot think of a word; but if anything was wrong, if any action was wrong, it is this action of the Minister’s of bluffing the South African public by telling them that the town Natives accept this Bill.

I personally have been told many times by Africans that they regard themselves as South Africans. Do you remember that boy who won the fly-weight championship in America? [Interjections.] He is a Black man and I suppose he does not count with you, but he brought honour onto our country. He happens to be a constituent of mine. I wired him my congratulations. I do not know him but I lay 100 to 1 in rands with this Minister that this boy does not want to know anything about a homeland. To expect men who have lived in towns for generations to be prepared to regard themselves as tribal Natives is the height of stupidity.

The Prime Minister and this Government say that they are very concerned about the future of the White man. I personally am more concerned about the future and the safety of the White man than that of the Black man. I think the Black man can look after himself in the long run. It is the safety of myself and that which is mine that concerns me. I regard this Bill as the death knell of the White man. This is admitted on all sides. Some of the Government members dodge it a bit but this is going to lead to the establishment of sovereign independent states. They try to dodge it but they all know it is coming; nothing can stop sovereign independence once this Bill is passed. We have to stop this Bill from going through. My Leader has pointed out on more than one occasion that the Transkei will be in a position to apply to the United Nations for sovereign independence even if this Government is foolish enough to try to stop their getting it. The position will be out of our hands once this Bill goes through; absolutely out of our hands. When this sovereign independence arrives what will our position really be in this country? We only have to examine what happened in Algeria. I will not go into detail but this Government must have appreciated the possibility because 3 or 4 years ago they actually sent senior officers to watch the campaign in Algeria and to see what was going on there. Mr. Speaker, let me give you the facts of the position in Algeria. Tunisia adjoined Algeria. Algeria was part of France. 1,000,000 Frenchmen lived amongst 8,000,000 Arabs who were blood-brothers and fellow-religionists of the Tunisians. What happened in Algeria? At one time France had 450,000 troops in Algeria. It was costing France £1,000,000 per day. The border between Algeria and Tunisia was actually wired and electrified and what happened? The Algerians simply slipped through the wire whenever they wanted to, murdered a few farmers, sabotaged a few installations, slipped back to Tunisia with the French in vain pursuit, and then they rested and re-armed and returned through the wire at their will. Arms of all kinds were available to them from Eastern countries. We know the result. France granted Algeria freedom and 850,000 out of a 1,000,000 Frenchmen returned to France. They returned because there was an independent state next door which supplied arms to its co-religionists and friends inside Algeria. We are going to create our own Tunisia in this country. How far can human stupidity take us?

What about Israel?

Have you been to Israel? I have been there; come and talk to me some time.

In the interests of the White man this Bill is not to go through. If it does, the horizon is black and the storm is imminent. The edges of the clouds are tinged with blood. We are following the dream of one man and this Bill must not be allowed to go through. It is going to bring us trouble and misery which at present we cannot even dream of. I hope the White man of South Africa will speak before he is sacrificed as the Whites in the Transkei are to be sacrificed. Mr. Speaker, I repeat: 850,000 out of 1,000,000 Frenchmen fled from Algeria. Where are we going to flee to as this policy brings us more and more danger? If help does not come and come very soon there will be nobody left in the forward platoon. [Interjections.] My hon. Leader has explained to you on many occasions what this policy is going to lead to and you know it. I say anything is preferable to this policy. I do not want to be sacrificed like a goat for a bunch of pampoens.

Order!

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker. I want to mention an old friend of all of us, namely the late Dr. Douglas Smit. I was given the privilege of going through his papers after his death. He had just been through various Native townships of the country and I want to read something which I found amongst his papers. He was “struok by the immensity of it all it was an “amazing spectable. Where is it going to end He was referring to Germiston and he said this—

And these are the men who are going to be shipped back to a heartland by this Government and this Minister. I support the amendment, Mr. Speaker.

It will be impossible for me to follow that hon. member in all his speculations and the wild and sometimes irresponsible statements he made, but I would like to refer to one or two points. He said, inter alia, that there was no consultation with the Bantu in regard to this Transkei Bill. I shall controvert this statement of his during the course of my speech. The hon. member made a better plea for the urban Bantu than Mandela or Sobukwe could have done. It seems to me that that hon. member has never got rid of his attachment to a foreign power, because he made the following statement: “We, the English, always have a way of coming out of our difficulties”. Did he refer to what the British Government is doing on the Continent of Africa and in the territories immediately to the north of us. He also referred to the hon. the Prime Minister and said that the Prime Minister had lost all hope for the future. Nothing is further from the truth than that statement. The Opposition, and here I include not only the United Party but also the Progressive Party, is busy with a directionless, groundless and spiritless opposition to this Transkei policy. The Opposition has evidently been lulled into a sort of Rip van Winkel sleep. It has not yet realized that winds of change have blown over the great Continent of Africa and that those winds of change have become ravaging winds, storms of destruction for the Whites and for the interests of the White man. Nowhere on the Continent of Africa and nowhere in the world has the policy of the United Party or the policy of the Progressive Party succeeded in safeguarding the interests of the White man. It has failed abysmally everywhere. The policy of partnership in Rhodesia, which was lauded so much by some hon. members there, and particularly by the Progressive Party, proved a failure. The Progressive Party also stated in the past that this was a policy which very closely resembled their own.

But the United Party, and indeed the whole of the Opposition, are just like the French Bourbon kings after the Napoleonic Wars; it was said of those kings that they forgot nothing but that they also learnt nothing. The United Party has never evolved a practical and realistic policy for South Africa. They are incited and inspired by the Press supporting them and which fights against the Government’s honest offer of racial separation with consequential Bantu self-government in their own areas, as embodied in this Transkei Bill. I say the United Party is fighting in the same trench with its ally, the Progressive Party. I except that when we come to the Committee Stage of this Bill the United Party will again be taken in tow by the single hon. member representing the Progressive Party here, as has happened in the past.

Talking about the Progressive Party, I want to refer to what the leader of the Progressive Party, Dr. Jan Steytler, said at a meeting at Queenstown in February 1962 already, when he expressed the hope that the Bantu chiefs and the other delegates to the consultations in Umtata which were held at that time would not accept the proposals, but would reject them completely. He alleged that the Government measures would solve nothing and that the Bantu were being offered just a little more power than those of the local authority as a bribe. When he was asked to comment on the reports at the time that two Bantu members of the Progressive Party were sent from the Transvaal to try to persuade the chiefs not to co-operate, Dr. Steytler did not give a direct reply, but put it this way—

In other words, they were to connive with the chiefs and to get their co-operation to obstruct Government policy there.

But let me also say that the official Opposition is fighting in the same trench also with the Liberal Party, and seeing that hon. members on this side of the House have not yet discussed this matter, I want to link it up with someone. Whilst the consultations of the Recess Committee were in progress in the Transkei, certain members of the Liberal Party addressed a meeting in Cape Town, and I will let a report of the Cape Times of 26 February 1962 speak for itself—

That was the headline, and then the report continues—

I wonder how many members of Poqo were present on that occasion—

And now come the significant words—

Another person, Mr. Tim Holmes, said—

I followed the tracks of this person, Mr. Vigne, further, and found that he had attended the Special Session of the Transkeian Territorial Authority on 11 December 1962, when the proposed Bill was discussed clause by clause. Vigne attended the sessions as a pressman, as the representative of Contact and “a few London newspapers”, as he professed. He was granted the privilege of attending the discussions as a Press correspondent but he abused his privilege and continually sent notes to some of the members of the Territorial Authority in which he advised and incited them. Officials intercepted some of these notes and Mr. Mills, the law adviser, brought the matter to the notice of the Chairman on 13 December. Chief Petrus Jozana thereupon said that in view of what Mr. Mills had brought to his notice, he proposed that Mr. Vigne be ordered to leave the Council. This chief said that they were dealing with very delicate and very important matters, and that it was desirable that the members should work together in harmony. He said further—

Councillor C. K. Madikizela seconded and, inter alia, made this remark: “I wonder why people should suddenly take an interest in the Transkei.” That is significant. The motion was passed unanimously and the Chairman asked Mr. Vigne to leave the building and the premises of the Territorial Authority. Later Mr. Vigne was placed under administrative restrictions and his movements were limited to the Cape Town district, and he was prohibited from attending or addressing meetings. Now it is significant that after this order was served on him and others, certain chiefs did not talk as much as they did previously.

But the Opposition is not only fighting in the same trench as the Liberal Party; in the third place they are fighting in the same trench together with the Poqo movement, in a certain sense. The Poqo movement also does not want the attempts of the Government to create a Transkei state to be successful. Poqo applies other methods—methods of a gruesome, subversive and unconstitutional nature, whilst the United Party applies constitutional methods, but still both of them do not want the Government’s attempt to succeed.

I do not again want to deal with the Snyman Report about which we have heard so much lately, except to repeat paragraph 18 of the report, the portion which is applicable here, namely—

It is significant that it is elements from outside the Transkei which are attempting to render unsuccessful the work being done in regard to establishing a Transkeian state. I have already pointed out how the Progressive Party tries to do it, and how the Liberal party does it. In paragraph 14 of the Snyman Report the judge points out that the membership of Poqo in the Transkei is particularly small, and that the activities of Poqo are mostly carried on by persons sent there for that purpose. I accept that the hon. members of the Opposition do not approve of the Poqo methods, but they cannot deny that they are fighting together with Poqo to achieve their political objective. The Opposition protects the liberals, the people who are nothing less than saboteurs of the future of the Whites in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the policy of the establishment of separate areas where full opportunities for development will be granted is embodied ini this constitution for the Transkeian state. Here the Bantu will be able to express himself, not in a strange form of government or one which is forced upon it, but in terms of a constitution which fits in with their own national character and culture and in which important elements of his traditional system of government are retained, viz., in relation to the tribal system and the system of tribal chiefs.

Mr. Speaker, the greatest and most flagrant mistake which was made in the creation of new independent states in Africa is that those constitutions and systems of government were forced on to those people, systems which were strange to them, for which they were not right, and which had practically no connection with their traditional tribal form of government. In this regard I should like to quote what Chief H. O. Davis, a lawyer in Lagos, Nigeria, said in the American quarterly, Foreign Affairs, dated January 1962—

Then he continues—

And now I come to an important part—

Sir, in this Transkei constitution all the mistakes which were made in framing constitutions elsewhere in Africa and establishing systems of government, are being eliminated. The Recess Committee of the Territorial Authority which framed the draft constitution for the Transkei was composed of chiefs who constituted the conservative groups in Bantu society. They are the responsible persons in that society. They are the people who have always had the interests of their people at heart, and still have, and they are the people who will also have the interests of the Republic of South Africa at heart because they are so dependent on the Republic of South Africa. They are not the agitator types, or even the “educated elite”, who will come along with proposals and demands by means of which they themselves would later come into power for personal gain and develop into dictators, ox who are out eventually to create a totalitarian state. That is what happened in Ghana, and is it not a significant paradox that a sly person, as the prime minister there is, could make use of the Western democratic parliamentary system to become a dictator, Sir. who in proportion to the population he governs is a greater dictator than those of Russia land of communist China? The Bantu chiefs are no autocrats. They rule as enlightened despots in a democratic way, to the satisfaction of their subjects, and during the course of the years they have always retained the confidence of those subjects.

The policy of and the promise made by this Government is to lead the Transkeian people towards self-government and sound administration. The Government as early as 1951 recognized the national and traditional institutions of the Bantu at governmental level in an attempt to find the safe method of co-existence without friction along the road of separate and autogenous development. With this object in view, the system of tribal, regional and territorial authorities, clothed with the traditional authority, was introduced. This is not a static system, but a dynamic and flexible system which can be adapted to the various tribes and to varying circumstances.

The 27 members of the Recess Committee who were entrusted with the task of framing a draft constitution were thoroughly aware of the fact that self-government would not offer them a new Canaan or Utopia. They fully lealized that a request for greater rights might give them greater privileges and more freedom, but would also be accompanied by greater responsibilities. They realized that in the establishment of a new constitution the road of evolution should be followed and not that of revolution—that the walking stage should be preceded by the crawling stage. The Recess Committee realized the importance of their task. They called for the assistance of, and consulted with, the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, and that assistance was given to them. It was the natural leaders of the Transkei, who will now become the active and responsible leaders, who realized that consultation should be the basis for every step taken. As responsible persons they began to realize the full implications and ramifications of their request for self-government.

In (the Transkei constitution we find a compromise or a bridge between the modern democratic system—in view of the fact that the voters can elect 45 members in the new governmental body—and the national and traditional system, in view of the fact that the persons who traditionally exercise the authority in the various tribes, which in turn rests on an ethnic basis, namely the chiefs and headmen, will also be fully represented.

Criticism has been voiced, also in this House, of the fact that so many chiefs will have a seat in this legislative body as compared with elected members, and that is also the cry of the liberalistic groups who would like a process of levelling down to take place. It is absolutely imperative for the conservative group, that dedicated and conservative element, to be in the majority. I want to call as a witness not a Government “stooge” but a person who through years of experience has acquired a thorough knowledge of the nature and character of the Bantu, to support this statement, namely Mr. Lawrenson, who was the Government Secretary in the Bechuanaland Protectorate. Mr. S. V. Lawrenson was connected for 34 years with the Bechuanaland Protectorate, and on 2 April 1962 he predicted—

He further said this—

No better confirmation can be obtained that the correct course is being followed in the Transkei Bill.

I wish to conclude. The establishment of the Transkeian state, Mr. Speaker, is the highlight in a struggle between two principles, of two poles in South African politics: on the one hand the principle of integration which wants to expedite this levelling process, a process which leads to the domination of the White man by the numerical superiority of the Black man, domination of the White man in the White area, which must lead further to the abdication of the White man and his eventual disappearance. That is in fact the pattern to be seen everywhere on the continent of Africa where a policy similar to that of the United Party and of the Progressive Party has been applied. As against that, there is the Government with its policy of separate development, based on the fully autogenous development of the Bantu in his area and the preservation of the rights of the White man in his own area. The electorate of the Republic has during elections every time indicated that this road of separate development should be followed, not to escape the problems of South Africa, not because it is an easy road, but the majority of the voters chose that road because that is the only road the present generation can choose for the future continued existence of White South Africa. We on this side of the House will accept the responsibilities which the electorate has placed on our shoulders, for the sake of the future of White South Africa and the future of the White child in South Africa.

I must say that the speech by the hon. member who has just sat down has done nothing to allay the fears which I personally have and which I think everyone on this side of the House has as to what is going to become of the Transkeian Territory, and thereafter, if that day should ever come to pass, of the other seven Bantustan states. The hon. member called as a witness a Mr. Lawrenson, formerly of Bechuanaland, and the words he quoted from him were that the progress to independence would be a progress to independence in which tribal institutions would be preserved. The hon. member was more concerned with the tribal institutions. I am more concerned with the “independence”, and I hope to deal with the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) and his suggestion which apparently comes with all the blessings of the hierarchy of the Nationalist Party that these Bantustans are not going to be independent, they are going to form some part of a confederation. I shall deal with that after the dinner adjournment.

But the hon. member certainly differs from the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) and he differs also from the hon. Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and from the hon. the Prime Minister and from anyone else, with his sudden turn-about in policy. Where on earth is there a policy so far as the Nationalist Party is concerned, if there is not independence for these Bantustans? What does that policy mean if there is not to be independence? Had they not got to the stage where they had no policy at all except baasskap-apartheid? Was not that the Nationalist Party’s policy, and was not the hon. Prime Minister hailed as a great genius, because he gave to this policy a moral content for the first time, with his vision? Unfortunately the hon. the Prime Minister’s vision is a double vision, one vision for the outside world and now one for South Africa. And the vision for South Africa indeed is now also becoming a double vision, because here we have the hon. member for Kempton Park, coming with a completely different idea about independence, that there is not now going to be independence. What does this policy mean? What does this Bill mean if there is not to be independence? What does it help the situation without independence? How does it claim to be a solution to the problems of South Africa if there is not to be independence for the Bantustans?

Who has denied that it may eventually lead to independence? Who has denied that?

I am stopped in my tracks by the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) who now asks where it has been denied that they are going to have independence eventually. This is very interesting. Does the hon. member for Vereeniging say that there will be independence?

Possibly, ultimately, nobody denies that.

Do you deny that there will probably be independence? Do you deny that it is your policy not to object to their being independence?

No, I do not deny it.

Any more questions?

If my Whips will allow me to speak again …

My goodness, the Whips are going to regret it.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

When we adjourned the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) was telling us that the Government accepted that these Bantustans, in the Transkei in particular, would or could eventually become independent, and that he had no objection to this state of affairs. Sir, that is a remarkable statement coming after the statement made by the hon. member for Kempton Park, who told us very clearly that independence was not what was aimed at.

I said it was not our obligation.

Oh! The hon. member for Kempton Park was at great pains to find some sort of likeness to this extraordinary situation which he envisaged when he started his back-pedalling away from independence, and the only place where he could find a similar situation was in Russia. He had to rely on the constitution of the U.S.S.R.

That was an example of sovereign independence.

The hon. member mentioned it as the example of a sort of confederation similar to what he had in mind, but what he forgot to mention was Article 17 of that constitution, which provides that any of the republics may freely secede from the Soviet Union. But the most remarkable thing about this constitution which the hon. member held up as an example—he said it had autonomous status at the United Nations— that it is the only place where he could find any sort of parallel and that even in Russia, all these autonomous states have representation in the central Parliament. That the hon. member apparently did not see, or read. Article 32 says that the legislative power of the U.S.S.R. is exercised exclusively by the supreme Soviet; Article 33 says it has two Chambers, and Article 34, dealing with the Soviet of the Union, the one Chamber, says that the members will be elected by all the members of the Union, right throughout the Soviet Republic, on the basis of constituencies, in the one Chamber, and in the other House, under Article 35, they are to be elected on the basis of so many per republic to the central Parliament.

So a fortiori only a few powers are reserved.

Now we get closer to it. The point I am trying to make, and which the hon. member is trying to avoid, is that even in Russia, the example he wanted to hold up to us, they cannot govern without consent. They cannot have a Parliament which legislates for the whole of the country without having representatives from those parts of the country or those people in the central Parliament.

I only gave it as an example.

Will the hon. member now say whether he agrees with what the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) said before dinner?

Of course.

So you agree that you have no objection to their getting independence. [Interjections.] But that was not the speech the hon. member made here. His speech is in Hansard and it is completely different from what the hon. member for Vereeniging said, and the hon. member knows it.

The hon. member said that there was a difference between encouraging sovereign independence and accepting it if it became inevitable. May I ask the hon. member what will make it inevitable? If there is no control of law and order in the Transkei, would that make it inevitable? I think it will. If the citizens want it by an overwhelming majority, is that inevitable too? But in any case the inevitability will be caused by the policies of this Government.

But may I put another inevitability to the hon. member? Would it also be inevitable for them to get independence if there were some interference from outside?

You are being absolutely ridiculous. Why should that be inevitable?

I am merely asking questions. The hon. member for Kempton Park said they would have independence if it became inevitable. I wonder whether hon. members opposite have forgotten Article 73 of the UN Charter, which reads—

1. (a) to ensure with due respect to the culture of the peoples concerned, their political, economic, social and educational advancement, their just treatment and their protection against abuses;
2. (b) to develop self-government, …

The interesting thing about the Bill before us is that this is a Bill which purports—I read from the long title—to confer self-government in the Transkei on the Bantu resident there and on certain Bantu related to the Bantu in the Transkei and matters incidental thereto. Now, independence is being granted to a people, not to an area.

Self-government, not independence.

Yes, self-government. Those are the words contained in Article 73. There is no talk of independence. Russia specially did not want the word “independence”, and the word used was “self-government”.

May I ask the hon. member a question? Or must you first ask your Whip’s permission?

I will answer the hon. member later. This Bill gives self-government to the Bantu people, and specifically to the Bantu people in the urban areas. Now let us look at this article again. It says “for those people”, i.e. the urban Bantu. Can any case be made out by this Government that they will help them with their economic advancement? Will job reservation help their economic advancement? Or their just treatment? I am talking about the Bantu in the urban areas to whom self-government is being given in this Bill. Protection against abuses. Can they make out a case for the urban Bantu?

I am sick and tired of hearing about the urban Bantu.

The point I am making is that this Bill lays us open to a new avenue of attack at UN. I do not say it will be successful, or that the International Court will rule against us, but I hate putting our enemies overseas in the position in which this Bill will put them. That is the point.

The hon. member for Kempton Park took the matter even further in making this allusion to the Ukraine and Byeolo Russia and he said that these areas have separate international recognition; they are recognized in UN. The policy of this Government is independence for these areas. The hon. member for Kempton Park did deny it, and now he denies his denial, but that is the policy and the principle which we are debating here tonight.

Independence, when? Tell us.

I know it is not fair to the Government to use this as an authority, but I wish to read a quotation from an article in the Digest of South African Affairs published by the Minister of Information, dated 29 January 1962. It says—

When will it be ready? That is a matter which my hon. Leader has already dealt with. [Interjections.] The point is that the Government says in this publication that the Transkei will get independence. I must concede that the hon. member for Vereeniging is very consistent. Last year he outlined the differences between our parties and asked what was the worst that could happen under our party? You will find that in Hansard, Col. 5376, and he said that the worst that could happen under our policy is that we could have eight Black hostile independent states. Sir, that is not the worst, it is the end.

Well, that is the worst that can happen. [Interjections.]

Order!

Can the hon. member imagine anything worse than that?

I was saying earlier that everyone thought the hon. the Prime Minister was a genius for giving a moral content to apartheid, until he actually tried to put it into effect, and then we saw the cats moving; then we saw a most extraordinary series of events taking place in this country, all this running away. The hon. member for Kempton Park has obviously been rapped over the knuckles for his indiscipline, and he has now withdrawn it. It is this concept of independence which gave rise to the most extravagant imagery which is indulged in by hon. members opposite, likening the urban Bantu to Frenchmen working in Italy, which is an extraordinary image, but only the acceptance of independence could spark off similes like this. The granting of independence is the next card which this Government has to play. What does that policy mean as it stands now? It means nothing whatever unless these people get independence.

It depends on when we play those cards.

The hon. member for Vereeniging says it depends on when they play their cards, but they will progress along that road and this card will have to be played, and when it is played I think we must remember that this is the last card the Government has got, because when that card is played the matter is out of the hands of the Government, and that will be the end of South Africa and of the White man and of civilization in South Africa and the end of everything we sit in this House to-night to do anything about, and hon. members know it. If it were conceivable to achieve a Utopia, this Utopia of a completely separated and independent country, it might be thought to be moral, and it is that projection of the mind of the Prime Minister towards the end result, which his followers do not want him to achieve, which gives it its moral content. If I were a Black nationalist in this country, I would support this policy as far as I could, because this would be what I would want. [Interjections.]

But why do they not do it?

But they are. The Minister has told us that is what they are doing, that they are supporting his policy. If I were a Black man I could find no better policy to drive the White man into the sea. The tragedy about this policy is that even if it were to achieve this Utopia, it does not face up to the facts, because it is not based on the facts and it deliberately ignores the facts.

I think we must remember that this Bill is not an attempt to settle the Transkeian problem. The Transkeian problem is a problem mainly of poverty and of development in that area. This Bill is an attempt, if I am not stretching the English language too far, to solve the problem of the Bantu in the urban areas. Let us not pretend that these people are going to disappear from the urban areas. Let us not pretend that all the housing that has been provided for them in the urban areas is there just temporarily. Let us not pretend, as the hon. the Minister does, that in Durban because we have Umlazi going up on Trust land it is therefore part of the Bantu area and not of the White area. Let us not pretend that Kwa Mashu, which is five miles from the centre of Durban and part of it, is not part of Durban because it will be on Trust land and part of a Bantustan.

The idea which has been put forward from this side of the House of this double vision, as I call it, the one for overseas consumption and the other for internal consumption, is a very valid one, for this reason. The choice the Government faces is either to abandon baasskap apartheid or to justify it, and this Bill is an attempt to justify it, certainly in so far as overseas countries are concerned. Hon. members cannot abandon their policy; they have no other policy, and they introduce this Bill to justify this policy in the eyes of the outside world, and how unsuccessful they have been! I remember the time when the Prime Minister made his shuddering statement in the no-confidence debate last year, but the headlines in the English newspapers did not refer to his statement but to an immorality case in Durban, the case of a man called Singh. They have been very unsuccessful in putting this policy over overseas.

I go so far as to say that this Bill not only does not remove our difficulties in the urban areas, but it brings the causes of violence and unrest to the urban areas under a legal cloak. Does not this Bill give encouragement to African nationalism? Have you ever seen a Bill, Sir, which encourages African nationalism more than this Bill does? And let us remember that it is a Bill to confer self-government and to encourage African nationalism not only in the Transkei but in Cape Town and in Johannesburg, and when the Zulus are included, in Durban and all the other cities. It provides a legal corner-stone for rampant African nationalism such as we have seen in other parts of the Continent, but worse, such as we have seen in this country. What was the A.N.C. and the P.A.C.? Were they not African national movements, rampant African nationalism?

They were communist organizations.

Has there ever been a movement of African nationalism which has not ended in a demand for independence?

I do not think so. Those are the lessons the hon. members have not learnt. The pretext that they are taking the danger away from the White areas into some Black area, and separating it, is nonsense. Where will the majority of the voters of the Transkei live? They live in Cape Town and in Johannesburg, in the urban areas. Let us imagine what will happen under this Bill. There will be elections, and the African parties will be African national parties. That is the only form of political organization in the form of parties that they have had, and they will be extraordinarily expensive elections. The candidates in the Transkei elections will have to canvas voters in Cape Town, in Langa, and in Johannesburg, and to do this they will have to have a very good party machine and they will have to do a lot of travelling. Whichever party sponsors them will need a lot of money. Do you know, Sir, of any African party that has a lot of money? Is not the evidence that there are only two organizations which have a lot of money, the A.N.C. and the P.A.C., and that these bodies are getting money from somewhere outside? This is what the Commissioner of Police said, too, that the P.A.C. was getting money from outside.

Then why did you object to their being banned?

You know very well that we did not. [Interjections.]

Order!

You know very well that we did not oppose the second reading at the time of the emergency.

The slogans and the philosophy of rampant Black nationalism and the statements of Matanzima will be shouted in our cities, and not so much in the Transkei. Is anyone going to suggest that we will stop election meetings in the cities and that when these Black nationalists come to Langa to hold meetings they will be stopped? On what basis can they be stopped? Are the political parties in the Transkei going to be vetted, and on what basis can that be done? How can we control it? Sir, if we had time—and we do not have the time—to make this extraordinary plan work, we should first make it work in the urban areas, because the Bantu in the urban areas will remain there.

What are you fighting against?

I am fighting for the survival of South Africa as we know it, and as it exists geographically. In effect, this Bill is going to provide machinery for political agitation amongst the Bantu in the urban areas, people who have no stake whatever in the Transkei but have a stake in the urban areas. They will be moved to a great feeling of nationalism, and where will they want to manifest it? Does anyone in this House really believe that they will want to manifest these feelings in a foreign country? Because far from those people, the urban Bantu being settled in a foreign land. South Africa, they would, in terms of this Bill be exercising political rights in a foreign country, the Transkei. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member for Vereeniging has, I think, said enough tonight. He has told us exactly what he stands for. He is quite prepared to accept independence. On this side of the House we are not prepared to accept independence for the Transkei, and if this Bill is passed, and things progress along the path the hon. member for Vereeniging wants, and which now suddenly in the most remarkable somersault I have ever seen in this House the hon. member for Kempton Park wants, it will be the end of the White man in South Africa, the end of law and order in South Africa, and it will be the end of South Africa, and the tragedy is that it is completely unnecessary.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) tried to cast doubt upon our real policy for the Transkei. I want to say that there is no doubt about it all and that we realize and accept the eventual implications of our policy only too clearly. The difference lies merely in the fact that we have used different methods from those which we have seen in other parts of Africa. In other words, we do not create a completely independent state and leave it to the Bantu to see how they get on. We open the door for them so that they can eat of the fruit of self-government. If necessary, we are quite prepared to give them a ladder by means of which they can climb into the highest branches and they can then enjoy as much of that fruit as they can digest. We do not throw the fruit into their laps as has been done in other cases so that they overeat themselves. They have to climb that ladder themselves and eat as much of the fruit as they can digest. But we are quite prepared to accept the eventual step if it should lead to complete independence. There can be no doubt on that score. The hon. member said that we are encouraging Black nationalism in this way. As far as their area is concerned I am quite prepared to admit that they can have their Black nationalism there but by their actions the hon. member and his party are encouraging Black nationalism here in our area. They want to give representation to those Bantu in this House and by their attitude they want to encourage the type of Black nationalism that we have experienced in the Congo and in Nyasaland and in Northern Rhodesia.

If we study this Bill the question arises involuntarily to mind: What is our object in introducing this Bill? Why should things not stay as they are? The question has also been asked by hon. members on the other side: Why is the Government taking this step while there is unrest in the Transkei? I ask myself whether there is any chance of our being successful in this step that we are taking. I want to try to answer a few of these questions and I would like to quote a passage from the Sunday Times of 23 December 1962. I admit that it was not written in this connection but it does contain an idea which is relevant to the subject. It deals with “The Dignity of Race” and this person writes as follows—

And here I want to add, a Xhosa—

I repeat: “The basic impulse is the same.” It is because we Nationalists appreciate these facts perhaps more than many other people do and are able to realize that man seeks a status, seeks dignity, that man desires to be part of a group, of a team, of a nation; that precisely because we believe that that feeling also exists among the Xhosa of the Transkei we are able to appreciate the fact that a man wants to share in the achievements and traditions of his people even though those things are considered to be very limited by other people and even though that nation be regarded as a very small nation. Man prefers to be a member of a small nation, a nation that is his own, rather than be the hanger-on of a large nation. It is because we appreciate those inner feelings that we are prepared to tell these people: Very well, be participants; be active in developing your own people into a nation of which you can be proud. It is because we realize these things that we are prepared to create an opportunity for these people so that by developing what is their own they can satisfy that urge for status and dignity. This is also our reason for introducing this Bill. The other reasons for introducing it is that this has always been our policy. I do not want to elaborate in this regard because the hon. the Minister in introducing this Bill dealt with this aspect in great detail, as did other hon. members. I would like briefly to quote this passage from the speech of General Hertzog which appeared in the Volkstem of 21 January 1913. He had this to say in connection with this matter—

He also emphasized this aspect in the Burger of 14 October 1921, when he said—

I want to leave it at that with this thought that those people who still do not realize that that is our policy are people who are simply not able to understand anything. But irrespective of what our policy may have been in the past and irrespective of what people have said about it. it is a fact that this is now our policy and this is our policy because we believe that it is in the interests of the White people of our country. We believe that it is in the interests of the Whites that we should have separate development and that there should be separate areas for each race where each can arrange his own affairs. That is our policy and it is essential that it should be our policy.

There are people and Governments who simply do not realize that it is impossible to force various nations together into one state. That is why they try to do it—with the results that we have witnessed—unrest and so forth in the Congo. The fact is that a person wants to be a member of his own group, of his own nation. Because we believe this, we are not surprised that where different nations have been forced together into the Federation against their will, the Federation has resulted in failure. We are not surprised to see the results of that action to-day. Sir Roy Welensky, a man who is perhaps the greatest champion of partnership of our time, had the following to say according to the Burger of 26 March 1963—

It took them nine years to discover this. We on the other hand have always realized it and we have also said that a policy of this nature could not succeed because we realized that the Natives want to govern themselves. It is because we realize this—nothing else will satisfy them—that we have said that the Natives can govern themselves but only in their own areas. That then is the other reason for the introduction of this Bill.

Which area is theirs?

We are also introducing this Bill because the people of the Transkei have asked for it. The hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) gave us an explanation of the history of the Transkei. I do not want to inquire into the question of how correct he was. Amongst other things he contended that the Transkei asked Britain for protection. By this he tried to make out that the Transkei did not really want to be free and independent because of its own free will it asked to be placed under British protection. Later the Transkei came under our protection. This happened more than 100 years ago. Now, after so many years of development under us, the Transkei has come so far that it has reached that degree of development where it is able to look after its own affairs to some extent. Where they asked for protection at the time, they are coming forward now and are asking for self-government. I see nothing strange or extraordinary in this. Everything points to the fact that the time has come for us to comply with that request and to give them the opportunity of showing what they can do.

But hon. members opposite raised their hands in horror and tried to intimate that it was an atrocity on the part of the Government to introduce this Bill at this stage because, they said, there was unrest in the Transkei. We have known the United Party for many years and that is why we know that these tactics are merely an old method of theirs; they may have a great deal to say but when the time comes to put those words into actions, that time is never convenient for them. We have here the same old story as we had in regard to our flag—that was also not a convenient time. Neither was the time convenient in regard to our National Anthem. When we wanted to establish the Republic some of them were prepared to accept it but, they said, it was not a suitable time for it. Here we again have the same story. It is not a suitable time.

The fact is that we cannot let ourselves be told by the United Party when it will be convenient to take such a step. We feel that this is the time to take that step and that is why we are proceeding with the matter. The excuse that there is unrest in the Transkei does not hold water. Whether we wait for a further five or ten years we will always experience unrest because it is not unrest which emanates from the people but unrest which is stirred up from Cape Town. This was made clear to us in the Snyman Report. In ten years’ time therefore, that unrest will still be there. The communists and the liberals will not be backward in coming forward. No matter at what time we introduce a matter of this nature, unrest will be stirred up. We had the experience a year or two ago when Botha Sicau was their chairman. We also had problems in Pondoland at the time. Now that he has gone we are experiencing all this trouble in the area of Kaiser Matanzima. I maintain therefore that it makes no difference when this Bill is introduced because there will always be agitation. That agitation will be stirred up by the communists and the liberals.

I ask myself whether we have any chance of success. Can we make a success of this step that we are taking? My answer to this is a definite and unequivocal “Yes”. This is completely different from the answer of the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) who said earlier this evening that we cannot possibly be successful. He said that for economic considerations alone success was completely impossible because the Transkei could not export anything but its labour. He also said that the Government wanted to assist the Transkei by setting up border industries. But that is not quite correct. The Transkei will not always be in the position of only being able to export labour. There is nothing this Government can do to prevent the Transkei from starting its own industries in the Transkei.

In competition with White industries.

I maintain that it is precisely that fact—that the Government will not permit the White man to use his capital in the Transkei—that will prevent complaints similar to those which have been made in Swaziland. Rightly or wrongly it is alleged that the raw materials and minerals of the Swazis are being swallowed up by an exploiting Government.

That is why I say that this step that we are taking will be successful. The hon. member for Rosettenville asked how we could cooperate with these people now and yet refused to co-operate with them in the Commonwealth. He asked what had driven us from the Commonwealth and his own reply to this question was that it was because we did not want to co-operate with the Black man. That is not so at all. We can co-operate with the Black man. The reason why we left the Commonwealth was not because Black people were members of it but because those Black people wanted to interfere in our affairs; they wanted to prescribe to us what we should do here in our own country. That was why we left the Commonwealth, but we did not leave because we did not want to or could not co-operate with them. I believe that this step of ours will be successful because in our actions, in all our dealing with the Black man we have always taken care to eliminate hostility and hatred. That has always been the case over the years. Over the years we have acted in such a way that no one could point a finger at us. We have not exterminated the Black man. On the contrary his numbers have quadrupled. We have not forced them into slavery; on the contrary, it has alway been the view of our nation that we have had the task of bringing the message of the gospel to these people, the message of freedom and redemption. Our people have always striven to uplift the Bantu. We have always held their property in trust for them. We did not take their mineral rights or use their land but we held everything in trust for them. That is still our attitude today. We still recognize their rights to-day; we recognize the dignity of a nation and we still recognize their language and traditions even to the extent that their education to-day is given to them through the medium of their monther-tongue.

No, Mr. Speaker, there is no question about it. In all our dealings with these people we have avoided and eliminated hostility and hatred. We have never tried to force into one unit people who did not belong together and in this way caused them to lose their language and traditions. On the contrary. Our actions have perhaps been different from those to which the world has been accustomed. It has always been the attitude in the world that the strong should conquer the weak and should then oppress and exterminate him. If such a nation wanted to rise again it had to fight hard to regain its freedom. That is what has always happened. But that is exactly the opposite of what we are doing in the Transkei. Instead of fighting against them, before there is any reason for war we want to approach them with a peace treaty and lay down what the conditions for peace will be: Each his own boundaries and each his own area in which he can do what he thinks is right for himself.

Under these circumstances I cannot do otherwise but feel convinced, absolutely convinced, that nothing but goodwill and cordial relationships exist between the two nations. Indeed, we are now starting to pick the fruit of those cordial relationships and that friendship which exists between the Transkei and ourselves. In other parts we have found that it has taken years before a constitution could be drawn up. Here it has only taken a few days to reach agreement. This is a sign of mutual confidence. I quote the following from the Cape Argus of 27 March 1963—

A long statement was made on this occasion. I cannot read it all, but the whole statement was in this vein. This proves to us that there is a great difference between these people who know that we are their friends and people to the north of us. I fully realize that we are not going to create a little bit of heaven. All of us on this side realize that we will have problems. We are people and these are people with whom we have to deal. Differences will arise. Indeed, it cannot be otherwise. But I do believe that if we consider what we have done for them and their attitude towards us, then there can be no doubt that goodwill will triumph; that we will find a solution to our problems and that this step which we are taking now will be a success.

I hope the hon. member who just sat down (Dr. Meyer) will forgive me if I do not follow his arguments directly. I hope, however, to deal in the course of my speech with some of the arguments he has raised. At the outset I wish to deal with a matter which I think is pertinent to this debate. This relates to two accusations which were made against me personally: one by the hon. the Minister of Finance and the other by the hon. member for Vereeniging whom I am glad to see in his place to-night. The statement which was made by the hon. the Minister of Finance was to the effect that I had said that the majority of law-abiding Bantu preferred to be loyal to a terrorist organization rather than to …

Order! Yes, but that has nothing to do with this Bill.

I submit, Sir, that it is directly relevant to this debate because this organization, as I will show as I develop my argument, has a bearing on this Bill. I shall not dwell on this particular aspect of it beyond saying that that statement attributed to me is quite untrue. What I said was that should it happen that we were to lose the trust of the majority of the law-abiding Bantu, what a tragedy it would be to South Africa.

Order! The hon. member must find another opportunity of replying to the Minister. He must now come back to the Bill.

I should then like to come to the hon. member for Vereeniging. What he said, is certainly pertinent to this Bill. What he said cannot charitably be explained as a misunderstanding or anything of that kind. What he said was totally devoid of truth. He said that I stated that 80 per cent of the Bantu police were standing behind Poqo. Now, Sir, the hon. member for Vereeniging is no doubt going to speak in this debate later on and I challenge him to quote the words which I did use. Those he can get in my Hansard speech which is available to him. Certain members of this House are notorious on account of their inability …

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

Very well, Sir. I hope, however, that the hon. member for Vereeniging will accept my challenge.

We have heard it being said by hon. members opposite many times that they would rather face eight Bantustans than to give any form of representation, direct or indirect, to the Bantu in the central Legislature. They say that pressures from the Bantu would lead to a Black majority in no time at all because, they say, the Bantu is in a majority in the country. This is one of the arguments which has so far been put forward in support of this legislation by members on the opposite side. It is said by them that the only alternative is a number of separate states, where the Blacks will have all their rights—both political and civic. It is argued by hon. members opposite that in this way the White man in South Africa will be safe for all time because the disruptive pressures which will stem from a Black majority will have been done away with. These disruptive pressures they say, you can only get in a multi-racial state. This then is the accusation which is being levelled at us by hon. members opposite.

This argument has been put across in its finest form by the hon. the Prime Minister. This argument is no doubt his idea. Now, it is curious that it should come from him in view of the fact that he received most of his education in countries on the continent of Europe. One need pause for a moment only in order to realize that in the case of the German minorities in places such as Czechoslovakia, Austria and Danzig, we had a minority with all the political and civic rights which they could wish to have in Germany their homeland. But in no instance did that save those countries from the disruptive pressures from those Germans physically present in their borders.

Let us take an example nearer home. Let us take the example of the Uitlanders in Transvaal about the time of the turn of the century. Those people had all the political and civic rights they could wish in their homelands, i.e. the countries from where they came, and yet their mere presence in the Transvaal caused pressures which were an embarrassment to the Republican Government. [Interjections.] But the best example of how false an analogy this is to pretend that disruptive pressures will disappear overnight if you give to those people physically present within your boundaries rights elsewhere, is to be found amongst the Whites at present living within the Transkei. The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) was at great pains to tell us how those people needed to have no worries at all because they had all the rights which they could wish for in the Republic. Yet from the very moment this legislation was first mooted, they started exerting pressures because what was intended by the legislation did not offer a remedy for their troubles in the place where they were living. Just as they are exerting pressures because they have no rights in the area where they live, just as the Uitlanders in the Transvaal caused problems and exerted pressures against the government of the time presiding over the area in which they lived, so there will be pressures and, no doubt, problems of one kind of another stemming from the presence within our borders of the majority of the Bantu people. To think otherwise, is to live, as I am afraid hon. members opposite tend to live, in a world of make-believe and pretence. The fact that we travel on separate trains, the fact that socially we live segregated lives according to our custom in South Africa, makes us no less a multi-racial state. The greatest majority of enterprises in this country at this moment after 15 years of Nationalist rule, are multiracial enterprises. One need only look at the Railways, the mines, the farms and secondary industries. Thousands of Bantu are employed there by White employers and thousands of Bantu work together with Whites. Whether these Bantu are migrant labourers or permanent residents in those areas, does not matter in the slightest. They remain a labour force which is constantly and physically present in the White areas, employed by Whites and working together with them. By any standard you choose to adopt, that makes us a multi-racial state.

Are you prepared to make this a multi-racial Parliament?

How is the granting of self-government in the Transkei going to alter the facts I have just referred to? How is that going to do away with the problems and pressures which principally stem from the presence in the Republic, in the so-called White areas, of a majority of the Bantu? Whether there are eight Bantustans or only one such as we are going to have in the Transkei, makes absolutely no difference, because—to use the phrase of the hon. the Minister of Justice at Van Rhynsdorp the other night—the Black man is to be, under this Government, simply a worker for the Whites and to be a worker for the Whites, he must be present in the White areas. It is as simple as that.

He did not say that.

So we will continue to have, after all these Bantustans have been created, and this Transkei one in particular, a multi-racial state for the foreseeable future. I wish somebody would get up and deny that we will have such a multi-racial state for the foreseeable future, a state in which will be present millions of Bantu workers and that we will continue to be subjected to the problems which stem from their presence in the White areas. There are certain hon. members on the opposite side who have sufficiently logical minds to accept that—I refer here to the hon. the Prime Minister to a certain extent, to the hon. member for Kempton Park, to the hon. member for Heilbron, the hon. the Minister of Labour and the hon. the Minister for Community Development.

It is for this very reason namely that these problems and pressures stem from the presence of the Bantu in our midst that they have persuaded certain members—and I say this advisedly—of the National Party to accept the removal of the Bantu from the Western Cape. They realize that short of driving back into the Bantu states every Bantu labourer in the White Republic, these pressures and problems will always be with us and that no legislation of this kind does the slightest to do away with those pressures and problems. They realize that no matter how much we may pretend that they do not exist, no matter how much we may create figments by legislation, no matter how much we may legislate to treat them as foreigners, they are human beings having an existence within the White areas—millions of them at any one time. Even if they are migrant labourers, they are still here. Human beings of any colour in any place will make their presence felt in the area where they are to be found. This is the point which I wish to stress: they will make their presence felt within the area where they have their existence. That seems to me to be the basic fallacy behind the whole of the reasoning which gave rise to this legislation.

It matters not to tell them where their homeland is, it matters not how many political or civic rights you may give them in some remote place which is unknown to them but which you choose to call their homeland, it matters not because they are present here and as such they will wish to influence, no matter how indirectly, the things which affect them where they are living, i.e. in the White areas. The opponents of total territorial separation realize that it is not possible to drive all the Bantu back to their areas. It just cannot be done. So they settle for the Western Province because they believe that the Coloureds here will provide a labour force to enable them to fulfil their ideal. But to the rest of the country, north and east of the Eiselen line, my argument will apply because the majority of workers there will for the foreseeable future be the Black people.

But what of the plan to send the Bantu people of the Western Province back to the Transkei? We are going to have border industries. We are not allowing White capital into the Transkei but we are creating border industries. These will be White-owned and in the White areas adjacent to the Bantu areas. The Bantu will then live in their areas across the border, the White workers and owners will live in their areas inside the White Republic. Now, if this is going to be a success—and every effort is being made by the hon. the Minister to make it a success—then we will have border towns and cities, great cities the size of Cape Town, established on the borders of these Bantu areas. There will be large White populations in these towns because many jobs in these towns in terms of the policy of job reservation will be reserved for the Whites. So that you will have a large White city, situated on the border and drawing its daily Bantu labour from townships across the border. They will be free to come to the White area to sell their labour in the big towns; they will be free to come over week-ends to see what they wish to see in the White towns.

What difference is there between that situation and the situation which obtains at present in Johannesburg and Cape Town and other centres where you have a large White industrial city with a large Bantu township “across the border”, namely at Langa and the western townships of Johannesburg? So that there is absolutely no difference in principle between the situation which will arise if these border towns are successful and the situation which we are dealing with at the present time. You will have a multi-racial industrial society inhabiting these cities by day in the same place where they work and by night in their separate residential areas such as we have at the present time. So that we are solving nothing by that; we are merely spreading to the rural areas problems which are presently appertaining only to the larger towns in South Africa.

Now, what of the Transkei in particular? We are forcing ahead to the status of a modern state a piece of what is at present poor and undeveloped country, peopled almost entirely by a peasant people. From the economic point of view their position will become worse in the immediate future as the policy of endorsing out is intensified. That is the declared intention of the Government which is being implemented at the present time. The result will be one thing only, in the absence of any industry in the reserves—a deterioration of the position of the Bantu at present living in the Transkei. The Transkei which is already poor, will become poorer and even more overcrowded than it is now. What happens to a peasant people when they find themselves poor? They know only one economy and that is a pastoral economy requiring land. A peasant people finding themselves gradually getting poorer and compressed, will ask for more land. That is the only way they know—to ask for more land. It has happened already.

It is a cry which will appeal not only to the peasant people themselves but to their government which consists by and large of tribal chiefs with a peasant mentality. What better way to gain support for themselves against their rebellious co-patriots from the towns, whom they do not like at the present time and whom they will not like, than to seek more land. That will alleviate their own position and the position of their supporters living in the Transkei. We have had the first signs of that already. What did Chief Kaiser Matamirra say the other day? In effect he said: “We want more land”. In effect he said: “The White people have no right, no claim, to the land from Port Elizabeth to Zululand”. How much more will that cry be intensified as this policy of endorsing out of the Western Province of all Xhosa-speaking Bantu is carried into effect? What defence have we got to it? The hon. the Minister and his colleagues on every conceivable occasion get up on a platform, particularly to a Bantu audience, and say: “Your destiny lies in your historical homeland”. I ask the Minister. Sir: Where is the historic homeland of the Zulu people? If he were to ask any of his favourite chiefs in Zululand at the present time where his historic Bantu homeland is would they say: “Oh, Mr. Minister, it is the proclaimed reserves which are proclaimed under the present legislation”? What nonsense, Sir. They will wave their arms over the whole of Zululand, not to say the greater part of Natal, because the tribes came and went over that area to such an extent that if they claim any particular area as being their historic homeland the hon. the Minister will not be able to deny the truth of it. Having made all these promises to these people the hon. the Minister is faced with a peasant society with no jobs for the people who are being endorsed out of our industrial centres of Cape Town and the other centres, no jobs of the kind that they are used to in the reserves because White capital is not going to be allowed in and because the border areas have not as yet been developed to a sufficient extent and because there are not sufficient of them who can do it. What is going to be the position? There will be no jobs for the people who are being sent back to a strange area; there will be poverty because they will be living on their families as is the custom of the Bantu people; there will be tremendous pressure on the tribal authorities, independent as they may then be, to claim more land. Sir, I can think of no more dangerous thing in these times than for responsible people to get up and to promise in loose terms to the Bantu people: “You shall have your traditional historic homeland”. It is a most dangerous and tragic thing to say.

I wonder whether hon. members opposite have ever paused for a moment to think how the extremist Bantu regards this phrase “the people must go back to their historic homelands”? To the Pan-Africanist that means that the White man must go back to Europe. Do hon. members opposite not realize that the very word “Afrikaner” is a misnomer in the eyes of the Pan-Africanist? He does not agree that there can be White Afrikaners such as we are in this House; in his reasoning there can only be Black ones because he regards Africa, not merely the reserves, as being his historical tribal homeland. That is why I say that to use the argument that the Bantu people can have everything they want in their traditional homelands is a most dangerous course, not only for those living on the eastern sea-board of South Africa and in the northern Transvaal, but to all the White people of this country.

There is one other thing I should like to say about the statement by Chief Kaiser Matanzima. It is perhaps well introduced by a Latin tag which was used by the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman). He said ex Africa semper aliquid novi which means that something new was always emerging from Africa. I do not think he realized how apt that phrase was, Sir, because never before in the history of this country have we had a South African Government allying itself to a man who is an anti-White extremist and using him against the White political Opposition. Who ever thought that a White Government would place itself in that unenviable position?

You know that is not true.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. the Minister of Information says: “You know that is not true”. I think he should be asked to withdraw that.

I withdraw that he knows it is not true and I say that it is not true.

I will justify that statement fully to the hon the Minister. This man has said that the White people have no claim to a large tract of land where they presently live along the eastern sea-board. The only inference to be drawn from his remark is that he wishes them to leave that area. The hon. the Minister has a short memory, Sir. What did Nkruma say in Ghana? He said that the White people, the settler class, must leave. What was said by the African extremists in Kenya and Tanganyika? They said that the White man must leave, that he had a monopoly of the land in Kenya, for example, and that that must cease; that the White man must get out because he was a foreign element who had no right to that land.

What does Luthuli say?

The howls of protest from hon. members opposite could be heard in Whitehall against which source they were principally directed.

Now, Sir, some two or three years later we have exactly the same sentiments expressed by a Bantu chief in South Africa and not one voice of protest is raised against him by hon. members on that side. This debate has been going on for nearly three weeks on and off and not one single Nationalist member has raised a voice of protest against a chief who draws a stipend from the hon. the Minister and who said that the White people established in parts of South Africa must get out.

Did you not read the Prime Minister’s statement?

I ask for a moment the House to recall the treason trial which we had a little while ago. Many of those people had said in their time no more than Chief Matanzima is saying at the present time in regard to the removal of the White man from parts of Africa. Mr. Speaker there is only one inference to be drawn from this. I hope that somebody will get up and suggest another equally relevant inference to be drawn from a servant in the Government’s pay getting up and saying that the White man has no place in the eastern sea-board of South Africa. There is only one inference that can be drawn and that is that what he says comes somewhere near in some form or another to the plan that this Government eventually hopes to put into effect. Or to put it not quite so positively, that if that eventuates in those parts there will not be any protests from that side of the house. There is no other inference, Sir. If there is, I hope somebody will get up in this debate and tell us. I hope somebody with authority will get up and publicly repudiate in strong terms the sentiments expressed by that Native chief.

There are two matters which I should like to touch upon before my time expires. The one is the speech by the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) in connection with this question of a confederation. I found that one of the most interesting things I have heard in this House for a long time. It typifies in a nutshell the two faces—and I do not say that in any derogatory sense—the two aspects which the Government is trying to convey to the people about this legislation. My learned friend, the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) dealt with the one aspect, namely that it is desired to convey to the people that the thing which is being granted and that which is to follow upon this Bill is not really independence. I think the hon. member for Kempton Park did it particularly cleverly because he spoke of a confederation. To the ordinary man confederation means something less than sovereignty; it means that there is going to be some over-all umbrella and the terrible dangers inherent in the concept of sovereignty are watered down. I am sure he will be the first to agree that you cannot have a confederation until you have first established a series of sovereign independent states. The concept of a confederation necessarily requires the coming together of sovereign independent states in which all decisions are taken by agreement. That is the cleverness of that speech, because members, like the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) can go all over the country and say: “Sovereign independence? Good heavens, no; if there is a confederation there will be an over-all umbrella; there will be the control of the White man.” At the same time the hon. member for Kempton Park can correctly say to his intellectual circles: “Of course there is going to be independence; it is a necessary prerequisite to any form of confederation.” Both views, Sir, this double-headed monster, is put up before the people. All things to all men. Sir.

I should now like to deal very briefly with the White people in the Transkei. This is a matter with which the hon. member for that area dealt at length. But there is one aspect of it with which I should like to deal because it seems to me to be something which cannot be reasonably explained. We are not going to have any form of compensation, that is to say, the Government refuses to state categorically to those people: “We will compensate you for what you lose should you be forced out of the Transkei.” That they will not do, Sir. We had speeches saying that they would be looked after; we had statements such as that by the hon. member for Heilbron who said that safeguards for the Whites would be written into the Bill. I fail to see them in this Bill, Sir. Now he says that they will not suffer any disadvantage.

We had the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Development saying in quite an interesting speech “the interests of the Whites in the Transkei are not going to be looked after and covered merely by the Transkeian Constitution, merely by this Bill; are those Whites in the Transkei not subjects of the Republic; does the Republican legislation not apply to them; does this Government not also have duties to perform as far as they are concerned?” But he did not answer those questions, Sir. Why is it that, where we are having legislation such as this which is for the benefit of the whole White community according to those hon. members and is the salvation of all our problems, those hon. members refuse unequivocally to promise compensation? Even if one or two of those hundreds of Whites might be injured why do those hon. members refuse to promise compensation? They have nothing to lose, Sir. If they do that one of the principal attacks which this side has levelled at them will be done away with. That attack will fall away if the hon. the Minister were to stand up and say: There is nothing to fear in the Transkei; there will be peace and good order; there will be good government; an increase in trade will follow this measure; proclamation 400 will ensure law and order; I am quite prepared to pay the White people compensation for their businesses; I will set up a board which will value their properties and should they suffer any loss we shall pay for it out of a national fund. It is for the benefit of the Whites that that be done. Why does the Minister not do it, Sir? Again, Sir, there is only one inference to be drawn and that is that the losses to be suffered by those people will be a good deal greater than is expected at the present time. Secondly, this policy is going to be applied to much larger and richer areas than the Transkei, that there will be so many industries, businesses, livelihoods, farms and so forth that will be disrupted that it will costs the State too much to compensate them. I should like an hon. member on that side to give some other inference as to why compensation is refused. After all, Sir, if a dam is built for the benefit of the community which inundates the hon. the Minister’s farm he is compensated for the land which has been expropriated. That dam is for the benefit of the community at large. Why does this Government not apply exactly the same principle to those White people who are adversely affected by legislation such as this, those White people who are “inundated” by a policy of this kind, as my hon. friend says? Unless we get a reasonable answer to that question it seems to me that we can draw the inference that the country is in for larger doses of measures just such as this with a greater and more adverse effect on a greater and greater number of White-owned farms and businesses. Otherwise I can see no reason why this plea should be refused.

We seem to be in a position where the Government is wedded to a theory, a theory to which it is clinging as being its salvation and the salvation of the people of South Africa regardless of the reality of the matter. It is a tragedy, Sir, that they adopt that attitude because this is merely the beginning, a comparatively easy beginning compared with what has to be done in other parts of the country. So if we on this side can point out all these difficulties of this nature in legislation which is easy, heaven only knows what the position will be in the legislation which will have to cover the creation of Bantustans in Natal. I shall vote against this measure.

The hon. member is apparently highly satisfied with some facts he has quoted completely out of context here, and which he has completely misconstrued, in the opinion of this side of the House. In the first place the hon. member sought a parallel for the “Uitlanders” (foreigners) in the present position. But, Mr. Speaker, is it not a fact that the so-called “Uitlanders” of history were backed by an imperialistic power which stood behind them? A power which had domination in mind and wished to use them for that purpose? Is there a parallel for this in history at the present time? The hon. member referred to the multi-racial community in South Africa, he refers to industry; he refers to everything that is multi-racial in South Africa but he did not dare touch on politics; there he feels they are on very thin ice. He refrains from mentioning the multi-racial Parliament they have in mind, for he feels they are on very dangerous ground there. The approximately 700,000 Basutos in South Africa do not worry him at all, but he is worried about the other multi-racialism. He purposely avoids the political multi-racialism that they are advocating. The hon. member asks us where the boundaries of the Bantu homeland are going to be. He wants from us a definition of the boundaries for the purposes of our policy and our legislation. But his own Leader has said that in their federation plan they also incorporate representation for certain Bantu homelands. Now I am quite justified in asking him where the boundaries of the Bantu homelands they contemplate for the purpose of their federation are going to be. Do they have defined boundaries for the homelands they are going to establish for the purposes of their policy? No, Mr. Speaker, I leave the hon. member to the judgment of his own speech.

I wish to revert to the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell), who made one or two remarks. He says we will come up against the inevitability of insistence from the non-Whites, and he refers to the future development of the Transkei. But when his party is going to have political representation in this Parliament (on a limited basis it is true), are they not also then going to come up against insistence? Are they not going to have insistence within this hon. House when they wish to put their policy into practice? They are concerned about the insistence there is going to come from the Transkei for further steps towards constitutional development, but for the purpose of his argument he leaves their policy completely out of consideration. Mr. Speaker, the best compliment paid to the National Party to-night came from the hon. member for Durban (North), when he said that this party has only one policy. I wholeheartedly agree that the National Party has only one policy. The hon. the Prime Minister dealt with the historical background of our policy. The hon. member for Odendaalsrus (Dr. Meyer), who spoke earlier this evening, also referred to the historical background of our policy. I agree that we have only one policy. We have not need to become desperate as happened on an occasion in 1961 at the congress of the United Party when they had to scrounge around for a policy. What happened when the question of their policy was raised there? This is what happened—

I quote from the Vaderland of 17 August 1961 with reference to that document they wanted to keep secret, and which came to light. One of their delegates asked that they should investigate the matter to determine whether their policy did not conflict with some of the other aspects that had been announced. The report continues, and the delegate said—

The Graaff-Reinet delegate said this—

It has never yet been necessary for us to do something of this nature. We need not search very far for an example. The Other Place is not very far from here, and yet they do not agree here with what their members say in the Other Place, so much so, Mr. Speaker, that their Chief Whip found it necessary to silence them and to forbid them to reply to questions from this side. Mr. Speaker, you will not permit me to follow the hon. member further in his ramblings.

I should like to put this question: Who is in favour of this policy in South Africa? In the first place I should like to say that the National Party is 99.9 per cent in favour of it.

Be careful!

I know there are exceptions. The exceptions are the “Nat. rebels” who have now become the darlings of the Sunday Times. There are a few of them, .01 per cent. Mr. Speaker, the reproach is hurled at us that this is a new policy. Here I have the minutes of the National Party’s Transvaal Congress. I cannot state the sentiments of the people on this matter in better words than those used here—

This resolution was introduced by a number of divisional committees of the Transvaal.

Which meeting of the Broederbond was that?

I do not belong to the same movement as that to which the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) belongs. Who else is in favour of this policy? I quote from the Cape Argus of 27 April 1962—

But I continue, Sir. The Bantu outside the Transkei also accept this policy. I quote from the Cape Times of 26 April 1962—

Here they are referring to the Rev. G. G. Ndzotyana of the Presbyterian Church of Langa. We can go further for support for this policy. I quote from the Cape Argus of 26 January 1962—

We receive support from all sides. Inside we have the support of the whole National Party. We have the support of the Bantu in the Transkei. We have the support of the Bantu outside the Transkei. And who are the people now who are opposed to it? It is the minority who are opposed to it and in addition they have a little appendage, viz. the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman). They are the people who are opposed to it.

I should like now to come to the so-called detribalized Bantu so frequently referred to by hon. members opposite. Frequent reference is made to the so-called “detribalized Africans”. Incidentally, the hon. member for Zululand this evening referred to “Afrikaners” and attached his own construction to it.

What do you call them?

I believe the word “Bantu” is a very good and useful word that can be accepted by all the races in South Africa without giving any offence at all. [Interjections.] Yes, when the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) holds a meeting in West Transvaal, I hear she says, “I do not talk of Bantus; I talk of kaffirs”. But when she goes along to help the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) in his constituency, she refers to “these poor Africans”. They use the word “African” so freely, but that word can so easily be coupled with the cry “Africa for the Africans”. Is “Africa for the Africans” not a Bantu nationalistic cry? Why is the hon. member for Houghton so fond of using the word “Africans”? I want to be fair to the hon. member for Yeoville. Let me ask him this question: Surely he wants to remain in South Africa for all time. This Continent of Africa is his home for all time and I assume he sees it thus for his descendants. In other words, he has a justified claim to this southern tip of Africa as his and his descendants’ future home for all time. Is he then not a White “African” if that expression of theirs is used so fittingly? Are he and I then not White Africans, for do we not equally claim this as our fatherland?

Some of us are merely whiter than others.

I agree. It is very dangerous terrain which I will rather not traverse further. Nor will you, Mr. Speaker, permit me to take it to its logical conclusion. Who are better able to appreciate the value of tribal background (if I may call it that without intending anything disparaging) than our English-speaking friends? Who has a deeper national sentiment, which has clung to them throughout the years, than our English-speaking friends in South Africa? Who has a stronger sentiment towards his country of origin than the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell)? One should have thought that he at least would be one who could appreciate tribal background. Only the other day the Union Jack was still fluttering in Durban, and for all I know it is still fluttering there this evening. They retain those symbols of attachment; they· cling to them and they mean a lot to them. Does the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) have no sentimental bonds with Israel?

No.

Then he is much worse than I thought. Then he really is detribalized. Then he has become completely detribalized and then he is worth much less than I thought.

He is a detribalized Zionist.

The Bantu is imbued with a profound desire to be linked with his own. I claim that I have a passable knowledge of the Zulu nation. I have known them for many years. My experience with the rural Zulu has been that he retains a proper tribal background in spite of many years of government that tried to bring about the opposite. We know the old British policy which was designed to detribalize these people, and to detach them from their tribe for political purposes. In spite of those persistent attempts throughout many years, we find that the Zulu of the present time still has his firm tribal link. He is still bound to his homeland by way of representation by Paramount Chiefs and sub-chiefs. It has been my experience with the Bantu on my farm that every one of them belongs to a tribe; they are represented locally through sub-chiefs. I make a point of discussing this with them. I elicit information from them for my own knowledge. They inform me that every one of them belongs to a tribe, and that their Chief lives somewhere in Zululand and that they visit him from time to time. They refer certain matters for trial to their Chiefs. The old tribal system, as they have known it, is still in full operation. I would say that for more than 90 per cent of those people that tribal system is still in operation. Their desire to live in a political constellation of their own is very strong; indeed, it is their desire to be able to assume their political rights and privileges with official recognition, those political rights and privileges they have always retained for themselves. Now hon. members opposite say they have become detribalized, that there is only a small percentage of them who are still bound to their tribes. A small number have become detribalized. They are more particularly the people we find in areas such as Cato Manor and others. When hon. members opposite were in power, they allowed circumstances to develop where this small percentage became detribalized. By their deliberate evasion of a solution for these people, they allowed a number to become detribalized.

It is not only the rural Bantu who still have tribal bonds. I contend that the educated and developed Bantu still attaches value to his homeland and to his tribal relationship. If it were otherwise, how could he explain a person such as Dr. W. F. Nkomo taking sufficient interest in the committee of the Territorial Authority as to go and give evidence there and show very clearly his interest in tribal background? Why should an educated and enlightened person, who obtained a great deal of his education overseas, show enough interest to go to his homeland to see to it that the tribal background is maintained there, and to make certain proposals that are consistent with it?

Was he able to accept a Bantustan?

Why should a person such as Pierre Pringle of Kroonstad, an inspector of Bantu Education, go and give testimony from which it clearly appears that he still wishes to retain a tribal relationship? No, there is no argument adduceable in favour of the contention that the Bantu has become detribalized and that he is adrift and no longer has a home in his homeland. I am convinced that this development that has taken place now, and which meets with the approval of not only the Bantu in the Transkei, as I have shown, but also of the Bantu outside the homelands who feel that their political home is situated in their tribal area, and that that tribal link which they have still maintained throughout the years under difficult circumstances and frequently under very unfavourable circumstances—those people are looking forward to exercising their own political rights in their own homelands. I cannot express it better than it was put in a report of the Native Affairs Commission for the year 1921 (I think it was the very first one), in which they say this—

These people have a desire, an almost pathetic desire, to exercise their vote, and here they have an opportunity to cast their votes within that framework and relationship they have all along regarded as their own, which they have developed and built up, and within that framework, coupled with the modem democratic rules that are made available, the two things can be combined, and these people can now have an opportunity to realize their political rights and fulfil that desire, which is described as pathetic, within their own homelands, where they feel at home and where they can be united with their own political unit, and not in this Parliament, where they will clash, and to use the words of the Office of Strategic Studies in Britain—

And then they say—

They proceed and say—

It is very clearly shown by these people who have made an independent study in relation to South Africa, that when you have various races united in one political constellation, friction and conflict must arise. Mr. Speaker, where they now get an opportunity to build upon the known, success can be expected. But the multi-racial basis advocated by hon. members opposite can only cause racial conflict here, and that can only culminate in domination of one group by the other, as the people have put it here also. The rest of Africa has taught us that the majority in every case eventually assumed the dominating position.

I have pleasure in supporting this Bill, knowing that it meets with the approval and the blessing of the Bantu throughout South Africa who still retain their tribal relationship, and that is the vast majority of the Bantu.

If I would attempt to reply to the previous speaker and his references to United Party policy, I feel I would be called to order, because there is nothing in regard to our policy contained in the Bill which we are now discussing. But one point the hon. member raised was to lay special stress on the point that he considered that his party’s policy was indivisible, that they only had one policy. Well, I have been trying throughout this debate to find out just what is the policy of the present Government, of members on the other side of the House, so far as this one Bill is concerned, because we have been getting different points of view one after the other. I would like to find out for instance whether this Bill is aiming solely at self-government, or whether it will eventually lead to complete independence. Throughout the earlier part of the debate, it seemed to me that there was indeed general agreement amongst speakers on the other side of the House that there would be no further advancement beyond the self-government stage and I noticed that the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Development ridiculed the idea that there would be any further advancement, and he added that “any further advancement constitutionally would not be made without the approval of Parliament” …

But it says so in the Bill.

Yes, but is this the final stage? What I have been trying to find out from the other side is whether this is going to be the final stage, or is it going to lead eventually to independence. That is what the country wants to know. The hon. member for Vereeniging has made it very clear this evening that the final stage is to be independence. It seems to me that this evening the tendency on the other side is to swing over to that point of view. But to make quite sure I just looked up what Hansard says on the matter, and it seems to me that before we can come to any final decision we must know exactly what line the Prime Minister himself is taking, because he is the one who set the whole idea going and who introduced the idea immediately after the general election last year. In the very first session of the new Parliament in the debate on the motion introduced by the Leader on this side of the House, the Prime Minister made several important statements which I feel should be quoted again. These are the statements made by the hon. Prime Minister himself on the vote of censure. I am quoting from last year’s Hansard, Col. 70—

Then in Col. 89—

Col. 89—

The Prime Minister, replying to his own question, answered—

Then I noticed in the Cape Times on 18 March quite recently, that the hon. the Minister of Justice said—

In view of those statements by the hon. the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice, it seems to me that they have to accept that no matter what this Bill contains, the ultimate intention is independent Bantu states. That is what the country is so concerned about. What value can we place on the statements made by the other side of the House in view of the statement made by the Prime Minister? I want especially to draw attention to the statement made by the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration, which I referred to, that Parliament would have to give its approval to any further constitutional advance.

The United Party has taken the line that for any further constitutional advances under our policy, we would undertake to go to the country, either in the form of an election or in the form of a referendum. If we go to the country by way of an election, there are always red herrings, there are always side issues which are introduced, and the only satisfactory way is to decide on an issue of such vital importance by means of a referendum. If this is to be regarded as a democratic country, when taking such an important step, surely the Government should consult the people by way of a referendum. There was no mandate at the last general election to tear the Republic to pieces. If a referendum was necessary to create the Republic, surely a referendum is necessary to tear the Republic to pieces. I feel therefore that if this Bill is to carry the support of the public, the public should have been consulted before a step of this magnitude was taken.

I want to refer again to a statement made by the hon. member for Bethal-Middelburg (Mr. J. W. Rail). He said that the Government has the support of the Transkei. The hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Dr. Otto) said earlier on that the electors of South Africa had chosen the path laid down in the Bill. Now the East London Daily Dispatch, a newspaper which circulates over the whole of the border area and the Transkei, endeavoured to find out just what was the public opinion on this Bill now before Parliament, and they took a poll. I had some misgivings about that poll. I felt that it created the opportunity for the Nationalists in that area, and there are a considerable number of Nationalists in the area, to swamp that poll, and they could have gone to the country and said “the people on the spot are in favour of this Bill”. They could have argued that the people on the spot are the people who should know more about the situation there than anyone else. But what was the result of that poll? The poll showed 96.7 per cent opposed to independence for the Transkei. In that area there are a substantial number of Nationalists who had the opportunity to vote. They had the opportunity of showing their views, but they did not vote against it. From this one is entitled to deduct that the people of that area are decidedly 96.7 per cent opposed to this Bill. Hon. members opposite could view it in two ways.

99.9 per cent, but they did not know what they were doing at the time, they were drunk.

They are a sober lot of people in that area and the hon. member knows very well that that was not the case. The point is that people there realize the implications and the dangers of a measure like this, more so possibly than the people anywhere else in South Africa. I was personally most shocked at the levity with which speakers on this side of the House who have long military experience and a wide knowledge in military matters and who stressed the military dangers inherent in this Bill, were treated by hon. members opposite. The dangers from the labour point of view have been stressed very often, and I will not repeat them, but this question of the military dangers which was treated with hilarity on the other side of the House, is indeed a serious one. I want to point out that when Cuba set up a world scare, the whole world was aghast at the danger created by this little island of Cuba against the United States. But here in South Africa we are deliberately creating seven Cubas right in our midst. We cannot get away from the fact. We are deliberately creating seven Cubas right in our midst as jumping-off grounds for Communism. I do not want to over-stress this point. It has been ably put by other speakers. But what I want to stress more is the financial and commercial dangers inherent in this Bill. The statement by Chief Kaizer Matanzima that he would immediately, when he gets control, do away with the two-mile radius distance between trading stations, should surely have opened the eyes of all except those who are so blind that they do not wish to see. It should open their eyes to the dangers which we are creating for that area, and these financial dangers will have their repercussions throughout South Africa. I want to couple with that statement of Kaizer Matanzima, the statement in the chairman’s annual report—I am referring to the chairman of the Bantu Investment Corporation, who in his annual report said this—

At the same time he stated “obviously this is a costly and lengthy procedure”. Then he went on to say—

In spite of those warnings by the chairman of the Bantu Investment Corporation, showing the difficulties they have even now with their investments, and the serious losses they have had and the further losses they anticipate, now under this Bill the Government is prepared to place the control over licences in the hands of a man who is prepared to make statements like those made by Chief Matanzima. Surely when one realizes that doing away with the two-mile limit will lead to large-scale bankruptcy, there is cause to pause. We are putting the Black man now in the position to get their licences from an authority which has no idea whatsoever of the commercial implications of licensing. Surely you are inviting a second Congo at least as far as the financial side is concerned.

Why are there so many Whites keen to invest money there?

Where? Will the hon. member put his money into the Transkei to-day? Large sums of money that have been supplied by the White taxpayers have been invested there and there is much more to follow. Surely it is the height of financial folly to place inexperienced Bantu politicians in a position to bedevil the whole scheme of establishing the Bantu in their own areas. When the prospective prime minister of the Transkei shows such obvious lack of the most elementary knowledge of commerce and economics, what can we expect of the untutored millions if he makes such statements? They are obviously not ready to take over responsibilities which will be placed on them in the Bill before us. What else can we call this whole Bantustan business but fantastic folly?

Order! Is the hon. member reading his speech?

I am quoting, Sir. The hon. member for Randfontein (Dr. Mulder) ended his speech with a crescendo effort and said “This effort of ours must succeed, and if it falls, everything will fall with it”. I do not agree with him. If it falls, the Nationalist Government will fall, and in that connection I would quote from Shakespeare where he says “When he falls, he falls like Lucifer, never to hope again”. The other side of the House boasts of their granite policy. Let me add that granite is largely used for tombstones, and when that granite policy has become a tombstone as far as the Nationalist Party is concerned, then no doubt the country will call in the United Party again to put the country on its feet.

I do not know where the hon. member was during the last election. He contends that during the last election this side of the House never raised the matter of Bantu homelands and that we never received a mandate in this regard. The hon. member surely forgets that in August 1961 the federation plan of the United Party was announced in Bloemfontein. and the whole election was concerned with the federation scheme and the Bantu homelands scheme. It is beyond my comprehension how the hon. member can now say that it was never placed before the electorate of the country to take a decision on this matter. He must have been away somewhere, or been asleep. The whole election turned on this. I am astounded that the hon. member now comes along with this statement. During the election the United Party got the biggest beating it has ever had, and the election turned on this matter as a whole. I agree with the hon. member where he quoted the hon. the Prime Minister: “If I had to choose the final consequences of the out-and-out development of Bantu homelands as opposed to the race federation scheme being fully implemented in this Parliament, then I choose the Bantu homelands purely and simply and the development thereof to its extreme consequences.” I agree 100 per cent with the quotation from the hon. Prime Minister he has made.

Do you prefer to have a second Cuba?

The Prime Minister referred to the extreme consequences, and you also referred to the extreme consequences of the policy in respect of the Bantu homelands, but then all the speakers on that side omit the consequences of their federation scheme. On the one side the extremes of the development of our scheme are taken, but the extreme consequences are not mentioned when you open this Parliament to the Bantu and provide them with a forum here. The ultimate consequences of that development are conveniently suppressed by them. But before this House are the ultimate consequences of the two plans. You have one of two alternatives. Let me make a few remarks at the outset. We fully realize to-day that Africa as a whole with its almost 50 different states has undergone development whereby there are only a few states that have not yet become republics. In general we know that it is developing to its full consequences, into republics, and the demands for it are being made. Let us not minimize the fact that the Black man has awakened and that he is fighting for his nationalism. We fully realize that he is making demands. But I do not wish to inquire into the causes of that, for time does not permit me to do so, but all of us realize that there is development among the Black people, and that they are making demands, and that nowhere in their development are they advocating a multi-racial system of government. They are consistently and relentlessly urging that all the power shall be vested in the Black man and the Black man alone. Inexorably! Hence the terrific attacks made not only upon the Republic of South Africa, nor only on the Portuguese territories, but also on Rhodesia with its policy of partnership. There you have exactly the same attacks. Mr. Speaker, we must realize that the Black man is making his demands, and that is the background. He seeks a forum in that development, and I think you find that demand particularly among the educated young Natives who are emerging, and nowhere do you find it so clearly as in connection with the monument Nkrumah erected for himself in Ghana with these words: “First seek the kingdom of politics and all the other things will be given unto you.” In these words we find embodied the ideal and the principle of his aspirations, and he will not be satisfied with anything but complete domination. In the circumstances we are now faced with these two alternatives, whether we are going to place this Parliament at his disposal or whether we can canalize and steer it in a different direction. One realizes one cannot kill it. One can only try to steer it in a certain direction. Now I have tried to determine whether in the planning of those two policies we are comparing there is any agreement between the two parties, and strangely enough I did find a few points of agreement. The first point I have found, and we accept that we are sincere in regard to this point, is that both parties advocate a White civilized community, and control and development under guidance of the White man in South Africa. I accept that as the honest starting-point of both parties in regard to the attempts we are making. Secondly, the two great parties both advocate the development of the Native reserves. I hope I am not mistaken when I say that both parties are in favour of that. The third is that all of us accept that the Black man must receive certain political rights. The National Party says that those political rights must be given in the reserves, and hence this plan to give the Transkei a certain measure of political rights and independent development, and therefore we shall now help to develop the Native reserves or homelands along those lines. As regards that objective, it seems to me that we are very close to each other, if we interpret correctly the way in which the two parties are stating their points of view. Here in my hands I have the Weekblad, the United Party newspaper, of 18 August 1962, which contains the statement of Sir de Villiers Graaff, the Leader of the Opposition, and he says this—

That is the policy of the United Party in regard to the reserves. But it goes further. In that statement of policy he says, “with a greater degree of self-rule Now I ask myself, in the light of the degree of self-rule we are now giving that reserve, is there any difference? According to the Hansard I have with me, the United Party formerly advocated the same policy which the Leader of the Opposition has now set forth in his statement of policy. Now one can begin to argue about the degree of self-rule. We are also at this stage giving a degree of self-rule. There are certain aspects of the development that will remain under White supervision, such as police, railways, etc. It seems to me there is virtually no difference as regards the development of the reserves. But let us then return to the main objective of both the parties, and let us compare the two points of view in order to get clarity. The question is: How will we not retain White supremacy in our hands? There the two parties are opposed to each other, as regards the question of how in the circumstances we are now going to give the non-Whites or the Bantu the franchise, or call it “a degree of political rights”. It seems to me that the great difference between the two parties must be sought in that. The National Party says that as far as this Parliament is concerned, we do not deprive the Native of anything that is his own. We are giving him his territories. But as regards this Parliament, we shall not give him any rights. That is our policy. He will have no political rights in the White area. But the United Party on the other hand proposes another course. The National Party wishes to confer the political rights within the Bantu areas, but the United Party, with the recognition of political rights to the Bantu, wants to confer those rights in this Parliament, to whatever extent it may be. That is a measure of political rights, but the Bantu will get those political rights in this Parliament. Now as regards the measure of political rights he will be getting in this House, the United Party is very vague in its statements, even the statement made at Bloemfontein. The National Party is very clear in this regard, particularly in the legislation now before us. But what about the granting by the United Party of political rights to the Bantu in the White Parliament? In the first place I have to say that when the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) a few days ago said in this House that it was difficult to make a statement of policy, because within a few months the National Party would have taken over that policy, and then they would come forward with it, I thought to myself: To what extent is the hon. member right? And that is why I inquired into it a little, and it seems to me there is something to be said for it, because you know that during the 15 years of wandering in the desert which the United Party has gone through there has hardly been a straw they have not grasped at in an attempt to save themselves. But, inter alia, there is always a lack of idealism in their statements of policy, and we find that they are directionless and aimless, because when we consider the consequences of the implementation of the policy of the United Party, with the political rights that will be granted to the Bantu over the years, we find a constant change. We had that position in 1956 when it was stated in this House. On that occasion the United Party said that they were opposed to any further development and the granting of political rights in the sense in which these had existed formerly, and an extension of political rights of the Natives to the north.