May I request the privilege of the second half-hour? The motion of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that the salary of the hon. the Minister be reduced by R5,000 is not the result of any personal suspicion against the Minister. It is a very necessary step the Opposition has been compelled to take to draw attention to the need for us, in our approach to the colour problem in South Africa, to keep pace with and have regard to the realities. I think everybody who had the privilege yesterday of listening to the very interesting statement of the hon. the Minister must have been deeply impressed with the fact that the policy presented by the Minister, the policy of apartheid, the policy of separate development, the Bantustan policy, is in no way at all concerned with the actual facts existing in this multiracial South Africa. It is a phantom policy. It is necessary that we should from time to time attempt to return to the realities existing in South Africa. What is the actual position in South Africa as regards the people of South Africa, all the people? The position is that we have here a vigorous state with vigorous national communities that are working assiduously, with the result that the standard of living of all people in South Africa is rising with intervals in between but gradually over a long period, and that rise is possible only because we are combining, in a joint effort, all the talents, the resources, the labour and the skill of all racial groups in South Africa.

In spite of the Opposition.

What we have achieved in South Africa is the result of the joint effort of all races in this country. Every race contributes according to its nature and its resources. The White man provides mainly the skill and the knowledge and the capital; the non-White provide mainly the labour, the willing and effective labour to make that development possible, and the progress of the Union of South Africa, now the Republic of South Africa, in these circumstances has been spectacular. But now the hon. the Minister and his Government come along and they want to undo this fact, this process of combination which has given us this progress, and which has enabled us to do justice, spiritually also, in the broad sense of the term, to many of our people. They want to undo it completely. [Interjection.] I repeat for the benefit of the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker), who has just made an interjection, that they want to undo it completely.

Nonsense.

The hon. member for Cradock who never speaks in this House but always makes a noise here, should address that brilliant, clever and witty interjection “nonsense” to the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) because only yesterday he said in this House: “I do not know why he (the hon. member for Rondebosch, Sir de Villiers Graaff) is so surprised, because the policy is not only to remove the Bantu from the western Cape but eventually to remove them from the whole of the White area of the Republic of South Africa.” I repeat that they want to undo the process completely, or otherwise the hon. member for Cradock is repudiating the voluble member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee). Mr. Chairman, if then it is the Government’s policy to withdraw all the Natives from the White economy, from the White parts of the Republic of South Africa, I say it may theoretically be a solution to the colour problem as it exists in South Africa, but then I should like to tell the hon. the Minister he does not have very much time to gamble away. As far as we are concerned —and this is where we are so far removed from reality—the Government really will not tackle anything spectacular or use imagination in order to implement this policy of theirs. We have had to hear repeatedly in this debate how the facts of our population grouping in South Africa are in direct conflict with the theory of apartheid; it is increasing everywhere. The more the hon. the Minister talks about his apartheid, the more Natives flock to our cities and the Blacker the whole of South Africa becomes, as I shall indicate in a moment. The hon. the Minister said yesterday that he still accepts the estimate of the Tomlinson Commission that in the year 2000 there will still be about 6,000,000 Natives in the White Republic of South Africa…

Permanently.

… outside the reserves and permanently, and then he does not take into consideration the Indians and the Coloureds who will also number about 6,000,000 as against 5,000,000 or 6,000,000 Whites at that time. The Minister accepts it will still be the position. How then can he seriously tell us that this policy offers a solution to our colour problem in South Africa? We do not have the time to play around on the road hon. members opposite want to follow, with a problem that in the year 2000 will be as acute and as real, according to their policy, as it is to-day, but with factors and features that fill us with fear of what the position will be in South Africa then. If that is the policy of the Government, if they really believe in it, then they should start acting in a spectacular manner now. Then they must show the same determination, the same will to make sacrifices, which this side of the House has shown. I repeat that they should show the same will to sacrifice and the same firmness of purpose this side of the House showed during the war years. No sacrifice was too great to ensure the continued existence of the nation, but we constantly have to hear from this hon. Minister that he wants to do this and that, but that it will be a slow process; that no disruption will be caused, that nobody will be hurt. Letters are written to people telling them they need not be afraid of the removal of the Natives in the White areas, because it will be such a slow process that they will not even notice it. While the Minister goes on with this snail’s pace of his, the facts in the world are building up against South Africa as it exists under this Government and the opportunities for our people to find a solution are being wasted. It is extremely irresponsible, Mr. Chairman. One can only hope that the Government will do one thing, and that is that it will carry out its policy. If they carry out their policy, only one of two things can happen: That policy will succeed and then we shall be the first to acknowledge that; or that policy, as we positively anticipate, will be a hopeless failure and then the Government will be overthrown and South Africa will have an opportunity to do the right thing timeously. But while there is just talk of policy and nothing really happens, the Government is nevertheless anxious to have a few shop windows to exhibit its wares. They cannot implement the policy throughout the whole of South Africa. They do not want to do so; they do not have the willpower; they do not have the determination to do so. But here and there they want a shop window; and one of the shop windows is the western Cape, a guinea pig for the theory of apartheid, so we hear. We hear the fine excuse that this policy has to be applied in the western Cape for the sake also of the Coloured people of the Cape. The Coloured people! The Minister states there is tremendous unemployment among the Coloureds; he says that when the United Party Government was in power they made no attempt to create avenues of employment for the Coloureds; that they have been neglected and that they have become impoverished. The Minister has painted moving pictures of the misery that existed here in 1948. But what are the facts?

The facts are that as the industries of the western Cape, as in any part of South Africa, expand, more workers are required, and the races are absorbed into those industries, each according to its capacity and according to its level of development. Accordingly there was considerable scope in this development for the Coloureds to play their role, and they have played their role. It is untrue to say that the Coloureds have been neglected. Here I have facts that have been extracted from the official statistics of the Government and which have been collected brilliantly in an article in the South African Journal of Economics of December 1962, an article written by J. D. Hampton, “The Role of the Coloured and Bantu in the Economic Pattern of the Cape Province”, an article I gladly commend to hon. members opposite. How does this writer sum up these things? He says—

Of course it declined under this Government; one expects that—

Does that sound like neglect? Does that sound like lack of opportunities for employment? I am asking the hon. the Minister: Bring me figures to prove the contrary; bring us the statistics to prove that the Coloureds were in such a precarious, neglected position as regards opportunities for employment under the United Party Government. The simple fact is that if the Government wishes to see growth in the western Cape, if they wish to see development, if they wish to see a rising standard of living for all, for the Coloureds as well as the Whites, he will have to expand industry and he will have to expand the economic life of this part of the country, and in order to do that he will require more labour; he will not be able to get rid of 250,000 workers; he will require more workers. Listen to what Mr. Hampton writes on page 257 of this edition of the South African Journal of Economics. He says—

With the restrictions applied by the Government, the growth in the western Cape declined—

The fact remains that with this growth, more opportunities for employment for all were created. Why must the Coloureds and the White man be protected against the Native in the western Cape? If it is necessary in the western Cape, then it is necessary throughout the whole of South Africa. In the rest of South Africa there are more than 400,000 Natives employed in secondary industry. In the same industries there are 250,000 Whites in employment. Did that influx of Natives to our industries impoverish the Whites: have they ousted the Whites, or is there full employment among the Whites in South Africa; or is the high standard of living of the White man in South Africa not due to the fact that there is a mighty reservoir of Native labour on which we can draw to build and expand in South Africa? I repeat that this policy has no relation to the actual facts existing in South Africa. If the Minister says, as he did yesterday, that he wants to replace these 250,000 Native workers in the western Cape with Coloured labour (which is non-existent but he says he wants to replace the Natives with the increase among the Coloureds, with the increase in the Coloured population in future years) it can have only one meaning if he is in earnest, and that is that the industrial development in the western Cape must stand still during the next few years while the Minister is replacing the Native labour with Coloured labour, because if there is growth in the western Cape, it will not be possible to tackle these removals and replacements; then the newly born, the adolescent labour will have to be used to provide the needs of the growing industries and the flourishing economy. The only possible manner in which the Minister can implement this policy of his, is by stagnation and impoverishment of the western Cape.

You are talking nonsense.

Mr. Chairman, there is a second shop window as regards the White part of South Africa, the so-called White part.

The “so-called” White part?

Yes, it is “so-called”. There may be a part of South Africa that is White controlled; that I concede, but physically and factually there is no White South Africa, because even the Minister says that in the year 2000 the Whites will still comprise only half of the population in the White portion of South Africa. We cannot hope to make progress in the direction of a solution to our problems if we do not face up to elementary facts like these. The political constitution of an area cannot be confused with the physical composition of the population of the same area, and as regards the population composition of the area which our hon. friends call “White South Africa”, it is only a so-called “White South Africa” because there are more non-Whites than Whites.

Mr. Chairman, the other shop window is the urban areas, but here it is a fictitious shop window, a shop window based on imagination. Yesterday an authoritative source was quoted to the effect that only about 10 per cent of our urban Natives, except those on the mines, can be regarded as migrant labour. But now the Minister wants to create the legal fiction that all of them there are temporary residents, contrary to the facts. By means of legislation I may not discuss now we now have to create the fiction, also by means of administrative measures, which we may discuss, that the more than 1,000,000 Natives in our urban areas are all temporary residents there. The facts have to be twisted; reality must now be distorted to fit in with the ideological concepts or misconceptions of the Government. The realities may not be seen. The hon. the Minister may make all the laws in the world on the urban Natives in order to create the fiction that they are there temporarily, but they will still be there permanently, and they will continue to remain there permanently for many years after the year 2000; even after he and I and our children have passed on, they will still be there. Mr. Chairman, where is the relation to reality in this policy?

We must not look only at the Government’s shop windows; we should examine the goods in the shop itself for a while; we must go behind the shop window and what do we find then? Then as I have said, we find much talk of apartheid, of separation, of Bantustans and of sovereign independent States to be put in the shop window; but even if they were to come, it still remains a fact that the whole of South Africa is becoming Blacker in terms of the policy of this Government, and that the Whites in South Africa are constantly a shrinking minority. That is all the Government has achieved during the past 15 years to make the Whites a shrinking minority in the Republic of South Africa. Mr. Chairman, if hon. members will not believe me, let them believe Volkshandel then, which surely does not try to spread the viewpoint of this side among the people of South Africa. Volkshandel writes in its edition of December 1962 in an article on the “Concentration of Population and Decentralization of Industry”, as follows (this is its conclusion) [Translated]—

This is not what I am saying; it is Volkshandel talking here—

There is the achievement of the Government under the policy of apartheid: The Black preponderance is growing cumulatively in the cities as well as in the rural areas. That is merely the truth.

And you throw in your hand.

When we ask the Government please to take notice of these realities, we have a counter-attack, a mock counter-attack.

You are a good actor.

Then we are told that the position would have been worse if the United Party had been in power. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, there are so many members interjecting simultaneously that I unfortunately cannot react to it. Perhaps hon. members will tell us that these are all matters to begin to control which the Government needed 15 years. But the Government immediately had control over its own employees, over the Public Service, and only this morning the Burger had a scoop, the only newspaper in Cape Town which was able to publish the results of the Department of Statistics in a survey made in regard to the employment of the races in public bodies. The report reads as follows [Translated]—

These are the people who have to apply influx control. They have more than twice as many Bantu in their employ as Whites—

The majority are Bantu—

What about it?

All I wish to know is where is the apartheid? But when we mention these facts there is a reply from that side. I call this a mock attack. Their reply is: Yes, but if the United Party had remained in power, the position would have been much worse.

Then the Whites would have had it.

The hon. the Minister in his speech yesterday said that it is the policy of the United Party to permit the influx to the western Cape to continue unchecked. [Interjection.] As the old ones sing so the youngsters squeak. Just listen to hon. members over there, Mr. Chairman. Who introduced influx control in the great cities of South Africa? The Nationalist Government? Who introduced it in Johannesburg? I know what I am talking about when I refer to Johannesburg. In 1946 the United Party Government introduced it but the difference is this: We see influx control as an opportunity to prevent unfair competition between tribal Natives and urban Natives; to prevent social evils and horrors such as the squatter towns of the war; we see in it an opportunity to bring workers to their places of employment, without redundancy; we see in it an opportunity to achieve orderliness and not oppression, not a disruption of irresistible economic tendencies. That is the difference.

The hon. members say that the position in South Africa would have been worse if the United Party Government had remained in power. They can only say that if they are unable to regret their deeds, because if the United Party had remained in power there would have been at least an extra 1,000,000 White people in South Africa at the present time. In that regard posterity is going to reproach the National Party most bitterly. When the opportunity presented itself to bring Whites to our country from our countries of origin, they allowed Australia and Canada to skim off the cream. We have wasted our opportunities, and now, 12 years too late, the Government suddenly accepts the United Party’s policy. Here the Government in fact by its deeds admits it was wrong to put a stop to the immigration policy of the United Party’s Government. Mr. Chairman, the meagre effort of the Government to attract a few thousand immigrants per annum to South Africa means nothing. The Government cannot survive the 13 years the locusts were eating. It ill befits any hon. member opposite to say that the position would have been worse if the United Party had remained in power. The position would have been that the position of those hon. members and our position would have been 1,000,000 White people stronger in South Africa if the United Party had remained in power.

And the hon. the Minister now comes along with a fine statement. He says it is right and it is essential that development of a country should cause people to migrate to the cities, but everyone must migrate to his own cities. They must not be permitted to flock to satellite cities where they will earn their bread in a reservoir of cheap labour. He then mentioned to us the example of Umlazi. What is Umlazi but a reservoir of labour for the industries of Durban? Let the hon. the Minister rise and mention to us one Native town that has been established or developed by this Government since 1948 inside the reserves, inside the future Bantustans, which is self-sufficient and independent of a neighbouring White area. Umlazi means nothing. Umlazi is another fiction. It is a satellite of Durban. In the Transkei the Minister is going to be successful at one place only, and that is with a satellite Native township he is going to establish and which is going to be dependent upon East London. Mention any township that is being developed on its own by the Government or by any organ for the Natives and by the Natives. There is no such thing, Mr. Chairman. To say that Umlazi or the place at East London is a solution to our Native problem is ridiculous. If the Government wishes to put a stop to the influx of Native labour or whatever labour it may be to the existing White cities, then you will have to see to it that as from this very moment—and you have to hurry—there will be more capital investment in the Native areas than in the White areas. And do not mention border areas or border industries. It is no solution to remove the problems of the White man to Queenstown or to Pretoria North; they remain White industries dependent upon Native labour; the same position that already exists in South Africa. No, of the R1,000,000,000 new capital formed in South Africa annually, by far the most must be invested inside the Bantustans so that the economic development will occur there, so that the sucking process of the Minister of Finance can begin. You cannot go along and suck away the Natives with a bicycle pump from the White areas to the Native areas. It requires imagination and the will to act, and it requires sacrifices.

I wish to conclude by saying this: I challenge the hon. the Minister of any member opposite to rise and to announce that the Government will see to it from now onwards that more capital is invested in the Native areas of the Republic of South Africa than in the White areas. If they do not do that the turning point in the rush to the cities will not come in our lifetime or in the lifetime of our children; it is a phantom policy; it is fraud on the people of South Africa; it misleads the nation; it hides from us the dangers really facing South Africa. We dare not tolerate it.

I should like to react immediately to the challenge of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn). I asked the United Party two questions last night. I also asked that the hon. member for Yeoville should reply to those questions when he spoke. He spoke for half an hour and he carefully evaded both those questions. I should like to repeat those two questions to the United Party. I asked them whether it was the policy of the United Party that there should be an unrestricted influx of Natives to the western Cape.

I replied to that.

You did not, oh no! It is very easy to try to slip by in that manner. The second question was whether the United Party also wants Native women to accompany their menfolk to the western Cape? I suppose the hon. member will say he replied to that also. I began by saying that I wanted to react immediately to their challenge. What kind of challenge is that, Mr. Chairman? It really is a reply to the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) when she told him not to become nervous so soon. But with the shadow of Wynberg over it, the United Party comes forward with this challenge to make a higher bid than the hon. member for Houghton is going to make. That is the challenge. The hon. member for Yeoville this afternoon comes forward with that challenge, having regard to what is ahead of them and having regard to what the hon. member for Houghton is going to offer there. He wants to outbid the hon. member for Houghton in Wynberg.

I should like to revert now to the speech of that hon. member. He referred to the actual facts of the past. What are the actual facts? He referred to the fact that this side of the House deemed it necessary to protect the White man against the Native. Let me remind him than when the United Party forgot about the realities, in 1922, they very nearly had civil war in South Africa. The economic law in this country in the past was the protection of the White man and his industries, was it not? When those rights of the White man were touched on the Witwatersrand a revolution resulted. The hon. members opposite forget about those realities. Is that what the hon. member for Yeoville now scandalously forgets when he says to-day that the White man must be protected against the Native? He then charges the hon. the Minister with it. Is that one of the reasons why that hon. member and his party come forward here with a motion that the salary of the hon. the Minister should be reduced? He refers to the so-called Whites and the so-called White cities. It reminds me of the hon. member who spoke last night about the so-called Republic of South Africa. But that so-called Republic is good enough to pay her salary. It is good enough to provide her with a forum for her politics which I cannot regard as anything but iniquitous in this country.

Now I come to the shop windows of the National Party, and I should like to dwell for a moment on the shop windows of the United Party. When this Government came into power what was the position around Pretoria where I live? Mr. Chairman, there were 48 squatter camps and locations around Pretoria. That is what we inherited from that side of the House. Now the hon. the Opposition are extremely jealous because it is this side of the House in fact, originally under the leadership of the hon. the Prime Minister and to-day under the leadership of the present Minister, who cleaned up the place there and who created law and order.

What did you do?

We immediately created order; we established Vlakfontein. We removed those 48 camps which the Government of that hon. member helped to build. That is what we did. We did not do so there only. If my memory serves me correctly, that hon. member was Mayor of Johannesburg. To their everlasting shame it will be said that they vigorously opposed the policy of the Government to bring about law and order in South Africa. They did not want it; they wanted the disorderliness.

Do not talk nonsense.

The hon. member who was then the Minister, and who connived at these things, now says I am talking nonsense. We cannot blame him, for now only does he see where he was wrong in those days. Of course he must try to defend the mess made at that time. In spite of the speech of the hon. member for Yeoville, the position in South Africa in 1948, as regards its Native population, was extremely deplorable. Nobody can deny that. What was the position in reality? Thousands upon thousands of non-Whites flocked to the industries of the big cities, industries that came into being virtually overnight and which flourished, during the war years. They needed that labour. That situation was created and the United Party could not handle it. They could not stem it. That was the heritage this side of the House received. We succeeded in establishing law and order but it was not an easy matter. I remember the resettlement at Meadowlands. The representatives of about 50 different newspapers were present. They were invited from virtually all over the world. They came to witness the bloodshed that side of the House had predicted. They were there with their photographers and what was the result? That was one of the most orderly developments that took place under this Minister and under this Government. If there is a measure of jealousy on the part of the United Party to-day, we can only look at them in sorrow, Mr. Chairman.

Now the hon. member for Yeoville makes such a great point of it that this side of the House did not exert itself to encourage immigration more when the cream of Europe was available to come here. If it was the cream that was available, why then did they constantly say: Let them all come, as they themselves said from the public platforms, to plough under the Afrikaner? [Interjections.] That hon. member may make a noise if he wishes to; that is what they said from the platforms: Let them all come, the good and the bad, to plough under the Afrikaner. [Time limit.]

It seems quite pointless to try to follow the line of argument of the hon. member who has just sat down.

Mr. Chairman, we have had 15 years of Nationalist rule. I do not want to contrast the position which we occupied in the world today and then. I want to come down to one or two pure aspects of Native policy and to ask hon. members opposite to consider carefully whether they think they have been getting anywhere with their policy. Let us take this question of the ideal of total apartheid—the gradual removal of all the Bantu to the reserves. That was not a policy that came in later: it was something on which hon. members opposite very largely were returned to power. We have the figures: After 15 years there are 1,100,000 more Natives in our urban areas—even since 1951. I am not even going back to 1948 which will doubtless put the figure up to 1,500,000. That is the position under this Government which was largely elected on the strength of their promises to the electorate that they would turn back the tide. Above all, Sir, even in the western Cape we find that the percentage increase has been of the order of 20 per cent steadily all the time. That is what has been happening.

I have a report here which appeared in the Burger of 13 March of an address by Professor S. P. Cilliers of Stellenbosch to the Afrikaanse Sakekamer—

I ask hon. members opposite honestly to appraise the position. Their policy has been to reduce the numbers gradually. Here are the figures; they shout at hon. members. I am sure they must reflect and wonder whether their policy can still be considered to have any relation to reality. The intention was doubtless good but in the light of 15 years’ experience surely they will want to revise their policy when they see that that has been its effect, or lack of effect.

Think again of this question of the border industries. There again doubtless they were well intentioned. I have no doubt that they were well intentioned. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said that during the past 10 years border industries have given employment to only one-third of the Natives in the reserves who need employment in one single year. In other words, during the last 15 years of Government rule, by means of border industries, they have created employment for only one-third of the number who seek employment in one single year. The hon. the Minister has offered great inducements to people to go there. Take Mr. Cyril Lord. Great inducements have had to be offered to him. But this is the result. Again I ask hon. members to consider. Surely in the light of the facts one must think again whether this whole border industries idea is going to get us anywhere, more particularly in view of the fact that there is this uncertainty about the border itself. One day you are a border industry and the next day you are inside the Transkei. Since this Transkei Bill has been made known people are unwilling to establish themselves in the Transkei as doctors and traders and the like. Anybody will tell you that. There will be a similar disinclination, I suggest, to go even to the border areas because one does not want to be involved in a border dispute or any other trouble. So again I ask the hon. the Minister and hon. members opposite to reconsider this question. Conceding that the intention was perfectly good, the reality has not turned out as one hoped. Policies that do not keep pace with reality are doomed. The Government has announced an expenditure of R2,000,000,000 over the next five years. Where is that to be spent? At Iscor and Sasol and all places firmly in the heartland, as it were, of the non-reserve areas of our country. Obviously those industries will attract people to them, So we are getting further and further away from this gradual removal of the people. Surely hon. members opposite do want to take account of those facts and we ask them to do that. Even now, after 15 years, where are the plans? What big plans can the hon. the Minister give to us? He must please not talk about anything which does not deal with tens of thousands of people. These drops in the ocean which we have had, as I say, get us nowhere. We want to hear of vast plans. The hon. member for Stellenbosch said “ons moet ’n bietjie inspanning hê”. He speaks about a little “inspanning” and he criticises the lack of idealism. I could make a speech on the idealism of our side. What I say to him is that he should be stumping the country and that great constituency of Stellenbosch urging people to the greatest possible exertion, not “’n bietjie inspanning”.

In spite of all this, it is really touching to see the faith and happiness with which the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration still clings to his policy. It is truly touching. But he must really forgive us if we do not share his faith or his hope based upon that faith.

To conclude I do want to say this that this continual fostering in the minds of the people that the Natives will be going back to the reserves one day is most misleading and it has serious consequences. For example, we recently find that certain municipalities in the Boland have cancelled plans for Native housing. All doubtless most necessary, but they have cancelled the plans, presumably on the basis of the hopes raised by this policy.

As we have seen the figures are still rising. An authority like Professor Cilliers says that the demand for labour in the western Cape is almost certain to increase. If Bantu are not absorbed here I wonder where they are going to find work because there is no work in the reserves. There is no work to speak of on the borders, and the population is growing apace. I would say that the most difficult man to cope with is the man who is out of work. The men who have been sent away from here to the Transkei and round about there—and there are quite a few—are the people, I was told during my recent visit there—who are poisoning the minds of people there. If there is any chance of happiness in those areas it is likely to be most seriously poisoned by just those people who are in some way thrown out of work here and sent back to those areas. One can hardly blame them; they will certainly have a grievance.

When the Minister says he is worried, as I think he said, about the numbers of Coloureds who will be unemployed in about 10 to 15 years and when he endorses Bantu out of the western Cape to ensure that those Coloureds have work, I am wondering where those people are going to get work. I am certain hon. members opposite, like ourselves, are searching for an answer to this problem. But they have had 15 years during which time they have put their cherished policies into operation and these are the results. Surely as good South Africans they must rethink the matter. I suggest, when they do, they will see that the safety and the future of Western civilization can he very well guaranteed and preserved under a policy of greater idealism which is ours.

The United Party in this case again is, as usual, too late. Had they been serious about this matter of the removal of the Bantu from the western Cape, one would have expected it to have been raised during the no-confidence debate at the commencement of the Session. It was not done, and I think there were two reasons in particular for that. The one reason was that it was too soon after the disturbances at Paarl. The United Party was afraid that a storm would burst over their heads. But there is a second reason which I think was more important. As you know, Mr. Chairman, there are two Graaffs. The one Graaff is the economist and the other Graaff is the politician. The politician says that the economy will suffer a set-back if the Bantu are removed, but the economist is an active member of the committee which has to collaborate with the State in removing the Bantu. He does not see these sinister things which Graaff the politician sees; the politician who sees only his party and misses seeing South Africa.

The Leader of the Opposition has asked a number of questions. I think those questions must be replied to. He wants to know who dictated this policy. He pretends that it is a sinister thing. He has mentioned certain names. I can just tell him that surely it is history. Last year the Cape Congress resolved unanimously, i.e. the people who are concerned with this matter, that the Bantu should be removed from this area. The fact of the matter is that the principle was always part of our policy, this principle of the removal of the Bantu from White areas. Indeed, that was the viewpoint of the Tomlinson Report to which reference has also been made during this debate. The late Dr. Malan years ago said that the ultimate ideal of the National Party was total apartheid. And he then added: It is not practical politics. [Interjections.] Quite correct, we are not scared of the facts. Mr. Chairman, at that time it was not practical politics. It was the ideal. But who could have foreseen at that time that matters would develop so rapidly in Africa? It is the situation in Africa which is making this matter practical politics for us. The other question was why this area is singled out. I repeat, the principle affects the whole Republic. This area, the western Cape, is the obvious area and I shall return to that later on. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition asks: Why this area? He asks whether we want to make a guinea pig of this area and whether it is due to fear. I first wish to deal with this question of fear. Fear is in the very nature of things also involved in this matter, not the fear the United Party and the Leader of the Opposition are seeking behind this motive, but the fear that the Coloureds will be swamped by the Bantu. I can tell him that the whole Coloured population shares that fear of ours. Indeed, that fear is being realized rapidly because there is large-scale miscegenation in this area between the lower strata of the Coloured population and the Bantu. Why is this area the obvious one? It is the obvious one because there are alternative sources of labour present here. The White man and the Coloured man alone developed this area. It was only some time later that the Bantu made his appearance here. It was only the other day that the Bantu came here.

Another very important fact is that the increase of the Coloured population—it is not a matter of the future as the hon. member for Yeoville has stated—is greater at present than the industrial increase in the western Cape. That is the position with which we are faced, if the Bantu is not restricted and removed, the position will soon arise that Coloureds will have to be removed from the western Cape. The next question is who will do the work? I say the White man and the Coloured man. In the rest of Africa and in the Protectorates the White man has regarded himself as the administrator. What was the result? Here we see the United Party’s problem is that they see the White man as administrators. May God save White South Africa, Mr. Chairman, so that the rest of the White people do not come to that conviction, for then it will be all over with all the Whites in South Africa, just as the doom of all the White people in the rest of Africa was sealed. This country belongs to us, to the White people, and we shall take up the cudgels for South Africa. We shall have to do so, and the time has arrived that the White man too in this country must realize he has to work harder.

You do your own dishes.

Why not? Another argument of the Leader of the Opposition was that it will cost too much. It is the proverbial mess of pottage. It will cost much. Just imagine! We have always admitted that separate development will demand sacrifices from us. We shall have to make sacrifices. It will not be sacrifices in terms of rand and cents. We shall have to make the sacrifice of being prepared to work in the same way that other honourable nations elsewhere in the world are prepared to work. The Leader of the Opposition made another point, that a plentiful supply of labour is essential for new factories. I say a plentiful supply of labour is not what is needed for new factories, but what is needed is efficient labour. I submit that there are a sufficient number of Coloureds in this area to replace the Bantu if they could only receive the necessary training. The Government is already engaged on that. The Coloureds must receive the training to replace the Bantu and the Government is already busy doing that. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. van Staden) seems to be very worried about the possibility that the Coloureds will be swamped by the Africans. Since when is the Nationalist Party so perturbed about the fate of the Coloured people? Sir, who gave them the same status practically as the Natives to-day? Who took them off the Common Roll? Who reduced them on the political scale to where they were 100 years ago? The Government sitting opposite. They had the vote on the Common Roll 100 years ago. What hypocrisy to come here and to talk about the interests of the Coloured man! Sir, who applied the same apartheid rules to the Coloured man as to the Native? The party sitting opposite. And now the hon. member for Malmesbury comes and tells us of their great interest in the Coloureds and that that is the reason why they are going to take the Native out of the western Cape.

Sir, we are supposed to be talking on the Vote of the Minister of Bantu Administration and we are not discussing the Coloured question. So I am slightly out of order, but I was merely replying to what the hon. member said. The hon. Minister of Bantu Administration knows as well as I do that all the Natives can never be moved out of the western Cape. They know that all this talk of doing so is pure bluff and talk and nothing more. As my Leader said yesterday, who is to do the work that at present is being done by the Africans in these areas? I will come back to that point in a minute. We are told that the Coloureds are going to do the work. We know very well, as I pointed out last year on the same subject, that there are not enough Coloureds to do all this work. Unless we are going to close down our industries here in the Cape, we have not got enough Coloured people to do the work. The Coloureds are not prepared in many cases to do the type of work that the Native is doing to-day. The Minister knows it better than anybody else that they are not prepared to do the coaling of ships and that kind of work; they are not prepared to do the distributing work, which means getting up at 2 o’clock in the morning; the Minister knows very well that there are many jobs in the countryside that they are not prepared to take on. You cannot get Coloured people even to work with mules on a farm; you will not get them to get up at 3 or 4 o’clock in the morning to do the milking. They will not take that sort of job. I tried to get them, but could not for such work. There is nobody to take the place of these Natives. Now we hear that all the work done by the Africans in industry is now to be done by Coloureds. Then, Sir, every Coloured man will have to be drawn away from the countryside to come and do the work here that the Natives are doing to-day. They will have to come from the countryside and they will have to get higher wages to do the work the Natives are doing to-day. That means that your farmers on the platteland are not going to have any labour at all. Who is going to produce our food? Sir, that is one of the few physical impossibilities that the policy of the present Government faces us with. Quite apart from the theoretical side, it is quite unrealistic and impossible. Let us consider the second impossibility of such a policy. The hon. Minister knows better than anyone that all the Natives in the White areas cannot be put in the Native areas. That has been shown in the last 25 or 30 years. We know that in the Tomlinson Report when they said that we would be able to push out all Natives in the White areas except 6,000,000 which will still be in those areas at the turn of the century, the commission reckoned that the three Protectorates would be available for disposing of some of the Republic’s Natives. Those three protectorates are not available now. Where will these people go to? We know that we cannot get them into the present Native territories, not with a shoe-horn and a pair of glove stretchers. What are you going to do with them? Are they to be pushed into the Bantustans? If so, what is going to happen? I ask the hon. Minister. He is a Christian gentleman. He knows what is happening to these people. They are going to starve there. He knows very well that there is no place for them there. He knows that they simply cannot make a living there. You are going to have starvation and deficiency diseases if all these people are to be pushed into the existing so-called reserves, which are going to be the Bantustans. The Minister knows that you are going to have more disease, misery and starvation that South Africa has ever seen. I ask you, Sir: How long is any self-respecting Christian country going to stand to see that happening on its borders? How long are we going to stand for it? How long is the world going to allow us to stand for that? The point is that starving men are dangerous men, and a man with an empty stomach loses his head in a very short time and he does dreadful things. He is not going to stand it indefinitely. What are the Government going to do with these people? We hear all this talk about border industries. They have not started creating sufficient work yet, nor has the Government started developing these reserves as advocated in the Tomlinson Report. Where are these people going to go? If these Africans are pushed into the reserves, and they begin to starve, they are going to walk out of the reserves into our areas; what does the Government propose to do? Is the Government going to shoot them down, or is it going to try to push them back by force? Cannot hon. members opposite see that bad as our name is already in the world outside, if a thing like this happens how a thousand times worse it would be! Year by year we have seen how these mad policies of this Government have brought us to the very brink of the abyss and to destruction with ever-increasing momentum. Here we have another attempt to mislead the public, to mislead the people to think that this is a solution of the situation. The hon. Minister and the Prime Minister both know very well that this is no solution. They know that it is just an attempt to buy a little time, and it is the most disgraceful thing that our youth in South Africa should be misled into thinking that this is a solution whereas it can only lead to disaster, worse disaster than we have got facing us to-day.

I am sorry that there is not very much that I can say in reply to the speech of the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl), but I do think that if the hon. member tries to approach the policy of his party realistically, he will realize that what the United Party is doing is that it is trying to buy time. They are not buying time but they are trying to do so. They only think of tomorrow, they try to get to-morrow over with, and they do look no further than that. Therein lies the calamity of the United Party’s policy. We have had this again from the hon. member for Green Point. On the one hand they say that the Government’s policy is completely impossible but on the other hand the hon. member wants to know what will become of the farmers if the Government’s policy is implemented and where the farmers are going to get their labour. If that is not raising a bogy I would like to know what is. On the one hand it is his firm conviction that the Government cannot implement this policy; he says that it is a physical impossibility. On the other hand he says that this physical impossibility will ruin the farmers. We also noticed yesterday on a number of occasions that the United Party were trying to act as the protecters of the interests of the farmers and industrialists, particularly here in the western Cape. They say that their policy is to ensure that the Bantu worker will not be removed from these parts. They pretend to be the guardians of the people who employ Bantu. That is all very well. If they really wanted to protect the White industrialist and the White farmers, I would be only too pleased. But that is only one aspect of the matter. There is another aspect of the matter— the condition which the United Party lays down for this protection. What are the conditions on which the United Party will look after the interests of the farmers and industrialists in regard to this matter? The policy of the United Party in this regard is very clear and that is that all the Bantu in the White area are here permanently. The United Party says that those Bantu must be regarded as citizens, that they must begin equal economic opportunities together with the Whites; that they must be given ownership rights in the White area; that they must be allowed to compete with the White man and there must be no job reservation. And then, besides equal economic opportunities, the Bantu must have equal political opportunities. I am very sorry that the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) has just walked out. The United Party says that the Bantu here in the White area must also enjoy equal political opportunities with the White man. They must be given representation in this Parliament and they must be allowed to be represented by Bantu.

You are sucking that out of your thumb.

I am pleased that the hon. member for Green Point says that because I want to challenge them to deny it. Not only must the Bantu be given representation by their own people in this Parliament under the policy of the United Party, but the Bantu must also be taken into the Cabinet, and I want the hon. member for Green Point to listen carefully now.

Where do you get that from?

The hon. member asks where I get this from. I shall tell the hon. member. Here I have the leading article of the Star of 5 December 1961, which reads as follows—

And listen to this—

I do not want to content myself with this one quotation because the hon. member for Green Point lives in a world of complete unreality; he wants nothing to do with reality, not even the reality of his own party’s policy. This is not the only authority as far as this matter is concerned. I have here the Sunday Times of 10 December 1961, which has the following to say—

And it is not only the Star that has this to say; it is not only the Sunday Times that makes these authoritative statements. I want to quote to the hon. member for Green Point what the hon. the Leader of the United Party himself said last year at De Aar at the beginning of May. He said this—

These are the urban Bantu. And then he said that that representation on a separate roll—… will not be mere representation without opportunities to participate in executive and administrative functions.

That is what the hon. the Leader of the United Party himself said. When the hon. the Minister referred to this last year, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that that was not what he had said but that it was what the newspaper had said; it was not his speech. Mr. Chairman, I want to quote now from the speech as he handed it to the Press. There can be no doubt that this is what he said. He stated emphatically that the Bantu whom the United Party want to allow to take their seats in this House would be given the opportunity on a separate Voters’ Roll to participate in executive and administrative government. This means that it will have to be possible for the Bantu to be taken into the Cabinet. Take the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson). Surely he realizes that if one wants to take these people into one’s Cabinet they will have to accept the policy of one’s party; they will have to be members of one’s party and be co-responsible for the policy of one’s party. The United Party has already decided in its own mind not only to give the Bantu representation by Bantu in this House, but to take the Bantu into the Cabinet and in the United Party. One cannot take a person into one’s Cabinet unless one has taken him into one’s party.

I want to put this question to the hon. member for Green Point: In what respect does his policy of the United Party differ from the policy applied by Britain in Rhodesia and in Kenya with such disastrous results? Let the hon. member for Green Point tell me what difference there is. The only difference is that they say—at any rate, that is the difference according to the United Party—that they will not do all these things immediately. They say that they will be done gradually. I can read to you what the hon. member for Yeoville wrote. It is clear from what he wrote that they want to do these things gradually. But that is precisely what happened in Kenya and in Rhodesia. The survival of the White man was undermined bit by bit until he was so powerless that he could no longer fight back. This is the same price that the United Party is asking the White industrialist and the White farmer in South Africa to pay. They say: “We will look after your workers, but this is the price that we ask you to pay. You must be prepared gradually to forfeit your right to survive and your political control over South Africa.” If the United Party with its policy of White leadership is really honest in its intentions towards the Whites, let them tell us in what way they will save the White man in South Africa from the fate suffered by the White man in the rest of Africa under this policy of theirs.

There is no comparison.

I do not want to follow on what the hon. member who has just sat down has said. He was merely inquiring what the policy of the United Party is, and I am sure they can answer for themselves.

I want to reply to one or two things said in the heat of the moment perhaps by hon. members yesterday. I will ignore the hon. member for Pretoria (District) who spoke earlier this afternoon, who does not deserve a reply. He is just abusive. But I want to reply to some of the other questions and statements made here last night. One was the question put to me by the hon. member for Karas (Mr. von Moltke) as to why I call South Africa a “so-called White Republic”. I want to tell him that I call South Africa a “so-called White Republic” because that is precisely what it is. South Africa is not a White Republic and it never will be any more than it is a Black Republic or ever will be. As far as I am concerned, South Africa is a multiracial country, it always has been and it always will be. If hon. members do not want to take my word for it, they can look at the last census report of 1960 which shows quite clearly that in every single magisterial district into which South Africa was divided for statistical purposes, that is to say in 278 such districts, there was not a single one in which the Whites outnumbered the non-Whites. In only three of the major cities in the whole of South Africa do Whites outnumber Blacks, but they do not outnumber non-Whites. In other words, in those cities where the Whites outnumber the Africans, they do not outnumber the Africans, the Coloureds and the Indians in those towns. These are the simple facts, and nothing is going to alter these simple facts, and therefore I call South Africa a so-called White Republic.

The hon. Minister last night questioned my patriotism in so far as he says that I am always raising awkward matters, I publicly raise awkward matters, with the result that South Africa suffers—presumably in the outside world. Well, Sir, I dare say that anybody in the history of the world who attempted to get any social reform had that sort of accusation hurled against his head, and I am not perturbed by it. As far as I am concerned, I am not prepared to allow injustices to go undisclosed, simply in order to protect the administrative and ideological policies of this Government. I do not think that that in any way cures the underlying disease which is the building up by virtue of this tide of racial grievances, and if the hon. Minister thinks that by not raising issues such as the hardships caused by the pass laws, the breaking up of family life, banishments, or any of these other burning injustices that I see around me in South Africa…

Burning injustices?

Yes, burning injustices. To me the fact that people have been sitting in the wilderness for ten and 12 years without a trial, people who have been banished because they objected to tribal authorities for instance, is a burning injustice, and I will continue to say so. The fact that people are endorsed out of areas after being here for 9½ years employed by the same employer, or after living in the area for 14½ years instead of the necessary 15, and with their wives and families are thrown out of these areas, is to me a burning injustice, and I will continue to say so. But if the hon. Minister thinks that by my not saying so, such people will not know that they are indeed suffering under these policies, then he is in fact suffering from a delusion. If he thinks that people in Nyanga West for instance, who received a circular to inform them as follows—

do not feel that they are suffering an injustice, he is suffering, as I say, from a delusion. I might say that in many cases this “home” consists of a bare piece of land and nothing else. On what the family has to live of course is another matter. Then the circular goes on to say—

You are therefore required to vacate the above-mentioned site not later than the fifth day of November, 1962.

That is to say, one month from the date of notice. It continues—

Sir, to me it is a hardship for people who have entered into a lease, who have set up a structure, who are living a family life, to be told that in terms of Government policy they may not continue to do so, and whether I raise this matter in Parliament or not, it is going to make no difference to the feeling of injustice by that particular family. By raising it in Parliament I hope to make public opinion in South Africa aware of what is going on. That is the importance of using Parliament as a forum, and I will continue to do so despite any of the muttered threats of the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling).

I would like to get an answer from the hon. Minister to a question I put to him last night. Is it his intention to see that this circular which his Department has sent out as regards trading by Bantu in the urban townships is carried out? In other words that people are not to own more than one business and that those who already own businesses are to be persuaded to remove their businesses to the Bantu areas? If that is so, I must earnestly entreat the hon. Minister on the grounds of honesty at least to cease putting advertisements in overseas newspapers about thriving Bantu traders in Bantu townships, to cease using Mr. Tshabalala as Exhibit A in his pamphlet put out on the “Progress of the Bantu people towards nationhood”, to cease advertising “an outstanding achievement” as the March 1963 issue of BaNtu did advertising Mr. Kolisang’s modern filling station at Sharpeville. As far as I know Sharpeville is not a Bantu reserve. It is a township in the so-called White area of South Africa. Here again “so-called”, because I am sure there are many more Africans than there are Whites in the area of Vereeniging and Vanderbijlpark where Sharpeville is. Now, Sir, this is headed “an outstanding achievement” and we have a long story about Mr. Samuel Kolisang who recently commemorated the second birthday of his filling station in a festive manner, and it tells us about the filling station costing R10,000 and the turnover amounting to 18,000 gallons of fuel per month and so on. I want to know if the hon. Minister is going to insist that people like Mr. Kolisang and Mr. Tshabalala are going to have to move their businesses to the Bantustans, because in terms of this circular which was issued by his Department, it is stated quite clearly that the carrying on of more than one business whether of the same type or not by the same Bantu may not be allowed, not even in different Bantu residential areas in the same urban area. It states that for any sort of daily essential domestic requirement which can be obtained elsewhere, trading licences will not be issued to the Bantu. They must go and buy in the “White” towns, and so on, and he says that people who already have got businesses in the townships ought to establish themselves in the Bantu homelands, and where Bantu companies and partnerships have already been permitted to control businesses, they must under no circumstances be allowed to acquire or take over or open further businesses. So no further expansion is then possible. And later in the circular it says—

I want to tell the hon. Minister that no greater discontent or confusion or disappointment among the Bantu could possibly be imagined than if those people who are building themselves up as the moneyed middle class, a bulwark against all the ravages of communist propaganda (I may point out) have to move. I want to ask the hon. Minister what he intends to do about the established traders in the Bantu townships, and if it is his intention to carry on with this, will he in all honesty please stop using these Bantu as examples overseas, either in advertisements or by the State Information Office overseas or in BaNtu which is also an official Government publication? [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) spoke about the “so-called Republic”. We know what she means. But supposing her policy were to be implemented, does she for a moment think that we would still have a Republic here today?

On a point of explanation, I said “the so-called White Republic”.

When she spoke last night, she put it in the way in which I have stated it now.

No.

Order! The hon. member must accept the word of the hon. member for Houghton.

Yes, Sir. This hon. member only pleads for the Whites when it suits her. A few years ago I accused her in this House that when the Municipality of Johannesburg wanted to establish recreational facilities…

I denied it.

Sheer hypocrisy.

The municipality wanted to provide recreational facilities in the constituency she represents and she immediately protested against it.

That is quite untrue. The hon. member is making an untrue statement.

The hon. member will have an opportunity to reply to it.

On a point of order, should the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) not withdraw the word “hypocrisy”?

The word “hypocrisy” has been used on quite a few occasions to-day, and I think that in this context it is admissible.

I regret having to quarrel with a lady here, but in my opinion she is making use of the privileges she has here to say things which she dare not say outside. She is really a danger to us in this country. She is busy inciting the non-Whites outside, and because she now has the support of the Press, which plays her off against the United Party, she quite exceeds herself. I think the time has arrived for us in this country to act differently. If we think of the resolutions which were adopted a few days ago in our neighbouring states, I think that the time has arrived for us to adopt a different course. Now I also think that the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) is the last person who dare get up here and talk against this policy. I want to refresh the hon. member’s memory a little. Can he remember that there was a place near Johannesburg by the name of Albertynsville in the time when that hon. member was the Minister of Native Affairs, and how the farmers leased land to the Natives who flowed into Johannesburg, and how squatters’ camps were erected there, while that hon. member did not lift a finger to create decent conditions? When this Government took over we had to start eliminating those squatters’ camps. Take Meadowlands. One squatters’ camp after another was established there under the United Party regime, whilst the hon. member for Green Point was the Minister of Native Affairs, and that is the evil we still have to combat to-day. I do not think the United Party has the right to criticize the honourable policy of an hon. Minister who has the best intentions not only towards the Whites but also towards the non-Whites. When we ask the United Party what the consequences of its policy will be—something which we never hear from them—the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) took half an hour to criticize the Minister and the Government, but he did not tell us what they expected if their policy were implemented. They are all people who are reasonably intelligent, but it is peculiar that they cannot see what goes on in Africa where this policy is applied. Everywhere it led to the downfall of the Whites. Do they now want to tell us that the Bantu, for whom the hon. member for Houghton advocates one man, one vote, will be satisfied when they have the vote, and that they will follow White leadership? Surely that is naive. But that is how the United Party tries to mislead the people. Hon. members may go anywhere outside and they will find that the people stand 100 per cent behind the policy of this Government, and separate development gives us our only possible chance to remain White.

But you do not remain White.

We want to give the Bantu what we demand for ourselves. We do not want to oppress him, but that so-called policy of the United Party, the federation policy, how far can that go? We noticed that the ex-Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia said overseas: Give me 15 years and the non-White will be able to govern himself. It was Sir Edgar Whitehead who said that. And what happened then? The White voters immediately rejected him because they realized what was going on. I think the time has arrived for these people to be realistic and to show the country that they stand for right and justice for everyone. The hon. member for Yeoville is one of those people who, when the United Party lands in trouble, jumps up to defend them, but let someone in the United Party now get up to tell us precisely what their policy is and what they expect the consequences of it to be. In so far as the policy of the hon. member for Houghton is concerned, she is quite honest and frank. She wants to give the non-Whites the franchise, and she wants to stand under a non-White Government.

The United Party also.

But the United Party tries to sit on two chairs. The time has arrived to realize what is happening. If one just takes the trouble to look, one sees what is happening and what can be expected. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. P. J. Coetzee) started off his speech in a fashion similar to that of certain hon. members opposite yesterday in their attack on the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman), and there was a threat of what they would have to do. [Interjections.] This is an attempt to stifle criticism in this House. The hon. members for Langlaagte and Innesdale both reflect to-day the worries of the Government side in the application of their policy. They both tried to turn the attack on the United Party by asking what our policy was in regard to political representation. They are not prepared to face the fact that this Government is pretending to attempt to remove the Africans from the so-called—and I repeat the word “so-called”—White areas. Sir, they cannot defend it. The hon. member for Langlaagte asked the old question whether we think the Natives of South Africa will be satisfied with limited representation. But I ask him whether he thinks that they will be satisfied with no representation? Does he think that 80 per cent of the population is going to be satisfied with 7 per cent of the land of the country?

That is an historical question.

Forget the historical claims. That has not saved any country in the world. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) must stop making interjections.

The hon. member for Innesdale said that the difference between United Party and Nationalist Party policy was that we regarded the urban Native as being here permanently. I would like to point out that the Prime Minister himself said that they accepted the permanency of the group but not of the individual, i.e. that there will always be Black people in the so-called White South Africa. Yesterday I pointed out that the Government’s headache was not in the reserves but in the White areas, and that although they had a policy of returning the Bantu to the reserves, more Bantu were in fact coming into the Western Province than were being sent out. I quoted from figures supplied by the Government Labour Bureau to show that in 1961, not through outside influences or licensed agencies but only through the Government, there had been 666 Bantu recruited to the Western Province, and in 1962 it was 892, and that in the first three months of 1963 it was 1,583. The interesting thing to note is that for the first time 75 Natives were recruited for Namaqualand where mining operations started. The moment you start a new industry you have to have Africans to do the work, and instead of taking the Coloureds of Namaqualand to do the work they employ Natives. The farmers are supposed to do without African labour and they are supposed to use Coloured labour. It is a fact that although the farmers apply for African labour they cannot get it unless they supply a certificate saying that there is no Coloured labour available. I am told that the farmers are now getting certificates to the effect that there is Coloured labour available, but not at the wages they are willing to pay. In other words, although there is Coloured labour the farmers do not employ them and this Minister’s Department allows the farmers to get Bantu from the Transkei because the Coloureds are not prepared to work for the wages they pay. The average citizen is misled by the Government’s statement as to what is happening. In this House we get statements from hon. members opposite telling us that the Government’s policy is being applied, but no facts are given. We have quoted facts and figures to show that the Government’s policy is not being applied, and in fact that the reverse is taking place, and it is time that the Minister and hon. members opposite gave us figures to show that their policy is in fact being applied. The policy of endorsing the Bantu out of the Western Province to the Transkei—and they are being endorsed out, although more are being brought in—is causing grave unrest in the Transkei. Some are endorsed out for political reasons. If they are not wanted here, technical grounds are found for endorsing them out, in spite of the fact that they have employment here. Other Bantu who are alleged to have entered illegally but who have found employment here are also endorsed out. Natives who come from the Transkei with letters from their employers saying that their jobs are waiting for them are sent back. Others come here without permits and they go to the registration officer, who tells them to go back to the Transkei to complete the application in terms of the law, and then come down here again and they will get the job, which means an unnecessary journey there and back and these people cannot afford it. The Minister does not realize what bitterness is being caused in the Transkei through this endorsing out. It is so bad that even Chief Kaizer Matanzima, who is always at pains to support the Government, has referred to this endorsing out. In that famous letter of his in the Evening Post, in which he attacked the English Press and the Opposition, he said—

He does not blame the Government, because he supports the Government policy, for the time being at any rate, but he has to explain this away to his people because of the unpopularity of this policy, and so he blames the Opposition and suggests that we are endorsing them out. Sir, what power have we to endorse them out? The Minister said last night that Natives would not be dumped in the Transkei with nothing to do when they are endorsed out. He may not know it, but I want to tell him that is happening. Imagine a man who has had a job here being endorsed out for some technical reason and having no work to do there. The Minister may not know, but he should know, because his officials know of the dissatisfaction caused by this. According to the Urban Areas Act, the administration is in the hands of the local authorities, but the Government has made it quite clear that although certain powers are given to the local authorities they must carry out Government policy. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) sets out from the standpoint that because there will always be Bantu in the White areas they will be there permanently and consequently certain rights must be given to them, inter alia political rights. He does not realize that it need not necessarily be the same Bantu who are born here and die here. Nobody has denied that there will be Bantu even in the Western Province. As long as they are needed here they will be allowed to come here.

But I want to deal at once with the argument of the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl), where he alleged—something which is not worthy of him—that the Government would simply offload the Bantu of the Western Cape in large numbers on to the homelands and that they would die of hunger there. The hon. member ought to know that the Minister has repeatedly stated that they would not be taken there if opportunities for employment had not been created for them, and as work is created for them they will be removed. Why does he now make this accusation? And then he still adds a tail to it, that the world will not tolerate such a thing, and will intervene. I think that is a scandalous thing to say, and it does not behove the hon. member to say it. The hon. member further said that this removal of the Bantu from the Western Cape was only a bluff and that it would never take place. I want to remind the hon. member that he said precisely the same thing when we said that we would establish a Republic. He then said that it was only propaganda to stir up emotions, but I think the results ought to convince him that the National Party does not merely talk. If a policy can be likened to a disease, I think hon. members opposite, if they could have chosen, would have elected that their policy be called high blood pressure, because that is something which can be measured in figures. Then they could have told the people that they were very ill and they could have proved it with figures. They allege that the Government’s policy cannot be implemented because the numbers of Bantu in the White areas are increasing. I do not want to go into that again because that argument has repeatedly been dealt with, and it has been proved that it is a natural result of our policy, and that this tendency was foreseen years ago already. But I want to ask the hon. members this. Are they advocating that the Bantu should come and live in the White areas in increasing numbers, or are they also in favour of the White areas becoming increasingly White and the Bantu homelands absorbing increasingly more of the Bantu who are in the White areas? It really seems to me that they are pleading that the Bantu should remain in the White areas to an ever increasing extent. If they regard the increasing numbers of Bantu here as a danger, why do then they oppose in the most strenuous manner every step taken by the Government to combat that tendency? It seems to me that they are not serious enough in regard to the position of the White man in South Africa. Or must I accept that they do not mind the Bantu coming here to an increasing extent because they want to turn them into a middle class which will be given political rights here, and want to use their votes to oppose the National Party? What will happen if this policy of the National Party is not implemented? If their attempts to obstruct that policy are to be successful, what do they think the consequences will be? Do they think that what will happen is what the most conservative members amongst them think will happen, viz. that the Bantu will be satisfied with a few White representatives in this Parliament?

Why not try it?

I know that is an experiment which those hon. members would like to make, but do they think it would be successful? Do they think that those increasing numbers would be satisfied with eight White representatives in this Parliament? Even the most optimistic among them know that that will not happen. They know that if the policy of the Government fails, the policy which will triumph will be that of Black domination in South Africa. Then the policy of Luthuli and Mandela will triumph. Surely they must know that. The hon. member for Innesdale has given us clear proof of that, and none of them has dared to controvert those arguments. I want to give further proof that this is so. Last year the hon. member for Yeoville said at a meeting in Rondebosch that the measure of development which will be attained by each race in South Africa will determine their representation in Parliament. It is no longer eight; he is now applying quite a different norm. On a previous occasion, when the hon. member was talking to foreign newspapermen, he also said that the Progressives broke away from them because those people were in too much of a hurry to attain their final goal. It is not a question of a difference in approach and objectives, but just a question of the speed at which these things should be achieved. [Time limit.]

It is noticeable that every time the Opposition directs specific criticism against the Government, criticism which is based on the reality of the situation, we get a certain reaction from the Government side which has almost become standard pattern. They leave the reality of the situation completely aside and there is no attempt whatsoever to deal intelligently with the difficulties raised. Instead of dealing intelligently with the problem a flood of exaggerations is flung at the heads of the Opposition. Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition, like other speakers to-day, dealt very really with the difficulties connected with the Government’s policy of removing the Bantu, not only from the Western Province, but from all the cities of South Africa. I wonder why the emphasis is placed on the Western Cape because the problem here is appreciably smaller than in the rest of the country. A Government newspaper recently wrote as follows—

Why do hon. members not tackle the position in Johannesburg? Why are they tackling it in the Western Cape where the position is much less serious? But apart from that, my point is this that when you consider the speeches which have come from both sides of the House, you find that instead of hon. members on that side getting up and dealing pertinently with problems connected with the removal and showing the country that they can cope with those problems, their reaction is continually to attack the Opposition on grounds which do not exist. The charge against the Opposition is that they want to attract everything that is Black in South Africa, man, woman and child, from the reserves and establish them in the cities and each one must have freehold title. Instead of dealing with the real problems they lay a charge. That is a very easy way of evading a problem, Sir, but it solves nothing. The policy of the Opposition in respect of the Bantu, is a balanced policy. To prove what I am saying let me read three points which cover the whole situation from the election manifesto of the Opposition during the last general election in 1961. The very first point is this: “We believe in the large-scale and speedy economic, social and constitutional development of the Bantu areas… with the assistance of White capital, ingenuity and skill”. That is point No. 1, and anybody who deals with one part of the policy and not the rest is not honest. We say that the only basis on which the reserves can be made viable is along the road of large-scale development with the assistance of White capital and skill, otherwise it is ridiculous to talk about sucking the Bantu back from the cities to the reserves because by what process must the Bantu be attracted there? The point of view which this side advocates is the only point of view which will actually relieve the pressure on the cities. The first point in our policy is, therefore, that practical steps must be taken to relieve the pressure of the Bantu on the cities. It is not only the United Party which advocates that attitude. The Tomlinson Commission advocated it and the hon. the Minister signed that report. Sabra advocates it. Not a single responsible organization in South Africa which is interested in matters of this nature look at the matter differently from this side of the House but the Government consistently refuses to face squarely up to these facts and the realities of the situation. That is why our problems worsen before our eyes instead of improving and until such time as the Government removes the big blind spot in their political vision they will continue to solve problems on paper without improving the position in practice. I say that, seen in its true perspective, the attitude of the Opposition is firstly the large-scale development of the Bantu areas so as to relieve the pressure on the cities. We then come to the second point in our manifesto and that is in connection with the urban Bantu: “We acknowledge the existence of an established Bantu class in our urban areas”. Not all of them who are here; we know that we also have migrant labour here, but as far as the urban Bantu are concerned, we acknowledge the existence of an established class and as far as they are concerned we endeavour to have matters handled in a more proper way. I repeat it is not only the United Party which subscribes to the point of view that there is an established Bantu class in the cities. The Prime Minister has received a memorandum from five important organizations in South Africa such as the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut, the Association of Chambers of Commerce of South Africa, the Federated Chambers of Industry, the Federation of Steel and Machine Industries of South Africa, and the Transvaal and Free State Chamber of Mines, people who employ 1,500,000 Bantu. This is what they submitted to the Prime Minister—

Our remarks about and suggestions concerning the relaxation of those causes of friction are based on the following realistic observations:

I can also quote people like Dr. Geyer, chairman of Sabra, who said—

As an established group. Both he and Sabra are in favour of it that the established group should be treated differently. Take your ecclesiastics. A person like Professor Kotze of the Stellenbosch theological college recently said the following—

He himself points out that there is a class of established Bantu which must be treated differently. What is interesting in Professor Kotze’s statement is this: He says that if you associate the forceful removal of people with the development of the reserves and the homelands, you are going to turn the Bantu homelands into “a humiliating sign that they have been refused elsewhere”. The policy of the Government endangers their own concept of Bantu homelands and makes the idea unpopular because it is associated with the large-scale removal, the kicking out, of the Bantu from the urban areas. [Time limit.]

I just want to tell the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) that the attacks of hon. members on the other side have assumed a standard form. From time to time they repeat what has taken place in this House in every debate in connection with the colour policy—the same old story and the same old tune that is repeated over and over again. The trouble with the Opposition is that they are so shortsighted; they are suffering from political myopia. They are only concerned about the present and the immediate results of the implementation of the policy of the Government in connection with the removal of the Bantu from the Western Cape and from the rest of the White part of our country. They deliberately refrain from getting down to the roots, the crux of the problem. They are like a man wanting to remove a tree and then standing on the roof of a building and pulling off a branch here and there instead of attacking the roots with pick and shovel. The hon. member says that they are following the only balanced policy. He says that the first point in their manifesto is that large-scale economic development must take place in the Bantu areas by means of White capital, but no mention is made in that manifesto of whether their policy is aimed thereby at drawing the Bantu from the White areas back to the Bantu areas. The hon. member has nothing to say about this. That is why I cast this back in his face and say that it is only intended to be a fruitful investment field for selfish capitalists to exploit the Bantu there. In the second place he says that they admit that there is an established middle class of Bantu in the White areas, particularly around the cities, and that their policy has in mind an improvement in the position of those Bantu who will have to live in the White areas permanently. This is the poisonous sting in the tail of their policy —giving permanent residence to the Bantu in the urban areas, in the Western Province and throughout our whole country. To my mind the established urban Bantu population will be the nail in the coffin of White civilization in our country, unless those people are swiftly removed. It is quite untrue that the Bantu who are settled in and around our cities are not willing to return to the Bantu areas. I can mention numbers of examples from my experience as a missionary and even after that stage, of leading literate and academically trained Bantu, Bantu with degrees who have written to me recently to the effect that they are doing their level best to find a place to live in their homeland. The following is the type of thing that is said: Sir, we do not want to remain in the White urban areas once we retire and start growing older. We want to return to our own homeland. These are people who have been born and bred in the urban areas but who are still anchored to their own national life and still have connections with their own ethnic national units. As I said at the start the actual question that must be answered is this: What will be the eventual results of the policy of the Opposition of keeping the Bantu here and of throwing open our doors even wider to a continuous stream of Bantu? What implications will this have in the future? I said at the start that the Opposition are concerned about the immediate results and implications. They are concerned about the shortage of labour forces in our various industries and fear general economic disruption. This is the only reason why they so oppose the policy of the Government. The material interests of the industries and the employers in the White areas are their only concern. Should we not rather ask what policy we should follow in order to ensure the survival of a White civilized identity, of a Western Christian White cultural nation in this country? Is that not the question to which we must give a definite reply? When we answer that question we must not look at the immediate results. We must certainly look further; we must look to the future. The question is not whether the policy is practicable or whether the Government will succeed. The Government must succeed and we must all assist in ensuring the survival and continued existence of the White people in this country. The Opposition are staring blindly at considerations that are really of secondary importance. The Government is approaching the primary question that must be answered, the actual problem that must be solved, the eventual struggle that will have to be waged. What is the first implication of the Opposition’s policy? If the Bantu stay in the Western Province, if they are to be permitted to stream into the White cities unchecked, will the White minority be able to prevent the Bantu residential areas bursting their seams like a young boy outgrowing his clothes? And once they have crossed the boundaries of the steadily growing and expanding locations, once they have crossed those boundaries, will the Whites or the Opposition be able to prevent them encroaching upon all spheres of our society? Their superior numbers will not merely result in encroachment, but the fact is that the White people will be intruded upon in all spheres. That is where the danger lies. Mr. Chairman, I have a few questions to which the United Party must give their attention. These are questions that I want to quote from a book “Race and Reason” by Carlton and Putnam. These are questions that were put to the White House in the struggle of the southern United States against the integration policy of the north. Amongst others, the following questions are asked—

This is one of the questions that hold good for the future for our country as well. The second question is—

These are questions that are real as far as our future is concerned. The word “Bantu” should simply be submitted for “Negroes”. The third question is—

This is the final question which I think also merits attention—

I want the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) to listen to this particularly—

When we consider the colour problem and the application of the policy of the Government in contrast to the policy of integration of the Opposition, then questions of this nature are important. These form the foundation of a structure that has to be strongly built, that has to be protected so that our White way of life and our Christian political economy will not eventually be undermined. [Time limit.]

I just want to say this to the hon. member who has just sat down: It is a great pity that they adopt the attitude that the investment of White capital in the reserves of necessity means exploitation. It is inherent in the capitalistic system that when capital is used it is used for development—the question of colour does not come into the picture—and as time goes on the local population benefit from it. South Africa was developed to a great extent by British capital, but as time went on South Africans were given a share and in many cases they subsequently took over. But if the hon. member is against Capitalism I must take it that he is closer to Socialism and also much closer to Communism.

You are distorting my intention.

On a point of order, is the hon. member entitled to say to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout “You are distorting my intention”?

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir.

If the hon. member rejects the capitalist system…

I did not reject it.

On a point of order, is the hon. member for Bezuidenhout entitled to say that if the hon. member rejects the capitalist system he is a great deal closer to Communism?

I said in that case he was closer to Socialism and that Socialism was closer to Communism.

No, that is not what you said.

Order!

Mr. Chairman, I said previously that there was not a responsible body in South Africa which did not accept that there was an established Bantu class in our cities and that it would be wise and in the interests of the Whites, if not in the interests of the Bantu alone, to treat those Bantu in such a way that there was not an upsurge of resistance to and dissatisfaction with the White man. Surely it is obvious that if there is an established Bantu community in the cities, which there is and which nobody can deny, people who were born in the cities and who grew up there, surely it is better to treat that established class in such a way that you do not allow them to become a dissatisfied and loose proletariat which is disinterested and dissatisfied. That is the attitude of this side and that was why we stated that as the third point in our election manifesto: “We are in favour of controlled freehold title in the case of responsible urbanized Bantu.” That is our policy and also as far as this point is concerned the majority of responsible people in the country subscribe to the attitude of the Opposition. Let me come to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration. He made a speech in connection with border industries and in connection with the Bantu there some time ago but the principle which he discussed remained the same throughout. He said this (I have the English version here)—

Where was that?

At Rosslyn—

The point he makes is that the man who has his own house “acquires a sense of responsibility”. And that is true. I can likewise quote the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs. In a recent speech of his he said that the most effective way of combating Communism—he was talking about Coloureds but the principle remains the same—was to give every man his own house so that he could feel that he had a right to that property and that the maintenance of law and order was in his interest. You should just listen to the lectures of Professor A. H. Murray, Sir, who is not a supporter of this side of the House and who analysis Communism over the radio and the question of how grievances come into existence. He too will tell you that the person who owns his own property and who has security and stability is the least susceptible to Communism. Our attitude is that the person who is established in an urban area, where he is in any case going to live permanently, should be placed in a position of acquiring controlled freehold title. I am now talking about the established class, not about persons who are temporarily in an urban area. Mr. Chairman, it is for the very reason that we want to safeguard the position of the White man, it is for the very reason that we want to give satisfaction, because we do not want to give Communism a foothold, that we plead for it that these steps be taken in respect of those people who are permanently in the cities. It does not avail the hon. member to talk about Christian Western civilization if our deeds are not such that we remain Western and act like Christians in what we do. I think the time has arrived for the Government to realize that it is creating a dangerous situation in South Africa with its policy and all its misguided ideologies, a position which will cost the White man of this country dearly. You cannot suppress people indefinitely. You cannot continually rub people up the wrong way; you cannot continually remove rights; you cannot continually create uncertainty and bitterness against the White man and think that in the long run it will not have an adverse effect on the White man in the country. The fact of the matter is that dissatisfaction uncertainty and bitterness amongst the better class of established Bantu in our cities is mounting dangerously and because of the actions of the Government it is unfortunately mounting against all the Whites. We have already witnessed some of the unfortunate effects. I think the Government must bear the responsibility for these things. I have no doubt about it that the day will arrive when the people will make the Government pay for what it is to-day making South Africa pay.

Before I sit down I want to ask the hon. the Minister a question: As far back as November 1960 he issued a Press statement in which he said he had decided to appoint a committee to revise all the laws and regulations concerning Bantu in “White areas” with a view to—and I quote—“eliminating all irritating measures, and eliminating all measures which cause unnecessary hardship to the Bantu”. That was a ghastly admission on the part of a member of the Cabinet, namely, that he and his party and his policy were responsible not only for hardships but for unnecessary hardships, and that is still the position. Well, that statement was made in 1960 and I want to ask the hon. the Minister in all seriousness what progress he has made with the elimination or irritating measures and the elimination of unnecessary hardships which adversely affect the attitude towards the White man in South Africa. I hope we shall get a pertinent reply to that because the impression is that far from those things having been removed, a terrific number of hardships are still experienced, particularly in the urban Bantu population.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) has said a few things to which I want to react briefly. At the end of his speech, before he put the question to the Minister, he said the day would arrive when the nation would also call upon the Government to give an account of its deeds in the implementation of its policy.

Hear, hear!

I am very pleased that that hon. member says “hear, hear”. That day arrives every five years; as a matter of fact it arrives twice every five years and recently it arrived four years in succession and on every occasion the electorate have indicated in a clearer voice what its attitude is and how they support the Government in the implementation of this policy. The Opposition has, however, been called to account as far as its colour policy is concerned and look at them to-day, Sir. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout goes from constituency to constituency and from party to party in order to remain in Parliament. That is what happens when the nation acts as judge and when the nation judges the two policies in South Africa; a matter of which policy will determine the race relations in South Africa, that paramount task which has been entrusted to this Parliament. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout has once again pleaded for a settled responsible Bantu group in South Africa and that that settled responsible group should be allowed the right of ownership. He quoted Professor Murray, inter alia, who gave lectures over the radio and who analysed and dealt with Communism. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout pointed out that Professor Murray was also of the opinion that if a person owned land he was less susceptible to communist ideologies. I want to put this question to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout: Why must that person of necessity own land in somebody else’s country? [Laughter.] Hon. members may laugh but I had hoped that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout would to-day give us the yardstick with which his party was going to measure the sense of responsibility of that settled group. The hon. member wants us believe that he is pleading for the rights of the Bantu. I want to know from him why he who is always attacking and accusing the National Party Government of discrimination wishes to discriminate between Bantu and Bantu? Why does he and the United Party want to discriminate between Bantu and Bantu?

To what are you referring?

I am referring to the statement made by the hon. member that you must have a certain responsible settled group of Bantu in South Africa who can own land.

Not “must have”—who is already there.

Why does the hon. member want to discriminate and why does he not tell us what his yardstick will be? How is he going to decide when a Bantu is a responsible Bantu? What is his yardstick going to be; what aptitude test is he going to apply? Where must he own land, in Bezuidenhout and Houghton and Parktown or where? Does the hon. member also want to give the big financial interests in South Africa the right to buy Bantu land in the Bantu homelands and in Bantu areas and live there? In other words, if the policy of the United Party is implemented all colour bars must disappear in South Africa, then all residential colour bars must disappear in South Africa; that is what the United Party is striving for.

Nonsense.

I want to say this to-day: When we listen to the speeches which hon. members opposite make in this House—we have been hearing these speeches over the past 15 years.…

And we get no replies.

What reply does the hon. member want? The hon. the Minister has gone out of his way to reply to every statement that has been made here. I realize that it is not really necessary for us to devote much time to an attempt to analyse the colour policy of the United Party. His policy is so vague that you can easily believe in it; his policy is that type of happy-go-lucky policy where you need not report to anybody, where you need not assume any responsibility. That reminds me of the old Native boy who got married, because, as he said, he wants to sleep warmly in winter and sit in the shade of his old wife in summer. We realize that it is the duty of the governing party to carry out the mandate it has received from the electorate. Let the United Party and South Africa and the Western civilization take note of this that the biggest catastrophe that can befall the White man in South Africa, which can befall Western civilization, will be the day when the United Party, with that vague policy of theirs, come into power in South Africa. I repeat this statement: The biggest catastrophe that can befall Western civilization will be the day when the policy of the United Party is put in operation in South Africa. There are many problems and difficulties attached to the application of our policy; I admit that. It has, however, become a challenge to South Africa and unlike the United Party, we are not following the road of complete surrender, a road on which the pace will be accelerated, but on behalf of the White Western civilization and the Western world the National Party accepts this challenge. The United Party knows that what I am saying here is true. The Western world cannot afford this last bastion of White Western civilization in Africa to be handed over to the aborigines. Even the Western world realizes that. The time has arrived that my hon. friends opposite also realize that. We do not regard this as a petty political game. We, as well as some members on that side, regard this is a matter of the utmost importance. We can debate this subject. I want to say this that I am convinced that if the solution of our colour problem lies in the policy of the United Party. I shall support that policy. I do not support a political party in order to glorify that party but I use an instrument as a weapon in my hand.…

Then you are doing what I am doing.

No, I am not doing what you are doing. Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has now put all four of his feet into it. I made the distinct qualification that I did not support a political party in order to glorify that party but that I used an instrument which is embodied and contained in a policy of a party. I know the hon. member for Bezuidenhout cannot say that. We use that policy in the first instance—and the hon. member for Houghton should take note of this—to establish the rights of the White man here but at the same time also to provide the Bantu a means of livelihood in his own homeland. Never before in the history of the world has a nation had the opportunity of growing and developing into an independent nation which the Bantu have under the guardianship and guidance of the White man in South Africa. To us it is a question of morality. That is why we are giving that guidance; that is why we are offering that assistance. What we are not prepared to do is to give this country, which the White man has built up and which is his property and which will be the property of our children in future, over to the Black man without striking a blow like the United Party and the Progressive Party are prepared to do. If the Opposition suffer from the illusion that they are going to share this country equally with the Black man they are making a very big mistake. They will not possess a common fatherland in which they as a minority will have a say. The Black man will govern and they will hand it over to the Black man without striking a blow. [Time limit.]

I disagree with what the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Mr. G. P. v. d. Berg) has said. Of course I disagree. He knows what my attitude is towards the development of South Africa as a multi-racial country in which the economic resources of the country are brought to their full potential to the benefit of everybody in this country. I consider an African born in South Africa as a citizen of South Africa and not a citizen of another country, unlike his attitude which contemplates some distant partition of South Africa, starting with the Transkei and ending with the Transvaal, part of Zululand, and goodness knows where. I do not think he will find his views that no other nation has had a greater opportunity to develop than the Bantu race in this country, shared by many people outside of the Nationalist Party.

You are the biggest political enemy of this country.

I am also not very interested in the hon. member’s personal observations about my political morality or objectives.

I want to draw a specific matter to the attention of the hon. the Minister. I want to know whether anything can be done about instructing his officials to apply the influx control and pass law measures with some degree of leniency. We have had a lot of talk in this House about instructions having been given to the Police Force to act with moderation. We have had statements that now that African women have to carry passes the greatest care will be exercsied—this comes from the Department of Information—to see to it that women are not subjected to pass raids and the same sort of treatment to which their menfolk had been subjected in the past. I want to ask the hon. the Minister if he can do anything about seeing to it, for instance, where ordinary offences under the pass laws are concerned, such as not carrying registration books, such severe sentences are not imposed by his Bantu Commissioners. I know he does not want to interfere with an ordinary court of law which has given a verdict and passed a sentence. But I must draw his attention to the real appalling type of justice which is being meted out in certain of the Bantu Commissioners’ courts in this country for ordinary pass offences. I refer particularly to the cases which have come up over the last few months in Port Elizabeth. I asked the hon. Minister some time ago, on 27 February whether he could give me some information about the amount levied in fines by Bantu Commissioners’ courts for offences under the Abolition of Passes Act and influx control regulations, the aggregate terms of imprisonment served and the number of juveniles caned. The answer was that owing to the enormous amount of work involved the Minister could not give me this information. Sir, I can well believe that, because so many people are being convicted under the pass laws and so many juveniles are being caned. I think the time has arrived for the Minister to exercise his authority to see that some tolerance is used by his officials in implementing these pass laws. I can think of nothing worse for race relations and nothing more calculated to exacerbate racial friction in South Africa than the implementation of these laws and the excessive caning of youths for a simple statutory offence of not carrying a registration book. Last year we heard of a dreadful case in this House of a youth who had been severely caned. I want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the fact that in Port Elizabeth sentences ranging from R15 or 15 days to as high as R50 or 50 days, and sometimes even as high as R90 or 90 days, for the failure to produce reference books or permits, have been levied, and that youths have been sentenced to up to eight cuts. Over a period of nine weeks the Bantu Affairs Court at Port Elizabeth imposed on 316 men and 47 women fines totalling R11,206 or 13,307 days; 74 youths and 25 young men were sentenced to receive a total of 640 cuts. I am not against corporal punishment per se. I can see that it has a use against thugs who go around assaulting other people; I can see that it has a use to deter vicious criminals from acting against any member of society. But I cannot by any stretch of the imagination see why cuts have to be imposed on youths for statutory pass offences. I cannot see what possible good that can do. The hon. Minister’s Advisory Board in New Brighton has asked that something be done about these dreadful sentences that are being inflicted on Bantu youths. They have asked that some sort of clemency be exercised in the implementation of the pass laws. I urgently ask the Minister to do something in this matter, despite the fact that I know that he does not like to interfere with ordinary sentences. I normally would hesitate to ask him to do so, but in these cases which come up over and over again with startling regularity in this particular court I think the hon. the Minister ought to intervene. I think he should also try to find out what is happening in the other Commissioners’ courts throughout South Africa. There are certain courts where sentences are inflicted at the rate of one every two minutes. I have seen that in some of the courts that I have attended. Very often the man who acts as the interpreter takes it upon himself to play the role of prosecutor. He does not explain to the man in the box that he has certain rights and that he can plead his cause. He takes on the role of the prosecutor; he talks harshly to the man. I hope the Minister will do something about the whole implementation of the pass laws, of which I profoundly disapprove anyway, as he knows. I think he should particularly give his attention to the way in which these Bantu Commissioners’ courts are conducted. When you go into one of those courts you are reminded of a sausage machine. Hundreds of Africans come up in court at Fordsburg or Wynberg for instance; it takes two minutes to have the whole matter interpreted and dealt with and the verdict is: R10 or 10 days; R20 or 20 days. So it goes on over and over again. I think, Sir, there is nothing more calculated to engender racial friction in South Africa than the way in which these case are heard and the way in which these sentences are levied.

The Advisory Board in Port Elizabeth, according to a newspaper cutting, had an interview with the Chief Bantu Affairs Commissioner. According to the report, the Chief Bantu Commissioner told the board that the sentences were not severe as the maximum fine for failure to produce a permit or reference book was R100. I cannot believe that this is correct. As far as I know, according to the Abolition of Passes Act, the maximum penalty is supposed to be R20 or one month for failure to produce or failure to be in possession of a permit or reference book. Where fraud or deception is involved and so on, the maximum penalty is R100 or six months. To give the impression that the sentence for failure to produce a reference book can be as high as R100 is surely a misconception. I hope the Minister will take that matter up.

Having mentioned that I want to ask the hon. the Minister if there is any minimum age at all governing the employment of Bantu males or females in any branch of employment, other than the Factories Act, but in domestic service and on farms this arises out of a case which I am sure the Minister must have seen reported in the Press, where a boy of 11, who was reported to have been a domestic servant, was in fact thrashed to death. Are there no regulations at all governing the employment of African children? Or can anybody employ any child provided he is Black in any type of employment other than those covered under the Factories Act or in the mines where I know certain regulations govern their employment? This was another matter I wanted to raise with the Minister.

The third matter I want to raise is that of an African who was born in South Africa. He then went to England and became a British citizen; he acquired British citizenship and he took out a British passport. He then came back to visit South Africa. While he was here he was arrested for not having a pass-book. He informed the court that he had been told at South Africa House that as he had a British passport it would not be necessary for him to carry a registration book in this country provided he was only here for a short time. [Time limit.]

I am sorry but I shall not be able to reply fully in the short time at my disposal to the hon. member who has just sat down. I just want to give her this assurance that she and the Opposition need not be concerned that the Bantu Commissioner courts which handle these matters do so in an inhuman way. The hon. member can rest assured that these Bantu Commissioner courts who gain experience daily in just this type of case are probably some of the most sympathetic courts in the country. I cannot give further details at this stage.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) is not here because I actually got to my feet to accept his challenge. He challenged any member on the Government side to say that the Government was prepared to allow capital to enter the Bantu areas in order to develop those areas. I rise, not only to accept that challenge hut to tell him that the Government has already accepted that challenge. The hon. member must not be so childish as to think that the Government will apply that policy in accordance with Opposition mentality. This also applies to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson).

Private capital.

I just want to tell the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that the hon. member for Yeoville spoke about the admission of capital. He did not qualify it. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout now notices the pitfail and he qualifies it by saying private capital. Let me tell the hon. member that when he sat on this side of the House he was very enthusiastic at that time to justify this attitude. [Interjections.] Yes, he was here in 1956. Was the hon. member for Bezuidenhout the then member for Namib, not a member of the governing party in 1956? If he wants to imply with his interjection that he was a half-hearted member I want to tell him that he should show better political etiquette towards that side of the House to-day. We had a White Paper on the Tomlinson Report in 1956. Paragraph 9 of that White Paper says the following on connection with the development of industries in Bantu areas—

The Whites are not always exploiters, Mr. Chairman. There were and there are probably still some Whites who exploit the Bantu but the Bantu must also be protected against White competition.

Tariff protection?

I hope the hon. member will maintain his good manners and give me a chance to speak. It is stated clearly here that the Government will assist the small Bantu entrepreneur by making capital available. I say we have already accepted this so-called challenge. The Government has already proved that it allowed capital on a corporative basis into those Bantu areas and will continue to allow as much in as practically possible.

How much?

Do you hear that, Mr. Chairman? Now they are not asking “which”. When we say how much they ask when; when we say when they ask why. You never get them to concede a fundamental point. It appears from this White Paper that if necessary a development board will be established later on. The hon. member ought to know that there is already an Investment Corporation to canalize capital in a corporative manner, as I have already said. Money has been voted here and money has also been obtained from Bantu undertaking to be made available there. When the hon. the Prime Minister spoke about the Transkeian project last year in this House he said that a development board would be established. He held out that prospect. I just want to tell the Opposition that they must not think that the Government has run out of methods to develop the Bantu areas internally, not only constitutionally but economically as well. The difference between us and other territories in Africa, for which hon. members opposite have such a high regard, is that we are not prepared to pour everything at the same time into the well in buckets full. It is being done in such a way that the Bantu can absorb it and so that it will have constructive results. In the third paragraph of this White Paper reference is made to the possible establishment of Bantu and Bantu trust undertakings. As far as the internal development of the Bantu areas are concerned, by means of making capital available, it is definitely the policy of the Government—it has proved that this is its policy—not to allow individual White private capital there. If we were to allow that, apart from the competitive angle to which I have referred and the exploitation angle to which members opposite have referred, we shall be faced with this problem that the position in the Transkei or in Zululand or whichever area it may be will be made impossible for the Bantu and that the position of the Government, as far as the implementation of its policy is concerned, will be made all the more impossible. Is that what the Opposition wants? The hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) is at the forefront as far as that is concerned. Those White people who have interests in the Transkei are now encouraged, inter alia, by the hon. member for Transkeian Territories, to make the position as difficult as possible for the Government. The Opposition wants us to allow even more Whites into the Bantu area and more capital so that the problem of converting it into a Pantu state will become even more difficult. That is what they want. We shall not do it. The capital for the internal development of the Bantu areas is there; it is already being canalized. Just compare the figures in respect of the five year plan, Sir, and you will be struck by the increasing rate at which capital has been made available. That five year plan is a direct undertaking by the Department. Then you still have the Bantu Investment Corporation and the prospect of what is still to come. The flow of capital is there. It is not there, however, according to the recipe of the United Party because in that case we shall be undermining our own policy. That is of course what they want.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout quoted from a speech of mine. Of course I said it; I stand by every word I said at Rosslyn. I pointed out the value of freehold title as far as the Bantu was concerned: we do not begrudge him that; we assist him to acquire it, inter alia, by making capital available to him, inside his own homelands, so that he can achieve permanency for himself there.

As far as the presence of the Bantu in White areas is concerned, the United Party must realize that there is a radical difference between their basis and out basis. Reference has been made to the increase in the numbers. The hon. member for Yeoville made a great fuss about it to-day. We have been saying right from the start that in view of the fact that you cannot solve overnight the problem of a few hundred years’ development or of a few score years of intensive development, we envisaged that, with the accompany development in White areas, there would be an increase in numbers. We have never denied that. But we said that our first objective was to put an end to the old process. I am pleased to hear that hon. members opposite know that because they are already saying in advance that had we not stopped that process there would have been many more Bantu in the White areas than there are in reality. But, and this is the big difference, we know that the United Party want the Bantu in the White areas and that they should be entitled to all the rights which the Whites have, together with the right to own land and the right of citizenship which are the two most important in this connection. We say no. As far as this is concerned ours is not a lonely voice in the wilderness. This is nothing new. It is traditional in South Africa. There are old recommendations and not recommendations of people who ever subscribed to the National Party’s point of view. I now want to read something to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and other hon. members opposite. [Time limit.]

The argument which arises is whether the Native reserves should be developed with White capital and White initiative so as to become a greater sucking power in that area and so as to ease the pressure, as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout put it, on the White cities. The hon. the Minister did not reply to that question. We are told by the Tomlinson Commission report and other prominent businessmen that if we want to develop those areas into areas where the Bantu can make a decent living we must allow the White man there with his capital and his initiative. If the hon. the Deputy Minister is serious about developing those areas and to ease the pressure surely he knows that the State is not in a position to undertake the development of the Bantu areas by itself. Surely the hon. the Deputy Minister knows that White entrepreneurs and big companies in Holland, according to Mr. Anton Rupert, are allowed to invest capital in areas belonging to Holland in other parts of the world. If that were allowed here we would have a share in that part of the country and thus help them to develop it. With their labour and our initiative and capital we shall be serving South Africa as a whole. That is what we want. Why does the hon. the Minister not want the capital of the White man in that area? Because he knows it is the policy of his Government ultimately to make that part of South Africa a separate and independent state. They refuse to allow White South Africans there but if they have estranged independent states foreigners will in the course of time invest capital in those areas. They will not be able to prevent it. Those people will be free to do what they want in that area. That is why the Minister and this Government refuse to allow the White man of South Africa to invest his capital in that area.

I want to raise another matter which I have already raised before. The hon. the Minister tells us that the Bantu has already ousted the Coloured in the Western Cape. That was why the Native came to the western Cape Province. They have ousted the Coloureds from their work here. That is the reason why the hon. the Minister feels sorry for the poor Coloured who is still in the Western Cape and who has no work to do. But what are the facts? The fact is that there are approximately 300,000 Coloureds east of the Eiselen line; 300,000 Coloureds are living there. Did they perhaps go there to oust the Bantu? Why did the Bantu not oust them there as well? Does the hon. the Minister not know that over the past centuries the Bantu have increased in cities like Port Elizabeth and Uitenhage by the hundreds. Why have they not ousted the Coloureds there? Why does a place like Port Elizabeth have 60,000 Coloureds employed in its industrial life today? They have not been ousted although the number of Bantu has increased. But the Minister says that the Bantu came into the Western Cape and ousted the Coloured. If the policy is to bring the Coloureds of the eastern Cape Province to the Western Province to take the place of the Bantu whom they are going to send back I want to put this pertinent question to the hon. the Minister: What is he and his Government going to offer to a city like Port Elizabeth and to an industrial area such as Uitenhage? Who is going to take the place of the 60,000 Coloureds in Port Elizabeth if they are to be moved here? Who is going to take the place of the other 240,000 Coloureds who are on the other side of the Eiselen line? Will it be Bantu? Will Port Elizabeth be allowed to employ Bantu in the place of those Coloureds who are to be moved here? Will that be his policy? Will he tell those people that their future is assured as far as the labour market is concerned? Surely the hon. the Minister realizes that the industrial development in the Eastern Province is based on the availability of the Bantu and the Coloureds whom we have there and if they want to move those people from the Eastern Province to the Western Province who is going to take their place? The Minister must answer that question before he tells us that his policy is to move all Bantu from the Western Province. What will be the position of those people and what will be the position of the farmers in the Eastern Province who are to-day employing thousands of Coloureds? Will they be allowed to employ Bantu? If the hon. the Minister allows them to employ Bantu then he is not solving anything; he will then be making the Western Province Whiter but the Eastern Province Blacker. I ask the hon. the Minister this: By making the Western Cape Whiter and the Eastern Province Blacker what is the Government solving in the Cape Province? We are entitled to replies to these questions before the Minister carries out his policy further of moving the Bantu from the Western Province.

I just want to say a few words in respect of the speech of the previous speaker in connection with the so-called ghost stories about foreign capital from overseas for the ultimate independent Bantu states.

Ghost stories?

Yes, a real ghost story. Hon. members opposite must understand this very well that there must be no confusion of concept in regard to the way they look at the Bantu homelands and the way we look at them. We see the Bantu homelands as homelands. Surely the word “homeland” is a clear conception. All the rights of the Bantu, all the things that he can lay claim to, and all his chances of development will be there without White competition and if they are capable of it they can ultimately develop into independence. That is what we have been saying over and over again. We say it outside and we are getting more and more support.

Let us take the assumption of the hon. member of the “ultimate”. We are always prepared to talk about the ultimate end of our policy and its implications but the Opposition never want to argue or theorize about the ultimate end of their policy of race federation. I shall deal with that on another occasion. Let us deal with the ultimate end of our policy. Let us argue this point that they can ultimately be independent areas. In parenthesis, Sir, may I remind you that the United Party are always accusing us, in season and out of season, and saying that South Africa is attracting too little foreign capital from overseas. We must get more capital from overseas. But when it comes to the Bantu areas they do not want any foreign capital. That is a preposterous way of arguing. Why? Not because of the principle of foreign capital from overseas. It has nothing to do with that. No, they only raise that argument because it will be possible for them to exploit it to make the people outside afraid of a policy. That is all. They are not opposed to the principle that we should get foreign capital to develop the country. They are very much in favour of that because they are continually accusing us of not getting sufficient capital from overseas for the general development of South Africa.

Do you want them to get it from Russia?

I am coming to Russia. I want to take China as my example. We are not afraid of the implications of our policy. Hon. members opposite should, however, be consistent. They must not say that they welcome foreign capital from overseas as long as it comes in and then object strenuously to it when that capital goes into the Bantu areas. If foreign capital is intrinsically such a dangerous commodity they should also be afraid of capital from the Republic entering the Bantu areas. If they do not object to that they are politically dishonest. Supposing it happens, and supposing they become so independent that they get foreign capital from outside. Why does the United Party make the public believe that the foreign capital that will enter an independent Bantu area will come only from Russia or China or Cuba? Surely there is a Britain, surely there is a Switzerland, an America, a France and a Germany; surely there are numerous other countries? Why do they always hold up the darkest side; why do they always see the goriest ghosts? The whole trend of the arguments of the United Party is perfectly clear. It is not a question of whether or not foreign capital should be allowed. They are concerned with frightening the people with that argument; they want to exploit that argument for purely political gain but they are not succeeding. We believe, and this is the genuine truth of our policy, this is its moral basis—the Opposition are so quick to talk about a moral basis—that because of this wonderful positive policy of uplifting the Bantu in the Bantu areas, economically, educationally, agriculturally, politically and in every other respect, and because we arc going to give further guidance to the Bantu until he has reached a stage where he will even be independent, that the Bantu will realize and understand that we as his guardian are well disposed towards him; that we are his best friend and his closest friendly neighbour. We believe that, in the circumstances, the Bantu who will be so capable, who will be so clever, who will be inherently so efficient as to reach the highest rung of the ladder as far as constitutional development is concerned, will not be so stupid as to overlook his closest friend but that he will also avail himself of our capital resources.

May I ask a question?

No, I am sorry. I only have ten minutes and the hon. member can speak when I have finished. I say that it is a matter of faith with us but that as far as the United Party is concerned it is a matter of just the opposite of faith. I am convinced that the Opposition will not move a finger to bring it home to the Bantu to-day that their best and most well disposed friend is not Russia or China or even Britain or America but the Republic of South Africa itself. We know the economic strength of South Africa. We are already in a position to meet 90 per cent of our own capital requirements. Why should we not be able, with the assistance of the dynamic force of Bantu development and the economic development of the border areas, to help to satisfy the capital requirements of the Bantu in their area? Hon. members opposite do not want that, however. They do not want to accompany us along that road. The Opposition tells us every day that they also believe in the internal development of the Bantu areas. We know they say it but they say it with a measure of insincerity because they do not believe in the internal development of the Bantu areas by the Bantu. They believe in the development of the Bantu areas for the Whites. That is what they believe in.

I was dealing with the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) a moment ago and I said that the basis on which we regarded the presence of the Bantu in the White areas differed from theirs. I said that our attitude was a very old attitude of the National Party. And not only of the National Party. I want to read from the “Report of the Local Government Commission” which sat under the chairmanship of Col. C. F. Stallard who was never a Nationalist. That commission brought out its report in 1921. In paragraph 267 it says the following in connection with the basis on which the Bantu is present in the White areas—

Later on in the report they enlarge on that and they specifically emphasize the attitude which we adopt to-day, an attitude which we claim to be a moral one, namely, that if work is available here for the Bantu let him come and work here but that that does not entitle him to civic rights or to a say in White South Africa. They are given employment and their jobs are protected. We are protecting the avenues of employment of the Bantu particularly by way of influx control, by legislation. Their employment is facilitated by way of the bureau system. The Bantu of South Africa are very grateful for that. I wish hon. members of the Opposition could have been present a month or two ago when I met a Bantu Committee from the urban Bantu residential area of a certain town in the Free State. I do not want to mention the name of the town otherwise they will incite the Bantu even further. Without my prompting him, the leader of that Bantu committee spontaneously got up and sang a paean of praise to the introduction of influx control. He pointed out its advantages as far as their houses, their wages and everything else which were there to ensure their own security and safety, were concerned. He said: Without that we will be flooded from Basutoland or other far-away areas in which case we shall not have proper houses or money or food for our children; we shall not have enough schools. He referred to all the problems which flowed from it. The Bantu realize that but hon. members opposite oppose it.

Oppose what?

The hon. member ought to know that his party does no longer subscribe to the attitude which they adopted in the ’forties when they applied a type of influx control, as the hon. member for Yeoville has indicated. Yes, they applied a type of influx. But how did it operate? Within three years, from 1945 to 1948, there were masses of slum dwellers in and around the White cities and we, as the new Government, had to clear up everything in 1948. That was the effect of the type of influx control which they applied.

We had to fight a war.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) changes his parties so often that he is not yet fully informed as to the policy of his most recent party. [Time limit.]

The hon. Deputy Minister in reply to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) said that the Africans in the eastern Cape would enjoy all their rights in the Bantustans, and he in fact makes no difference in his approach between the eastern Cape and the western Cape. Sir, the Eiselen Line must mean something. The hon. Minister of Bantu Administration and Development gave us a line yesterday stretching from Humansdorp right up to Colesberg and Namaqualand. What does that line mean? It surely means that the Coloureds must be brought across this line as suggested by the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. van Staden) the Coloureds beyond that line must be brought here in order to do the work which the Africans are at present doing in the western Cape. The Minister must tell us if that is his policy or not. Does he wish to attract or suck in the Coloureds from the eastern Cape into the western Cape to take the place of the Natives? Is that the policy, as suggested by the hon. member for Malmesbury? If not, why this line? The line suggests that it is recognized that Port Elizabeth and Uitenhage and the rest of the eastern Cape will have to rely on Native labour. And that African labour then surely must be permanent. Is the Government going to put the Africans beyond the Eiselen Line on a different basis from the Africans this side of the Eiselen Line? I think the hon. Minister must tell us that, because they will be there in a different capacity from the Africans living in the Western Cape.

In regard to the capital investment mentioned by the hon. Deputy Minister, I would like to point out that the United Party is not opposed to foreign investment in the Transkei or anywhere else. We are not opposed to foreign investment in the Transkei. We say that all capital must be allowed to go there, and our capital must be allowed to go there as well. What we object to is the fact that the White capital of the Republic is not allowed to go into the Transkei, and what we are warning against is that if our capital is not allowed to go into the Transkei, if they cannot get capital from us, they will get it from somewhere else. And because investment under the circumstances proposed by the Government will not be economic as far as the reserves are concerned, it will be Russia and China who will invest there for political reasons. The Western countries look for economic investment, and what we fear is that investment may take place there for political reasons.

Sir, when I spoke just now I was dealing with the administration of the urban areas, and I pointed out that the administration has been taken out of the hands of the local authorities. My authority for that is a statement by the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration at Potchefstroom the other day, when he pointed out that the source of Bantu Administration was the State, which meant the Government of the Republic, and he pointed out that town councils and city councils were concerned only with executive duties in Bantu areas. He went on further to say “It simply cannot happen that the Bantu of one town or city are governed on a certain basis and those of another town or city on another basis, or that the policy be implemented piece-meal because of the existence of a variety in methods”. When he talks about the piece-meal application of policy, I suppose he means the policy adopted by all the local authorities must be uniform and that the Government will lay down what that policy is. All that the local authorities are going to become now is agents for the Government.

They always were.

No, they have not been agents for the Government. The Urban Areas Act has gradually been altered to make them agents, and now that the managers of these Native townships have to be licensed by the Government, the position of the local authorities becomes even worse, because it is only if the Government thinks that the managers are fit and proper persons that they will get the licence, and the fear is always there by the manager that if he does not do what the Government wants him to do, he may lose his licence.

The local authority officials are given less and less discretion and, Sir, the unscrupulous authorities are given wonderful opportunities for feathering their own nest in relation to Bantu Affairs. The hon. Minister knows what has been happening. We have seen recent reports of evidence given before the courts of the graft that has taken place because of the power that is now given to officials over the heads of the local authorities themselves. Poqo is a matter that is uppermost in the people’s minds at present, or at least was uppermost in the people’s minds a few months ago when we received the Snyman Commission’s Report, and in that report it was mentioned that Langa and Nyanga were the breeding grounds for Poqo, especially in the bachelor quarters. I want to refer to the conditions in Nyanga because of the fact that the Commissioner has referred especially to Langa and Nyanga as the breeding grounds for Poqo. Sir, what are the conditions under which the Africans live in these two areas? An old Native woman went to visit Langa the other day to see her son there. She intended spending the whole day there, but she spent two hours, and she told me that it was terrible out there. Admittedly it was a Saturday afternoon when the men were home from work. But she said: All you could see were men, all those bachelors in Langa, one mass of men, and she said “to see the women hanging about the bachelor quarters and to see them associating with those men there, was a shock to her. She asked me what is to happen to those people. That is the question we are asking the hon. Minister: What is to happen to these people who are being bred in those bachelor quarters? Sir, the whole social structure is crashing down through this system. The Minister referred yesterday to the conditions at Cook’s Bush where he found Native males living with Coloured girls under the bushes. But by establishing these huge bachelor quarters and denying the men the right to bring their wives here to live with them, he is in fact encouraging that type of living. He must encourage it. There may be Native women living with the men in their bachelor quarters in Langa, if they cannot find Native women they will go to Coloured women, and this Government is encouraging this kind of thing, the very thing that the hon. Minister says he wants to cure. I visited Langa the other day. What do we find there? You have a Native township established under desert conditions in that area. The Minister will know what the conditions are like there and I must say that I was very surprised and disheartened to see under what conditions people are living there. The township is administered by the Cape Divisional Council, but the Africans there are mostly employed in the northern suburbs. Now I said that this Government has gradually taken over the administration of Native townships and locations from the local authorities. All the local authorities can do now is to carry out Government policy.

Of course.

Well, if that is so, the Government must also be held responsible for the conditions there, and it is time that the Government did something to improve conditions at Nyanga. The northern suburbs and their municipalities boast of the fact that they have no Natives living in their municipal areas. Where are the Natives? They allow Natives to do the work in those areas, but they all live, have to live at Langa which is controlled by the Cape Divisional Council. I want to ask the hon. Minister to find out what these municipalities are doing to see that their labourers living at Langa get better facilities. I understand that permission has been given recently for the construction of a sewerage scheme.

Are you referring to the emergency camp?

No, I will get to the emergency camp, but I am now talking about Nyanga itself. I understand also that a new clinic has been built and that sports grounds are in the course of construction, under very difficult circumstances, because they have to try and build a sports ground on sand.

But before my time is up I want to deal with the transit camp referred to by the hon. Deputy Minister. There is a transit camp which consists of tin shacks on the site and service scheme. These Africans living in the transit camp were collected throughout the Cape Peninsula, outside the municipal area of Cape Town, and in fact also from the Cape Town Municipal area, and they were put in this transit camp on a temporary basis, but, Sir, those people have permits to live there, they have been given sites and are allowed to construct their own shacks. [Time limit.]

The Opposition says we must take note of the reality of the position in our country. They want to know why we start with removing the Bantu from the western Cape and why the irresponsible National Party Government is making a guinea pig of the poor Western Cape. I want them to tell me who brought the Bantu to the Western Cape. Under which Government did most of the Bantu come to the Western Cape? Was it not during the war period, in particular under the United Party Government? While they are pleading for the Coloured I want to tell them that it was the United Party who was responsible for it that the Coloureds were to a large extent ousted from their work by the Bantu and that the Coloureds have to a large extent become Africanized in the Western Cape because of the irresponsible actions of the United Party. If only the Opposition would open their eyes and face up to realities in Africa they would see what was happening there. Then the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Taurog). who is not present at the moment, will not ask, by way of interjection, why we do not want to “try” Black members in this House. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) said this afternoon that he was afraid the Transkei would go Black, or that the Eastern Province would go Black in favour of the Western Cape. I was under the impression that the very idea of Bantu homelands was that the Bantu should go there. He now sees this danger in it that the homelands will go Black, but that is precisely what this Government is aiming at.

When we think of the race riots in other African states and of the race riots even in a highly developed country like the United States of America with its 162,000,000 Whites against 20,000,000 Negroes, and we think of the extent of the race problem even in a country such as England where there are only 150,000 non-Whites as against 52,000,000 Whites, and we think of the measure of peace and quite which we still have in the Republic of South Africa with its 3,000,000 Whites as against 13,000,000 non-Whites, you come to the conclusion that the present Government has handled the Bantu problem in the Republic of South Africa in a masterly fashion. Furthermore when we think of the way in which White liberals have agitated in this country and the way in which agitators from outside have incited people here, we have to conclude that the present Government has handled the Bantu problem in this country very successfully.

We are fortunate in having a Prime Minister who, as Minister of Native Affairs, tackled this problem so courageously and stated this matter so clearly. We are also fortunate in that we have a Minister of Bantu Administration today who with faith and conviction is devoting himself to-day to this great task of solving this problem. The Bantu problem is surely the biggest problem of our country, and it will certainly be the most onerous task on the shoulders of any Government. In 1936 the two major political parties decided together to purchase a certain number of morgen of land for the Bantu and the present Government is to-day carrying on with that. It would have been much easier to tackle the Bantu problem had the two parties viewed it in the same light. It would have presented a so much better picture to the world outside and it would have created a so much better impression if we as Whites in this country could have seen eye to eye as far as this problem was concerned. Unfortunately that is not the position and the party who is in power to-day must accept the responsibility. And it is not afraid to assume that responsibility. The solution of this problem calls for tact and pluck and courage and perseverance. When I listened to the Leader of the Opposition I was pleased that I did not have a leader who had lost all courage, a leader who only saw the darkness and not a ray of light. In order to solve this problem we cannot recoil from the circumstances of the day. We must pull up our sleeves. We must not follow a policy of laissez faire, a policy of let us eat and be merry for to-morrow we die, because if we follow such a policy the White man in this country will surely go under and disappear. There is a solution to these problems and the Government is engaged on it, in contrast to the policy of the Opposition of uncontrolled influx and the granting of political rights in “so-called” White areas, as they say. Under that policy the White man must ultimately be overwhelmed by the Bantu. Had our forebears displayed the indifferent attitude which the Opposition is displaying to-day we would not have progressed beyond the Hottentots Holland mountains. The Opposition does not want their policy to be discussed. It is fortunate for us that they do not have a policy and that is why they will continue to sit in the Opposition benches. There is only one policy and that is the policy of the Government. As far as that policy is concerned the electorate of the country have on numerous occasions given instructions that we should persevere on the road on which we have set out. Because conditions have developed in this country over 300 years we cannot solve the Bantu problem within a space of one or ten years. It will take years to solve it. As is stated in the Tomlinson Report it will take time, but unfortunately the United Party understands that report only to the extent to which it suits them. The Opposition reproaches the Government because the number of Bantu in the cities is continually rising. If they are concerned about that, they have my sympathies, but they do it in a spirit of reproach and not in a good spirit. The Opposition must admit that under their policy the Bantu will be encouraged to flock to the cities by the idea that he will be granted property rights here and by allowing the wives and children to come here uncontrolled. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout quoted to us from a United Party pamphlet of the last election. It was because of the very Bantu policy from which he quoted to us that they got the terrific hiding which they did get at the last election. They are trying to cloud the whole issue, by foreseeing problems in connection with the acquisition of land and by arguing openly that the farmers must not sell their land. They foresee border difficulties and they say the Government must immediately define the borders whereas the Government is still acquiring land every year. [Time limit.]

I was dealing with the conditions at Nyanga and I was referring to the so-called transit camps mentioned by the Deputy Minister. I pointed out that these Bantu living in the transit camps built these houses themselves. They were given a site by the local authority and they built their shacks themselves of old iron and anything they could lay their hands on. On inquiring as to why there is this transit camp. I was told that when they entered the area of the Cape originally they apparently did so illegally, but then they got their families down to live with them and they were in employment, and so they were collected from all the Black spots and put into this camp. Apparently they are transferred from this camp to the permanent section of Nyanga when they qualify in terms of the present regulations, i.e. the ten-year and the 15-year rule. You can imagine the uncertainty among the people living there. To begin with, they do not know how long these qualifications will be allowed to stand, and the question is also when the qualifications began, and when they stop. It is suggested in some quarters that for ten years qualification only exists up to the time the Act was originally passed, and that after that they cannot qualify. The whole state of uncertainty there is reflected in the attitude of these people, and also at Langa. It is the uncertainty as to what is to happen to them. Will they be allowed to stay there or not, or will they will be endorsed out as soon as they lose their employment? When they are unemployed for more than 72 hours, they can be endorsed out. They also see that at the moment there is no building programme at Nyanga. The Minister passed an Act to see that local authorities do build suitable houses for the Bantu in the urban areas, and I want to pay tribute to the Minister and his Department for the fact that they have embarked on big housing schemes, but the success of the administration must be judged not by one or two townships, but as a whole, especially since the discretion has been taken out of the hands of the local authorities. If a local authority is faced with the fact that under Government policy Africans may be endorsed out, can you expect them to embark on big building schemes only to find later on that they are landed with white elephants because the houses are not occupied? There is a state of uncertainty at the moment throughout the Western Cape. Local authorities are not sure how long they will be allowed to keep their Native labour. The Minister cannot tell us what is happening there. He tells us what happened at Meadowlands and he takes people round Daveyton to show what is happening there, and he takes credit for it, but he must also take the blame for what happens in other areas. The Minister is responsible for the report of the Snyman Commission. The Commission found that the trouble was in these two townships. Has he taken steps to find out why it is that in these two townships particularly Poqo should be so rampant, and not on the Rand? The Commissioner has reported and I think it is un to the Minister to tell us now what he has done about it, to alleviate the threat of Poqo and to protect the law-abiding Native living in Langa and Nyanga, because let me assure him that the law-abiding Bantu there is worried. Mothers are worried about their sons living in bachelor establishments. It is the Minister’s responsibility. Once the report came out, it was not only the Minister of Justice who was responsible, but also this Minister who is supposed to be the father of the Africans. They are his wards and he must tell us what he is doing to alleviate conditions there. I particularly ask him to make it his responsibility to see that those northern municipalities do something for the labour on which they rely.

I think that the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) raised a hare unnecessarily when he referred to the speech of the hon. the Deputy Minister at Potchefstroom and alleged that the hon. the Deputy Minister is now trying to take away certain powers from local authorities. Sir, it is a recognized fact that city councils make no laws governing the Bantu. All those laws are still made by this Parliament and the city councils are merely the agents of the Government to implement those laws. So it is completely wrong for him to say that the hon. the Deputy Minister is taking away the powers of local authorities.

Reference has been made repeatedly during this debate to the “so-called White cities This is probably a reference to the large White cities in the Republic. We all agree that the stream of Bantu to the cities has become very great and that the Government is concerned about it, but why does that stream exist? Is it not a recognized fact that for the past 25 years South Africa has experienced an unprecedented period of industrial development and is it not this Government that has brought this about? [Interjection.] Was it not this Government that established Sasol and Iscor and was it not the Opposition who opposed these steps? It is not only the non-White who are being drawn to the cities, but the Whites as well. We are all concerned about the depopulation of the platteland, but it is this Government that has realized the dangers and is prepared to tackle them properly. This Government is applying influx control measures and by means of its policy is now trying to divert that stream to the cities back to the homelands. But these things will not happen overnight. They will take time. The homelands will have to draw the Bantu back just as the industries drew them here. But what did our White cities look like when the United Party was in Government? Was it not a fact that White and non-White lived alongside one another and that they lived above and below one another? We admit that there are non-Whites in the cities to-day but our White residential areas are at least White and this has been brought about by means of the segregation that the National Party has introduced. We removed the non-Whites from the White areas and placed them in locations outside of the White towns. The next step is to take them from the locations back to the homelands. That is why the Government has come forward with its policy for the development of the border areas so that the non-White family can live in their homeland and work in those border areas. But the Opposition do not appreciate these things. The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) is responsible for all the racial friction that we are experiencing.

On a point of order, is the hon. member allowed to make such accusations?

Of course.

The hon. member cannot appreciate all the wonderful things that are being done for the non-Whites—their housing and welfare services. She seeks out isolated cases and using this House as her platform she broadcasts these things to the world. That is why I say that if we have race friction in this country she will be responsible. This Government has succeeded in a wonderful way in compelling mutual respect between White and non-White in this country while in the rest of the world we have the spectacle of Whites and non-Whites being up in arms against one another. We have succeeded in creating racial peace and the hon. member is trying to disrupt that peace. But she will not succeed because the policy of the Government is fair to White as well as non-Whites. The non-Whites appreciate this fact and are prepared to accept it. We do not begrudge them the opportunity to develop in their own area but the Opposition are discriminating against the non-Whites because they want to create cliques. This will only result in discrimination and will not promote racial peace.

I want to bring another matter to the attention of the hon. the Minister and that is the question of unemployment amongst the non-Whites. I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister. We find that our industries and mines are slow to employ the non-Whites living in our cities. There is a tendency to bring in the foreign Native because he is still raw. Our industries and mines are making tsotsis of the Natives in the locations. I want to ask that the young Native be given the opportunity to show what he can do. If we have a labour shortage we must not allow applications to be made immediately for the recruitment of foreign Natives outside of the country because if we do so we will only be adding to the large number of unemployed Bantu in this country.

I also want to raise another matter. Now that a Bantu radio service has been introduced, it is possible that the Bantu may not be able to pay the annual licence fee in one instalment. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to consult the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs and negotiate with the city councils to ensure that this radio licence fee is paid monthly, as the Bantu pays his rent each month, so that he will be enabled to listen in to this excellent service that has been established. I think that this is one way in which we can show the goodwill of the White towards the non-White and that we can help them in this regard. We also want them to listen to these balanced programmes, programmes that will eliminate race friction, programmes that will keep the Bantu informed on matters that are taking place in the Republic. If we can help them as far as these licences are concerned so that they can pay for their licences monthly and so that these instalments can be added to their monthly rentals, as is done in the case of the education of the Bantu in our urban areas, I say that it will be a very good thing.

I should like to remind the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Bezuidenhout) that it is the Government’s policy not only to regiment the Natives in the White areas, but also the authorities which control these Natives. Every session legislation is introduced in this House designed to minimize the powers of the local authorities. I wish to criticize the Government policy for its viciousness towards the Blacks in the White areas, and its disregard of the interests of the Whites, who have been responsible for maintaining stable conditions in the Native reserves. Sympathy for the Whites in the Black areas by this Minister is lacking, and at the same time there is this awful viciousness as regards the Bantu who are resident in the White areas. If the Minister persists in carrying out the present Native policy, the White man’s existence in this country must become increasingly precarious, and it reflects also on the welfare of the Native people. A nation’s security and progress depend on the contentment of its labour force, and this contentment is based on the feeling of security regarding satisfactory avenues of employment. The Native in this country comprises our basic labour force and the Government, and its supporters, seem to endeavour to maintain tension in the Native mind while he is present in the White areas. It is not only in regard to the Natives in the White areas that the Government seems to have a peculiar reaction, but also in regard to the Whites in the Black areas, or the areas that border on the Native reserves, and in this regard I want to make special representations to the Minister. I have a complaint which I brought before the Minister, but it has been disregarded, as I will show the House. As the Minister develops his Native policy and speaks of the consolidation of the Native reserves, he creates, in the minds of the Whites in those areas, an atmosphere of uncertainty and unhappiness which is not in the interests of the country. I want to give an instance of the Minister’s unsympathetic attitude towards farmers in the border areas. I have here a letter from the secretary of the Peddie Farmers’ Association regarding the trespassing of stock on Native Trust land. I was asked to bring it to the notice of the Minister that he is under a misapprehension as regards the application of the law with regard to the trespassing of White stock in Native reserves. Any White owner of stock, which trespass in Native reserves, is subject to penal punishment under the Minister’s regulation, but if the Native’s stock trespasses in the White area he only falls under the ordinary laws of trespass. I have made several representations to the Minister in this regard, and in this last letter he wrote to me—

You see, Sir, it is over a year ago that I made these representations to the Minister—

The letter from the Peddie Farmers’ Associations asks me to point out to the Minister that several farmers in the Peddie district suffer from this unfair discrimination. So it is not, as the Minister said, only a few unspecified areas where it happens. If the stock of farmers in the Peddie area trespass on betterment areas they are liable to penal punishment. The Minister in his letter speaks about discrimination. We say there is discrimination, and that it is the Whites who are discriminated against, because one law applies to the Whites and another to the Natives. Here is an instance where the Whites are discriminated against. If the stock of a White man trespass on a betterment area, he has to suffer a penal sentence. It is this kind of unsympathetic attitude of the Minister which does not tend to bring about peaceful relations in our border areas. The Minister must appreciate that in an area like the Ciskei, which is one mass of Black spots, intermingling among White areas, which the Minister says will be consolidated—I feel that the Minister is not going out of his way to placate the farmers there. The Minister should visit such an area and tell the farmers that they will be consulted before consolidation is brought about. It is the Minister’s duty to remove the tension. We do not want tension on the border. In the world history tension on the borders has been the cause of wars. The border farmers live at peace with the Natives and they help the Natives. In the old days their farms were used as buffer areas to keep the peace between the different tribes, and they have achieved that. The border farmers understand the Natives better than anyone else, but here the Minister is not doing what he should do to placate these people and to allay their fears. I appeal to the Minister to do something to remove this tension. We on this side have often asked the Minister why he cannot decide on the boundaries. He says he cannot because he is still buying land, but he should do everything in his power to obviate this tension and to make life on the borders a happier life. The Minister does not know what people suffer there and the difficulties they put up with. If the Minister knows what the farmers in those areas put up with from the Natives, he will be surprised. The police there know how patient the farmers are. The farmers have to live with the Natives. That is their source of labour and they understand the Natives, and they are the last people who want to fight with the Natives.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to react to a few matters which were raised by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn). He has already been dealt with very thoroughly, but I should like to add another few things. The hon. member apologized for not being able to be present to-night.

In the first place he stated—and this is one of the old statements—that the policy of the National Party does not have any regard to the facts. I think, however, the hon. member for Yeoville is the last person who should make such an accusation against this side of the House, because one thing is quite obvious, namely that the policy of the National Party was born out of the experiences of the people of South Africa. So this policy was not created by a small group of people who had all kinds of illusions, but it grew out of the soul of the people of South Africa. Therefore if ever there was a policy which in all respects kept the realities in mind, it was this policy of apartheid of the National Party. I want to state without any fear of contradiction that this policy is anchored not only in the hearts of at least 90 per cent of the White people of South Africa, but also in the hearts of at least 90 per cent of the Bantu in South Africa. Go to Durban to-day and have a cup of tea with the leading English-speaking people there. Talk to them about apartheid and you get the reaction that they are also in favour of the policy of apartheid; they just do not vote for it.

They say so out of courtesy.

No, it is not just courtesy; it is honesty.

The hon. member for Yeoville also said that the standard of living of the people of South Africa in the past rose only when a concerted effort was made, and that the standard of living of the non-Whites in future can rise only when all efforts are combined to complete projects in the Republic of South Africa. Otherwise, he says, the standard of living cannot rise. In this respect there is a basic difference between the hon. member and myself, a difference which can be gauged by what is recognized to-day in the economic sphere as the yardstick for the increase in the standard of living, namely that that is achieved not only by making a concerted effort, but also by utilizing all the labour resources in the country. That is the key to it; the productive use of all the available manpower. That is the first condition. The second is that all the natural resources in every part of the country should be developed. It is just in this respect that the policy of the National Party is so realistic because the party, in terms of its policy, sees to it that the Bantu areas, which constitute some of the most fertile parts of our country, are developed systematically. In the White sector we already have a great degree of development. As against that, we have the phenomenon that large parts of the Bantu areas are still completely undeveloped. Tremendous labour forces will have to be used to develop those areas to the same level which has already been achieved in the White areas. Eminent economists describe the development we have had in the White areas as being only the first sod to be turned over in this rich country of ours. One cannot, however, develop the whole country to the highest level if one allows parts of it to lie fallow. In this general development we should ensure that all the available manpower is used for the development of those areas.

Here I want to say without fear of contradiction that there are few countries in the world where manpower is wasted to such an extent as in South Africa. Hence our policy of systematically using the manpower which is not being productively used for the building up of the Bantu areas. Only then will we achieve the best results.

Then the hon. member for Yeoville made a very interesting statement, one which came as a shock to me, coming from a party like the one opposite. The hon. member said that we should in future also do what was done in the past, namely make use of White capital and skill together with the labour of the Bantu. That is the typical colonial approach. What brought the British Empire to a fall? It was as the result of this approach. They consistently adopted the standpoint that the indigenous populations of their colonies could never aspire to be anything else in life but labourers. Hence the fact that one was for ever hearing about British capital and British skills, whilst the indigenous populations always had to remain the labourers. We have knowledge of that approach in South Africa, too. It becomes quite obvious when one looks at the other territories in Africa. This approach was wrong. It does not rest on a moral basis, and therefore we emphatically reject it. One cannot regard any nation in the world simply as labourers. No, every nation must be assisted not only to utilize its own labour force but also to amass capital and to develop its necessary skills. That is the correct policy for South Africa. That is a policy which right throughout the world can lead to peace, friendship and confidence. One cannot have the capital and the skills and someone else will necessarily provide the labour. Such a policy leads to suicide. Hence our policy of protecting the Bantu areas and assisting the Bantu to acquire the necessary capital. I admit that it will take a long time.

Very long.

Yes, a very long time. But we should remember that the descendants of those people who suffered are sitting in this Parliament to-day. A start has to be made, and eventually one sees the results. We will see to it that the Bantu will not be deprived of his right to develop. Hence our policy of assisting the Bantu to amass capital and to obtain the necessary skills for the development of his areas as fast as possible. When we do that we are following a moral course, and that is one of the foundations of the policy of this party.

Then the hon. member for Yeoville also said that the Bantu cities which are alleged to exist are pure fiction. I admit that many of these Bantu cities—about 40 of them are being established to-day—are being built with the help of capital obtained from the White areas. But we have to set to work realistically here, because in this way tertiary activities are developed in the Bantu towns.

Where are these towns?

At Umlazi and Zwelitsha we already see splendid results as to how the Bantu can be employed in the tertiary activities. I can refer to others also. But it should be remembered that we only very recently started this development. The provision and establishment of basic services takes time. It is a lengthy process. Does the hon. member for Transkeian Territories know how long ago Umtata was established?

But the Government now wants to let it disappear!

Every town and city in South Africa requires a long time to develop to maturity. But a start must be made somewhere, and as the Bantu amass more capital and develop more skills, to that extent will one gradually find cities in those areas which are just as full-fledged as those in the White areas. That is our objective. We have already had much success in that regard. It should be remembered that it was not long ago that we started building these towns, and to-day 40 of them are being developed. The hon. member for Yeoville stated another proposition, namely that if we want to achieve the results we envisage we should invest more capital in the Bantu areas than is invested in the White area. Let me tell him this immediately: That is a ridiculous statement and as such we reject it, because it should not be forgotten that the White areas should be developed faster than the Bantu areas because the Bantu must continually receive guidance, capital, etc., from the Whites. That is the sound approach. Now the hon. member for Yeoville says that we have tackled nothing great. He says we have tackled nothing which really stimulates the imagination of these people. In this regard he referred to what they did during the war, namely that they spent R1.200,000,000 on their war effort. Without saying anything about that war effort, however, I wish to state that a greater waste of capital than took place in South Africa during that time has never yet been seen in our history. [Interjections.] And I say that without any fear of contradiction. Instead of going to fight, many people achieved renown for wasting money. We do not believe in that. We do not believe in what Britain did in other areas. As against that, we believe that we should set to work judiciously with the money of the nation and that we should not just simply spend money, but should also show results.

The National Party stands very strongly on this point. We did, in fact, in recent times spend money on the development of the Bantu, but we achieved results—more results in the past ten years than in the previous 50 years.

Is what is being spent on defence to-day also a waste of money?

The hon. member surely knows that that is not a waste of money. [Interjections.] He should not equate it with the waste of money that took place during the war years.

Order! The hon. the Minister should rather confine himself to the Vote.

I say that the National Party in regard to this matter has a very good record, because it can show results for the money spent on the Bantu during the last ten years, results which no Government achieved during the previous 50 years. The hon. member said that we did nothing to stimulate the imagination of the people. But we have just passed the Transkei Constitution Act. How did that not stimulate the imagination of the United Party? But let me mention a few other things we achieved. Just see what progress is being made in regard to the rehabilitation of the soil in the Bantu areas. Foreign experts who saw what we had achieved said that it was really phenomenal. Just consider what we achieved in regard to the development of cities in the Bantu areas, and what we achieved in the sphere of education. In the whole of Africa, notwithstanding all the millions being spent there, there is no country which can claim results on a par with what we have achieved in South Africa.

Why is that so, Mr. Chairman? Because we set out from the principle that the Bantu must be actively concerned in this process of development, and that he should be given a leading role in it. I therefore say that the hon. member for Yeoville has no justification for these accusations.

I now come to the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson). That hon. member waved his arms and asked whether we knew where our policy was leading us. He also said that we had achieved no results. He said that to-day there were 1,500,000 more Bantu in the White areas than before. Let me say that we predicted that, long before he came to this House. We predicted that matters would take precisely that course. Therefore it does not come as a shock to us. But I want to predict this to-night: By about 1978 or 1980 we will see a stream flowing back to the Bantu areas and it will take place in a natural way. To-day already there are many Bantu who go back to their own areas on their own initiative. The hon. member also said that the border industries would not solve the problem. Of course not, because that is only of the aspects of the whole process of development. This is where hon. members always make a mistake. They do not go into these matters thoroughly. The hon. member said that nobody was interested in border industries. Just imagine a member of Parliament making such a statement! I want to invite the hon. member to accompany me on a visit to a few of these border industries so that he can see how they are already operating. Some of them have already developed to such an extent that they are doubling their capital in order to expand further. Quite a number of border industries are already in operation. The hon. member should go with me to Pretoria (North) where he will see that between 12 and 20 people with capital are busy establishing industries. I would advise him to get into his motor car over the week-end and to go and see what happens in East London. There a factory was established overnight just because of the fact that it is a border area.

We receive the co-operation of the Bantu in all respects. I may just mention that the absenteeism among the Bantu in these industries is amongst the lowest in the world. That is typical of the results we are achieving. Therefore the hon. member has no right to make such a statement here.

Now I want to come to the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl), who said that it was a very dangerous policy to remove the Bantu from the Western Cape. He said that one of the results of this policy would be that in the near future the farmer there would have no more labour. He went further and said that the poor Bantu would be offloaded in those Bantu areas where they would have to die of hunger. Towards the end of his speech he waved his hands in the air and called out: “No solution, but disaster!” The hon. member should please read what has already been said in regard to the removal of the Bantu from the Western Cape. Both the Prime Minister and I, as well as others, said that this removal would take place in such a way that nothing would be disrupted. Hence the organization we have which is entrusted with this task. Not only is there the Central Committee, but every place has its own local Committee on which farmers, businessmen, industrialists and others serve in order to ensure that when this removal takes place there will be no disruption, neither for the Whites nor for the Bantu. Only last night I gave the assurance that these allegations that we are going to dump these Bantu in the bundu to die of hunger are nonsensical. Or course no decent person would make himself guilty of that. It is very easy for the hon. member to make allegations here, but what proof has he?

But you are doing it now!

Once in a while Natives who come here illegally are sent back. They know that they should first get into touch with the labour bureaux to discover whether there is a demand for their labour in the area to which they want to go. But we surely cannot allow the Bantu who came here illegally simply to stay here. If we do that we will be creating the same position we had under the United Party in the 1940’s, and that we cannot allow.

I want to give the hon. member for Green Point and all his farming and business friends the assurance that they need not be concerned. We will solve this problem in such a way that nobody will suffer. Show me one farmer or businessman who has hitherto been inconvenienced or has suffered damage as the result of this policy.

Will the Coloured do the work of the Bantu?

The hon. member also said something else with which I have already dealt with last night, namely that there are not enough Coloureds to take over the work of the Bantu. I say there are enough Coloureds, but the fact is that a large number of them have during the course of time forgotten how to work. Now it is just a question of rehabilitating those people; they must be taught to work again. Then we will see different results. But hon. members should remember that we are not planning just for to-day or to-morrow, but that we must look to the future of our fatherland. It would be very easy to follow the policy of hon. members opposite and simply to wait to see what will perhaps happen to-morrow, but we cannot afford to do that. On the contrary. We must plan so that we can have a safe and happy future, not only for the Whites but for every population group in the country. That is the solemn duty of every responsible Government in South Africa, to plan for the future.

To come back to the Coloureds, the Western Cape is their natural home. This is where the large majority of them are. If we look at their increase, one of our problems in 10 or 20 years’ time will be to find enough work for them. If in addition to that we still follow the policy of hon. members opposite and allow the Bantu to enter the Western Cape indiscriminately, what will happen to the Coloureds? We will be wiping out a nation! The hon. member for Green Point spoke about people dying of hunger. But then we will see people dying of hunger, if we allow the Bantu to enter uncontrolled. Therefore many Coloureds are grateful for the fact that we have already to a certain extent pegged the position of the Bantu in the Peninsula.

I now come to the hon. member for Houghton. She says that she feels called upon to raise her voice against what she describes as the “burning injustices in South Africa”. She is now the voice calling for right and justice for the oppressed people in South Africa. I do not know where she gets her information but judging from the people who generally supply her with information, I must place a large question-mark behind it. Those are voices one hears right throughout Africa, voices which will not scruple to destroy this splendid country of ours. I therefore say that this hon. member is not rendering any service to her country.

In any case, she also asked whether we cannot alleviate the application of the legislation dealing with identity books and other matters. Let me say immediately that I have much sympathy with her in regard to this matter, because I concede that one still finds cases here and there where the law is harshly applied. Hence the fact that a few years ago I seconded one of my senior officials just for this one task, namely to travel throughout the country and to get into touch with all the people responsible for the administration of such laws, and to give them guidance in that regard. The apartheid laws are not there to be used as an iron fist with which to hit people left and right. Just the contrary. The apartheid laws are there as part of our plan to ensure a safe future for all of us. As I said, one still perhaps finds cases where people are harshly treated, but I can take the hon. member to Jerusalem and show her what happens there. I can also show her what happens in America, in England, and in France. But now the impression is created that it is only in South Africa that these things occur.

I am very sorry that the hon. member referred so sneeringly to the Bantu Commissioners. A great injustice is being done to those people. The Bantu Commissioners, and in fact all the officials of my Department, are people who are imbued with the spirit of service, not only to the Whites but to the Bantu. Therefore one finds that there is a very good relationship between the Bantu Commissioners and the Bantu. The hon. member simply cannot deny that.

I deny it.

Then the hon. member does not know what she is talking about. She gets those stories from people like Mr. Arenstein and Mr. Patrick Duncan. They are the people who tell her these stories. But ask the Bantu and they will immediately say that the Bantu Commissioners are their fathers and that they have great confidence in them. There are few officials in this country to-day who are imbued with such enthusiasm and such a spirit of service as those in my Department. [Interjections.] If cases occur where they do not act correctly, the hon. member should bring them to my notice. I shall not hesitate to take severe action in such cases. That is one of the matters which I continuously emphasize, namely that courtesy towards the Bantu costs nothing. I shall never forget an experience I had in Winburg one day. I was walking with a very prominent person there when an old servant of his passed by. When the old boy raised his hat to this person, he raised his hat in return. He then remarked that he could at least be as cultured as his old servant. That is also my attitude. We must treat those people with the greatest measure of justice and fairness. Therefore I consider that it is very unfair of the hon. member to make a general allegation here against the officials of my Department. [Interjections.] I shall be glad if the hon. member will give me an opportunity to speak.

Order! The hon. member for Houghton will have an opportunity later to reply to the Minister.

There are continuous interjections from the other side.

Order, order! The hon. member should please obey the rules of the House.

On a point of order, as the result of the continuous stream of interjections coming from the cross-benches, it is sometimes almost impossible to hear what the hon. the Minister has to say.

Order! The hon. member should please draw my attention to it if an hon. member persists in making interjections which I cannot hear.

I still want to tell the hon. member for Houghton the following little story. One of her kindred spirits, Barbara Castle, was in South Africa a few years ago. She gave a lecture in which she slated South Africa almost as much as that hon. member did to-day. People were very shocked about it. A fortnight later, however, she again gave a lecture before the Royal African Society in which she painted a beautiful picture of South Africa. Someone then got up and said he simply could not understand her now. The record of this incident is in the library and hon. members can look it up if they want to. This person then said that a fortnight ago he had listened to a speech of hers in which she had blackened South Africa, while now she was praising South Africa. Her reply was that when she made the first speech she had the politicians in mind, whereas in her second speech she had the officials of the Department of Bantu Administration in mind. Even she had a high regard for the officials of the Department, and particularly for our Bantu Commissioners.

The hon. member said she was informed that many Bantu in Port Elizabeth have received heavy penalties in connection with their identity books and that a number of young Bantu have received cuts. I am still investigating this matter. I may just tell the hon. member that we have had trouble in Port Elizabeth with the young Bantu. They have stood together there and refused to a man to exhibit their identity books. We could of course have imprisoned them, but their parents usually request that they should rather be given cuts. As in other places, our trouble in Port Elizabeth is also that certain old women, friends of that hon. member, instead of doing their housework and looking after their children, are inciting the Bantu not to carry their identity books. I repeat that I am investigating the matter. The hon. member also referred to a young Bantu child of 11 years of age who was in employment. She asked whether there was no control over that. I just want to point out to the hon. member that those matters are regulated by the Children’s Act. A child of 15 years and younger may not be in employment. The Children’s Act applies not only to the Whites, but also to the Bantu. If there are such cases I shall be glad if the hon. member will bring them to my notice. I shall then immediately take the necessary steps. I concede that the Act is perhaps contravened here and there, but without our knowledge. It is a duty resting on every member of this House—and not only on members on this side—to bring it to my notice when things go wrong, so that I may take action.

The hon. member also referred to a Bantu who came from Great Britain and then landed in trouble here. That matter of course does not fall under me, but under the Minister of the Interior, who deals with passports. She should, however, give me the name of the person and full details, and I will go into it. It is our policy to do justice to all people in South Africa, and particularly to the Bantu. The hon. member may depend on that. My instructions are always that my officials should not only treat these people fairly and justly, but humanely as well; that they should be treated courteously, even if they are Black, or whatever the colour of their skin might be.

The hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) said that this policy would never work, that we would never manage to remove the Bantu from the Western Cape, because the Bantu are even being employed in Namaqualand to-day. The hon. member ought to know that Bantu have been employed in Namaqualand all these years. It is now of course a controlled area. I want to agree with the hon. member that for many years Bantu will still be employed there. We are not going to deprive people of their labour before there is alternative labour. I was in Namaqualand myself and I was surprised to see how many Coloureds there were who, although almost dying of hunger, refused to work. A very great task awaits us in Namaqualand as far as that is concerned. The hon. member says that there is great bitterness on the part of the people whom we send back to the Transkei. Here also my instructions to my officials are to treat these people humanely. They should not just be dumped there. The hon. member should, however, understand clearly that when people come in on their own initiative and evade the laws of the land, they must pay the penalty, but where these people are sent back legally in terms of our policy all the necessary attention is devoted to it. I myself do not know of any cases which were treated harshly. There are Bantu here and there who allege that they have no homes there, but when one traces his relatives together with him he finds his home. Then one finds that he has just been telling a story all the time. The hon. member also asked what would happen to the Coloureds in the eastern Cape. He asked whether they would all be brought back to the western Cape. Sir, there is no such plan. The Coloureds are in the White area in the eastern Cape and they can remain there as long as they like. If they want to come to the western Cape we will not stop them.

The hon. member also expressed concern because Russia and China will now invest money in the Transkei. The hon. member should stop that scaremongering of his. Sir, that is the trouble with the United Party. Instead of rather stating their own policy…

Our policy is that it should be our capital, and not Russia’s capital.

I refer to the party policy. Instead of them stating their party policy in such a way that people are attracted by it, they try to frighten the people. The people no longer believe those stories to-day; they no longer become scared when they hear those stories. The hon. member also asked me why Poqo is so strong in the Western Cape. That is of course one of our problems. I have my own views about that. I want to say here what I also said in Another Place, viz. that it is my view that this Poqo movement is based on certain communist elements in Cape Town.

Why not in Johannesburg?

I am convinced of it, because they themselves would not have been able to evolve those methods. There are also cases in Johannesburg. We know that there is a communist nest in Cape Town which does not hesitate to take action even in the most northerly parts of South West Africa.

Why do you not arrest them?

They are the people on whom one just cannot lay one’s hands; they slip through the laws. Every person who has studied the position will agree with me if he is not a stranger in Jerusalem. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) apologized for not being able to be here to-night. The hon. member said that his trouble was that we on this side of the House could not discuss matters intelligently enough to solve these problems. He says that instead of discussing matters intelligently, we attack the United Party and he does not think that is the correct method. I want to say immediately that the hon. the Minister of Justice has given that hon. member a nickname. He says he is the “elder statesman” in this House who has to teach us how to approach matters. The fact is that if we see weaknesses in the policy of the United Party, we expose them.

We also attack you in the same way.

But there are no weaknesses in our policy. If the hon. member could find a weak spot in our policy, he would have attacked it very strenuously. But he did not attack us; he complains that we attack them. He expects us not to hit out; he does not hit back. The hon. member says that the Bantu areas should be developed by White capital. He says that is where we make the big mistake. The hon. the Deputy Minister has already replied to that. I do not want to add much to what he has said, except to say this: This is a matter of principle to us, as I have so often said in this House. We think that we can achieve the best results and receive the best co-operation from the Bantu if we follow a policy whereby the Bantu becomes convinced, by way of practical results, that we as Whites are not exploiting his riches in his area, but are developing those areas so that he can reap the benefit of his development. I admit it will take time, but that is what the Government is there for. The Government is there to make the necessary manpower and capital available to them. We say that we can only achieve permanent and beneficial results when the Bantu themselves are concerned in that development.

I again want to mention the example of Swaziland. There is by no means a feeling of goodwill in Swaziland towards the British Government, because many of them say that all that Great Britain does there to-day is to treat Swaziland as a cow to be milked; they say all the milk is taken away to Britain and the people of Swaziland have only the small amount of money they can earn by their labour. We also find this kind of reaction in other parts of Africa. So if we really want to establish good race relations there is only one pattern which can be followed, namely the one followed by this side of the House. Those people feel that we are developing those areas so that they can reap the benefit, and that we are not taking the profits. The hon. member spoke about a settled class of Bantu which we should have here, and which we already have in the White areas. He says that if we satisfy them, the rest of the Bantu population will be satisfied. But it is in this regard that England missed the ball so badly, Sir. She also thought that she could simply put the leading figures into a group and make them happy and give them presents, and then the rest of the population would be happy as well. That is just where she went wrong. One cannot gain the confidence of the nation if one regards only one section of that nation as being important. Particularly in the case of the Bantu, where we find a great measure of suspicion, one can only achieve results when one proves that one recognizes the whole population as the people with whom to cooperate and the people who should be developed; one should not just single out one section of the people. That is why I say it has never succeeded in the whole of the world yet. Even viewed from the sociological aspect, hon. members will agree with me that no sociologist of repute will hold this view because it has failed in all parts of the world. Rome tried it. All the colonizing countries tried this method and it simply did not work. No, Sir, the hon. member is making a big mistake. One cannot regard the Natives working in the cities as being quite apart from those in the reserves and imagine that if one satisfies them the rest will say: “See what a good Government this is; see how happy our people are in the cities”. Only when the whole of the population derives the benefit of this development, will one have the satisfaction and confidence one needs.

The hon. member said he felt very strongly about property rights. That is one of the propositions stated by the United Party. I wonder whether those hon. members have ever tried to ascertain what the reaction of the Bantu is to this matter? 90 per cent of the Bantu in South Africa are against it.

How do you know?

Because put it this way: There is a percentage of people who are perhaps highly developed and perhaps think that they have no more links with their own areas, and who will be in favour of it, people who want to have their own farms, etc. There are such people, but the mass of the Bantu want the system which exists to-day.

You are talking about the reserves. What about the towns?

A large percentage in the towns also. Is it correct to grant it only in the residential areas in the White area and not in the reserves? What will the Bantu think of such a Government? Hence our policy of giving them property rights in their own cities. I frankly admit that this is the process they will eventually have to go through. One works in that direction gradually, but they must be given property rights in their areas.

If 80 per cent or 90 per cent of the Bantu are opposed to private property rights, why does the Minister give it to them in their own towns in the reserves?

I want to go further. I want to challenge the hon. member to go and suggest in the Transkei that property rights should be granted there. I challenge him to do so and to see what the reaction is.

The Minister is correct in so far as the reserves are concerned, but I am talking about the towns and cities in the Transkei.

In so far as the Bantu towns in the Transkei are concerned, it is of course our policy to give them property rights there, just as they get at Umlazi to-day. Every person who acquires an erf at Umlazi and also at Pretoria North or Potgietersrus or Pietersburg receives his deed of transfer. One begins doing so in their own area. I do think that they will be satisfied to have property rights here only is so much nonsense. I want to tell hon. members that various experts on the subject are of the opinion that the present system we are applying to the Bantu is one of the best safeguards for the future.

Various experts have written on that subject. I say that my own view is that they should gradually be led in that direction, but they should be led in that direction in their own areas.

The hon. member asked what I have done in regard to the promise I made in 1960, that I would try to eliminate the irritating factors from the laws. He said that is another proof of how badly we have been governing. Sir, these Acts were not all passed by this Government. Most of these Acts were passed by previous Governments, by the United Party Government. We know that many of these Acts overlap and are unnecessarily irritating, etc. An official worked on it full-time, and many of those things have been eliminated. I have already said that one of my officials was seconded full-time to teach our people how to apply these Acts, to the great satisfaction of the Bantu.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) is not here either. He apologized for it. He also confined himself to the development of the Bantu areas by White capital. I have already replied to that. The hon. member asked what would happen in Port Elizabeth. He said there were Coloureds there and then the Bantu came in there, and he asked whether that was detrimental to the Coloureds. No, definitely not, because the Coloureds almost have preference in Port Elizabeth. Only the labour necessary for the development of the area is brought into Port Elizabeth. So one does not have the position there which one has in the Western Cape today. What is more, it is an area where Bantu labour has been used all these years. The hon. member also asked whether we intended removing the Coloureds there. I repeat that there is no such idea. It is a White area and they are quite safe there. If they want to go elsewhere, they may do so.

The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Bezuidenhout) asked a few questions. He asked whether something could not be done in regard to unemployment amongst the young Bantu in the cities. This is a matter to which we have already devoted serious attention. I have discussed the matter with various industrialists and with the Chamber of Mines. I also appointed a commission which investigated the whole matter. The report has now been completed and we are devoting attention to it. Hon. members may rest assured that we are receiving sound co-operation from many industrialists. They have already taken many of these young Bantu into employment. There is of course the tsotsis element which we deal with ourselves. Hon. members will be surprised to learn that almost all these people are brought to us by their parents. We did not go and fetch them; their parents brought them to us so that we could send them to various places to try to rehabilitate them. We are obtaining very good results. The hon. member also asked whether I could not make arrangements with the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs for their radio licences to be paid monthly. I will go into that matter and see what can be done.

The hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) spoke about the “vicious policy of this Government”. No, Sir, it is not as bad as the hon. member tries to make out. I know that he himself does not really think it is so bad. He referred to the difficulties at Peddie, where the stock of many of the farmers trespass in the Bantu areas and are then rounded up. I ask that everything possible should be done to assist the farmers and not to act unnecessarily drastically against them. But we also find certain farmers who are somewhat obstreperous. I do not say those farmers are obstreperous, but certain farmers are. Let me tell you about one case, Sir. We recently had a case of this nature in one of the drought-stricken areas. The grazing in the Bantu area was reasonably good. The adjoining farmer had a few hundred head of cattle and on a certain day he simply cut the wires and chased in his cattle. Then he went to the Commissioner and said: “Now you can arrest me; my cattle are grazing there.” Is that the right thing to do? What is one to do in such a case?

What did you do?

We did not arrest him, but I severely reprimanded him. We find such cases and I always ask my officials to deal courteously with these people. That is one of their duties. Now the hon. member says that something which causes them great uncertainty is the question of the consolidation of the Bantu areas. This is where the United Party renders a great disservice to South Africa. They go to all the farmers’ meetings and tell them: “Have you heard, your area is now going to be declared Bantu area; it is going to be consolidated with the Bantu area?” It is that sort of thing which causes this great measure of uncertainty. I can show hon. members hundreds of letters I have received from every part of the eastern Cape and elsewhere in which the people say that a United Party organizer was there and that he said that the farm of So-and-So was going to be consolidated with the Bantu area, whereas in fact such a farm is perhaps 100 miles from the Bantu area. Even the hon. member for Yeoville asked me what would happen in regard to his father-in-law’s farm. We find that even amongst Members of Parliament. They frighten the people. The hon. member for Albany should just tell the people that they should not take notice of the ghost stories told by the United Party. When consolidating it is our policy in the first place to consult the farmers’ unions in the places concerned; we also consult with all the Whites in the area concerned and with the Bantu. And we achieve success.

I just want to tell hon. members this. In the first place, during the past year we have eliminated no fewer than 74 Black spots comprising more than 25,000 morgen. They were consolidated with the Bantu areas. There was no fuss in that regard and those people are quite happy. I wish hon. members could see the letters we receive thanking us. It is only the friends of the hon. member for Houghton who tell all those stories, which is really not fair. Now one can allow those people to develop also.

I want to mention another fact. Over the past year we have settled no fewer than between 60,000 and 70,000 Bantu, who were living in bad conditions, in decent towns, and they are all quite happy. They of course buy the house with the erf. Hon. members can go to Umlazi. On the one side are Bantu residential areas. Those people are already in arrear with their rentals to an extent of over R200,000. But go to Umlazi and you will find that not a single Bantu is in arrear with his payments. So I can take you to every town, Sir. Take Potgietersrus. Those people do not receive high wages. There we built 800 houses. They were immediately occupied and nobody is a penny in arrear. Then another 200 Bantu came along and said: “We want the same houses; here is our money.” I immediately had to give instructions for another 200 houses to be built. Possibly we will have to build even more houses in the near future. Those are the results we achieved. If we add the Black spot removal to those whom we have settled in the cities, then in little more than a year we have settled almost 80,000 in those areas. You will remember the fuss that was made. Sir, when we removed one small tribe from the Wolkeberg area. Then the United Party wanted to set the world on fire. However, we received the necessary co-operation from the Bantu. Before we remove them we first take them to the other place and ask them whether they will be satisfied with it. We allow them to select the places where they would like to be settled. In that way we achieve results.

Can the Minister just tell us what the position is in regard to Nyanga?

Sir, I have asked the hon. the Deputy Minister to reply to that because he has all the data. We have discussed it from time to time and recently he again devoted attention to it. I have asked him to give all the facts to the hon. member.

Will the hon. the Minister reply to me in connection with the traders?

I dealt with that matter last night, but I will just state the position again. Our policy in regard to trade is this: We want all the trade in the Bantu areas to pass over into the hands of the Bantu. I point out how in recent times the percentage of Bantu steadily increased. Of the 1,300 licences granted over the past year, approximately 94 per cent were to Bantu and only about 6 per cent to non-Bantu. It is only where there are no Bantu that it is given to someone else. What is more, we assist them also to develop large trading businesses. We are serious in regard to this matter because we believe that a trading business will be one of the chief factors in stimulating tertiary activities, particularly in the cities. That is why we encourage these people. In the White areas our policy is this: In the Bantu residential areas in the White areas we allow them to trade in order to supply the daily needs of the inhabitants of the area. We do not want to see those people living unhappily; we do not want to see them suffering inconvenience. We therefore grant them opportunities to trade there. But we do not allow them to establish large trading businesses. That is against our policy. As the hon. the Prime Minister once said, we will not allow O.K. Bazaars there. However, we allow them to sell the essential things. If the hon. member knows of cases where there was somewhat harsh action, I should be glad if she would bring it to my notice. She must realize that we also have to protect the White people in the White areas. At the same time it is also our policy to give the opportunity to the Bantu to supply the essential needs of their own people. Let me say this: Many of those people are very rich to-day. Many of them are asking already whether they can go and invest their money in these Bantu towns. They acquire the necessary skill and capital there, and they will be a very great force in the development of the Bantu towns and areas.

I want to conclude with this last thought. I thought that this would be a great day; I thought that the Leader of the Opposition would make a positive contribution and that he would give us a clear picture of United Party policy for the future. I have listened carefully to every speaker opposite, but hitherto not a word has been said about the policy of the United Party. We have not even heard a single word about their federation plan. Surely this is the occasion on which to put policy against policy. As the old Bushman said: This is the opportunity for the one bull to stand up against the other. We have waited for it, but have heard nothing.

The hon. the Minister has just indicated that this was the opportunity of discussing United Party policy. The hon. the Minister knows that he is utterly wrong. What we are discussing at the present time is the voting of an amount of some R18,220,000 which falls under the administration of this hon. Minister. As the hon. the Minister knows it is the duty of the Opposition to examine that and the policies of the Government. Hon. members on the other side, knowing of the utter failure of this Government in the field of race relations, have continued to seek to cloud the issues which are before this House. The issue which is before this House is whether this Government has succeeded or has it failed in the matter of what is the most important issue in the great question of race relations on which the welfare of this country and the future of the children of members on that side of the House and on this side of the House and their supporters depend in this country. [Interjections.] I am not prepared to be distracted by the hon. the Minister of some hon. members on the other side. I am going to confine myself to the policy of this Government which is the question under discussion.

The hon. the Minister has referred to the question of consolidation. I do not for a moment say that some organizers on this side have not done what has been done by organizers on that side in respect of the political fight. That is not the issue, Sir. In regard to this question of consolidation the real problem is that while the hon. the Minister is the signatory to a report which has a chapter dealing with this matter in which it is said that this is essential for the solution of this matter, he has utterly failed to take this country into his confidence as to what his policy is. All efforts on the part of this side to draw from the Government what its policy is and how far it intends to go in that matter have failed utterly in the years which have passed and will undoubtedly fail on this occasion, and until this Government is prepared to come straightforwardly to this country and state what its true policy is, it must expect persons to seek to extract the answers and it must expect its own supporters to be as ill-acquainted with the Government’s policy as I have found them to be during the elections which have passed, because without exception when I have made statements which have subsequently been confirmed in this House by the hon. Minister and by the Prime Minister I was told openly on platform that that is false United Party propaganda, and very often it was shown to be utterly true within a matter of months. That is where the real danger of the South African political situation arises. This Government is seeking to carry this country along a road the end of which they are not prepared to tell this country, and even now there are innumerable questions outstanding, and I hope that I will have the opportunity of getting very clear answers from this Minister, because these questions are questions not of politics, but are questions which affect the future of this country.

The first question I would like to ask the hon. Minister is that he should have the courage to deal with the statement made by the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) quoted by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) to-day in which he said that not only is the Nationalist Party going to see to it that the Natives are removed from the Western Cape, but that all of them are going to be removed from the European areas. A statement of that sort calls for a statement at the highest level, and it is the obvious and plain duty of this Minister either to repudiate the hon. member for Vereeniging in the clearest possible terms or to say that in fact the hon. member for Vereeniging has correctly stated the Government‘s policy. Sir, the hon. member cannot be regarded as an irresponsible member on the Government side. He is a front-bencher to whom the Government runs to come into every debate when it finds itself in difficulties. Now he has made that statement and it is the duty of the Minister to say quite frankly to this House whether he agrees with it and to say to the country to what extent it is right, and then we will know what it is that we are fighting about.

But I wish to deal particularly with one point. I do not wish to follow the Minister in all the points he has made, but I would like to say that I believe that the great danger in South Africa is that this hon. Minister believes the things which he puts before this House. He believes that in fact the Government is finding solutions. Does this hon. Minister not realize that many of the difficulties which we have are due to the fact that his predecessors in office failed to carry on with the policies of the United Party in respect of the elimination of the slums and all that sort of thing, stated very clearly as United Party policy before 1948, and that for several years the present Government did not know which way to turn because of the statement to which the hon. Minister was a signatory, namely that the number of Natives working in the industries in this country was going to be frozen? That is in the apartheid statement to which the hon. Minister was a signatory. But I do not propose to go further into those matters. I wish to come to a matter which is of the utmost importance to the future of this country, and I hope that in regard to this matter we are going to get clear and detailed answers from the Minister and that he is not going to run away in vague general statements, but that he is going to have the courage to make a clear statement. You see, Sir, if this hon. Minister would say what in fact is the policy of the Nationalist Party on issues such as those which I raised, there would be no possibility for a misrepresentation of the position. The case which I wish to put to the hon. Minister is the case of the Transvaal in respect of the policy of this Government. The Transvaal is the biggest of our provinces to-day, a province which is rapidly growing towards the position that within will be half of the White voters of White South Africa, and it is entitled to know from the hon. Minister exactly what the policy of this Government is in so far as the Transvaal is concerned. The hon. Minister knows that in the Tomlinson Commission’s Report he was a party to the recommendation that there should be consolidation. It stands in black and white, there is no need for me to quote it, and we are entitled to know what is going to happen. The Government is going on buying farms and we know that with legislation which has been passed, it has been given a much freer hand in that it can apparently go on the basis of creeping paralysis of extending further and further. But what the voters are entitled to know is what is the end result to which the Government intends to lead. The hon. Minister knows that in respect of this matter Map. No. 63 of the Tomlinson Commission Report sets out a possible consolidation of Bantu areas. What I want to know is whether that is still the Government’s policy. So far as this matter is concerned, the hon. Minister will know that there are a large number of areas in the Transvaal, there is a belt of them running right through the centre of the Transvaal from the Bechuana areas in the west to the peri-area which borders on the Lowveld where there is hardly a gap through. And I must accept what the hon. Minister says and what the hon. Prime Minister says that in respect of these areas, they can progress to the limit of eventual total independence. I know that the hon. Minister has said in recent times in relation to this question of complete independence “Ek hoop daardie kwade dag sal nooit kom nie”, but Sir, he has not elaborated upon that statement. [Time limit.]

I do not want to reply to the hon. member in detail. First of all I want to come to the hon. Leader of the Opposition. I want to read what he said on 21 June, 1961. After having listened to him last night and yesterday afternoon, when he stated his policy or failed to state his policy, I want to read three statements he made in that speech. I went through all his speeches to get clarity as to what his real policy is. The first statement he made on 21 June 1962 (Hansard, Col. 8651) was—

This statement is connected with his colour policy. Now the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) put a lot of questions to the hon. Minister. I want to put a few questions to the hon. Leader of the Opposition. My first question is this: What is the precise meaning of this statement? I repeat that what the hon. Leader of the Opposition said yesterday was simply a repetition of what he said in June 1961. If you read that speech and you take the speech he made yesterday afternoon, it amounted to the same thing. What was the precise meaning of these words “We work for national unity based on mutual respect for culture, tradition and background of each group and mutual faith in a common ideal?” My second question is: Does it mean different things, or does it mean a specific thing? He should be more explicit. My third question in this regard is: Are these generalizations worth the paper on which they are written? Who are the “groups” and the “people” to be excluded by this vague definition of purposes? We want to hear from the hon. Leader of the Opposition what he means by stating “to work for real national unity, based on mutual respect for culture, tradition and background of each group”? I want to put it to the hon. Leader of the Opposition and I want to put it to the hon. member for Houghton: Has he ever condemned the Congress of Democrats in this House? Has she ever done so? Has he ever condemned the African National Congress? Has she done so? Has the Leader of the Opposition ever condemned Pan-Africanism?

You have not done your homework? All these questions have been answered.

No, I want the hon. Leader of the Opposition to give us a clear reply.

They have all been answered before.

Where and when? I have read through all the speeches of the hon. Leader of the Opposition and I could not find one instance where he condemned Pan-Africanism. I want to put it to him: What difference is there in the ultimate destiny of political control in South Africa between the policy of race federation and the policy of the Progressive Party? What difference is there? After I have read through all the speeches of the Leader of the Opposition I want to state to-night that all the so-called groups which he mentioned in his speech in June 1961 and yesterday again, are all at complete liberty to invest these generalizations with their own meanings.

What?

If you do not understand it, I will repeat it. The hon. Leader of the Opposition must satisfy the liberals and he must satisfy the conservative element within his own party. Now they are at complete liberty to invest all these abstractions and all these generalizations with their own meanings. By his generalizations and abstractions he wants to satisfy the liberals as well as the conservative element, and as the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) who is staring at me now. The hon. member for Germiston (District) dares to put questions to us as far as clarity of policy is concerned. We want to counter-question the hon. Leader of the Opposition and to say to him very explicitly: We want a clear reply from him as to what his policy is. I put it last year to him, but he has never replied to my questions and I repeat them to-night. The second point the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made in that speech was that he said that he wants to adopt a dynamic industrial expansion which could double the entire population’s income within one generation. Mr. Speaker, this statement is integrated with his colour policy. You cannot escape that basic fact. Now I want to put this question to the hon. Leader of the Opposition. What price does he want to pay for this dynamic industrial expansion which could double the entire nation’s income within one generation? Does he want to overthrow the 300-year-old policy of separate development to achieve that? Because in order to achieve a dynamic industrial expansion which could double the income of the population within one generation, there must surely be made drastic changes as far as our whole system, our whole set-up, our whole population constellation is concerned. My second question in this connection is: Does he want to surrender to world pressure? We put that question to him time and again and he has never replied to it. My third question is: Does he want to surrender to Addis Ababa and the claims they put there? I recall what the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) said last year to the Minister of Lands when he interjected. He said “We must satisfy world opinion”. Does the hon. Leader of the Opposition want to satisfy world opinion, does he want to surrender to Addis Ababa, to the claims they made there? He has never replied to these questions. Does he want to do away with job reservation?

Yes.

In order to achieve this dynamic industrial expansion, does he want to do away with job reservation?

Yes.

My next question is: Does the hon. Leader of the Opposition want to integrate White capital and White kno whow and White ownership in the Bantu homelands?

Yes.

I am very glad to have these answers. [Time limit.]

This is typical of the tactics of the Government side. They cannot answer and so they try to draw red-herrings across the trail. Let me just say this, that I regard it as an insult to this side of the House which has carried South Africa through its most difficult days the fact that the hon. member should put a question as to whether this side wishes to surrender to Addis Ababa, and I would like to say to him that I consider that in insulting this side of the House, he is insulting South Africa itself. I regard that as an utter insult and I do not propose to deal further with the hon. member’s futile questions that are designed simply to distract me from what is one of the most difficult problems which this country has to deal with, the problem of how you are going to deal with the situation of the Native peoples in the Transvaal. Now we have before us the only authoritative statement which we have, namely the report of the hon. the Minister and others, known as the Tomlinson Commission, and, Sir, the hon. Minister should make it perfectly clear whether he stands by the necessity for consolidation which is stressed in this report and whether he still stands by certain suggestions which they made, and apparently put in the form of recommendations. If the hon. Minister will look at this report, he will find that it was suggested that the area in the neighbourhood of Zeerust and Rustenburg on consolidation might well be added onto Bechuanaland, and that secondly, the area in the north, to the north-west of Pietersburg, is in exactly the same position. The Minister was a signatory to this report, and there is the suggestion that the area to the north of Swaziland should be incorporated in Swaziland, and, Sir, we are entitled to have a perfectly clear statement from the hon. Minister as to what is proposed. Because if one looks at this report, one will find that it is made clear that these areas are areas which cannot stand alone. In other words, that they apparently are not viable areas. It is a question that must be answered. The situation perhaps is easier in respect of the relatively small population, the area occupied by the Vendas and Tsongas in the Soutpansberg Area. But, Sir, we are entitled to know whether the hon. Minister thinks that it is practical politics that this area can at any time develop to the extent that it can become completely independent. Because that is the test of the morality of the Government’s policy. The question whether its policy is a moral policy is based on this that it sets no ceiling and no limit to the development which can take place and obviously if in respect of these areas they are such that they can never become viable states, then clearly the Government’s policy falls down utterly and completely. Sir, regarding the territory stretching through the centre of the Transvaal, the hon. Minister knows that the recommendation was that so far as Hammanskraal was concerned, it was felt that possibly that might disappear. It has been decided instead to build up within a quarter of an hour by car, or less, from Pretoria, not to the fringe of that reserve but to important areas within it, enormous industries, an enormous industrial complex, which is to draw its labour from this area and lead to its prosperity. We are entitled to demand that the hon. Minister should tell us what he regards as the future of that territory in respect of its political rights in terms of the Government’s policy which I remind the hon. Minister, has been stated again and again by members on the other side, by the hon. Minister and the Prime Minister, to be such that the test of morality of the policy is that it puts no limit upon the development of the Natives of South Africa.

Then there is a relatively small and not very populous area, the area known as Premier Mine No. 16 as marked on Map No. 63 of the Consolidation Report, and then there is the great complex, a very large area, a peri-area in the neighbourhood of Lydenburg, but stretching across a tremendously important area of the Transvaal from which a great deal of power in the Transvaal is derived, an area with great coal fields which lie in very close juxtaposition to the peri-area in the eastern Transvaal. I do not propose to deal with the smaller area, but obviously the basis on which the Government claims morality is that there will be no limitation on development, and I think we are entitled to know what is going to happen to the very many small concentrations of Natives in very limited areas. As the hon. Minister knows it was the policy of the old Transvaal Government at one time that no area should exceed 3,000 morgen in extent. Sir, when the hon. Minister is prepared to come straightforwardly, he and the hon. the Prime Minister and other members opposite, and say what is the Government’s policy in respect of these matters in detail and not run away from the question as they have been doing for the last ten years and more, then they may have some claim to put before the country and to say: “There is our policy and we say that it has a moral base.” I say that the position in which South Africa finds itself at the present time in relation to the outside world is to be attributed in overwhelming measure to the fact that the Government has not faced up to questions of this sort, and in fact that in countries overseas they are publishing statements through the hon. Minister of Information which do not measure up with the policies which the hon. Minister comes and puts before this House. Sir, nothing is doing us more harm in the outside world, and I ask the hon. Minister to be more careful and to see if it is not possible to put a real plan before the country. Then we can fight this issue out and the voters of this country can decide between the Government opposite and this side of this House. But until this Government is prepared to speak with one voice in respect of these matters to the Bantu people, to the voters of South Africa, and to the outside world, they are endangering the future of South Africa. This issue of the Transvaal is the kernel of the Bantustan policy. It is possibly the greatest of the problems of all the territories, and I do not ask the Minister, I demand of him, that in the interest of this country he should make a statement in which he makes it clear what in fact is the Government’s policy. We know that they intended to limit the development in the towns; we know that the urban areas would have grown far more rapidly had this Government not taken over, the slums would have been eliminated at an early date but I am glad that at least the Government has learned that the future economic prosperity of this country depends on raising the level of all the people. But this Government cannot continue to carry on a policy which leaves large numbers in areas where they clearly will not have the financial wherewithal to develop to the full and still to claim that it stands for a moral policy and that it is not prepared to put a ceiling on the development of the Native peoples in South Africa.

I say to the hon. Minister that unless the Government is prepared to be honest with the people of South Africa in regard to its future plans, it has no right even to ask questions of the Opposition as to what their future plans are. Before the moneys are voted, we are entitled to a reply from the hon. the Minister, and for my part I would like the Minister to come forward with a reply which could make it possible to reduce slightly the amount by which it is proposed to reduce his salary. But I support the motion for the reduction of the Minister’s salary, because I do not expect that we will be any more successful on this occasion in extracting the truth from the Government than we have been in the years which have passed. I say to the hon. Minister that through the policy which they have followed, they have done immeasurable damage to the name of South Africa in the outside world. I say to the hon. Minister that the bad Press of which this Government complains is its own fault because of the policy that it has followed. I believe, Sir, that if they acted honestly they could do something to heighten the respect of the name of South Africa.

I want to remark on a few of the questions that were asked earlier this evening by the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) in connection with the areas outside Nyanga, and I want to say immediately that it was interesting to note that in that one short speech he adopted two conflicting attitudes. When he was speaking about the areas at Nyanga he asked what the Government and the Minister were doing to compel the local authority concerned to do what was necessary there but a little earlier in his speech he referred to a speech made at Potchefstroom. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories objected to the fact that I had said that municipalities would have to implement the work of the Government as agents of the Government; that they would have to implement the policy of the Government. The hon. member said that we should not involve them in these things.

[Inaudible.]

I am sorry that the hon. member is becoming so excited. It is his own fault if he does not give proper consideration to these matters. He cannot say two such contradictory things in one speech.

There were no contradictions at all.

If the hon. member will give me the opportunity, I shall tell him something more about Nyanga. The hon. member spoke with much gesticulation about Nyanga, about the sand and all that sort of thing. I want to tell him that the nature of the soil around Cape Town is one of the great problems of the local authorities, of the Divisional Council and also of the Cape Town Municipality. Last year we had long interviews with the appropriate Divisional Council about this problem and I myself together with officials of my Department went out there to investigate the matter. It is not such an easy thing to remove the natural grasses and bush and other growth and to make streets and sidewalks and provide for sporting facilities and build homes and then still have to contend with dust, because when the natural vegetation and the surface grass is removed, it is understandable that erosion takes place and that the dust blows about and creates an unpleasant atmosphere. We realize that and the local authority also realizes it. But at the same time it is also true that this is not the only place that has sandy soil in this same Cape Town area. Housing has been tackled at other places and eventually grass has grown and other kinds of surface coverage have been provided. The local authorities will overcome these matters but the local authority concerned has had all sorts of financial problems in this regard. Amongst other things, loans had to be obtained for the setting up of internal services—loans from the levy fund. There was negotiations in this connection, approval was obtained and schemes were submitted to the Department in this regard. This approval was given and I do not think that the hon. member has done that local authority—and I think moreover that it is a local authority having a majority of United Party supporters—any good this evening by the sort of criticism that he has expressed here. The local authority is now in a position to combat the problems properly. The hon. member also referred to the squatters’ camp or the transit camp as it is known. As the hon. member knows, the position is that the camp is used for Bantu who have been living in the Peninsula, in the Divisional Council area, Bantu who have been living lawfully and unlawfully, mostly unlawfully, in the peri-urban areas. Those Natives are housed in this temporary camp. They are accommodated there temporarily under better conditions than those under which they lived previously—under trees and in old motor-car bodies and places of that nature. Many of them are resettled and are sent from that temporary camp to other places where they have obtained employment. Many of them are taken back to the Bantu homelands and others are placed in properly developed Bantu residential areas in the vicinity. The local authorities are working to a programme in order to eliminate that transit camp completely, and the details show that the numbers of Bantu housed at that camp have diminished. It is quite possible that within a reasonable time the numbers will have dropped to such an extent that it will no longer be necessary for these Bantu to be accommodated under these temporary emergency housing conditions. They can then be accommodated in suitable homes which comply with statutory requirements. Some of them are taken elsewhere, as the hon. member probably also knows. I may just say that earlier this year— I think it was in February—we had discussions with the representatives of the local authority and I can give the hon. member the assurance that that local authority is doing its best. There is one particular problem in connection with the matter that I mentioned at the start of my speech—the question of surface coverage and the laying out of sporting facilities and so forth —and that is the financing thereof. These things have to be financed from Bantu Revenue Account.

What about the city councils?

Wait a moment. The hon. member is still excited. A very important additional source of revenue in this connection is the profit from beer halls, and we now have the additional source of revenue from ordinary liquor. The hon. member knows—I need not elaborate in this regard no matter how tempting it is for me to say something about it—and I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows even better than the hon. member because he lives here, that the authorities here in Cape Town have never ever been really enthusiastic about introducing a good Bantu beer distribution system here and setting up beer-halls. They were even less enthusiastic about making available alcoholic liquor last year. Those two sources—although it was not our policy to institute them merely for the sake of the profit— do of course show a profit and a great deal can be done to provide housing, social facilities and such matters by financing them out of those beer profits. The local authorities have not had those sources of revenue up to the present but they ought to have them from now on because they have shelved their reasons for not wanting to introduce them in the past. These additional sources of revenue will now be available to them.

May I ask a question? What contributions do the municipalities of the northern suburbs make towards the financing of the development in that area?

Perhaps the hon. member does not know that an agreement was entered into in respect of the area outside of Cape Town, an agreement between the Divisional Council of the Cape and the local authorities, and the location is being controlled by the Divisional Council on behalf of all of them. The financing in this regard is a simple matter which is regulated by law. They establish a Bantu Revenue Account and they make loans and redeem them by means of the revenue that they derive from the Bantu. This revenue is supplemented from other sources and if the local authorities want to do so, they can also supplement this revenue by means of contributions from the general account.

But do they do so?

It can be done if necessary but if those local authorities handle matters correctly it will not be necessary to make large contributions out of the general account. This is done in certain parts of the country but it does not have to be done throughout the whole country. The hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) started his speech by sanctimoniously remarking that we were here to discuss the Budget, but my complaint against the Opposition is that we have these Estimates before this House year after year and the book is not even opened. We have altogether 16 sub-heads making provision for R18,250,000 but not a word is said about anything else but the salary of the hon. the Minister. Hon. members discuss Bantustans and anything else under the sun except the various Votes. I am very sorry that I must give the hon. member credit for it but the only member who said anything about the Vote was the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman). The only thing the Opposition was interested in was discussing its own ideology, instead of analysing the various Votes and asking why the money was being spent. [Time limit.]

I want to cross swords with the hon. the Minister who handles this Vote. He told us this afternoon that apartheid was the century-old policy of South Africa. We need not argue about that. We all agree with that. We have always been separate in South Africa. There has always been social apartheid. But where we are dealing with the Bantustans in the northern Transvaal the matter is not as simple as that. The question of the absolute independence of the Bantustans now comes into the picture. Apartheid has been the century-old policy of South Africa. I want to point it out to him once again. Perhaps he did not listen on the last occasion. I want to help him right as far as the history of the Transvaal is concerned. A policy was laid down in 1883 and was carried out to the minutest detail, even after the Anglo-Boer War. I want to quote from the manifesto of the late President Kruger during the first election for a president. I can recommend this manifesto to my hon. friends opposite. Even to-day it conforms exactly with the policy followed by this side of the House. [Laughter.]

Order!

Yes, it may sound peculiar, but it is true. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. member an opportunity of making his speech.

It reads as follows—

In other words, no matter what Bantustan is established, it must be under the protection of the Republic. That is the apartheid policy.

Is that still your policy?

It is still the policy of the United Party, but not sovereign independent states. We are to-day dealing with the future Bantu states in the northern Transvaal. It means that the Transvaal will be cut in two from east to west. It means that certain granaries of the Transvaal will be cut off from that part of the Transvaal where the White population is most dense. The White people will be surrounded by Bantustans which are independent. Surely that is the acknowledged policy to-day. When we come to deal with this question, which will probably be soon, in view of what has happened in the Transkei, it is the duty of us in this House and of the United Party to point out what the ancient policy was of the Boer nation. When I think of the dangers which lie ahead, bearing in mind what is happening to-day in the north of this continent, I think the main consideration is that we should be safe in this country. We should not have Bantu states on our borders.

Like Basutoland?

You want to make it worse. There must not be countries which can offer access to our country. That is of the utmost importance.

May I ask a question? Where the hon. member has quoted the ancient policy of the Transvaal, I want to ask him whether it was the policy of the Transvaal to give the Bantu representation in the Volksraad by the Bantu themselves, as is the policy of the United Party?

No, that was not the policy, but times have changed. This Government itself has even recognized that things have changed because they have Coloured Representatives in this House, and the same applies to them. [Time limit.]

We are very grateful to the hon. member for Pretoria (Rissik) (Mr. de Kock). He really did us a service because for the first time he told us that the policy of the United Party was the same as that embodied in the manifesto of President Kruger in 1883. The history of a nation does not lie. The hon. member did not distort history but do you know, Sir, where his whole speech fell down? It was when the hon. member for Innesdale (Mr. J. A. Marais) asked whether the Transvaal Republic also integrated its Bantu into its political structure.

Did they integrate all the Whites?

They only had a voice in the Volksraad. Does the hon. member want to dwell on the causes of the Anglo-Boer War? But I want to deal with the crux of the matter. Why is it that various hon. members are condemned to complete political impotence in this debate? I will tell you why. The one direction is being given by the hon. member for Pretoria (Rissik). He has his eye on Mr. Fritz Smit, the Fritz Smit. Sunday Times movement; those people who ridicule conservatism—the club policy. But the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) has his eye on the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman). I am not speaking literally now, only figuratively! [Laughter.] She is a liberal and that is why the United Party is between the devil and the deep blue sea. After 1948 they swung left. Now the hon. member for Pretoria (Rissik) is swinging back again and instead of alienating themselves from and being embittered towards the hon. member for Houghton, they have come to light with an affectionate fraternization with the Fritz Smit-Sunday Times movement. A few days ago I was in the Transvaal and do you know what they are saying there? They are saying that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is making an alliance with the Fritz Smit-Sunday Times movement there with a view to the 1966 elections. Do you know what they are saying? They are saying that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) is going to give up his seat to Mr. Fritz Smit and that the hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller) is in his turn going to give up his seat to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout! That is the position that we have. We are no longer afraid of the United Party. They have become a farce in South Africa and it is only logical for them to disappear from politics. The movement that we are afraid of is the Progressive Party because theirs is a dangerous direction. As long as the United Party is flanked by the Fritz Smit-Sunday Times movement, they will merely succeed in being a recruiting machine for the National Party and consolidating the voters behind the National Party. The United Party find themselves in a political dilemma. But I have been wondering since yesterday why it is that, one after the other, hon. members opposite deal with the Bantu in the western Cape, but when we ask them about political representation, they say that they are in favour of White leadership. They say that they are going to limit the Bantu to eight White Representatives in Parliament as we have limited the four Coloured Representatives. The question arises to my mind: Do they want to tell the country that eight Bantu Representatives are not dangerous? They must think back to 1948, to the election at which they were defeated. At that time we had three Bantu Representatives in the House. Do they think that the voters will be stupid enough to put the Opposition into power in 1966 when they say that they now want eight representatives for the Bantu in this House? What will these eight representatives mean? Let me deal with this matter against the background of the 1948 election. I want to tell the House why the United Party throw their political arms, figuratively speaking, so passionately about the necks of the Bantu in South Africa. In 1948, 70 Nationalists and nine Afrikaner Party members were elected making a total of 79, and there were 65 United Party members and six Labourites. The Opposition then numbered 71 as against 79 Nationalists, but to those 71 they added the three Native Representatives making the numbers 74 against 79. How they hankered after that Act giving the franchise to the Asiatics because they would then have had the support of the three Asiatic Representatives and the numbers would then have been 77 to 79. But if they had had eight Native Representatives instead of three in 1948, what would the position then have been? We would then have had an additional five Native Representatives who would also have climbed on to the political see-saw. We would have had three Asiatic Representatives and if at that stage we had already had four Coloured Representatives and eight Bantu Representatives, the political power in 1948 would have been in the hands of the United Party. They are still thinking about that difficult situation and that is why they want these things because without the assistance of the Bantu Representatives in this House they are condemned for ever to occupy the Opposition benches. [Interjection.] Yes, I know the political suffering of that Opposition Whip who has just interrupted me. What they are doing is to undermine the political authority of the White man in this country. They have a long record which has led step by step to the undermining and the weakening of the political authority of the White man, and that is why they cling so fiercely to the policy of eight Native Representatives and they try to make the country believe that these Native Representatives will not constitute a danger. But if the situation that existed in 1948 is ever repeated, we must ensure that we do not have eight Bantu Representatives in Parliament because they will be allies of the United Party and for that reason they will make political integration an accomplished fact as soon as they can. They talk about economic integration. The United Party have always alleged that this is a dynamic process which they cannot curb; that it must lead to political integration, and they have accepted this fact over the years. They cannot limit a dynamic process to eight Bantu in Parliament. We say that the Bantu must achieve their own political aspirations in their own homelands. In other words, we are not in favour of the Black man being integrated in the political structure of the White man; of the ward being integrated in the politics of the guardian. What right do the United Party have to follow a policy of wanting to incorporate the ward in the political structure of the guardian, the White man, and of giving that ward a co-say in the politics and in the affairs of the White guardian? That is completely wrong in principle. [Time limit.]

If I reply to the speech of the hon. Chief Whip you will, Sir, I am sure, rule me out of order. But I want to reply to one point. He suggested that the vast majority of the Bantu and the Coloureds and Indians were opposed to this Government today and yet the hon. the Minister spends days telling us how well they support the Government! How are we to understand the position?

I want to say a few words about these Bantustans that will be established in the Transvaal. [Interjection.] We hear that Bantustans are coming, and I hope that the Transvaal members will support me, including the hon. member for Brits (Mr. J. E. Potgieter). We do not want to be caught out like the people in the Transkei. We do not want to have the wool pulled over our eyes as happened to the people in the western Cape with this Alice-in-Wonderland story about the removal of the Bantu from the western Cape.

Now you are talking nonsense (kaf).

Order! The hon. member must please withdraw from the House for the remainder of the day’s sitting.

Whereupon Mr. Greyling withdrew.

We want to take precautionary measures. It was easy to establish Bantustans in the Transkei. It was very far away and it did not affect the Transvalers. It affected other people, like the supporters of the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes). When Bantustans are established in Natal, 30 per cent of Natal will be a Bantustan. We are still a long way from Natal. But it is coming nearer and nearer and we are being asked this question in the Transvaal: Where are the Bantustans going to be established? Well, it is easy enough at places like Louis Trichardt and Pietersburg and Potgietersrus to tell those people: You are in the Bantustan area and you will have to move, and the sooner the better. But the hon. member for Marico (Mr. Grobler) is in a difficult position because we hear that a Bantustan will be established 20 miles from Pretoria.

The repetition of hearsay leads to many lies.

Border areas are being established at Hammanskraal and outside Pretoria. We want to know what is going to happen at Rustenburg and in the western Transvaal. What can we tell the people at Zeerust? It is time that the hon. the Minister told us what the position is. These people are in doubt. They do not know whether they have to leave or not. How ridiculous the whole thing is! Hammanskraal is now becoming a Native area, but what about the south-western parts of Johannesburg? There are many more Natives there. Is that also going to become a Bantustan? How far is this process going to go? I think that it is high time the hon. the Minister told the Transvaal where these Bantustans are going to be established. We in the Transvaal do not want to find ourselves in the position of not knowing where the Bantustans are going to be established even though the Act has already been passed. We want that information beforehand.

I think that before we discuss Bantustans again the Opposition must give us their interpretation of a Bantustan because that term is not ours. We use the term “Bantu homelands”. I was struck by the fact that the hon. member who has just spoken was becoming impatient. Apparently he wants to know this evening when a Bantu homeland is going to be established in the Transvaal.

No, where?

But is the hon. member not concerned about when this will happen? The hon. member asked when this would happen. If the hon. member looks at the map he will see where the Bantu are living in the Transvaal. He will see that we already have established Bantu areas, particularly at Pietersburg, and I can tell him that we will continue with the process of consolidation just as will be done in all other parts of South Africa. But if the hon. member is impatient about this matter, he can do the country a great service by not always talking about it. We are still dealing with the very first Bantu homeland. Once it has been established and the hon. member and his colleagues have been able to see how it functions, and how relationships between White South Africa and the Bantu homelands are improved, then the hon. member will realize that once we have a model it will be far easier to proceed with this work in the future. What more does the hon. member want to know?

We want to know where they will be established.

Has the hon. member never looked at the maps? Does he not know where the Bantu in the Transvaal are living? [Interjections.]

Where is the Transkei?

Have I now to say for the umpteenth time where the Transkei is situated? The Transkei is bordered on the south by the Kei River and on the east by the ocean; it is bordered on the north by the Uhtavuma River and on the west by the Drakensberg. The Transkei lies within this complex and no other area can be included in the Transkei. The hon. member switched from the Transvaal to the Transkei but he does not even know where the Transkei is. I wonder whether he knows where the Transvaal is? No, hon. members are suddenly trying to make the Transvaal aware of what is happening. They are trying to spread propaganda. I want to tell the hon. member immediately that no Bantustans will be established in the heart of the Witwatersrand and the Pretoria area, unlike the policy of hon. members opposite who are trying to build up a large land-owning class of Bantu there. The expansion of the Bantu areas in the White areas as advocated by the United Party will not take place under this Government. But the Bantu homelands will be situated in those natural areas where the Bantu are already established. A process of consolidation will take place but I want to emphasize the fact that the efforts and the policy of the United Party to make land available to the Bantu within the Witwatersrand area will, I am sure, be unsuccessful. If there is one point on which the United Party will be consistently defeated it is in regard to the policy that they advocate of not giving the Bantu land in their natural homelands but of trying to make them land-owners in the White area. That is where the conflict arises and that is the great difference between the United Party and ourselves. They become very upset when one talks about making additional land available for Bantu homelands, land that must be given to them under the 1936 Act. Then they say that the country is being fragmented but they forget that it is their own policy to fragment South Africa by giving the Bantu land-ownership rights in the White area.

What about Hammanskraal?

Does the hon. member not know where Hammanskraal is? It is not in the heart of the White area. Bantu have been living there for generations but those hon. members are now proposing that land be given to the Bantu in the municipal area of Johannesburg. [Interjection.] Does the hon. member not know what his party proposes to do? Does he not know that they want to establish a land-owning class of Bantu in Johannesburg? Either that hon. member is not normal or he does not know his party. If he denies this then I think that the time has come for us to show the United Party up for what it is. We must hold a meeting on the Rand so that we can tell the public about the proposal of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the Sunday Times. But that hon. member says that he does not know about any proposal of that nature.