Unless notice of objection to the adoption of the Report is given at the commencement of the next sitting day, the Report will be considered as adopted.

I move—

I second.

I do not want to object to the introduction of the Bill at this stage. All I want to ask is whether the hon. the Minister will reassure those of us who do not feel happy about this Bill. After the Bill appeared in the Government Gazette in April, certain rumours were circulated in the Press and outside—I understand that the newspapers this morning also contained reports to this effect—that the original Bill had been changed. We do not know whether these reports are correct or not. That is why I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will give those people who are interested in this matter—and there are more of them than he imagines—the opportunity to study the Bill carefully so that they can frame amendments if necessary.

Mr. Speaker, in connection with the questions put to me by the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop), I want to inform the House that after this Bill was published all interested bodies had the opportunity of making representations. They made use of that opportunity and they did make representations and as the result of that a considerable number of changes were made in the Bill; that is to say, the Bill which is now being introduced differs in some respects from the Bill as originally published. Because I am not the Leader of the House, I cannot give the hon. member the assurance that he wants from me, but I take it that the hon. the Leader of the House will bear in mind the request of the hon. member for Mossel Bay.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill brought up and read a first time.

I move—

This Bill has already been introduced in the Other Place in the beginning of the Session, but was withdrawn during the second reading after representations were received from the Institute of Patent Agents. The proposed amendments in the Bill envisage in the first place the amendment of the present legal provisions in regard to the appointment of an Acting Commissioner of Patents. Although the present Act provides for acting appointments in the post of Commissioner of Patents, it does not cover cases where such posts fall vacant as the result of the demise of commissioners. Acting appointments recently had to be made on the demise on 5 February 1963 of Advocate Retief, who served as Commissioner of Patents. In order to legalize this appointment, and also to cover similar incidents in future, the amendments contained in Clauses 1 (1) and 1 (2) are being proposed. The object of Clause 2 (1) of this Bill is to prohibit the public and agents from making copies of patent documents in the Patents Office by means of photostatic and similar machinery. Section 69 of the Patents Act, No. 37 of 1952, makes provision for access by the public to patent documents, and in terms of Section 70 any person may demand copies of such documents on payment of a reasonable fee. The fees are very low— it is at present 15c per page for a photostatic copy. About three years ago these provisions in the Act were interpreted by the Appeal Court as meaning that the public are allowed to make copies of documents themselves by means of photostatic and other machinery. At the moment there are four such machines in the office, facilities and electricity for which are made available, and it may be that appreciably more of these machines will be introduced there by private organizations. That is obviously an undesirable practice.

In order to make copies of patent specifications which are bound together, those documents must be taken apart; the particular page of which a copy has to be made is detached and it is then handed over to private clerks. From the very nature of the matter it is impossible to keep proper supervision over such persons. They sit in a corner of the office where this work is done and thereafter they themselves collate the documents again and hand them back to the Patents Office. These are important documents which ought not to get into the hands of private persons in this way. I think hon. members will agree with me that steps should be taken to put a stop to this practice.

The patent agents objected to this on two grounds. The first was based on the decision of the Appeal Court. That Court decided that although it is not contained in the Act, the tight to have access also includes the right to make copies. It is not the intention of the Bill to prohibit the public from scrutinizing these documents and at the same time to make notes. Facilities for this purpose and the right to do so have been in existence for many years already. The object of the Bill is, as I have already stated, merely to prohibit the use of machines for this purpose, and furthermore it will also enable the Patents Office to make photostatic copies and to supply them to any applicant, as was the real intention of the Act.

I come now to the second objection raised by the patent agents. They allege that the Patents Office will not be able timeously to deliver the copies applied for. In this regard funds have already been made available in the Estimates for the purchase of three more machines, and staff will be trained for this purpose. It is for this very reason that the Registrar of Patents requested that this Act should only come into operation after promulgation. That may mean a delay of approximately three months, but it is clear that the necessary apparatus cannot be acquired until such time as this measure has been passed.

I may add that the Patents Office has been doing this type of work for years already, but if it now also has to do the work which is at present being done by the agents, extra machines and staff will be required. I have been informed that if all this work is done by the Patents Office it will probably be cheaper for applicants than is the case at present. It is not the object to make any profits out of the supply of these copies, and if it is found that the cost is lower than the fees charged at present, the tariffs will be amended accordingly.

This amending Bill is acceptable to this side of the House for the reasons advanced by the hon. the Deputy Minister but we would like to move that the prohibition in Clause 2 should not be an absolute prohibition. I refer to the prohibition against the making of copies by mechanical means. At the Committee Stage we will move an amendment to the effect that in order to avoid delays in certain cases the Registrar should be given the discretion to grant the necessary permission for copies to be made in the Patents Office by outside bodies, and we hope that this amendment will be acceptable. I think that the hon. the Minister is already aware of the amendments that we intend moving at the Committee Stage.

I wish to make it quite clear at the outset that I accept the Deputy Minister’s explanation and I have no quarrel with the first amendment to Section 4 of the Patents Act, 1952. The substitution, I accept, is merely an extension of the existing sections of the Patents Act, and it is necessary to insert it to cover the position when the Commissioner is precluded from doing his work owing to illness or if he should die, as happened in this case. When the late Commissioner died there was no provision in the section for a temporary appointment, and this amendment is necessary therefore to legalize the position. I would like to say, however, that I am very seriously concerned about the principle involved in the second portion of the proposed amendment. May I say that in the original Bill the established rights of the public to view and to take notes of documents in the Patents Office were entirely removed in the original amendment, which was withdrawn by the Deputy Minister in the Other Place. The original amendment entirely removed these rights of the public, and so were the established rights of patent agents to make copies by way of photostat machines of all documents and patent specifications in the Patents Office in Pretoria. This right, as the Deputy Minister has said, was incorporated in Section 69 of the Patents Act, 1952, which allowed the public to copy documents in the Patents Office in Pretoria. I would also like to emphasize very strongly here that this right is incorporated in the Deeds Registries Act, No. 47 of 1937, which deals with the inspection of records and the supply of information and allows the public to copy documents in the Deeds Office. I wish to draw the Deputy Minister’s attention to the fact that these wide implications will not interfere in any way with other Acts. Has the Deputy Minister consulted with the Side Bar and the Law Societies; has he taken into consideration the precedent that the insertion of this clause will create? The second point that I wish to emphasize is that the patent agents themselves only installed their machines to make copies of patent specifications when it took a long time to have such copies made in the Patents Office in Pretoria itself. Here I would like to stress the reason why patent agents have to have their copies with as little delay as possible. The situation in South Africa as far as patent rights are concerned is that our patent agents have helped to build up goodwill and foreign trade to a certain extent between South Africa and countries abroad. Documents are sent to South Africa because the patent laws here involve the least delay. In the United Kingdom it takes three to four years to register patents; in the U.S.A. it takes three to four years or longer, and here in South Africa it usually takes a maximum of 18 months. When inventions are patented in South Africa only a period of three months is allowed in which objections may be lodged against the registration of that patent. It is essential therefore that the patent agents should be able to get copies immediately so that they can send them back to those clients who have applied for copies. That is one of the main reasons why the patent agents felt that they had to provide their own services. Copies of patent specifications are also required for general information to enable a person to protect his position when a patentee has threatened to sue him or has instituted infringement proceedings against him. The right of the public to take their own notes is of great value in the patent world. If the proposed original amendment which the Deputy Minister introduced in the Other Place had gone through, it would have meant that the public would have been precluded from making copies and would have been forced to incur heavy expenditure sometimes. It is of great importance that copies should be made available with as little delay as possible. For example, a farmer might very innocently build some equipment for himself. He is then sued or he is threatened with prosecution for an infringement of the Act. If the original amendment had become law then he would not simply have been able to go to the Patents Office and make a copy of the patent in question; he would have been forced to order a copy and wait until he could get a photostat copy sent to him by the office in Pretoria. I feel that the present amendment is a great improvement on the original one which was introduced in the Other Place and then subsequently withdrawn. Under this amendment the rights of the public are still guaranteed. They will still be able to take notes, but they will not be able to utilize mechanical means in copying these documents. I appreciate that in the past there may have been some difficulties between the Department and those firms which install their own machines, firstly because their clerks cluttered up the office and secondly because having extracted documents from files which sometimes contain 600 documents, they may have failed to replace them. Some of these difficulties were perhaps attributable to the firms which installed the machines; others may have been due to the Department itself. I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister whether the improvements which he has outlined in his second-reading speech can be instituted immediately. I understand that the Estimates provide for the acquisition of three additional machines for this office. At the moment there are three machines in use, one copyright machine and two photostat machines. Will the Minister be able to provide at the same cost the same service which the agents who installed their own machines were providing themselves? Or does the hon. the Deputy Minister propose to institute the same type of service which they have in Canada where 25 copies of every patent document are made immediately the document comes into the office and then kept in the file so that interested parties can buy them without delay? I would like to recommend this system to the hon. the Deputy Minister. I feel that it would have great advantages. The only point that I can see against it is that there might be a wastage in respect of patent specifications which might not be required again. This system is used not only in Canada but in six other major countries in the world to-day and I would seriously commend this system for the consideration of the hon. the Deputy Minister, because the main concern of the patent agents themselves is speed and efficiency of service to their clients at a low cost. If sufficient photostat machines and copyright machines are installed and if there is sufficient clerical staff in the Patents Office in Pretoria, then there will be no necessity for the practitioners to install their own machines. If the extended service which was outlined by the Minister in his speech cannot be provided then in order to safeguard the rights of the general public and of the practitioners, I intend in the Committee Stage to put forward a further amendment which will provide that if through circumstances beyond his control or through extraordinary circumstances the Registrar is unable to furnish the required copies without undue delay, he may at his discretion permit any person to make the necessary copies by mechanical means. Delays might well be caused through a shortage of personnel, through a shortage of photostat paper which has to be imported from overseas or perhaps through a breakdown of the machines, and in those circumstances the Registrar would then have the discretion under the proposed amendment to allow mechanical means to be used by the practitioners. I would commend this amendment to the hon. the Deputy Minister for his very serious consideration, and with the addition of such an amendment this clause would then be acceptable to us.

The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mrs. Weiss), after having had an interview with the Registrar, consulted me in regard to the proposed amendment, and I then already indicated that we would accept the amendment which would be moved in the Committee Stage. The hon. member also asked whether a similar provision should not apply to other Departments also in regard to the making of copies. The position is that a similar right exists in the Deeds Offices, the Master’s Office and also in the Supreme Court. The right already exists to peruse documents and to make copies in those offices. As far as I know, it has never happened in any of those Departments that attorneys have installed a photostat apparatus there to make their own copies. Copies are available on demand and on payment of a small fee. In the Patents Office matters unfortunately went further in regard to the installation of photostat machines. This amendment has reference only to the Patents Office; it has nothing to do with the other offices. In fact, most of the other offices where the same procedure is followed do not fall under this Department, and I am not aware that any problems arose there similar to those which arose in the Patents Office.

The hon. member also raised the question of the speedy delivery of copies. It is clear that patent agents often hurriedly have to make copies of the necessary documents, and that is the very reason why we want to make provision for the installation of three additional machines. They will then replace the four machines belonging to private organizations. These three additional machines will have a greater capacity than the other four which are used only by the agents concerned: there are times when they are not in use, whereas these three machines which will be installed will be permanently and full time at the disposal of the Registrar. We therefore consider that the three additional machines will in fact meet the requirements. The cost is very low at the moment. We have proved that the fees which clients have to pay to patent agents for copies made by them are much higher than the fees they would have paid had they obtained the copies directly from the Department.

The hon. member also referred to the practice in other countries, namely to make copies of a patent simultaneously with its registration. The Registrar is busy investigating the possibility of simultaneously with the registration immediately to make a number of copies which can then be issued practically on demand against payment of the fee fixed. That will save time in regard to the issue of copies, but it will perhaps, as the hon. member herself said, lead to wasted costs, and those wasted costs will have to be recouped by increasing the present fee. I have already indicated that there will perhaps be a reduction in the fee if copies are made on a large scale, but the whole question of the making of a large number of copies which will then be available on demand is already being investigated by the Department, and I hope it will be done if it is in any way possible to do so.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

I am convinced hon. members will welcome the introduction of this Bill. The existing Act has been on the Statute Book since 1916 and has become obsolete in so many respects that it no longer complies with present-day requirements. With a view to remedying this undesirable state of affairs a special committee was appointed approximately two years ago to revise, amend where necessary and to consolidate the existing Act as a whole. That committee consisted of the Registrar of Trade Marks as Chairman, the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks, a representative of the Bar Council of South Africa, a representative of the South African Law Society, and two representatives of the South Africa Institute of Patent Agents.

The matter was widely publicized and various patent agents, the Federation of British Industries, the industrial section of the Board of Industry of the United Kingdom, the Associated Chambers of Commerce of South Africa, the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut and the Institute of Patent Agents in Britain submitted memoranda and comment. The representations submitted to the departmental committee were thoroughly and sympathetically considered and I believe there will be little or no objection to the Bill in its present from.

A great many of the existing legal provisions are retained in the proposed Bill although in an improved form while it contains a number of new principles. I shall refer to the most important of these new principles. In Clause 2 (1) the word “trade mark” which is the corner stone of this legislation is defined more clearly. The peculiar characteristic of a trade mark is that it does not only show the origin of a particular article but also the difference between the same type of article manufactured by one person from that manufactured by another person. The committee which went into this matter was of the opinion that “origin” was not as important as “quality”. The public in general is more concerned about the last-mentioned and when they buy they buy an articles with a trade mark known for its quality. The proposed definition makes these aspects clearer without, however, subordinating “origin” to “quality”. Furthermore in the existing Act the definition of “trade mark” is limited to origin alone whereas the proposed new definition puts it wider so that “trade mark” can also indicate quality.

Clauses 8 and 9 contain new provisions which have not existed in the past and their object is to limit the right of people, except attorneys and qualified patent agents, who may appear before the Registrar on behalf of other persons in this sense that such persons must have practised continuously on their own or must have been in the employ as trade mark agents of a firm practising as such for a period of at least two years prior to 1 January 1964. The provisions of this Bill have already been known generally since 1 January 1961 and those people who want to start to practise as trade mark agents or attorneys in this respect after 1 January 1964 will therefore have sufficient time to comply with all the necessary requirements. The motive is obvious, namely the elimination of charlatans, but anybody is still at liberty to state his own case to the Registrar.

Clause 10 lays down the requirements for the registration of a trade mark, as for example the name of the company, a coined word, signature, etc. What is of particular importance is the fact that provision is made for the registration of a distinctive container. The Committee investigated and discussed this matter very thoroughly and came to the conclusion that it was desirable to make provision for the registration of distinctive containers as trade marks. Overseas countries have come to the same conclusion. What we have in mind here, for example, are bottles of a special design for perfumes. Provision is, however, made that such a registration will not prevent an art of industry from concentrating on the creation of containers of the shape concerned. This clause also provides that the applicant will have a choice either of applying to court or to the Registrar to have a trade mark of this nature cancelled. The Registrar is, therefore, given parallel jurisdiction and the main object is to cut down the work of the courts and to reduce the legal costs to the applicant.

Clause 11 is a new clause and provides for a A and B register of trade marks. It is a requirement that trade marks for registration in the A register must be distinctive at date of application, while in the case of registration in the B register it must be of such a nature at the date of application that it can become distinctive, for example, a surname is not necessarily distinctive at a certain time, but it can become so through usage. Think of “Mrs. Balls Chutney” for example.

Clause 17 provides that the trade mark of one person cannot be registered in the name of somebody else as well and also that a new trade mark must not resemble an existing trade mark to such an extent that it may cause confusion or be misleading. The clause envisages, however, giving the Registrar jurisdiction, in a case of genuine simultaneous usage, to agree to it that identical trade marks or trade marks which are very similar in respect of the same or practically the same article may be used by more than one person subject to such provisos and conditions as the Registrar may impose. This too will cut down court work and costs.

Clause 19 is a new clause and its aim is to prevent a user of a certain trade mark which is registered with an open space in it which is obviously intended for the addition of additional marks in the form of words, designs, etc., from being used for marks which will change the character of the trade mark concerned.

The procedure to be followed in connection with the application for trade marks is laid down in Clause 20 and in this respect it gives the Registrar certain powers as well as the right to the applicant to appeal to court against a decision of the Registrar. These provisions are also contained in the existing Act but the wording in the proposed Bill has been improved.

Clause 23 is also a new clause. Provision is made in this clause for a parent company to have a trade mark registered in its name but to have it used by its subsidiaries. The reason for this is that a subsidiary company, although a legal person in its own rights, only serves the interests of the parent company and that it would not be right for a subsidiary company, instead of the parent company, to have a trade mark registered in its name. If that were possible practical difficulties would be experienced in cases where a parent company has a dozen or so subsidiary companies and where every one of these subsidiary companies has to be the registered holder of the same trade mark.

Clause 24 is a new clause. It only provides that an application for a trade mark should not be refused simply on the ground that the applicant himself will not use it. In such a case (a) he must satisfy the Registrar that he will cede the trade mark to a body corporate, and which is about to be registered at the date of the application, for use by that body or (b) his application must be accompanied by a further application for the registration of the name of the person whom he wants to allow to use the trade mark. This clause may appear drastic at first glance. In practice, however, it will facilitate matters much more than at present. The real object is that a person who wants to form a company, for example, can submit a trade mark while his company is still in the process of being formed so as to prevent somebody stealing a march on him by registering a similar trade mark. He must only satisfy the Registrar that he is indeed in the process of forming a company. In terms of the existing provisions a company must have been formed and registered before a trade mark can be registered.

Clause 28 is a new clause. Provision is made in this clause that in a court action where the registration of a trade mark is opposed the applicants will have the choice and may come to an agreement that it be heard either by a court or by the Registrar. Provision is made for a choice with the object of saving legal costs and time.

Provision is made in Clauses 32 and 33 for the Registrar himself or on the application of the user of a trade mark to make changes or improvements in the trade mark register. In terms of the existing Act the applicant must go to court, but now he applies to the Registrar himself with the right of appeal to the court. Changes and improvements to the register are also dealt with in Clause 33 but in this case it concerns applications by persons who feel aggrieved because of mistakes or omissions, etc., in the registration of trade marks. In this case the applicant will in future have a choice to apply either to the Registrar or to the court for such changes or improvements, whereas in terms of the existing Act he could only go to court.

I now come to Clause 35. Clause 20, inter alia, provides that the Registrar may accept a trade mark subject to certain conditions or provisos (for example: that it may only apply to goods of a specific nature or that it may only be used in certain areas, etc.). Clause 35 gives the Registrar or any aggrieved person the right, in the event of the holder of the trade mark contravening any of these conditions, to go to court. An aggrieved person may, however, if he chooses, put his case to the Registrar instead of going to court, but in terms of Clause 20 (6) such a person still has the right to appeal to the court. In terms of the existing Act he can only apply to court.

Provision is made in Clause 36 for the cancellation of trade marks on the application of an aggrieved person for the following two reasons: (a) that it was not the bona fide object of the applicant to use such a trade mark and that he did not in fact use it and (b) that no bona fide use has been made of the trade mark for a period of five years. In both cases the fact that the holder deliberately uses the trade mark within a period of a month from the date on which he has been notified of such an application for its cancellation is ignored. Without this provision the object of this provision would be nullified. According to this clause the aggrieved person will have a choice between applying to court or to the Registrar. In terms of the existing legislation he can only go to court. The clause also provides for the trade mark to be removed from the register on application if it appears that the person or company which holds it has died more than two years prior to the date of the application or has dissolved and that the trade mark was not ceded to anybody else. This provision is necessary in order to avoid embarrassment and delay in the event of new applications being made for the same trade mark by a person who is alive or by an existing company and the mark still appearing on the register in the name of the deceased person or defunct company.

Clause 41 is partly new. It provides that, if a trade mark consists of a word which is generally known to the public as the only practical word or description of an article or part of it or if it is used so generally in business by people trading in that article, it can no longer be regarded as a trade mark. In other words, the principle is being applied in trade mark practice that a word cannot be both the name and trade mark of an article. “Linoleum” was a trade mark at one time, but is no longer to-day. “Vaseline” is still a trade mark in South Africa but is not in many other countries.

Clauses 43 and 44 contain the rights of and the circumstances under which holders of a trade mark can take steps to prevent unauthorized use being made of their trade marks.

Clause 47 provides that a trade mark will be valid for ten years subject to the holder’s right to have it renewed for further periods thereafter. In terms of the existing Act this period is 14 years. The reason for this is that in many instances it has been proved in practice that holders of trade marks no longer have any interest in the trade marks registered in their name long before the expiration of 14 years and in future the fact that the period of validity of trade marks is shortened will mean that the number of expired trade marks on the register will be considerably reduced.

Clause 49 is a somewhat amended version of Section 130 of the existing Act. Briefly it amounts to this that it will not be possible to cede a trade mark to a third party in circumstances which will lead to it that more than one person can use such a trade mark or one which is practically the same for the same article and furthermore that the same trade mark cannot be ceded or transferred to various persons in various areas. Or in the reverse, the clause provides that trade marks can be ceded or transferred while at the same time guarding against confusion and the misleading of the public.

Clause 53 is an important new clause. In terms of the existing Act it is only possible for a person to have a trade mark registered if he intends using it on the articles mentioned in his application. This means that he is powerless if somebody else uses the same mark on articles other than those in respect of which the mark has been registered. This clause will ensure, however, that such a holder of a trade mark will be able to have his mark registered in respect of goods on which he does not intend to use it provided he can satisfy the Registrar that if another person uses the relevant trade mark on those articles it will probably lead the public to believe that the articles emanate from him. Briefly the main object of this clause is to avoid misleading the public.

Clause 54 is a new clause. In terms of the existing Act the Registrar is obliged to hear all cases in Pretoria. In terms of the new clause he will be able to do so at other places as well provided he is of the opinion that it is in the interests of the parties concerned or for other justifiable reasons.

Clause 56 is also a new clause. It empowers the Registrar at any time prior to the registration of a trade mark to allow the documents before him in respect of an application or in respect of a case before him to be changed or to lay down such conditions in respect of costs as he may deem justifiable.

I now come to Clauses 63 to 69. Clause 63 is an amended and extended version of Section 137 of the existing Act, whereas Clauses 64 and 67 contain the same provisions which are contained in the existing Act to-day. Clauses 65, 66, 68 and 69 are new clauses. All these clauses deal with appeals against the decision of the Registrar and lay down the power of the court. As in the case of a provision in the Patents Act, Clause 63 (5) provides that parties may appeal direct to the Appeal Court against decisions of the Registrar. For the rest the clause is based on provisions which appear in existing legislation and does not really embrace any new principles.

Clause 75 is a new clause. In the past doubt has often been expressed whether the use of a trade mark in respect of goods which are only exported can be regarded as if the relevant trade mark is being used in South Africa for the purposes of the Trade Marks Act. This clause now states it very clearly that that is indeed the case and removes all doubts.

When the Bill was originally drafted paragraph (b) of sub-clause (1) of Clause 44 was included in the draft but after that the Committee met on three occasions and reconsidered this aspect and it has eventually been decided to delete this provision which extends the scope of an infringement action concerning goods in respect of which a mark is not registered. The reasons for the deletion of this paragraph were stated as follows by the departmental committee: “Other persons in the trade are entitled to know the precise ambit of the statutory rights conferred by registration and that the proposed extension could only bring about a state of uncertainty.”

It is, therefore, my intention to move the deletion of paragraph (b) of sub-clause (1) of Clause 44 when we come to the Committee Stage.

Before I conclude I wish to refer to Clause 6 (2). It will be noted that provision is made for a Deputy and Assistant Registrar. The Registrar is also in charge of the Companies, Patents, Models and Copyright Office and there has already been an Assistant Registrar since 1952. The additional post of Deputy Registrar has been approved since January 1962. The three posts require legal qualifications and the present officials all have degrees in law. That is the reason why the references in Sections 120, 176 and 177 of the existing Act, which prescribes consultation with the legal adviser, have not been included in this Bill.

As far as the amendments and new principles are concerned, I think hon. members now have a fairly good idea of what is envisaged. In comparison with the existing Act it will be noticed that the provisions of the Bill appear in a much better chronological order and that they are clearer. I hope this Bill will enjoy the approval of the public and that it will succeed to convince industrialists and others of the advantages of trade marks. Hon. members will realize what part trade marks play in the economy of the country when I point out that approximately 150,000 trade marks are already registered and that applications are received at the rate of 4,500 per annum.

The speech of the hon. the Deputy Minister shows how important this Trade Marks Bill is to the country and the vast number of changes that are being made to the existing Act. This Bill is both a consolidating and an amending Bill and deals with a very technical subject indeed. There are 83 clauses, Sir. The hon. the Minister appointed a committee representing everybody who was directly affected. It was very difficult to get hold of a copy of their report but this side of the House fortunately got one eventually and was completely satisfied that the report submitted amendments that were essential for the modern working of the Trade Marks Act of this country.

I am going to bless this Bill but I have quite a lot to say beforehand. There are 83 clauses which we have had to check. Considerable amendments are made. I am sure that this House does not subscribe to the suggestion that where a State Department comes to an agreement with any particular outside interest we must necessarily automatically confirm those arrangements. We are entitled to have matters submitted to us in a form in which we can give the necessary study to the matter and in the easiest possible way. That was not possible in this instance without a White Paper. I hope in all sincerity that we never have such a complicated matter as this brought to us again without an explanatory memorandum. It is not fair to us and it is not fair to Parliament that things like this should happen.

We accept this Bill. There is no question about it that it brings our legislation into line with the best of the legislation in the world to-day. The definition of “trade mark”, as mentioned by the hon. the Deputy Minister, is a very considerable improvement. The fact that people can now negotiate direct with the Registrar and agree beforehand that his decision shall be final on a matter is obviously a very great improvement. All the provisions in regard to appeals to the court remain, but this particular provision under which the parties can agree not to go to court and accept the Registrar’s decision as final is obviously based on very sound business principles. In addition, as the hon. the Deputy Minister has said, the reduction of the period for which trade marks give protection, namely from 14 to 10 years, with an additional 10 years in place of 14, is in accordance with modern practice. There is one other matter I want to mention and that is the question of the Registrar being able to appoint deputies outside Pretoria. This will make it much easier for everybody.

With the strictures about the explanatory memorandum I wish to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that I think his Department has done a good job of work but we are not very pleased with him on this question, of the lack of an explanatory memorandum.

I am in general aggreement with the contents of this Trade Marks Bill put forward by the hon. the Deputy Minister. I should like to associate myself with the remarks of my colleague the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) and ask why no White Paper was presented to this House. This is a highly complicated Bill. It is a Bill with 83 clauses as compared with the 44 sections of the old Patents and Trade Marks Act of 1916. I feel that in a measure of this magnitude a short White Paper explaining where these 83 clauses differ from those of the 1916 Act would have been greatly appreciated by hon. members on this side of the House. That would have made it considerably easier for us to study this Bill in the short time available.

There appears to be only a very minor measure of criticism in this committee report that thas been referred to by the hon. the Deputy Minister. This committee was appointed by the Department of Economic Affairs in 1960. The hon. the Deputy Minister has already commented on the members who sat on this committee. It was representative of the law societies, the General Bar Council, the Registrar of Trade Marks, the then Assistant Registrar who is now the Registrar, and the S.A. Institute of Patent Agents. The Bill now before the House is not in conflict with this report. It is substantially 99 per cent what they recommended.

I should like to refer to certain clauses because the main innovation in this report is the division of the register into A and B sections which the hon. the Deputy Minister has already commented upon. This is a very important extention. It is an extension to the effect that trade marks which are not distinctive to-day may become distinctive in future. This is welcomed by the patent agents themselves. Clauses 19, 20, 28, 32, 33, 35 and 36 extend the jurisdiction to the Registrar of Trade Marks to hear cases and give judgment but retain the essential right to the applicant to go to the Supreme Court. Such clauses are to be welcomed. The applicant can then appeal against the Registrar’s decision or he can elect to come before the Registrar. Clause 23 is also to be welcomed. It allows the parent company to apply for a trade mark for registration and that trade mark can now be used by the parent company and subsidiary companies, which was not possible in the past.

Regarding the very important Clause 44, that the hon. the Deputy Minister has already commented upon, may I say that I welcome hearing that certain sections of this clause are going to be expunged and amended. May I say that the Trade Marks Bill is approved in general by the S.A. Institute of Patent Agents except for certain desirable changes in Clause 44. They feel that 44 (1) should be amended by cancelling the words in brackets on lines 3 to 4, page 28, because if these words are left in, Clause 52 will not provide for infringement of certification marks. It is also felt that the whole of sub-section (b) of Clause 44 (1) should be removed from this Bill because it leaves the public and the trade in an uncertain position regarding infringement. A monopoly could be granted and it would cover the goods identified in the registration and also goods of the same description. This term has always created problems. I may draw the hon. the Deputy Minister’s attention to paragraph 39 of the committee’s report where it gives the reasons why this sub-section was not recommended by the committee. I therefore welcome the announcement by the hon. the Deputy Minister that he is going to adjust this contentious Clause 44.

There are other amendments which can be welcomed such as the proposed use of a trade mark by companies about to be formed. It was not possible in the past to register a trade mark in the name of a company about to be formed and that may now be done. The clauses regarding distinctive trade marks have been strengthened. With Clause 44 (1) amended and Clause 44 (1) (b) removed I feel that this side of the House can welcome this Bill as a marked improvement on the many difficulties that the patent agents and the Registrar of trade marks, I have no doubt, have suffered over the years in using the old trade marks section of the 1916 Act.

The hon. member wants to know why a White Paper was not published. It is quite true that this is a complicated Bill. There is general agreement on the part of those bodies which are at all interested in this legislation. I want to point out that when the Patents Bill was introduced in 1952 no White Paper was made available at that stage either. That Bill was just as technical as this one. Nevertheless I want to give hon. members the assurance that if we again introduce legislation of this nature we will consider the question of tabling a White Paper as well.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

Depending on the basis of their constitution, there are, in the main, two types of mutual friendly societies. On the one hand there are those societies—and they are the greater majority—where the members are already associated in a group as the result of some other common factor, for example the employees of the same employer, or at the most, of a few associated employers, who generally in co-operation with the employer establish a friendly society, or the employees in a particular branch of industry, etc. In this type of society the membership as a rule is not very great and all the say in regard to the matters of the society rests with its members. The idea of mutuality consequently comes prominently to the fore with such societies, and members accept that the fate of the society, in the final result, lies in their own hands, and that consequently they have to be content with that.

On the other hand, there are the societies which may be called the “entrepreneur type”. In this case one or more persons establish a “mutual” friendly society—usually a medical scheme—with the object of recruiting members on a large scale, sometimes even countrywide, and mostly by way of groups. Undoubtedly the prospect of earning managerial remuneration plays a role in the minds of the founders of this type of society.

The dangers inherent in the last-mentioned type of society are, e.g., that persons who do not have the necessary integrity, efficiency or financial means or support may collect contributions from the public on a large scale, and after having frittered away a large part of these contributions they find that they cannot fulfil their promises and simply give up. It may also happen that as a result of an unfortunate happening, e.g. abnormal demands being made upon it in the early stages of its existence, a society founders merely because it does not have sufficient funds available.

It is obvious that the idea of mutuality is practically completely absent in this type of society, and that members will be inclined to regard the relationship between themselves and the society as a strictly business one. If the affairs of such a society therefore go awry, apart from the damage which members may suffer, serious repercussions may possibly ensue which may adversely affect the whole movement and bring it into disrepute. It is therefore in the public interest that measures should be effected to try to ensure the security and financial stability of these associations.

The entrepreneur type of association is really not a mutual friendly society in the true sense of the word, but it falls within the definition of a “mutual friendly society” in the Act. There is, however, also room for this type of association to function in terms of the Friendly Societies Act, provided they comply with certain requirements. On the basis of the dangers inherent particularly in this type of society, it is essential in the public interest that the Registrar should be able to impose certain conditions when registering new associations, and also in the case of those which have already been registered preliminarily. The most important requirement envisaged is in respect of capital. The State actuaries support the idea that the entrepreneur type of friendly society should have available an appreciable amount of capital or guaranteees in order to ensure financial stability. That means that the society, particularly in the initial stages when revenue is still relatively low, should be able to defray certain items of expenditure such as its costs of establishment, managerial costs and claims. The basis on which this type of society does business approximates very closely to insurance where, in the case of medical insurance, for example, the insurer is required by the Insurance Act to deposit R10,000 with the Treasury and the Registrar, in terms of the discretion granted to him by the afore-mentioned Act, may require it to have an issued capital of R250,000, of which at least R110,000 should be paid up.

As the Act reads at present, the Registrar does not have the power to state any conditions before granting preliminary registration to a society. On receipt of an application for registration, accompanied by the prescribed documents, the Registrar is simply compelled to register the society preliminarily, irrespective of whether its establishment is in the public interest or not. It is only on final registration, i.e. five years after the preliminary registration, that the Registrar can impose definite conditions.

It is therefore necessary for the Act to be amended to grant the Registrar the necessary power to impose certain conditions in the case of new societies as well as in the case of those which have already been preliminarily registered. Because of the prevailing circumstances under which medical aid societies are being promoted and encouraged, also by the Government, the power now envisaged becomes urgently necessary to ensure that the movement will develop on a sound and steady basis. If mushroom societies are allowed to spring up, it will be appreciated that this movement which is being encouraged at present may experience an unnecessary setback which may have serious results.

In terms of the proposed amendment, the Registrar will have the power to do the following—

1. (a) In the case of new applications for registration, to insist that certain requirements be complied with before preliminary registration is granted, and
2. (b) in the case of societies which have already been preliminarily registered, to impose conditions which have to be complied with within a period determined by him.

In the Committee Stage these amendments will be explained in detail, if necessary. The principle embodied in the Bill, to wit that the Registrar may impose certain conditions, is already contained in various other Acts relating to other types of financial institutions, e.g. the Banking Act, the Insurance Act and the Unit Trust Scheme Act.

We have examined this Bill and we accept the hon. Minister’s explanation that these are reasonable amendments necessary for the protection of the public and that they are intended to fill a gap in the existing legislation. We have no objection to this Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Yesterday many questions were asked by this side of the House and very few were satisfactorily answered. I intend to ask more questions mainly about how migratory should a migrant be and how temporary are sojourners?

Mr. Chairman, the main pillar of this Government’s Native policy can fairly be stated to be that there must be no representation for the non-Europeans in the White area; any vote by a non-European is regarded as the thin end of the wedge of government by non-Whites. Secondly, all the political rights of Africans must be limited to those areas which are to be regarded as Black areas or homelands, eventually to become entirely independent Bantu states. Thirdly any African working or resident in the European areas is to be regarded as a migrant labourer or temporary sojourner and must eventually return to his own homeland. Fourthly, we cannot possibly live together in amity and peace, with law and order entrenched and willingly accepted if the Bantu get any political rights whatever or any say whatever in the government of White South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, during this Session the hon. the Prime Minister has spoken much of discrimination by us, and he even accused my leader of ignoring entirely the “gees” of the Bantu, which he stated was very important, and of course it is important. Sir, the C.S.I.R. recently completed an investigation—we have mentioned this before but we must keep on mentioning it—and that investigation showed that 90 per cent of the Bantu on the Reef, excluding the mine Natives who are migrant labourers in the main, regard themselves as detribalized, with no interest whatever in their so-called homelands and no intention whatever of returning there. Mr. Chairman, an endeavour to get an answer from the Minister of Bantu Administration in regard to this difficulty which he is facing, brought only a plaintive plea in answer that I was being unkind and unpleasant and unfair to him, but no answer as to how this problem would be handled, or whether regard would be had to the “gees van die Bantoe” in this particular direction, and certainly he gave no answer as to why he had not made public in statements the facts disclosed by this C.S.I.R. report. Sir, this hon. Minister, plus the Prime Minister of course, is responsible for the policy of this Government, it is his brain-child and I want to read to him from this C.S.I.R. report so that there can be no doubt that he knows the attitude of the Bantu in the towns, the attitude of these Bantu to his policy that they are migrant labourers and temporary sojourners. For the hon. Minister’s benefit, this is the seventeenth annual report of the C.I.S.R., published in 1961, page 25—

In other words, as far as the Bantu are concerned 90 per cent of them consider themselves to be detribalized and not connected in any way with their homelands. To me it seems that the only methods to make people accept proposals like this and to accept the policy that they are really citizens of a distant homeland with which they have no tie and not citizens of South Africa, are two, firstly by force and secondly by convincing them and proving to them that it is in their own interests to accept this position. Mr. Chairman, speaker after speaker on the Government side has stressed that all the Bantu in the White areas are migrant labourers, temporary sojourners. You hear it like a chorus. It is the cornerstone, if not the keystone of the Prime Minister’s policy, but the C.S.I.R. report tells us what the Bantu think about this assumption that they are temporary sojourners. I say that it is impossible to send them back now or in the future to their so-called homelands. It is impossible to get them to regard themselves as foreigners in the place where they dwell and work and multiply, and impossible to get them to regard themselves as nationals of these future sovereign independent states. All over the world, this point has been stressed before, the flow of the young people is from the country to the towns, and therefore this problem continually takes on greater dimensions. We see it in our own country with the depletion of the platteland as far as our own young people are concerned. It is happening all over the world. Of course I understand that the hon. the Prime Minister and the Minister of Bantu Administration have decided that one day they will reverse this flow. Two King Canutes. I ask them how they propose to do it, because that is a most important question. There is another difficulty that faces the hon. Minister: The Africans in the town areas are encouraged to buy their houses. That is correct, is it not? They are granted a lease of a bit of ground for 30 years, they pay a deposit on the cost of the house which is erected on that piece of ground, they pay capital and interest for 30 years, and they pay a site rental which covers certain services. When the cost of the house has been paid off, only site rentals are payable. The interest in the house can be sold to any approved buyer, and may be inherited. That is correct, is it not, Mr. Minister? It cannot be cancelled easily, and to a well-behaved African citizen it is to all intents and purposes a lease in perpetuity. Now how you can reconcile perpetuity with temporary sojourning and with migrant labour, I do not know. Therefore as this problem is growing daily and is of tremendous importance for the “gees van die Bantoe” on the Reef and in all the towns, I would like to know from the hon. Minister how he proposes to get these unwilling temporary sojourners, who have a house where they live with their family, how he is going to get them back to their homelands in the future The only way would be to use force, because he will never convince them that it is in their own interests. How can you convince a man that it is in his own interests to get out of his house, his life’s savings, where his children have grown up? Every few years there is another generation. How are you going to do that?

Suck them out.

I forgot about the sucking-out action, but I do wish the hon. Minister would tell us how he intends to deal with this matter and whether in the back of his mind he says: Well, I will always have the right to cancel those 30-year leases and tell them to go. It is possible that he has that at the back of his mind, but that certainly will cause a lot of trouble in this land of ours which already has enough troubles.

I want to come back to the many speeches that have been made since yesterday on the subject of the removal of the Bantu from the western Cape, and I want to say that over the past 18 months this matter has been discussed exhaustively outside of this House, on political platforms and in the Press in this area. I think at this stage it would be very difficult to advance any new arguments. We can draw certain conclusions as far as the feelings of our people in this complex are concerned. I want to draw two conclusions. The hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman) is not here now but if he were here he would agree with me as far as my first conclusion is concerned and that is that if there is one area in which the United Party lost most ground because of its opposition to this attempt to Europeanize the White area in this province then it is in this particular complex. On the other hand I want to say that if there is one place in which the White man is determined to put an end to the threefold symbiosis of White, Brown and Black in this case, where there is continual friction, then it is here in the western Cape which is the cradle of the White man. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) wants the Government to make dramatic efforts in the Bantu homelands and here in the western Cape complex in order to dramatize its policy. That is not necessary. The hon. the Deputy Minister has pointed out what is being done in the reserves in this connection and I can tell the hon. member that as far as the western Cape is concerned we are at the moment mobilizing all our ingenuity and brainpower to implement this important idea in this area. I only hope that the fight which has been started in this debate will not end here but that the Opposition, other than has been the case over the past few months, will continue the fight outside on the political platforms. That will give us the opportunity to cause the further disintegration of the United Party. And where we are unable to do so, we will leave it, as in the case of Wynberg, to the two opposing political factions, the Liberals and the Progressives, to show up the United Party even further in its political nakedness and to continue its process of disintegration. Mr. Chairman, the whole basis of the arguments advanced by the United Party in the last few hours of this debate is that the economic interdependence of White and Black is the only cardinal reality of our South African way of life, and it is on that that the United Party builds all its arguments. That brings us to the policy of a common political society that it advocates in this country. And where does that in turn lead us? To two things. In the first place, the merciless undermining and breaking down of the authority of the White man in his own traditional homeland, a blatant indifference towards the property rights of the White man in his homeland and towards the political rights of the White man in his homeland. I want to refer here to a speech that was made last year at De Aar by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. member for Innesdale (Mr. J. A. Marais) has already referred to it. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said there that if the United Party were to come into power in South Africa to-morrow, he was going to do the following: He was going to repeal the Population Registration Act as well as the Bantu Education Act, the Prohibition of Interdicts Act, the Separate University Education Act, the Group Areas Act, the Immorality Act, the Industrial Conciliation Act and so on and so forth. He went on to say that as far as the Bantu were concerned, they would be given property rights in the urban areas. These wonderful urban areas, these pretty Boland towns which have been the cradle of the White man are now to be thrown open and the Bantu are to be given property rights there.

In the Native areas.

The hon. member’s leader said quite clearly in his speech at De Aar that as far as the Bantu were concerned they should be given property rights in the urban areas so that they can have a stake in the maintenance of law and order. He said that they should also be given some measure of self-government through the medium of various bodies there, as well as representation in Parliament on a special Voters’ Roll. He went further and he foreshadowed that these people would have to be given direct representation in the highest legislative body in our country. Viewed against the pattern of a common political society advocated by the United Party in our country, I ask you, Sir, whether you can imagine anything which more undermines the authority of the White man than this political pattern advocated by the United Party in our country.

But this thing has a second effect and that is that the Bantu in the White area is continually being encouraged by the policy advocated by the United Party to seek to achieve full political rights in our country. The National Party Government wants to canalize that basic urge for freedom on the part of the Black man; it wants to guide it in the direction of the Bantu homelands. But what is the United Party doing? The White minority Opposition is continually saying and whispering into the ears of the thousands of Bantu in the White man’s homeland, that they can exercise their political rights, their basic rights, in the White man’s homeland. What does that mean in practice? It means only one thing. In one common South Africa freedom for the Bantu does not mean a few representatives in this Parliament. No, freedom for the Bantu in the whole of South Africa means the eventual supremacy of the Black man in the whole of South Africa. That is axiomatic in our whole political reasoning.

This brings me to my second point. The Opposition contend that there is only one basis on which the decisions can be taken in this country—that of Black/White economic interdependence. In this regard I want to say that this is a matter that we must bear in mind, but I say that there is another basic fact that is just as important, and, in my opinion, even more important. What is that fact? It is the irrefutable fact that the Black/White economic interdependence has not led to social and political equality over so many years, on the contrary it has led to increasing opposition to it. And nobody knows that better than members of the United Party themselves. It is this fact which has brought the United Party in the past to where it stands to-day. It is because of this that it has suffered one political defeat after another. It is because the United Party has not appreciated this fact that it finds itself in its present position. I admit that we have these two opposing, conflicting points of view in our South African political set-up. But I want to say this: There are two things which this Government will not do. Firstly, this Government is not prepared to build the economic structure of our entire country on a voteless Black proletariat. This Government is not prepared to do that. On the other hand, this Government is not prepared to accept economic interdependence of Black and White as the only fundamental reality in our South African politics. The Government’s plan in this connection is the creation of a separate freedom for the Black man on the one hand and a separate freedom for the White man on the other. [Time limit.]

All might possibly be logical from the hon. member’s point of view, who has just spoken, if what he is trying to stress as Nationalist Party policy would be of any practical significance. But it has no practical value at all. What struck me in his remarks, and in the remarks of many other hon. members opposite, is the sudden concern that the whole party has now for the unfortunate Coloured man in the Western Province. The fact that he is being uprooted from where he has lived for over a century in many parts of Cape Town, the fact that there is job reservation in regard to the Coloured man, the fact that he is being pushed around from pillar to post because of group areas, the fact that he is having differentiation in his education, that is something which is glossed over. All of a sudden the party is very concerned with the removal of the Black man from the western Cape because the Coloured man is being pushed out of his traditional form of employment and, of course, he is being seriously affected! Sir, the whole difficulty with the party and the hon. Minister who is trying to support his policy, is the fact that it is a complete pipe-dream—the whole of the Government’s policy is to-day hitched to the star of Bantustans, self-governing Bantustans, becoming independent states, and the policy of making the Republic of South Africa completely White. That has been the constant plea of hon. members on the Government’s side: “’n Blanke Suid-Afrika.” And if this fails, as no doubt it will, the whole of the Nationalist Party philosophy will collapse like a pack of cards. The influx to the urban areas at the moment is a natural economic movement of labour forces to the source of employment, and the reversal of this trend which according to the policy of the Nationalist Party should be attempted, is an impossible task which the Government wishes this country to accept as a policy. Reference was made to the building of homes and housing schemes in the Transvaal. In the Transvaal all development as far as the housing of the Bantu is concerned, has taken place around the large urban areas. No Bantustans have as yet been declared in the Transvaal. So far the hon. Minister and the Government have limited this to the Transkei, which is a natural political complex in respect of the Bantu and has been so over a century. No areas have been demarcated in the Transvaal and all the industrial development around towns like Pretoria, Pietersburg, Rustenburg and Vereeniging has drawn more and more Bantu labour there. It has been suggested that possibly the industrial complexes surrounding Pretoria, Pietersburg and Vereeniging will become the border areas for the so-called Bantustans, but they are virtually expanding industrial complexes with the objective of developing these towns and building larger and larger areas of industrial influence in the so-called White Republic. The result is that more and more housing schemes and accommodation are being provided for the housing of Bantu labour. All this is obviously inconsistent with the pipe-dream of clearing the White areas of the Bantu. Dr. de Villiers, who deals with the methods of work study in the Anglo American Corporation, where he is a consulting engineer, says this—

This is a colossal figure. Even assuming that the Bantu homelands are well developed agriculturally, after 25 years, according to the Tomlinson Commission, they will only be able to support 2,300,000 of the estimated 3,600,000 inhabitants which were there in 1952. All the investment in the country points to only one thing, and that is that this is taking place in the so-called White areas. We talk of an investment of more than R2,000,000,000 over the next ten years and of an investment of R450,000,000 on the Orange River scheme, butwhere is it all taking place? In the established White areas, and it will expand the industrial complex and must continue to draw more and more Bantu workers or otherwise the expenditure will be completely unjustified. If they, the Government, are to achieve a reversal of this flow of labour back to the homelands, surely industries have to be established there to draw these people. Surely the Minister does not expect that he will gradually build up industries in those areas and hold back the economy of the country for this gradual building up of industries, because without the attraction of employment no force will be able to compel such a large number of human beings of their own accord to flow back to the reserves. It is not only economically impossible, but it is a completely unnatural state of affairs. What is the amount of money it is suggested will be spent in the homelands over the next five years? R114,000,000, i.e. R20,000,000 per annum. What does the Minister expect to achieve with that? The reserves will be what they have always been, reservoirs of labour for industry. One only has to listen to men like Dr. Norval, the ex-president of the Board of Trade and who is a man of considerable experience in these matters, and what did he say in an address to the Worcester Chamber of Commerce recently—

He says further—

After all, that is basic to the whole issue. Dr. Norval does not even believe that industries on the borders will ever become sufficiently practical to achieve the object of this whole discussion, which is to bring about a White South Africa.

There is another aspect which is important. The Minister spoke about traders and businessmen going back to their own areas in order to invest their capital there, yet the Government is spending a considerable amount of money on publishing pamphlets and booklets in which it extols the valuable work it is doing in enabling the Bantu to develop their businesses in the present areas where they are living. [Time limit.]

To put the speech of the hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller) in a nutshell, it amounts to the fact that he cannot support the policy of separate development because demarcated areas do not exist in the Transvaal. Now he wants to suggest that what is taking place in the Transkei is merely a bluff. I want to tell the hon. member that one gets two kinds of complaints from hon. members opposite. The one complaint is always that we are applying separate development in the Transkei only and the other is that we are doing it too fast. The hon. member must make up his mind and tell us whether we are going too fast or too slowly. Once he has made up his mind I will be able to answer him.

Listening to the arguments raised over the past few days one has been struck by the fact that two main points were raised by hon. members opposite. The one was that there are such a large number of detribalized Bantu in South Africa that the policy of separate development is not practicable. I want to tell hon. members that I have never in all my life seen a detribalized Native. I do not think that any Bantu can ever become detribalized. When one takes the case of Dr. Hastings Banda who lived in Britain all his life and who cannot even speak the language of his tribe, then one remembers that on his return to his country he was just a Bantu who still had his tribal connections and who still believed to a large extent in witchcraft and the inherent customs of his tribe. If a man who has lived amongst civilized people throughout his life cannot become detribalized, then I cannot see how any Bantu who has lived for only a few years in Johannesburg or Cape Town can become detribalized.

But there is another argument. Just as soon as we pin hon. members opposite down on the policy of separate development, they ask: What about the 5,000,000 Bantu in the urban areas? I want to put this question to those hon. members. If it were not for those 5,000,000 Bantu in the White areas would they then support separate development? [Interjection.] Then the stumbling-block that they say is there does not exist. I know what the answer will be. They will say no; they will not support it.

May I ask a question? What is the purpose of that question if there are in fact 5,000,000 Bantu in the so-called White areas?

The hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Hourquebie) is trying to get out of the difficulty. I want to put the question to him. If we did not have 5,000,000 Bantu in the White areas, would he then support the policy of separate development? No; none of them wants to reply. If they do reply they will say: No. In any case we will not support it. In other words, they must not come along with the argument that those 5,000,000 Bantu are the stumbling-block. Hon. members opposite are opposed to separate development in principle, and it makes no difference whether there are 5,000,000 or only five Bantu in the White areas. In principle they are opposed to the policy of separate development and to the policy of one White South Africa. In principle they are in favour of a multi-racial South Africa. These arguments about the 5,000,000 Bantu are merely raised in order to put up a smokescreen over that one important issue. In actual fact, in their heart of hearts they feel just like the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) feels. They are in favour of a multi-racial State but they dare not say so because then they will lose their supporters. They dare not move too far to the right because then they will lose some of their leftist supporters, like the former member for Wynberg. If they move a little too far to the left, they will lose some of their right-wing supporters. They are between two fires. They are sitting on the fence. As one hon. member said, they have to part their hair in the middle or otherwise they will move too far either to the one side or the other side.

After having listened to hon. members opposite for two days, one can only draw one conclusion—that they are becoming afraid that the policy of separate development will succeed. If they thought that it would not succeed, they would not be so strongly opposed to it because then we would in any case have the position that they are advocating. But they are so strongly opposed to it because they realize that our policy is succeeding. I want to say that the world is revising its opinion of separate development and is starting to accept it. Originally the world was hesitant because people did not know whether the policy was practicable or not. But now that this Government has put the policy into practice in the Transkei, world opinion has changed to a large extent.

Where do you get that from?

I want to quote very quickly from a very important report that appeared in a newspaper which has supported the United Party throughout. I know the editor of this newspaper personally. The report states—

He shows further how English-speaking people and members of that party are all the more prepared to accept that policy. I have many such cuttings here to show that separate development is gaining ground even in South Africa. I also want to quote the hon. member for Houghton. According to a Sapa report she had the following to say—

Then she mentions the reasons, such as great economic prosperity and goes on to say—

[Time limit.]

The hon. member for Middelland (Mr. van der Merwe) raised a few interesting points. He asked one question repeatedly and told us that we would not reply to it. It was one of those impossible questions that was asked. He said: If it were not for the Bantu in the so-called White areas, would we accept separate development? I want to say this. If the Bantu were not here, we would be a White state and the Bantu would be in a Black state and so the question of separate development would not arise at all.

The hon. member also told us that the world was starting to accept the policy of separate development. I found that interesting because any South African who sees the pressure building up overseas is concerned about the future of South Africa. I wondered what wonderful examples that hon. member was going to give us. Do you know what examples he gave us? One English-speaking editor and the hon. member for Houghton —out of the whole world, in which only 104 states are represented at UNO!

I would have mentioned far more if I had had the chance to.

And he did so, well knowing that just about every Western state rejects apartheid. That is the sort of general statement that the hon. member makes and thinks that he will get away with it.

The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. P. S. Marais) raised a brand-new argument and it was so interesting that I want to discuss it for a moment. He said this White-Black economic relationship—I prefer to call it economic integration—leads to friction in South Africa. If it leads to friction, when did it start leading to friction? Even during the 15 years of Nationalist Government the Bantu have streamed into the White areas in their thousands. Where has the friction taken place? But secondly, if it leads to friction, from whence comes the statement that it leads to social and economic and biological integration? According to the Nationalist Party, that is what we are in favour of. Now we have friction on the one hand and biological and social integration on the other hand. What is the truth? The hon. member wants to have his cake and eat it. But I do not think that that is being quite fair.

I want to come back to a subject that is very close to my heart as a resident of the Cape and that is the removal of the Bantu from the western Cape. This is an important matter to my mind and one asks why the Bantu should be removed from the western Cape. The reply of the hon. the Minister and hon. members opposite is that we must remove the Bantu because we want to protect the interests of the Coloureds.

Hymie said so, not we.

Why do we want to remove the Bantu? Nobody will ignore the interests of the Coloureds if he can help it. We are just as concerned about the interests of the Coloureds as part of the population as we are about the interests of the Whites. Why then the removal? Is the fact that the Bantu are here to-day not responsible for the Coloured being able to maintain a higher economic standard? Is it not true that the Bantu occupy the lower strata and have pushed the Coloureds up to a higher rung on the economic ladder? If we want the Bantu to leave this pyramid of labour, the pyramid will not sink any lower; the Coloureds will have to drop down and do the work that was being done by the Bantu, work that is to a large extent unskilled.

It is easy to say that one should not be ashamed of work, and I agree with that, but any person with some degree of realism knows that if the Bantu leave here the work that they have been doing will have to be done by the Coloured or the poor-Whites. The hon. member for Karas (Mr. von Moltke) asked what White man was ashamed of work, but it is not a question of shame. It is very easy for us to talk about work while we sit here, but if we have to do that same work we will not feel so happy about it.

But there is a second reason for the removal of the Bantu and this only comes to light on the political platforms. Then it suddenly becomes the protection of the White man. Then it is simply the old propaganda tale once again of the Black danger in a different guise. But how much truth is there in that argument? If the White man in the Cape is in danger because of the presence of the Bantu, are our friends in Bloemfontein also not in danger? Or have we as a nation become so selfish that we want to try and save ourselves here and leave the others to their fate? No, the real reason is that the National Party realize that if substance is given to their policy of separate development they must at some or the other stage start to divert that Black stream back to the Bantu areas and they know that the easiest place to start in this regard is in the Cape.

But now they add, however, that this will have to take place over a long period. I want to accept that fact but then I say this. If it takes a long time in the easiest place, namely, the western Cape, how long must South Africa wait before the Bantu have been removed from Johannesburg? Does the Government really think that time will stand still for South Africa and that there is sufficient time to proceed at a snail’s pace with the removal of the Bantu?

No, all that is standing still is the United Party.

If it is the eleventh hour for them it is also the eleventh hour for South Africa and they must not tell us that a snail’s pace over the years will save the White man.

Hon. members will now say that I maintain that apartheid is impossible; on the other hand I say that apartheid is dangerous. That is the tragedy exactly; that while these people know that it is impossible to remove the Bantu from the White areas timeously, on the other hand they are giving large parts of South Africa away where the Black man can establish his own states and in this way become an even greater danger to the Whites. That is the tragedy.

The hon. member who has just sat down will not resent the fact if I do not follow him. He is still reasoning as the United Party reasoned about six years ago and all his questions and difficulties have already been discussed and solved by this side of the House. I want to make a constribution to this debate and so he will forgive me if I do not follow him.

When the hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred at the start of this debate to the “Natives permanently settled in so-called White areas”, he not only put the attitude of the Opposition but he also emphasized the unbridgeable gulf between the two parties as far as the solution to the Bantu problem is concerned. There is no such thing as a White area in South Africa as far as he, his party, his Press and that little tail which so often wags the United Party dog, the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) are concerned. At most it can be called a “so-called White area”. But they all admit that there is such a thing as a Bantu area in which no White person can settle permanently. In other words, the Republic is divided into Bantu areas and mixed areas. They also adopt the attitude further that these mixed areas belong equally to the Whites and the Bantu and that what we call the White areas are owned jointly by Whites and Bantu. It is very important for us to remember this if we want to understand their attitude. We on this side deny that. Historically the Bantu occupied a certain part of South Africa and they still possess that area to-day with the exception of those Whites who entered those areas and formed White islands, little islands of “shopkeepers”. If we interpret the course of history well enough, these are people who will after all have to disappear from that scene one of these days. Historically it is also a fact that the Bantu who had streamed into the White areas have come here as labourers and as labourers only, not as approved immigrants. If we accept the fact that these labourers must be accepted as part of the population on a permanent basis, then one cannot get away from the fact that one will eventually have to give them full civil and civic rights. The rules of our democratic system will compel us to give these people full citizenship and then, without influx control and without repatriation to their own areas, the result can only be non-White supremacy in the White areas. Now the Opposition ought to realize this but in spite of this fact they insist on the right of the Bantu to work here, the right of settlement just where they like in the White areas, the right to landownership, the right to freedom of movement, and last but not least, the right to stream in whether there is work for them or not. We on this side of the House do not admit that such rights exist. Our view of the matter is that the Bantu enjoy certain privileges in the labour sphere here but we also make conditions. We are not going to allow the labour market to be swamped by cheap Native labour; we cannot permit that to happen because it will not be in the interests of the Whites or the Coloureds. The hon. members who represent Natal sometimes amuse one when one listens to the manner in which they discuss this effort to remove surplus Native labour from the western Cape. They should read their history again. To-day it is the Coloured who, so we are told, cannot do certain kinds of work. In their case it was the Bantu who could not do certain kinds of work in Natal and so they imported the Indians. What is the position to-day as a result of that? Those Indians whom they imported have become a Frankenstein monster which to-day threatens to disrupt Natal completely. We cannot permit the Bantu to settle permanently in the White areas because the political implications are too dangerous. Nor can we allow them to receive civil and civic rights. As long as they conduct themselves in an orderly and peaceful manner, they are very welcome; we pay them well and their wages are increased from time to time. We look after their health by means of suitable housing and sanitation. We provide hospitalization for them; we care for their sick and their aged and we educate their children. We look after them in time of sickness and need and we do this on a scale that is unknown in the rest of Africa. It is these things that the hon. member for Houghton should well remember when she acts in this House like an agent of Pan-Africanism. Her enthusiasm for a cause that is dangerous to the State can also place her in danger. The world forces which she is helping to unleash against the White man will also strike her down unless she flees in time. I shall wager everything that she will flee before the fire that she has helped to start has taken a firm hold. The same thing holds good for the United Party which, to use the new expression, still consists largely of colonialists. But the difference between them and the Progressives simply lies in the rate at which the White man in this country will be undermined if they are given the opportunity.

I want to conclude by making an urgent appeal to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and that is to accelerate the next issue of his Bantu policy a little because there are a few questions that we would like to have answered. The first question which is very relevant is how he can have any moral justification for the policy of White leadership in a multi-racial state in which the Whites make up only one-fifth of the population. I suggest that he delegate the task of replying to his question to his eggdancer-extraordinary, the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn). The second question that we want him to answer is what his race federation plan will look like now after the failure of similar efforts throughout Africa and particularly in Southern Rhodesia. [Time limit.]

I want to start on the same level as that maintained by the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Stander) when he replied to the very excellent speech of the hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman). He said that he preferred not to follow the hon. member and that he preferred to make no comments on his speech. Well, I do not think he expects me to comment on the great speech that he made. All that I can say is that if the hon. the Prime Minister had been present here this afternoon, that hon. member would have been appointed to the Cabinet immediately.

Mr. Chairman, I want to remind you of a statement that was made by Dr. Geyer a few months ago in which he said that the apartheid policy of this Government would be tested against the measure of success that was achieved in the removal of the Natives from the Western Province. He went further and he said that if this Government did not succeed in removing the Natives from the Western Province within a reasonably short time, they might as well admit that the whole policy of apartheid had failed and that it would never succeed. What Dr. Geyer said there is important. I do not often say “thank you” to the hon. the Minister, but I want to think him for something to-day and that is that he is doing nothing to remove the Natives from the Western Province. We need them here very badly and the hon. the Minister must not allow himself to be misled by the hon. members for Moorreesburg (Mr. P. S. Marais) and Malmesbury (Mr. van Staden); they do not know what is going on in their own constituencies. I farm there and I know what is going on and I want to tell this Committee what is happening there. I am grateful that last year the hon. the Minister…

What does Graaff’s brother say?

The hon. member must not talk about “Graaff’s brother”. Let that hon. member also do his fair share of work; let him pick up spade and do the work that the Natives are doing at the moment; that is far more important. He needs a spade; he has never worked in his life and the time has come for him to do so. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the hon. the Minister for not having removed the Natives from the western Cape. Last year, according to a reply to a question that was asked, 2,153 Bantu males and 846 Bantu females were removed from the Western Province, and this out of a total of about 150,000 Bantu; in other words, not even 2 per cent. Fortunately the hon. the Minister himself—and I want to thank him for it—did at least recruit over a thousand Bantu in the reserves officially and we hope that he will continue with that policy. We need those people here; somebody has to do the work. It appears to me that there is an alliance between the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) because the hon. member for Houghton makes propaganda from the story that hundreds of thousands of Natives are taken by their necks here and thrown into the Transkei without work, and the hon. the Minister makes propaganda that that is what he is going to do. Both of them are doing South Africa a great deal of harm, particularly the Western Province. What is the position in the Western Province? Is the hon. the Minister aware—let him discuss it with the hon. the Minister of Labour—that we in the Western Province have such a shortage of farm labourers to-day that last year farmers at Paarl hired agents during the grape harvesting season to “hi-jack” Natives and Coloureds even in the middle of the night from one’s farm? When one awoke on the next day one found that the labourers who had to do one’s work had been stolen by farmers in Paarl and Robertson and other places. The hon. member for Malmesbury and the hon. member for Moorreesburg can tell the Committee whether this is the truth or not. Things were so bad that the co-operative in Porterville…

That is a shameful allegation.

It is not a shameful allegation; it is the Government’s policy that is shameful.

What do you know about farming matters?

I move amongst the farmers every day and I want to tell the whole of South Africa here and now that last year during the grape harvesting season farmers appointed Coloured agents in every town in the Western Province and these agents hired labourers and took them out of the Western Province towns at dead of night. Things were so bad that the co-operative at Porterville could not even load its train with wheat at Ceres one Saturday morning. Let the hon. the Minister tell me whether this is the truth. Let him tell the Committee how many requests he received to bring Bantu to the Western Province. He will receive more requests and he will grant more of them because what are the facts? We do not have sufficient labourers in the Western Province today to do our work and this tale of the two Ministers of Agriculture that the farmers have to make more use of machinery is so much nonsense. What machine can cut a vine or harvest grapes? No, these people just talk without knowing what they are talking about. All they are doing is to annoy the decent Bantu on the farm. Those Bantu who are willing to do their work are being frightened and annoyed. The Government is causing trouble where no trouble exists. Mr. Chairman, we cannot go on in this way. Things are said here—I do not know what the political motives are for saying them—which are obviously ridiculous. The hon. member for Middelland (Mr. van der Merwe) for example told us that the whole world now realizes what a wonderful policy apartheid is and that the whole world now accepts it. He knows that that is not true. Why does he say such a thing? Have these people no more respect for the truth. [Interjection.] Of course he said it. I just want to tell the hon. the Minister that if the Government persists with a policy that is going to kill the Western Province—and this policy will kill the Western Province economically if they remove any Natives from this area without making prior and timeous arrangements for other workers to take their place—then they must never come along again and tell us that they care at all about the survival of the Whie man here in the Western Province. Mr. Chairman, hon. members on that side tell us on this side that we are selling our souls for this and that. When one is a Member of Parliament and is earning a good salary of R6,000 per year then it is easy to boast. But let them come and work on the platteland and earn that salary. Let them do something for South Africa. Do not simply waste South Africa’s money. Somebody has to do our work and all the fuss that has been made by hon. members on that side has been so much nonsense. The hon. the Minister knows that he will not remove the Natives from the Western Province. He knows that we will need more Natives here, not fewer Natives. What will now become of this story of a Berg River scheme? Mr. Chairman, we have wine quotas in the Western Province that are twice as high as the quantity that we can produce at the moment. Who is going to do that additional work? Ask the hon. the Minister of Justice who the people are who to-day make up our labour forces in the Western Province. They are jail birds! Our farmers are farming with convicts.

Where?

Everywhere. Ask the hon. member for Moorreesburg what happened in his constituency. I will tell you what happened in Moorreesburg in regard to this question of the removal of Natives from the Western Province. We have a small cement factory at Riebeeck West. They asked for permission to employ 300 Natives there and the Minister refused. He said that it was contrary to the policy of the Government. What happened then? The then Minister of Justice (Mr. Erasmus) was also the M.P. for Moorreesburg. A meeting was held there under the chairmanship of the then member of the Provincial Council, Mr. van der Merwe. They met and decided to make convict labour available to the farmers. The farmers then pointed out that they could not farm by using convict labour. One cannot take a man from jail at eight o’clock in the morning and bring him back at five o’clock on the same afternoon. What did they do then? They are men of granite; they are inflexible; they would not admit 300 Natives, but they did admit 298! And those Natives are still there! This whole idea of removing Natives from the Western Province is a farce. It is political stupidity and the Nationalists are simply trying to collect votes in this way. Where is the logic in the argument of the hon. member for Moorreesburg who said that if we keep the Natives here it means economic dependence and leads to resentment? All these years we have been told that economic dependence and integration lead to political and social integration which again lead to the Bantu demanding greater rights. But what was the sum total of his argument? It boils down to this: We do not want to be integrated economically with the Native but we want to be integrated economically with the Coloured! [Time limit.]

If hon. members opposite think that they are going to achieve anything with all the nonsense and the clever talk that we have heard here this afternoon, then they are making a very great mistake. That is what we have had from them the whole day. I want to come back to the clever talk and the nonsense that we heard from the hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller). I want to put a few questions to him now from which the Opposition will not be able to get away; they will have to answer them and if they do not answer these questions, they will be making a farce of their criticism. The hon. member for Florida spoke of the large border industries which will allegedly come into being near Pretoria and Johannesburg and Vereeniging. Apparently he objects strongly to it.

No, it is simply an extension of urban industries.

Does the hon. member want to suggest that Hammanskraal and the industries in that area are not border industries?

Where are the industries at Hammanskraal?

The hon. member ought to know. If he knows anything about the five-year plan that we announced…

You have been busy with your five-year plan for nine years now.

My question is whether the Opposition are opposed to the development of border industries. Reference has been made time and again in this debate to the development which is taking place there, and strong objections have been raised in that regard. What they want is a great influx of Bantu, an uncontrolled influx into Pretoria and Johannesburg. My second question is this: In the light of the criticism that they have expressed against the hon. the Minister and the Government in this debate, are hon. members opposite prepared to repeal the 1913 Act and the 1936 Act? Do they want to shirk completely the responsibility which the White man accepted under those Acts in terms of which certain areas were set aside for the Bantu and certain further areas were to be purchased? If they do not answer these questions, I repeat that all their criticism has simply been a farce from start to finish. In that case they have simply been trying to waste the time of this Committee with all their clever talk and airy nonsense. Hon. gentlemen opposite are resorting to this clever talk in an attempt to put up a smokescreen. They continually ask why the numbers of Bantu in the urban areas are still increasing. They have been told time and again by hon. members on this side that our industries are expanding. We cannot close down our industries. Our industries will be dependent upon Bantu labour until such time as the development in the Bantu areas reaches the stage where those Bantu will be drawn back to their homelands. That is the process that will take place but hon. gentlemen opposite pretend that they do not understand it. They understand it very well but because they are opposed in principle to the policy of separate development in South Africa, they constantly hurl the accusation at us that the numbers of Bantu in industry in the White areas are increasing. We know that that is so and it is taking place because of our industrial development. The position must change and will change when we reach the stage where the Bantu areas have developed to the point where there will be avenues of employment for the Bantu in those areas. When that stage is reached the industries in the White areas will then have to depend upon White labour. But any sensible person who knows and understands the pattern of South Africa realizes that for many years to come the pattern will be that we will have to make use of Bantu labour in our industries and in our agriculture.

For how long?

The hon. members must not ask me for how long. Who knows how long the world will last? Is there any person in his right mind who would dare to prophesy how long this process will continue? We know that the predictions of even the best economists do not always come true. If hon. members on that side will open their eyes they will realize that the urge for segregation will become stronger and stronger and that that segregation process will be accelerated as a result of pressure that will be exercised by the public outside. Even at congresses people are insisting that the tempo of segregation should be accelerated and that is why I say that in this connection I do not even think in terms of the year 2000. That process will be accelerated notwithstanding our planning. There are things in store for us which are going to accelerate the process of complete segregation between White and non-White and perhaps even carry it through in this decade. It is those things that will determine whether this process will take 20 years or whether it will take 100 years. Mr. Chairman, the United Party refuses obstinately to appreciate the necessity for the survival of a White South Africa, and if they continue to bang their heads against that hard rock, they are going to bleed to death. I predict that a better Opposition will one day come into being, an Opposition that will criticize the Government for not implementing the sound principles of this party quickly enough. When that day arrives, we will have a united White South Africa as they have in Australia where all the parties adopt one attitude and that is that come what may Australia is going to remain White. Within a very short time, Mr. Chairman, public opinion in South Africa will insist that this process of segregation be accelerated and it will be regarded as a crime for anyone to advocate the sort of thing which hon. members of the United Party and Progressive Party are advocating in South Africa to-day under the banner of a political party. [Time limit.]

Anyone who has listened to the whole of this debate from its commencement on Tuesday afternoon, with an outstanding speech from the Leader of the Opposition, in which he analysed and criticized most effectively the Bantustan policy of this Government (criticisms which I may say remain unanswered up to the present time), must have been impressed by two outstanding features, and they are, firstly, that with few exceptions the Nationalist speakers who have participated in this debate have all run away from their policies and have been afraid to discuss their policies. They have discussed everything else except their policies. In particular they have resorted to misrepresentation of the United Party’s policy and have then gone ahead to discuss the policies which they so misrepresented. That is the first feature. The second feature is the fact that the few Nationalist speakers who have discussed their policies have shown an alarmingly unreal attitude towards the racial problems of this country, and what is more, an alarmingly unreal attitude towards the implications of Nationalist policies. We have in the past been used to the hon. the Minister going into orbit when he discusses his Bantu policy, but we now have this unusual feature that in this debate we find those Government members who have tried to deal with their policies, likewise going into orbit, and the result is that although this debate has been going on continuously since Tuesday afternoon the criticisms of the Leader of the Opposition and of other members on this side of the House remain, in the main, unanswered.

That is a very original thing to say.

Thank you very much. I appreciate a remark like that from the hon. member for Vereeniging. Coming from him I must accept it as quite a compliment, although I am sure he did not intend it as such. Mr. Chairman, what in fact do we find? We find that the only answer which the hon. the Minister and other Government speakers have given to the serious criticisms made by this side of the House to various aspects of their policies is that we do not need to worry, commerce, industry, the farming community etc., need not worry; everything will be done in such a way so as not to disturb or to disrupt the economy of the country. The hon. the Minister said that the removal of the Bantu from the western Cape—I assume he implied also the removal of the Bantu from the other White areas—will be done in a “mooi pragtige manier”. Does the hon. the Minister think that he is a fairy godmother who can simply wave a wand and that all the troubles and difficulties will simply disappear? I think it is time that the Minister and other members on the other side of the House should stop talking such nonsense. All economists and other experts have told this Government that the Bantu cannot be removed from the western Cape without disruption and disturbance of the economy, commerce, industry, farming, etc. If the Government, as the hon. the Minister now says, is not going to remove the Bantu in a way in which it will disrupt the economy, he will not be able to remove them at all. I say it is time that he and other Government members were honest enough to admit that. If this is the position in so far as the removal of the Bantu from the western Cape is concerned, precisely the same applies to the removal of the Bantu from other White areas in the Republic of South Africa. It cannot be done without disrupting the whole of our economy. [Interjections.] I am glad that this interjection has been made; I am not sure of the hon. member’s constituency. He asks me if I concede that there are White areas. This is typical of the unrealism of Government members. How can they talk about areas in which there are not only Whites but where there are a vast number of non-Whites, Bantu, Indians and Coloureds, as White areas. They themselves know and admit that these areas will continue to contain vast numbers of non-Whites for virtually all time. The Minister says that the number of Bantu in the so-called White areas will continue to increase to some extent up to 1978 and then, for some reason best known to himself—a reason which he has not made clear to the country—after 1978 the tide will be reversed and they will gradually go out of the so-called White areas to the Bantu states. Sir, this sort of attitude is unrealistic. Until such time as the Government adopts a realist attitude towards the racial problems in this country and towards the facts as they exist in this country, there is no hope of a satisfactory solution.

I should like to examine briefly the consequences of the Government’s policy of separate development. I think it is important to bear in mind when we discuss this policy what the object of it is. The object of it is, as has been stated by several Government speakers, that in their opinion it is impossible to avoid friction if members of various races live and work in the same area. So, therefore, one has to remove all the non-Whites to their own areas. [Time limit.]

The hon. member who has just sat down referred to the United Party’s criticism of the Government. What did that criticism actually amount to? They started by moving that the Minister’s salary should be reduced. In former years they used this method to open the debate. To-day the position is different. To-day a motion of this nature is moved if the policy of the Government is viewed in a very serious light. The criticism of the Opposition is based on two main points. The first is the intention of the Government to move the Bantu from the Western Province. The second point that they mentioned was that the influx of Natives into the Western Province was continuing daily. The hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson) thanked the hon. the Minister heartily for the fact that this influx was still continuing. If that is correct it means that what the United Party wants is still happening; why then are they dissatisfied? According to their arguments this influx is still taking place. I cannot see therefore why they moved a motion to reduce the hon. the Minister’s salary. They are satisfied with the position as it is to-day. According to the policy of the United Party there is to be no separate development as advocated by the National Party but the Bantu are to continue to flock from the Native areas into the White areas. The United Party want a common society represented in one Parliament. According to their own arguments, that is what is happening today. That is just where we differ from them and always will differ from them. We must agree to differ. The policy of the United Party is one of a common society with each population group having a say in this Parliament while the policy of the National Party is separate development with the Native having no authority in this Parliament. The idea expressed at the Imperial Conference at the time was that if only concessions were made in this Parliament, there would be some hope of changed conditions in the future. The United Party continually draws attention to that hope in order to gain admission for the Black man to this Parliament. Let me refer to one part of the policy of the United Party. The United Party say that if they come into power there will be eight White Native representatives in this House. Let me say immediately that we know that the word “White” is merely a camouflage for political purposes; they know that they will not be able to carry this out. But let us accept that as being correct. They say that to begin with there will be eight White representatives in this House to represent the Natives. As far as further development is concerned, they will hold a referendum. We must remember that at that stage everyone will have the franchise although it will be on a federal basis. There will be various groups of votes. The Whites will have the franchise on a roll together with the Coloureds; the Indians will have the franchise and the Natives will have the franchise. In other words, at the stage at which they will hold a referendum, the voters will consist of Whites, Coloureds, Indians and all the Natives. I ask you. Mr. Chairman, what the result of such a referendum will be? I am sure that it is clear having a regard to world developments and the upsurge of nationalism in Africa, where the Black man is seeking a political platform, that under no circumstances will one be able to satisfy him by giving him representation in this Parliament through Whites. One can only satisfy his political ambitions by giving him a platform. That is where the great difference lies between the National Party and the United Party. The United Party wants to give him a political platform in this Parliament while the National Party says that under no circumstances will it do so. The National Party says that it will give the Bantu a platform in their own area—and no matter how dangerous it may seen, it will not be as dangerous as it would be to give them that platform in this Parliament. Therein lies the fundamental difference between the two political parties. Under no circumstances can we bridge or eliminate that gulf between the two parties. That difference will continue to exist as long as the United Party follows this stupid policy of creating one common society. That is why the National Party says that this process of segregation will be a gradual one. It will result in the gradual removal of the surplus Bantu from the White areas. This removal process will of necessity have to be gradual. That is why we do not talk about a complete removal of the entire Native population to the reserves. That would be stupid and wrong. That is why this process will take place gradually as and when the country can afford to put it into operation advantageously.

I want to raise a matter again with the Minister which I raised a couple of days ago but I am not satisfied with the reply that he gave me. There was a report in the newspaper a day or two ago about a debate in the Transvaal Provincial Council—the Minister may have seen it—where one of the Provincial Councillors, Miss McLarty, raised the question of famine relief for the drought-stricken areas in the Northern Transvaal. She asked whether it was possible for the Administrator to make special funds available for the thousands of Africans, particularly African children, who were suffering as the result of a two-year drought. The Administrator of the Transvaal in reply said that he was unable to do so because there was no vote under which such an amount could be voted. He was then asked by another Provincial Councillor whether or not special funds could be voted for this particular form of famine relief. The Administrator’s reply was: “if the Government will allow me, I can do that”. I want to ask the Minister whether he can in fact, through his colleague—I presume this will have to come through the Minister of Finance—see that special funds are made available to the Transvaal Administration to relieve the position of the people in the Northern Transvaal. I also raise this matter because there was an article in the Financial Mail of the 17th of this month. So this is still very topical; it is not a disaster which has come and gone; it is still with us. These are still the results of a two year drought which has hit the Northern Transvaal. It has not only hit Black farmers but White farmers as well. This in turn has made the position worse because the White farmers are sacking their labourers since there are no crops to reap and they themselves are in financial difficulties. The result has been that thousands of labourers are returning to the reserves with no subsistence either. Those areas themselves cannot support their own population and they must now carry the additional burden of those farm labourers. The matter was brought to a head again by the Gereformeerde Kerk which raised this matter in the first week of May and stated that deficiency diseases such as kwashiorkor and pellagra were rife—

The statement goes on to say—

The report goes on to say that the five hospitals in the Northern Transvaal area had, from September to February, treated 301 cases of kwashiorkor, mainly naturally children under five, and 1,224 cases of pellagra. As any nutritionist will tell the hon. Minister, as he probably knows himself anyway, the number of open cases treated for these diseases is simply a fraction of the total number of cases of malnutrition. Nutritional diseases only become really evident and really chronic after a certain time and in the meantime thousands of people are suffering from sub-clinical malnutrition. This is a common thing in any community which suffers the ill effects of malnourishment and malnutrition.

I know the Minister mentioned that relief had been sent; that a certain amount of food had been sent up. I am not sure whether it was he or the Deputy Minister who replied to me, when I asked about the unspent amount on the Vote over the last two years, and who said that when the food arrived there, the officials found that the position had been thoroughly exaggerated and that they were unable to find enough people to use the supplies. There seems to be a conflict of opinion here between the Gereformeerde Kerk, welfare societies and the people who live in the area and who have reported the state of famine which exists there. I think the hon. Minister is not sufficiently informed in this matter. I think the whole matter requires much more intensive investigation. I understand that this month alone the Government has despatched 500 bags of mealiemeal and 150 bags of concentrated proteins to Pietersburg for distribution. I am very glad indeed that that is so. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether this is a typical desptach for a day, for a week, for a month or what his intentions are, because obviously it is going to be a long time before the whole area recovers from the effects of the drought, before crops are again planted and reaped. During the ensuing months one can expect the famine or the food shortage to continue. I want to know whether this is going to be a continuous process; whether the Minister will get himself better informed on this subject as there seems to be a conflict of views on the extensiveness of the famine and the drought and whether he will do something about ensuring proper distribution in this area.

I am also not satisfied with the reply that I got that work was being provided in the area at 10c a day. As I have already said, I think you must first cure people from the effects of famine before you can get them to do hard physical work. In any case, Sir, the number of jobs that are being provided is out of all proportion to the number of people who require assistance. For instance, last year in the Potgietersrust area, 150 jobs were provided by the Department for several thousand unemployed Africans at 10c a day. So that is not even beginning to touch the problem. At the same time we are storing surpluses of maize. I see no reason why the Government should not advance sufficient funds—the Minister certainly has funds at his disposal under his Vote—to purchase the maize and to distribute it. It seems absurd to me that we should store surpluses, that we export nutritious foods at a loss to the overseas markets whereas we have this dreadful position at home.

I want two replies: Firstly, whether the Minister will see to it that a continuous supply of food is kept up during the ensuing months to that area and, secondly, if he is not prepared to do that, whether he will see to it that sufficient funds are made available to the Administrator of the Transvaal who apparently is prepared to undertake this work, and believes that it should be done, judging by the reply he gave in the Provincial Council.

The hon. member who has just sat down will pardon me if I do not follow her because she put two specific questions to the hon. the Minister. I want to say immediately that it was not my intention to participate in this debate. This path has been crossed and recrossed so often by the Opposition that we are tired of having to reply to the same things time and time again. I feel however that if I do not reply to the reckless tirade and even more reckless accusation of the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson) in regard to the farmers of the Western Province, I shall be betraying those people whom I represent here. I want to tell that hon. member that he is quite in order in discussing swimming baths in Sea Point but when he comes here and poses as the mouthpiece of the farmers of the Western Province, he is completely out of his element. I admit that he is a farmer. I admit that he can speak on behalf of one farmer in Porterville. But he has come along here and made certain accusations. He says that the farmers of the Cape adopt a certain attitude and I want to refute his statement most emphatically. I want to quote to him what the farmers of the North-Western Agricultural Union decided at their congress. I think that this is a body which is qualified to speak on behalf of our farmers, unlike the hon. member for Sea Point. Those people held their congress from 23 to 25 April 1963, and the following resolution was adopted [Translation]—

I want to ask the hon. member what right he has to repudiate a resolution of a farmers’ congress and to come and tell us that the farmers of the western Cape want this, that or the other thing? If he could interpret their wishes, they would have sent him to Parliament and it would not have been necessary for him to find refuge in Sea Point. As a farmer he has the right to attend these congresses. He has the right to stand up there as a farmer and to tell the farmers what he said in this House to-day. Mr. Chairman, if he repeats there what he said here to-day, the farmers will murder him. I tell you, Mr. Chairman, that the farmers of the western Cape support the policy of the Government. The farmers are grateful to the Government for the way in which these things are being done. The farmers are grateful that there is such sound co-operation between the Department of this Minister and the Department of the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs. The farmers are grateful that they are cooperating in an effort to supply the farmers with labour as and when the Bantu labourers are removed. The farmers are fully conscious of the necessity to have labour. We realize that there is work to do; we realize that preparations have to be made. That is what the Government is doing to-day and there is the closest liaison between the various Government Departments. On behalf of the farmers this evening I want to tell this House on the strength of the congress resolution that I have just quoted that the farmers of the Cape support the policy of the Government to remove the Bantu from the western Cape. They are greateful for what the Government is doing inter-departmentally to train other labour and to make it available to the farmers.

I want to challenge the hon. member this evening to make that statement at an agricultural congress. I wonder what would happen to him? He would be rejected; I am sure that he would not even be able to find a seconder for that motion unless it was some or other United Party supporter who would only second it for political purposes. I want to say here this evening that that was the most arrant nonsense that I have heard for some time. I want to go further and say that even if he feels bitter towards the farmers because they threw him out and sent him to the city, it is not necessary to accuse the farmers of a most reprehensible thing—of stealing each other’s labour. There is only one thing that farmers regard as being worse than stock theft and that is to steal another man’s labour. The hon. member accused the farmers of the western Cape of stealing each other’s farm labourers. He used the words, “steal at night”. I think the hon. member was being most reckless in accusing the farmers of the western Cape of not having the honesty to live together as farmers and of stealing each other’s labourers at night. I want to lodge the strongest protest against that remark this evening. Unfortunately, I am unable to tell the hon. member in parliamentary language what I think of him. The hon. member made an accusation against the farmers this evening for which I can assure him they will not soon forgive him. They are quite likely to throw him into the Sea Point swimming pool if the other swimmers do not object! I think it is very funny that the hon. member should come along here and say that the Government is making things impossible for the farmers and that the farmers will never forgive us. I think it was yesterday evening that the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) said that we were advocating a great policy but that we were not prepared to make great sacrifices. He stuck out his chest and spoke about sacrifices and of the great things that were expected of us, but, he said, we were too cowardly to make those sacrifices. He had hardly uttered those words when he heard just the opposite. That is so typical of the United Party. We hear one story for Johannesburg, one story for Cape Town and another story for the platteland of South Africa. We have had two different stories from them in two days. The hon. member for Sea Point will now be able to go out of this House and say what he said and the hon. member for Yeoville will be able to go to some other place and say what he said. The United Party is quoted in various ways. Sir, we have a policy. Our policy is to remove the Bantu from the western Cape gradually and to replace them with the available Coloured labour. The Government has never lost sight of the industrial interests of South Africa. It has always acted judiciously. It has always acted carefully but what can one do when one has to deal with an Opposition that cannot decide whether it is dissatisfied because we are moving too slowly, or that it is dissatisfied because we are moving too fast, or that it is dissatisfied because we are “kaffinboeties” or that it is dissatisfied because we are slave-drivers? We have to deal with an Opposition that cannot formulate its own policy, we find the sort of thing that has been happening in this House—that we discuss a single Vote for days on end and that we make no headway. I think if in the future the Opposition want to become an asset to the Parliament of South Africa, they should frame one policy for themselves, they should not court the voters of Houghton one moment and the platteland voters the next moment That is their problem and if they want to continue along that road, then I want to tell them that they will lose all support in South Africa, and their road will be a cul-de-sac. In any case, I want to ask them please not to allow the hon. member for Sea Point to speak on behalf of the farmers again because if they do, they will alienate the farmers from them for ever. The farmers are not going to allow themselves to be abused and insulted, as was done here by the hon. member who made insinuations and accusations against them which are devoid of all truth.

In the light of the official position occupied by the Burger in the control of the Nationalist Party, I feel that I am more than justified to-day in asking the hon. Minister to tell us how far the editorial in the Burger of two days ago is in fact the policy of the Government. I want to say, if I may put it this way, that in a sense I am happy to see the Burger article, because it now bears out what we have been saying for so many long months past. We have been saying for months past that the policy of the Government is to lead to Natal becoming a Black area under Bantu domination, and it is clear from the leading article in the Burger that that is the course that they are planning and a course which they say is unavoidable. I think it is very strange, very peculiar that the Burger in its article should use precisely the same language that people like Tom Mboya and Nkrumah and leaders of the Bantu states who recently met at Addis Ababa use, precisely the same language. We, Sir, in Natal in this article are told that we must expect the common fate of all colonialists. We are told that we cannot believe that the minority of settlers can indefinitely continue to rule over an emerging nation which is being incited all over the world to take its freedom. We are being referred to as settlers by the Burger, colonialists, as a colonial power, and so forth.

Read the article.

I repeat that it is curious that the language used by the Burger is precisely the same language as that used by the African states to the north of us, and so is the concept, the concept of the Bantu there being urged from all over the world to take their freedom. So far as the Republic is oncerned, Sir, the first reference to freedom was made by Government spokesmen, including the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. I have said repeatedly in this House that there was not a responsible Native leader who ever asked for independence and freedom in the Republic of South Africa, before the words were put in their mouth by Ministers of this Government. I have challenged the Minister repeatedly in the past to give us the name of one leader. He has failed to do so. He cannot even show that the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) is the man who led the Bantu to this.

You are talking such nonsense that it is not worthwhile listening to you.

The hon. Minister is the man who used these words and who put the word “freedom” in the mouth of the Bantu, and now comes the Burger— the most influential Press organ of the Government—and tells us in Natal that we are settlers. It is the most influential paper which in many respects deals in advance with Government policy and gives a lead to the Government. It presents the policy which the Government follows. It is not an apologist after the events, but it sets out the line of policy that the Government follows. That being so, I want to ask the hon. Minister to let us know clearly whether in fact this article represents Government policy. And the plan is that because we are in the United Party and we resent the Government’s policies of fragmentation of Natal until the small pieces of White land that are left there are untenable by the White man, under the plea that we are settlers, and all these other terms that have been used, we have got to go. Is that in fact the policy that the Government is following? We have said for a long time past that it is so and now we have the evidence by the Burger article.

You have not. You have completely misunderstood the article.

It is hard to kow just precisely what view the Government takes so far as the mass of the Bantu people are concerned. Do they look upon them as agriculturists and pastoralists all over the Republic, except when they come to work in our towns, except when they work in a border industry? Do they only become urbanized, Sir, when they go to a European area? That is the point. Does the Government not see them ever in their own towns? The Government has laid out towns for the Bantu, but they never developed. They have got nothing to develop on. They have got no industries, they have got nothing to occupy them, they have got no gainful occupation which they can follow. Mr. Chairman, I hope that this is not a copyright, this article from the Burger, because curiously enough at about 10.30 last night I was having a great discussion with leaders of the Nationalist Party in northern Natal, when I said that was precisely the Government’s policy, and they denied it. I only wish I had had this in my hands 24 hours earlier. This would have settled the whole of their case. You see, Sir, for the Government to paint a picture now of the Bantu of Natal seeking freedom to live as pastoralists and agriculturists is nonsense in the context of 1963. The European long ago learned that if he was to become industrialized he had to live under urban conditions, and the Bantu have got to learn exactly the same thing, and for the Government to paint a picture of the whole of Natal being handed over to a Zulustan, and the White man to get out, as it was put in the Burger article here “in the national interest”…

Where did the Burger say that?

Presumably we can go to the irrigation scheme on the Orange River or something like that.

And then “Dawie” said the other day that you could understand Afrikaans.

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister: Will he tell us in regard to places like the Blood River Monument and so forth, are those areas going to be given back to the Bantu to be part of the Bantustans? Are those the graves of settlers and colonialists at the monument? Were they settlers that were settling there? Were they colonialists carving out a new colony, and is that whole area now to be handed over to them?

But cannot you read?

Order! The hon. member for Vereeniging will have an opportunity to reply to the hon. member. He should not continually interrupt.

Hon. members opposite are very fond of saying that speeches from this side of the House are going to be quoted at the United Nations, and so forth. What is going to happen to this article? Is there any article that can be quoted with greater satisfaction by the enemies of South Africa at the United Nations than this leading article in the Burger, when it can be shown that leading Nationalist newspapers, if not the leading Nationalist newspaper, is prepared to talk about the White people in Natal as settlers and colonialists? Is this then the background of the claim by Kaizer Matanzima to have all the land from the Fish River to the Tugela?

Read the article!

Because this policy is the policy of the Government and he was aware of it. Was it then the case that he simply spoke out of turn, that he spoke too early? Not that he was wrong in his deductions, but he possibly spoke too soon? Is that what the Government is driving at? Is it then true that when Mr. Kruger was a candidate for the Senate and tried to get Native votes to be a Native Senator some years ago and he issued that memorandum to the Bantu voters, whose franchise he was seeking, and he told them that if he should be elected one of the first things he would do in the Senate would be to seek to get the coastal lands of Natal being handed back to them because they belong to the Bantu and not to the White man—is it true that that was actually Nationalist policy? That was Mr. Kruger, the Nationalist candidate for the Senate who said that. The hon. Minister shakes his head. Would he like to see a copy of the memorandum that he issued? I quoted it here before to-day. He must not run away from his own history. [Time limit.]

The motion that we are discussing here, that the salary of the hon. Minister be reduced by R5,000, compels me to put a question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition who is not here at the moment. I want to ask him whether he is not ashamed and whether his party is not ashamed to move a motion of this nature in this House after having voted unanimously for the so-called Sabotage Act which caused them to lose one of their front-benchers? There is a very close connection between the motion that we are discussing now and the action of the United Party in connection with that Bill which was placed on the Statute Book with their support, and I am going to tell hon. members what that connection is. It would not have been necessary to place that Sabotage Act on the Statute Book of South Africa if this hon. Minister and his predecessor, the hon. the Prime Minister, had not succeeded in creating peace and friendship and confidence between the Bantu and the White man in South Africa. If that had not happened, such an Act would not have been necessary because we had these movements in South Africa before the two hon. Ministers whom I have just mentioned were given the responsibility of the task that now rests on the shoulders of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. We had the days when the Communist Party was able to operate lawfully in South Africa; then we had the days when that party was prevented by legislation from continuing as a party; we had the days when the Communist Party and all its satellite organizations went underground. There is no denying the fact that the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development—I say again that he was the successor of the hon. the Prime Minister who started this forceful effort to give practical effect to the policy of the National Party— succeeded in creating peace and friendship and mutual confidence between the Bantu and the White man in South Africa, and in doing so he forced that subversive Communist Party to put out its head again just like a tortoise when its back is scratched. In the days when the Transvaal was threatened by a Jameson raid, someone put a question to the late President Kruger at a meeting. He asked: “What are you going to do with the people on our borders?” President Kruger’s reply was: “If you want to kill a tortoise, wait until it puts out its head and then chop its head off.” The hon. the Minister waited. With the work done by him and his predecessor they succeeded in scratching the back of the tortoise with the result that it put out his head. The hon. the Minister of Justice then came along and introduced legislation to cut off the head of the tortoise, and the whole of the United Party voted for that Bill. We placed it on the Statute Book with their help; they lost one of their front-benchers because of that and now they come along and move that the head of the hon. the Minister, who is responsible for the fact that the tortoise has again put out its head in South Africa, should be cut off. Mr. Chairman, this is a ridiculous position. I just want to say that I came to know the hon. the Minister for the first time at the general election in 1938. I can well remember that at that time he was an organizer of the National Party in the Transvaal, and I went there to help him. On one occasion he held a meeting on the platteland and when he returned, the late Senator van Niekerk, who was the chief secretary, asked him: “Daan, how did things go?” His reply was: “Very well; the meeting was small; there were only three people at the meeting but the spirit was very good.” I want to say that the hon. the Minister knows the art of interpreting the spirit of the people of South Africa. Ten years after he had addressed a meeting of three people and had come back to report that the meeting was small but that the spirit was good, the National Party came into power, although in 1938 it won only one seat in the Transvaal—Waterberg, the seat of the late Advocate Strydom. I repeat that the hon. the Minister knows the art of interpreting the spirit of the people of South Africa. Because he and his predecessor, the hon. the Prime Minister, have succeeded in creating peace and friendship towards, and confidence on the part of the Bantu in, the White man in South Africa, that underground movement has been compelled to come to the surface again. And now that it has come to the surface, every hon. member in this House can bear witness as to what has happened to it. We have lopped off the head of that tortoise. I want to say that instead of the Committee adopting this motion which proposes a reduction of R5,000 in the salary of the hon. Minister we should increase his salary by R5,000, and if the rules of the House had permitted me to do so, I would move accordingly.

I am sorry I cannot reply to the statement made by the hon. member for Karas (Mr. von Moltke), because he spoke of tortoises, he spoke of the Jameson Raid, he spoke of the 1938 general election, etc.

I did not speak about you.

He did not, but it would have been equally irrelevant if he had spoken about me. So, Mr. Chairman, in deference to you, I intend to deal with the hon. Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. The hon. Minister, when all else fails, turns to the ethical side of the policy of the Government that he has to implement, and he has made many speeches in the recent past to demonstrate, or to attempt to demonstrate, the ethical value of the policy of apartheid and specifically the creation of an independent Bantustan, to be followed by others, and more specifically in regard to the consequences which must flow from the implementation of that policy, the removal of people—as if they were inanimate, like bags of mealies. And, Sir, it is the “ethical” aspect of his policy that I would like to discuss with him, very briefly.

A few days ago this hon. Minister, in attacking the hon. Leader of the Opposition, said to him: You want to look only at the economy of South Africa and you want to protect only economy of South Africa, and that is (as he called it) the “Esau-beleid”, in other words, the policy of a man who was prepared to sell his birthright. The hon. Minister, I recall, has often said to us on this side of the House, “you do not read enough”, I believe that many of us read too much— perhaps, too much of the speeches made by the hon. Minister and others on that side— but it seems to me that the hon. Minister, who has always struck me as a devout man, does not read enough in his Bible. If he had read the Bible recently, he would not have tried to pin this charge of an “Esau-beleid” on my honourable Leader, because if you look at the Esau-Jacob incident, the boot is somewhat on the other foot! Here we have it, Genesis, Chapter XXV, from verse 31—

This is what I want to tell the hon. Minister. The birthright of South Africa and of the people of South Africa, of the hon. Minister as well as myself, of everybody in this House, everybody in this country—is South Africa, a country of 475,000 sq. miles, which Providence has ordained shall have a population at the present time of some 15,000,000 people, of whom approximately over 3,000,000 are White, 1,500,000 are Coloured, 500,000 are Indian and 10,500,000 are Black, Bantu—and now, who is trying to sell the birthright of South Africa?

You.

Who is busy giving away the birthright of South Africa? Who is carving up this birthright of South Africa in order to create Bantustans? The hon. Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, or my honourable Leader, who has opposed that policy—as we all have done and still do to this day—to the utmost? Who is giving away or selling this birthright? In case the answer is not clear, I say categorically that if ever there was a case by which that proverb about selling your birthright—and remember it originated from this Biblical incident—was perfectly illustrated, it is certainly the case of the policy of this Government in terms of its present attitude to the Bantu people of South Africa, and the so-called freedom they will get and which in consequence must mean the complete dismemberment of South Africa as a geographical and as an ethnological entity, and which must also mean the “removal” of people. And that is the point I want to deal with now. Of course, you cannot have this apartheid policy and you cannot discuss it, let alone implement it, without this constant talk of “verwydering”, removal. Now does the hon. Minister ever think about this in the knowledge that he is going to remove, in terms of the policy of the Prime Minister, not sacks of mealies, but human beings? And has he any idea of how many people he is going to remove like that? Has he ever tried to contemplate this in terms of what he calls the ethics of the case, in terms of human values? If he has not, I would like to suggest to him —with very great respect—that he must then not make statements of this sort—if he has not considered the ethical aspect of removing human beings.…

What did the Jews do with the Arabs?

Order!

Sir, here is a very lengthy statement. I was accused the other day by Mr. Speaker of reading a newspaper. It was not a newspaper. It is the South African Patriot, which I happen to get from time to time, and here is a very lengthy statement by the hon. Minister of Bantu Administration and Development—two pages of it, virtually half of this journal—in which he says, among other things—

This is what the Minister said in March of this year, the Minister who always tells us about his high ethical scruples. He said or wrote in March/April of this year, for anybody to read: “The Bantu live in this, our common fatherland.” What does that mean, except that it is their birthright to live in South Africa, as much as his and mine? If the fatherland is common to them as well as to us, the White people, why all this talk about “verwydering”, all this talk about removal? And why the accusation against my honourable Leader, when he points—among other things—to the economic consequences of this policy, if implemented, not only to the Whites but also to the Bantu—why say to him “dit is ’n Esau-beleid”? In other words, “you have not got the moral scruples or ethical principles that I have Furthermore, I want to tell you that there is so much evidence here of this kind of, shall I say, completely immoral indulgence in moral arguments—I cannot put it any higher than that—that I think, with great respect to the hon. Minister, that it is time that he took another line. If he said to us, for example, that his policy was to remove the Bantu from this, that or the other area— eventually a “removal” of 6,000,000 people, because that is what the hon. member for Vereeniging told us within the last 48 hours— and that he is prepared to do so regardless of any ethical or moral scruples, then I, for one, as a simple-minded man, would understand it, and so would the hon. member for Vereeniging, who is not nearly as simple as I am. Then the Minister would be telling us the truth—that regardless of the ethical immorality or lack of ethical morality, if I may put it that way, he is determined to remove these people at any price and under any circumstances and at any cost, to them and ourselves, the White people. But no! He poses here as the great exponent of ethics, and I, for one, feel that it is high time that that kind of double-talk, and some of the other things the hon. Minister says in his more amiable moments, should be exposed, once and for all.

Before I come to the hon. member who has just sat down, I want to reply to the extremely stupid attack of the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) on the leading article which appeared in the Burger of the day before yesterday. He does not understand it at all. I thought that he had read the article in Afrikaans and that that was why he did not understand precisely what it contained, but he read the article as it was translated in the Cape Times and I challenge him now to quote from that article to prove that the Burger stated that the inhabitants of Natal were a group of settlers. The Burger said that that was the attitude of the United Party, the attitude of the hon. member for South Coast. The Burger did not say that it was the attitude of the National Party. And it said that if the hon. member for South Coast adopted that attitude, it would lead to the destruction of the White man in Natal. Now he contends that the Burger stated that it was the policy of the National Party to accuse the White people in Natal of being a group of settlers. That is completely untrue. Let me quote the article. This is what the article says—

And it refers here to the attitude of the United Party and the atttitude of the hon. member for South Coast—

The Burger does not say that they are settlers. It says that that is the attitude of the hon. member for South Coast.

Read further.

Yes, I shall read further. The newspaper says that the position in Natal is difficult. It goes on to say—

That is to say, according to that attitude of regarding themselves as colonialists, just as the people in Kenya regarded themselves as settlers. But the newspaper goes on to give the attitude of the National Party. It says—

What is wrong with that? What is wrong with their adopting that attitude? That is what the Burger says, “If they adopt that attitude”. Here we have a typical example of “honesty”. The accusation of the hon. member for South Coast against the Burger was that the Burger had said that the people in Natal were a group of colonialiists and settlers. The Burger said just the opposite. The Burger said that if they adopted that attitude, if they thought that they could retain permanent authority over those people, then they regarded themselves as colonialists. If they applied the policy of the hon. member for South Coast they would suffer the same fate as all the colonialists and settlers. The Burger did not say that they were a group of settlers. The Burger went on to explain the policy of the National Party and it recommended what Natal should do—

This is just the opposite of what the hon. member for South Coast said but now he wants to make people believe that we say that the people in Natal are a group of settlers. The fact is that he wants to behave like a settler and a colonialist. He thinks that he can do in Natal and in South Africa what has not been successfully done anywhere else, and that is to keep those people in a state of permanent subjugation, to retain permanent authority over them without giving them any rights at all. The attitude of the National Party, as clearly stated by the Burger, is that Natal’s problems are difficult because there is not only one Bantu area there as is the case in the Transkei. But one has to give those people their own homelands where they can develop to the best of their ability and it will only be on that basis that the Whites in Natal will be able to maintain their position. If that party thinks that they can keep the Black men in South Africa in a state of subjugation they will suffer the same fate as Kenya and the Federation. The only solution is to give those people their own area in which they can develop. That is the only way to maintain the position of the White man. I think that the hon. member for South Coast will be man enough to stand up and to say that he completely misinterpreted that article.

I understand that the hon. member for Germiston-District (Mr. Tucker) attacked me yesterday for having said that it was the policy of the Government to remove the Black man not only from the western Cape but also from the rest of the White areas in South Africa. I stand by every word that I said. I said that that was the eventual pattern that we were striving to achieve. Our aim is to be able to do without the Bantu and if the Bantu come to the Republic, they will come here with one purpose only and that is to sell their labour here. Their home is in their homelands. I want to mention this example to the hon. member. Take the position of the Indians who came to this country. They have created an impossible position because we can do nothing with them; we cannot send them back to India. But we are following just the opposite policy with the Bantu. We are establishing national homelands for them and as far as it is possible to do so and in conformity with moral and ethic standards, we will try to send them back to their homelands. If they come to the Republic to work, they will come here of their own free will and they will come here as migrant labourers to fulfil a contract. Once that contract expires, unless they enter into another contract, they must return to their homelands. The hon. member asks how long this will take. I do not know. It may take 100 years. It is a tremendous process, but that is our policy. They are here as migrant labourers, as temporary labourers, to fulfil a certain function, and once they have done so, they will return to their homelands. If they want to come back here again, they can do so, but they have no other right here than to sell their labour.

Do not run away from Hansard.

I will read what I said—

If our policy is to remove every Basuto, does it mean a Basuto cannot come here to work? Why cannot we recruit them to work on the mines? Our policy is to remove every Nyasa from the country, but does that mean that they will not be able to work on the mines? We will try to reduce those 6,000,000 as far as possible. Hon. members opposite say that there will still be 6,000,000 Bantu in the White areas. They will be here, but they will be here as migrant labour and they will have no other rights here. If they want political rights, they can exercise those rights in their own homelands. What is so strange about that? I want to refer the hon. member for Green Point to Switzerland. There are 5,000,000 Swiss in Switzerland and there are 3,000,000 living outside of the country but they still remain Swiss citizens. [Time limit.]

I do not propose to follow the hon. member for Vereeniging, either in his interpretation of the leading article in the Burger or in any other direction. I only want to say I hope this article is not copyright. Other people can read it and give their own meaning to the words printed here by the Burger and they can decide for themselves what it means. It is perfectly clear what the hon. member for Vereeniging thinks it means, because of the savage attack he made on me. I am merely a reader of this article. Let us see how it ends—

So we deal with this question, our own country for which our forefathers fought, on the basis that if we try to maintain it we are acting dishonourably. That is what the Burger and the Nationalist Party say.

Nonsense!

We will leave it to the people to decide. I have yet to learn that a man acts dishonourably if he fights for his country. Did we act dishonourably in the last war when we fought for this country?

But I want to get on to something else. Some time ago the Bantu Chiefs in Zululand held a meeting with a view to discussing the acceptance of the Minister’s proposals for establishing a territorial authority. The meeting was addressed by the Commissioner-General for Zululand and by Chief Cyprian and by other speakers. Eventually a proposal moved by one chief was accepted that the chiefs should go back to their tribes and hold tribal gatherings so that the tribesmen could decide whether they would accept the territorial authorities in Zululand. They wanted the Zulus themselves to decide for themselves, tribe by tribe, whether they should accept these Bantu authorities. I want to ask the Minister whether that proposal was brought to his notice, and if so whether he is allowing the chiefs an opportunity, each in his own area, to put the proposal to his own tribe without interference and without undue influence to get them to accept that particular point of view. Is the Minister permitting the tribes each to have their own gatherings and to decide whether they want it? Because I want to say at once that there are some very unfortunate stories going around already about certain pressure which is being brought to bear, and I think it is right that the Minister should disallow it at once and say that no official pressure is being brought to bear on any of the chiefs to persuade the headmen and the elders to accept tribal authorities, and that they will be left entirely free to decide for themselves. We have lived in peace and harmony with the Zulus in Natal ever since the Bambato Rebellion in 1906, and we resent the steps being taken now because of this policy of the Government which is being forced on these people who do not want it. The suggestion was turned down flat at this meeting, until there was this suggestion that it be left to the tribes to decide. That is the feeling in Zululand. The people there do not want this political disturbance. They want to live in harmony with us. This article written by the Burger is just a lot of Nationalist nonsense and a story which the Burger hopes will be accepted by the Afrikaans people who are its readers. We are not concerned with whether history put the Zulus in Natal. What we are concerned with is whether we can live in peace and harmony with them. Is the administration of the Government such that we can live as multi-racial people in South Africa in harmony with each other, or are they going to have thrust down their throats, whether they like it or not, the concept of self-governing, independent Bantu states, or will they be permitted to carry on their normal life and to carry on the economy of South Africa in conformity with the dear old standards laid down by our forefathers where we work together happily without disagreement. That is all the Bantu want. The Zulus are the most law-abiding and decent Bantu people in the Republic. Why disturb them with this foreign concept? Why tell the Bantu that the White people of Natal are colonialists and settlers and use the terms used by Tom Mboya and Nkrumah? Why disturb this peace-loving race of Natal? Why give them the idea that they are being preyed upon by White vultures? They only want to live in peace and harmony and to get a job that they can keep and a decent standard of living. They are happy and satisfied and they have never asked for anything else. But no, the Minister will not have it. Will the Minister make it clear that the Bantu can discuss this matter without any pressure whatsoever being brought to bear on them? I hope he will give a perfectly clear answer to that question, because the Bantu want to know where they stand in this regard. The chiefs fear that their lives will become unbearable because the Government is trying to force its will on them. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for South Coast is very upset because the Burger stated that the policy of the United Party and of the leadership of the United Party in Natal was that of colonialism. But what is the policy of the United Party if it is not precisely what the British policy in Africa was? We had the position in South Africa that the British policy of political integration was followed here, a policy in terms of which Black and White enjoyed equal political rights, and it took this nation of ours a century to break down that system of political integration. We had the 1913 Act to restrict the property rights of Whites and Bantu to their respective areas. After that we had the removal of the Bantu from the Common Roll and then the removal of the Coloureds from the Common Roll; we also had the Population Registration Act and in 1959 we had the removal of the Natives Representatives from Parliament. Only then did we reach the stage where the pattern of political integration had been broken down. The declared policy of the United Party today is to restore that pattern of political integration in South Africa. They say clearly that every single measure that we passed to do away with political integration and to establish a pattern of separate development will be repealed if they come into power. The United Party say that they are going to bring the Natives’ Representatives; they are going to repeal the Population Registration Act and they are going to put the Coloureds back on the Common Voters’ Roll. They go so far as to say that they will violate the provisions of the 1913 Act by giving the Bantu property rights in the White man’s area. That can mean only one thing and that is that the United Party are seeking to restore the whole pattern of political integration which Britain set up in the Cape Colony. That is the same pattern that was established here in the Cape by Britain and that was foisted on to Rhodesia. There they also obtained a Common Voters’ Roll with limited franchise for the Bantu through the medium of property and educational qualifications. They raised the qualifications at a later stage, just as was done in the Cape when the number of Bantu voters became too large but the difference between South Africa and Rhodesia is that we did not leave the matter at that but broke down the British pattern of political integration. Not only did we try to avoid the necessity for that system by the manipulation of franchise qualifications; we broke it down. That is why we are in a different position to Rhodesia to-day. We will be in the same position as Rhodesia to-day if we restore that pattern of political integration as the United Party wants to do. That is why the hon. member for South Coast must not become upset when we say that the United Party policy is a continuation of the colonial policy, because that is precisely what it is. The United Party considers itself to be the heir to British colonialism in South Africa. That is the only interpretation that one can attach to its policy. The United Party says that with its race federation plan it is taking what is best from Liberal policy and from National policy, and that is the policy that it wants to give South Africa. But I want to put this question to the hon. member for South Coast: What part of the National Party’s policy of separate development is included in the race federation plan if the United Party makes it its policy to undo every step that this Government has taken to establish a pattern of separate development? They may think that they can manipulate things but if their policy is to abolish the population register and to give the urban Bantu representation in this House, they will be opening the two channels which carried Rhodesia to the point where its former Prime Minister said that it would have a Black Government within 15 years.

The most remarkable fact of all this is that when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition spoke during the non-confidence debate and the hon. the Minister of Justice asked him whether the former Prime Minister of Rhodesia had not said that there would be a Black Government there within 15 years, he said “Yes, that might be so”. “But who had started Rhodesia along that road, was it not Great Britian”? he asked. That is true, and what hon. members opposite do not want to realize is that they also want to place South Africa on that road by means of precisely the same policy that Britain applied in Rhodesia. [Interjections.] I am not discussing the unimportant details of race federation. The essence of United Party policy is political integration such as was forced upon Rhodesia by Britain. I told the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) yesterday that his leader and deputy leader had said that it was their policy to give the Bantu representation in this House and to absorb them in the Cabinet and I shall read it to them again if they want to hear it.

Read it.

Very well, I shall do so. This is what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said on 7 May of last year at De Aar. He referred to the advantages of the federation plan and he said—

The hon. member for Pinelands as a lawyer knows that “executive functions” can only be interpreted as participation in the Government of the country.

Nonsense!

But it is not only I who place this interpretation on it. I also quoted yesterday what was said in the Star but the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was not here then. This is what the Star wrote—

I shall not respond to the last speaker as I am concerned with the policy of the Government, and not with a leading article in the Burger. Having listened for a long time to hon. members opposite over the past two days, and to the Minister for even longer, on the subject of the Government’s Bantustan policy, I can only say that the country will find this Bantustan “apartheid” a barren thing, a sort of political cross-breed, a sort of political mule which can only engender kicks and nothing else. But the unfortunate position is that these kicks will be felt individually by those persons who played no part in formulating this policy, and it will be felt collectively by the economy of the country as a whole. I want to deal with facts and figures, and I wish to raise with the Minister certain matters which fall within the ambit of his vote and which bear on statements which he made when replying particularly to the hon. member for Jeppes.

The Minister spoke with enthusiasm about the present and the coming economic development of the Bantu areas and he spoke of cities growing up which would be larger than Durban. He brushed aside criticism that the removal of Bantu from the so-called White areas would bring about unemployment and distress in the Bantu areas. He claimed that tertiary industry was developing very rapidly in those areas, and he painted a picture of a happy and industrious community developing there. If that is so, will the Minister explain why the published figures of the Bantu Investment Corporation present a very different state of affairs? Those figures reflect a very small and slow business progress in the Bantu areas, so slow that one is tempted to say it is dead slow. At the end of March 1963 the Corporation had been in operation for nearly four years, but the latest figures available are for the year ended March 1962. The Minister saw fit during the year ended March 1962 to increase the share capital of the Corporation from R1,000,000 to R2,000,000, and yet at the end of that year R1,500,000 of that money was being invested in Escom and other Government stocks, in building societies and with the Public Debt Commissioners. In other words, the whole of the increased share capital and about half of the original share capital was being used to finance White development and was not being used for Bantu development. I accept that the Minister is not charged with a day-to-day running of the Corporation. That duty falls on the Board of Directors which is appointed by the Minister and which is answerable to no one else but the Minister. In fact, the House will recollect that the Minister can override the decision of the directors and substitute his own decision therefor. In those circumstances I think the Minister is answerable to this House in regard to the financial transactions of the Corporation. But I quote the figures I have given because they give a very different picture of the economic progress in the Bantu areas from what the Minister has told us. In actual fact, loans and advances actually paid over to Bantu undertakings as at the end of March 1962 amounted to about R210,000.

Mr. Chairman, when the Committee adjourned for supper I had pointed out that at the end of March 1962, after nearly three years’ operation the Corporation’s outlay in respect of loans and advances to Bantu undertakings totalled R210,000, whereas the sum expended on fixed assets— and I quote from the Account—that is to say “Land and buildings, machinery and equipment, office and sundry equipment and motor vehicles”—totalled R220,000. In other words, although the amount the Corporation had invested in fixed assets which I take to be capital assets and not trading assets, had expanded from R7,000 to nearly R25,000 in a single year, the outlay—for the very purpose it was established, namely to assist Bantu business undertakings—stood at a lower figure of R210,000. It is quite true that a new venture during the year is disclosed under the heading “Current Assets”which deals with the purchase of what is called “stock-in-trade” for resale to Bantu business undertakings. The outlay for “stock-in-trade” stood at R133,000 at the end of the year, but the published statements contain no trading account, so presumably no trading took place. I mention these details because they are so wholly different, and present such a wholly different picture of business development in these areas from those presented to this House by the hon. the Minister in such glowing terms. As I have indicated, the board of directors is appointed by the hon. the Minister. They are answerable to nobody else but the hon. the Minister. I think that the House is therefore entitled to some explanation not of day-to-day transactions, but of general financial administration in broad outline such as I have dealt with. When doing so, I hope the hon. the Minister will also explain how the Corporation which made a loss of some R5,000 during the year was able to set aside R50,000 to provide for doubtful debts. I have always understood that provisions of that nature are made from profits, whereas in this particular case the board seems to have appropriated some R35,000 of share capital merely in order to balance its accounts. As I have said, the reserves normally come from profits and the board of directors is here dealing with public money. It is money which is voted by Parliament and which goes to the South African Native Trust. It is then invested by the South African Native Trust in this corporation. Therefore, as a shareholder in this concern, I can only say that I found the transactions impossible to understand and nor are they very gratifying to me. I hope the hon. the Minister will explain the position. The Coloured Development Corporation which was established during 1961 and which at the same date—31 March 1962—had operated for only six months presents a picture which is worth making comparisons with. In that case the Share Capital is only R500,000. It is true that that body had been operating for only six months and that the only active outlay was R15,000 to directors, being directors’ remuneration, yet the board had before it at that date 103 applications for financial assistance totalling R576,000. The comparable figure for the Bantu Investment Corporation on 31 March 1962, that is to say having operated for nearly three years, was 138 applications for financial assistance totalling R403,000. The figures are comparable and interesting because they establish beyond doubt precisely the point which has been made by this side of the House. The Coloured Development Corporation is operating in the so-called White areas where the economy is active and dynamic even though it may be no longer full of vigour. It is that state of the economy which accounts for the number of applications that are being investigated by the Coloured Development Corporation in comparison with the number being dealt with by the Bantu Investment Corporation which is operating in an area where the economy is stagnant. It is not stagnant because the inhabitants of the area are Black. It is stagnant because the natural resources, the capital and the know-how are being employed in the areas outside those areas. I can only say that it seems to me that it is safer to look at the financial operating results of the coporation than to listen to the glib words of the hon. the Minister if we are to judge what the economic progress—present and potential—is in these Bantu areas. I quote those figures because they are reliable figures. They cannot be disputed, but they do represent a situation which is vastly different from that which the hon. the Minister has given to the House.

I should like to raise one other matter with the hon. the Minister and it relates to the Estimates presented to the House. The hon. the Prime Minister announced yesterday in this House that the Transkei Bill had now become law. It is obvious that it is going to come into operation at some time in the near future, but certainly before Parliament reassembles again. It is equally obvious that at the stage at which the financial provisions of the Act are brought into operation, moneys must be provided under appropriation by this Parliament to the Transkei Government. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister this question. Is any of the money provided in Vote No. 26 designed to be made available to the Transkei Government or not, or is the hon. the Minister going to introduce additional Estimates during the current Session to make provision for funds for that purpose? The second question I should like to ask the hon. the Minister is this: A substantial amount of money is being provided for both on Revenue Account and on Loan Account. When these Estimates were framed did they take into account that in the near future the Transkei is going to have a separate financial administration of its own and that in so far as this House is concerned, moneys must be appropriated to it? The hon. the Minister was at pains a few weeks ago to say that the amount of money handled in the Transkei would not be less than it is to-day and although he did not give us figures, he had a very big book which was called the “Doomsday Book”. In spite of his big book he could not tell us what the figures were. I think this is a further opportunity for the hon. the Minister to tell us precisely what is contained in the present Estimates, both on Revenue Account and on Loan Account, that is going to be dealt with and handed over as an appropriation from this Parliament to the Transkei Government and if no provision is being made, was there over-provision because the Transkei is now becoming a separate financial entity, or are we going to have before us additional Estimates in which the picture of what has transpired so far as parliamentary appropriation is concerned will be revealed? I hope the hon. the Minister will deal with the matter and give us the information which I have asked him for.

I want to address the hon. the Minister on his policy with regard to border industries. Yesterday the hon. the Minister said that labour was being wasted in South Africa because of the typical colonial attitude that non-Whites should provide labour while foreign powers collected profits. The hon. the Minister went on to say that this was the thing the Government was setting its face against. He said there was no moral foundation for this policy and the Government rejected it in every way. The Government wanted to create opportunities for every section of the population to develop to the fullest extent. It was not only doing this because it realized that the other policies amounted to suicide, but also because it believed that there should be a moral foundation to any Government policy. He said that if the non-White had to be looked on merely as a source of labour, it would be impossible for him to have the necessary respect for the White to live alongside him. Non-Whites would work for themselves in their own areas. What I want to know from the hon. the Minister is this, namely how he squares that with his border area policies, because surely these people who are going to work in these border industries are going to work for White businesses, or is this only a temporary phase? What we are anxious to find out is what criteria are supplied by the hon. the Minister in determining what are border area industries. We have not been able to get from this Minister of the Minister of Economic Affairs what factors decide what is a border area. We have been told by this Minister in the past that Durban is not regarded as a border area, but Durban has Native reserves contiguous to its boundary. East London has been told that it is an area recognized as a border development area, but East London also has reserves contiguous to its boundary. What I want to know from the Minister is this: When is an area not a border area, or when is an area a border area? It is very difficult to follow because Durban is not regarded as a border area although the reserves are contiguous to it. Pinetown is not regarded as a border area although the Minister of Economic Affairs has indicated that it might be considered as such. Hammersdale, which has the same Bantu reserve contiguous to the Hammersdale area, is regarded as a border area and yet Pinetown, which shares the same common boundary with the reserve, is not regarded as a border area. It is very difficult to follow both from the point of view of the industrialist and from the point of view of the worker. The Bantu is very concerned about his future. In the reserves he has security. He has the security of communal life. He has the tribal discipline, but he has a very low standard of living. Virtually, in many cases, he has poverty and the Minister is concerned about poverty. That is why he is talking about establishing industries in the reserves in order to relieve poverty. In the towns the Bantu has no security. He has a communal life which is a communal life on sufferance. His communal life is based entirely on the will of the Minister of his Department as to when they are going to be endorsed out. He has little discipline, except that which is enforced by the police because there is very little opportunity to exert discipline amongst the community as a whole. Little wonder that recently Mr. Van Vuuren, M.E.C. for the Transvaal, stressed that the Bantu in the towns are in a sort of “no man’s land”. He said: “hy is nog nêrens tuis nie, van niks seker nie; sy stamen tradisieverband is verbreek en hy het homself nog nie weer gevind nie… hulle hunker na vastigheid en sekuriteit”. Surely, if that is a correct summing-up of what the position of the Bantu in the towns is, it throws a big responsibility on the Minister and particularly when we have heard earlier on, in the course of this discussion, the member for Vereeniging saying categorically that eventually all the Bantu will go back to their homelands.

In a 100 years time.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, in a 100 years’ time, but the member for Cradock can bleat as much as he likes. What we are concerned with is this question of security. I shall draw the Minister’s attention to a summing up given in a book recently published by a sociologist, Gussman, where he says this:

and the community looked after them. The difficulty with the Bantu in the towns is that they feel that they have no security there. They go to the towns for the wealth which they can get there and they have to make the choice between the security and poverty of the reserves and a better financial position, but no security in the towns. As long as the Minister is going to talk about the evacuation of these people from the Cape or from the areas in Natal or the Transvaal—it matters not which—he is going to continue this feeling of insecurity and so long as there is this feeling of insecurity, you will not get sound financial development be they border industries or any other kind of industry. For example, I should like to know from the Minister: When he establishes a border industry, who are given jobs in that border industry? Are the jobs confined to those Bantu in that reserve? Let us take Hammarsdale as an example, Bantu are recruited for the Hammarsdale factory. Are the employers required to recruit only those Bantu from that tribal area? If that is his policy it is not being carried out. People are being taken on at these factories. They work for a short time, or they may work for a longer time—a year or 18 months. They are dismissed and they become in many cases loungers on the fringe and if the hon. the Minister goes to Hammarsdale he will see slums developing there already. There are slums in Hammarsdale. There are shacks in Hammarsdale. There are tin shanties in Hammarsdale and they are not an advertisement for the Minister. It is all very well for the Minister to say that he has a plan to build houses, but the factories have come first. The sewerage has come a bad second and the houses have come a very bad last. How can you talk about planning border industries when the very people you are trying to help have shocking conditions and when you are not allocating the jobs to people from that area? We are dealing with a human problem and anybody who knows anything about industry knows that if you are going to get efficiency you must have continuity of employment. The development of the large industries overseas has shown that skills have been acquired over generations. There are many factories in South Africa where African, Coloured and Indian people are the second and third generations employed there. They have acquired skills. They have developed pride of performance in the factory in which they have been employed and they have encourged their children to follow them. The Minister has been overseas and he knows that the great industries in Europe have developed their present high standards because, not only have they had high technical efficiency but they have a good managerial status at the top. [Time limit.]

I do not want to reply to the hon. member. I want to continue my speech of yesterday. I want to say this, Mr. Chairman. Having heard all the remarks and speeches of the hon. members on the other side, I should like to say that long before the foreign winds started blowing across Africa, South Africa, through the Nationalist Party had adopted the policy of homelands of the Bantu as their own property and of putting the Bantu on the road of full self-development. I should like to emphasize that whatever they may say, whatever their accusations against us may be, South Africa is not prepared to grant powers and responsibilities to immature people which they cannot cope with. That is a definite statement and I should like to emphasize that. The United Party wants race federation. In the speech of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in 1961 he defined the aims of his race federation policy in these words:

In connection with this, Mr. Chairman, I want to add this. What a rosy picture and what a paradise of concord and amity! The hon. members on the other side are living in a fool’s paradise, but I want to add something to that. What a conglomeration of abstractions! I want to give due credit to the hon. Leader of the Opposition for what he says, but I read these speeches, as I do all the other hon. members’ speeches. I go through them. I take their Hansard and I read them. After I read through the speeches of the hon. Leader of the Opposition, the only remark I can make is this: What a conglomeration of abstractions! And then he calls it a policy! Generalizations, abstractions to satisfy the Liberals, to surrender to the Conservatives and then to ask the voters to vote. After the voters have voted, he proclaims it as his policy. I want to put a few questions to the hon. Leader of the Opposition as I did last year. I never received a reply. To-night I want to put a few questions to him again. Does he propose to satisfy world opinion by means of these abstractions, I mean abstractions and I leave it to the hon. Leader of the Opposition to analyse his speeches as we analyse them because as responsible men, we must analyse the speeches of a responsible man and if he analyses his speeches he will come to the same conclusion, and that is that it is a lot of generalizations and abstractions. My question to him is: Does he propose to satisfy world opinion by means of these abstractions? I want to put another question to him, and I am very serious. I am not referring now to the hon. member for Sea Point. If Rhodesia could not satisfy the aims of Pan-Africanism after Mr. Whitehead had admitted that Black rule would be a fact after 15 years, how does he intend to satisfy Pan-Africanism? He must be explicit. He must tell us. We want to know. How does he want to satisfy Pan-Africanism, if Mr. Whitehead promised at UNO that within 15 years Black rule would be an accomplished fact in the Federation and they did not believe him? All of us know what happened in the Federation. But I want to put another question to the hon. Leader of the Opposition. Does he want to continue with White representatives of Blacks as the member for Port Elizabeth (West) told me? He is not satisfied with Black representatives. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) will be satisfied only with White representatives of Blacks. Am I right or wrong? I am putting the question. Does the member for Port Elizabeth (West) want White representatives for Blacks or does he want Black representatives? [Interjections.] But there is a difference. There is a difference of opinion. There is a difference of policy in the United Party’s ranks. Does the Leader of the Opposition want to continue with White representatives of Blacks in the foreseeable future? And afterwards, when there is no future for White political control, must the control be handed over to Black rule? Does he want that? We want a reply from the hon. Leader of the Opposition. We want a definite reply. How does he envisage the prevention of a Black majority in a multiracial society without relying on discrimination and not providing for one man one vote? [Time limit.]

I do not propose to follow the hon. member’s conglomeration of abstractions. I was saying, when I was interrupted by the time limit, that what we are concerned with is ascertaining from the Minister what the criteria are for the establishment of border industries. We know that we have a border industry some 20 or 30 miles to the north of Pretoria. What determines that? Is it determined on economic grounds? Is it determined on ethnic grounds, and will only the people from that area be employed there? I do not know that area. I have not been there since it has been established as a border area, but I do know other border areas. I do know what is happening in Hammarsdale. I do know the number of people who are being employed who do not belong to that area and when they are unemployed, in many cases they hang around, hoping to get back into the factories. Do you know what happens, Mr. Chairman, when you get these young girls and young fellows sent out from the factories on a Friday night after receiving their week’s pay, and being told that they are being put off? There is nobody there to guide them or to advise them. What welfare work is being done by the Minister in these new areas? When these people are summarily put off or put on short time, who is there in these new areas to explain, on behalf of the Department, what it means to be put on short time? These young people who come from different areas and who are thrown on the streets in a border area—the whole world has fallen down as far as they are concerned. It is different if they belong to that area. If they can go back to their tribal homes, they can see their father or mother or husband or wife, as the case may be. These people are left loose. They are rudderless. They have nobody to whom they can turn. Does the Minister regard that as a satisfactory way of establishing new industries? If we are going to get an efficient border industry or any efficient industry, not only must we have the necessary capital, the necessary technical knowledge, the necessary efficient management, but we must have a contented working staff. For a contented working staff, one must not only give them good pay— pay on which they can live—but one must also give them a sense of security—a feeling that their job will continue as long as they give good work. In the South African Digest for 9 May 1963 Dr. Norval said—

He did not believe, Dr. Norval added, that the Bantu areas would ever become wholly viable. It was, however, imperative that they should be made more economically self-sufficient that they were to-day,

“The quickest and surest way of accomplishing this is through development from the centre. There are many industries which could be started on a comparatively small scale within the Bantu areas and would find a ready market for their products there.”

Industries most likely to succeed were those making footwear, blankets, clothing, soaps and canned meats. They should be operated initially as semi-State and private undertakings under State guidance and supervision. As the Bantu developed sufficient managerial skills and technique, the State could lessen its managerial and supervisory control.

Dr. Norval believed it was wrong to expect that the establishment of industries in the border areas would have a great impact on the economic development of the Bantu areas.

Here, Mr. Chairman, to go back to the Minister’s opening remarks yesterday which I referred to in the opening of my speech, in which he said that if the non-Whites had to be looked upon merely as a source of labour, it would be impossible for him to have the necessary respect for the White to live alongside him, how does that fit in with the Minister’s policy? How can he say that the non-Whites will never have respect for the Whites if they feel they have to depend on them and yet he is establishing border industries? Is the border industry only a temporary phase? One must assume that because the hon. member for Vereeniging made it quite clear yesterday that all the Bantu are going to go back to their homelands. The border industries will therefore presumably be only temporary, because eventually the border industries will fall away. What encouragement is there going to be for industrialists to establish border industries? Because the border industries will eventually disappear. Furthermore, Sir, once an industry is established in the reserve under the Minister’s direction there will not be a tendency on the part of the Minister to exert pressure through the chiefs to ensure that the people in the Bantu area work in the factories in that area and that labour will be withdrawn from the border areas or is there to be a quota? Can the European employer rely on a long-term basis on the Bantu labour in his factory if he is not sure whether that labour is going to be permanently available to him. It is time that we had a clear statement from the Minister as to the shortterm and long-term policy in regard to the border areas.

It seems to me. Sir, that the I.D.C. under the guidance and direction of the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs is establishing border industries in areas which they think are economically advisable. The Minister’s Department is supplying the services. There is lack of co-ordination because housing comes very late after the establishment of the industries. The people who are intended to help are not sure of the future; they have been drawn into this industrial complex and they are unsure of the future. As I said earlier, Mr. Chairman, on the one hand they have security with poverty in the reserves and on the other hand they are in a better financial position in the urban areas but insecurity and in the border areas they have neither: they have neither security of industry nor do they get the higher wages. This is an attempt to try to draw off labour from the towns, to put them in border industries at a lower standard of living and to attract the industrialists to invest in that area with the fake that low wages are the attraction. I suggest it is time that the hon. the Minister gave us a clear indication as to the criteria he intends to apply in establishing border industries.

I want to continue and I want to conclude. I said that I had put certain questions to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I say he cannot be explicit because his vague abstractions in the ulitmate analysis must satisfy the conservative element as well as the liberal element within his own ranks. If I am allowed to make one conclusion, one deduction from this debate, I say that the Leader of the Opposition cannot be explicit because within his own ranks he has a conservative element and a liberal element, and he is compelled to satisfy both those elements. Today, Sir, Rhodesians are learning a grim lesson about a beautiful concept. They thought it was a beautiful concept, a beautiful concept called partnership, a partnership which, on closer analysis, has turned out to be nothing more— and I want to emphasize this—than a clever device to defeat White control in easy stages. That is typical United Party policy. As far as this side of the House is concerned we say this: To solve this problem the following will be necessary: The United Party must realize that it is imperative not to localize one’s vision and perspective. That is the mistake they are making. A long-range view must be taken and this is a long-range policy. It is a policy of gradual expansion, gradual development and gradual fulfilment. A long-range view must be taken. Localized and isolated tendencies do not constitute a real image. As I listen to the United Party they do not deliver any proof of long-range image or long-range view or perspective on this long-range process of gradual uprooting, a process which has been rooted in this country for 300 years. Time and again we have stated that the removal of the Bantu will be gradual. It is a process of uprooting which must be executed with the least economic disruption. We have experienced vast industrial expansion. Naturally an increase in numbers had to be expected. We need time to rehabilitate what has been neglected by the United Party under the regime of the previous Minister of Native Affairs, the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. Van der Byl). He does not know what is going on in this Chamber. He never knew what was going on under his regime What we are faced with to-day is to rehabilitate what he neglected.

Mr. Chairman, the policy of the United Party has not got the remotest chance of success. We all believe that and the voters of South Africa believe that. The United Party was cold towards the interests of truth and practice and those who had determined to sell them out and those who never intended that party to survive namely the Progressive Party. When they broke away from the United Party the Progressive Party never intended the United Party to survive. The Progressive Party is not the Nationalist Party’s greatest enemy but of the United Party. The United Party fear the Progressive Party more than they fear us. The full story of the betrayal of South Africa by the United Party with their race federation policy cannot be fully disclosed.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that remark “the betrayal by the United Party”.

I withdraw that, Mr. Chairman. I say the enemies of South Africa, the post-war liberals, the humanists, the armedchair philosophers, the Progressives, the extreme Pan-Africanists have planted influences in our fatherland which are aimed at our destruction and I blame the United Party for taking part in that process of destruction. The tragedy. Sir, is that the United Party does not visualize that. A race federation state will be an extreme left wing federation intended as a military base for the ultimate subjection of Africa and control of the Atlantic and Indian Oceans. That will be the ultimate outcome of the policy of race federation where Black rule will be predominant. That will be the ultimate outcome; it will be a left-wing federation which will give to the communists Africa as a basis to control the Atlantic and the Indian oceans. Mr. Chairman, the United Party is retreating virtually on every front in South Africa as far as the White man’s struggle is concerned. They are retreating. More concessions are demanded; Pan-Africanism is justified. What did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition say the other day? He accused the policy of the National Party of the growth of Pan-Africanism.

Hear, hear!

You say, hear, hear! Mr. Chairman, is there a National Party in the rest of Africa? Why does Pan-Africanism grow in Africa? Why has Pan-Africanism got a tight grip on the rest of Africa? Is that because of National Party policy? Is the National Party policy to be blamed for Addis Ababa. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, I now want to quote from a French financial weekly—

The writer says that although the settling of future relationships between South African Whites and Blacks is of paramount importance considerable attention is also being given to the maintenance of economic prosperity. [Time limit.]

We have heard about local views, images, long-range processes, economic reductions, truth and practices and even humanity, from the hon. member who has just sat down. I do not intend dealing with abstractions. Sir, the whole policy of the Nationalist Party about returning the Bantu to the Bantu areas is one of abstraction. I want to deal with a practical problem. I want to deal with one particular town. I want to know from the hon. the Minister what his policy is in regard to the town called Port St. Johns. When I endeavoured to raise the position of Port St. Johns under the Transkei Bill I was told that it was outside the Transkei and that I could not refer to it. I now wish to deal with it. Port St. Johns, as the House and the Minister know, has been specially excluded from the Transkei. It is a White spot which will never become part of the Transkei. That has been made quite clear to the Transkeian Government by this Government. The people in Port St. Johns quite rightly want to know what their future is going to be. Whose responsibility are they. That is what I want to know from this Minister. At the moment they fall under the administration of his Department. Are they to continue to fall under the Department of the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development? If so. I want to know from him what he is going to do to ensure their future and their prosperity. If ever a town could be called a border town Port St. Johns could be called such. At the moment, Sir, they find themselves isolated with a foreign government controlling all accesses to the town except from the sea. I dealt with the question of the roads leading to Port St. Johns and I pointed out to the Minister previously that these roads were at present maintained by the Cape Provincial Council. At the moment the Cape Provincial Council subsidizes those roads to the tune of over R800,000 per annum. The Minister has told the House and the country that the Provincial Council will continue to maintain provincial roads. I want to know from the Minister whether the Provincial Council has budgeted to maintain the roads leadine to Port St. Johns and how long the Cape Provincial Council intends to accept that responsibility in a foreign State. If the Cape Provincial Council is not going to do it I want to know who is going to do it. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) raised certain questions with the Minister with regard to the allotment of funds to maintain the Government in the Transkei. We want to know where that money is going to come from. I hope the Minister will make it quite clear whether it is going to come from Loan Estimates or from Additional Estimates. We want clarity from the Minister on that issue. We want the Minister to tell us whether he has come to an agreement with the Cape Provincial Council in regard to the roads leading to Port St. Johns.

Port St. Johns is an ideal place to establish as a border industry. It is on the border; it is a border completely surrounded by African states. At the moment it is only a holiday resort and it is suffering as a result of Government policy. People are afraid to travel through the Transkei, quite unnecessarily, because the Transkei is one of the safest places to travel through. My hon. friend on my right mentions that there is in fact a state of emergency; that is true. There is a state of emergency declared by this Government. The sooner the Government lift that state of emergency the better it will be for the country. People want to know why there is a state of emergency and as a holiday resort it is definitely suffering. It cannot grow solely as a holiday resort. The only possibility there is for Port St. Johns to develop is through a harbour. As I have said, it is completely surrounded by an independent Government. Is the Minister taking any steps to see that the port of Port St. Johns is developed so that the town itself can develop? You cannot expect those people to continue to live there as they are at the moment completely cut off from the rest of the country. It is the Minister’s responsibility to see that something is done for the residents of that area. I want to know, for instance, whether he has consulted with the hon. the Minister of Commerce and Industries in regard to the establishment of a fishing harbour to develop the fish industry there? Has he consulted the Minister of Defence in regard to the possibility of developing the harbour for defence purposes? These are all possibilities and this Minister has a special duty towards Port St. Johns, more so than towards any other part of the country. This town is completely surrounded by the new Transkeian territory. I ask the Minister now to show the humanity referred to by the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) and his countrymen-feeling towards those people and tell us how he is going to save the people of Port St. Johns and not throw them aside as is alleged was done by the British Government in Kenya, Rhodesia, Uganda and elsewhere.

I am quite convinced that most of the questions which have been put here, have not only been replied to but have been replied to repeatedly. That is one of my problems with hon. members of the United Party, that questions have to be replied to so frequently and in the long run they still do not understand the answers. The hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Hourquebie) even went so far as to denounce me vehemently and to accuse me of not replying to a single question. Is he a stranger in Jerusalem? Surely the hon. member ought to know better than to make that type of accusation. He made that accusation in spite of the fact that he had not put a single question to me. He now expects me, of course, to reply to a question which he did not even put to me. I think the accusation which he made was a very unfair one.

I want to start with the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker). He also accused me of not having replied to his questions. His first question was what the boundaries of the Bantustans in the Transvaal were going to be. Sir, we have replied to that question repeatedly, not only in this debate but in previous debates. We have often said that the policy that we are following is to consolidate the Bantu areas, wherever they may be situated in South Africa, as much as possible. It is impossible to say finally at this stage precisely where the boundaries will be. We are making very rapid progress with this process of consolidation. As I pointed out to hon. members yesterday evening, in the past year we have wiped out no fewer than 74 Black spots and consolidated them with their own areas. This is a natural process, and in giving effect to it we have to consult the Whites on the one hand and the Bantu on the other. We are grouping the Bantu together on an ethnic basis. The hon. member knows that it is impossible at this stage to say precisely where the boundaries of the Bantu homelands in the Transvaal are going to be. These homelands are there already; we are simply making additions to them. That is why we are not buying land indiscriminately in other areas. The hon. member posed a second question which has also been replied to repeatedly. He wants to know whether I still stand by Map No. 63 in the Report of the Tomlinson Commission where the Commission indicates how these areas can be consolidated. Sir, we have frequently said that the recommendation of the Tomlinson Commission as shown on that map, was purely a tentative recommendation. It is not a law of the Medes and Persians. Even the Tomlinson Commission adopted the attitude that this process of consolidation must evolve naturally. What the Commission put forward was merely a tentative plan as to how it could be done. We have repeatedly replied to that question. It will only be possible to draw up the final map therefore when this process of consolidation has been completed. Every member who has studied the position will accept that that is so.

The hon. member asked a further question. He wants to know whether our policy is to allow those areas adjoining Bechuanaland to go over to Bechuanaland. We have never said that it is our policy to cut off a part of South Africa and to give it to Bechuanaland. He also wants to know whether we are going to hand over to Swaziland the areas which adjoins Swaziland. Surely it is ridiculous to ask such a question. After all, that land forms part of our own fatherland; surely we cannot give it away to another country.

That map clearly shows that these areas may be consolidated with either Bechuanaland or Swaziland. I want to know whether that idea has been rejected entirely and whether those areas will remain part of the Transvaal?

Mr. Chairman, it was never our intention to make those areas part of those Protectorates. It was thought in certain circles that if the Protectorates were incorporated with the Republic of South Africa it would then be possible to consolidate these areas on an ethnic basis. That possibilty was visualized but the hon. member knows that that is not practical politics to-day.

The hon. member made one interesting observation which once again showed me the typical lines on which the United Party thinks. He said that he wanted to express his appreciation of the fact that this Government had been following the old United Party policy of clearing up the slums around the big cities. I want to prophesy here that within a few years the hon. member will still congratulate the Government on having followed United Party policy in connection with the Bantustans in South Africa. We have often found in the past that they oppose a certain policy tooth and nail and then accept it after a while. We know how the hon. member’s party fought us when we cleared up the slums of Johannesburg. We know how they fought us when we removed a small Black spot in the Wolkeberg mountain range and moved the people there to a decent place. That is the sort of support that we get from the other side.

The hon. member for Rissik (Mr. de Kock) advanced another interesting proposition; he stood up here and quoted from President Kruger’s 1883 manifesto. He then went on to say that President Kruger was really the father of the United Party’s policy. Sir, he reminded me very much of the Sunday Times. Whenever anybody turns against the National Party the Sunday Times publishes his whole family history; he is suddenly either a descendant of President Kruger or of President Steyn or of Piet Retief or of Gerrit Maritz or some other national hero. The hon. member actually comes along and says that the federation plan is not the baby of the hon. Leader of the Opposition but of President Steyn. I can only say that that is a story which nobody will swallow.

The hon. member for North East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) also wants to know where the boundaries of the Bantustans in the Transvaal are going to be. I have already replied to that; the position is perfectly clear. We have our Bantu homelands there and there are smaller pieces of land that we are trying to consolidate. We accent that this will be a long-term process. It is only when this process of evolution has eventually been completed that finality will be reached in connection with this matter. There is no reason why people should feel uneasy. The hon. member asked a very interesting question. He asked whether West Johannesburg would also become a Bantustan. I can only say that it will not become a Bantustan. The United Party will never come into power and will never be able to make the whole of the Rand a Bantustan. It is a basic principle that if you give a person property rights in a country, you give him a stake in that country. If the policy of the United Party is to give all those people in the Western Area of Johannesburg property rights, then that area will be converted into a Bantustan immediately. That would be the effect of its own policy.

The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) says that 90 per cent of those people have no tribal links. He referred me to the report of the C.S.I.R. I just want to remind the hon. member that there are many experts who have made a study of this matter. I want to refer him to a study which was made recently in the East London location, which is the oldest location in South Africa. The finding of the research workers was that the vast majority of those people still retained their tribal links.

May I ask a question? May I get the reference to that report? I do not want to be misled by the wrong report.

The hon. member made the general statement that 90 per cent of the Bantu in the cities had become detribalized.

That is what the C.S.I.R. says.

They arrived at their own finding but I say that there are experts who went into the matter…

Who are they?

The hon. member wants to know who they are—I can give him a stack of books dealing with this matter…

Do I understand that the Minister repudiates the report of the C.S.I.R.?

I definitely reject it because I myself have made a study of this matter. I challenge the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) to go and talk to Zulus in Natal who have been living for years in urban locations and then to come and tell me that they have lost contact with their people. Surely it is absurd to make such a statement.

Is the hon. the Minister also repudiating the finding of the Tomlinson Commission that 1,500,000 Bantu are living permanently in the cities?

Whether there are 2,000,000 or 3,000,000 makes no difference; what we are discussing here is whether they have become detribalized. My attitude has always been that 90 per cent of those people have retained their tribal links in some form or another. You can go to Langa and ask any Xhosa there, “Is this your homeland?” and he will immediately tell you where his homeland is. I base this statement on scientific grounds, and I am prepared to give the hon. member a number of books written by experts who investigated this matter. That is not an argument therefore which holds water.

The hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller), who has apologized for being unable to be here, submitted that the industrial areas would continue to draw more and more Bantu and that we would solve nothing. The hon. member only says that because he does not know the policy of the National Party. That is one of the reasons why a policy of decentralization is being followed. I shall deal with the border area industries in a moment, but those are not industries which are simply there to develop the Bantu areas. This is a form of decentralization of industries, the object of which is to obviate that more and more Bantu are drawn to just these few industrial centres. That is one of the cardinal principles of the policy of the National Party.

The hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman) is, of course, opposed to the idea that Bantu should systematically be removed from the Western Cape. His argument is that if we do not allow the Bantu to flock into the Western Cape unchecked, the standard of living of the Coloureds here will drop. If therefore we want to raise the standard of living of the Coloureds in the Western Cape, we must simply open the sluicegates so that every single Bantu who wishes to come here may enter. I do not think there is a single economist on the other side who would subscribe to that proposition. The fact of the matter is that no single factor has played a greater role in lowering the standard of living of the Coloureds in the Cape than the entry of cheap Bantu labour into this province. If this had not happened I am convinced that the standard of living of the Coloureds in the Western Cape would have been considerably higher to-day. We must not overlook the fact that there are some people who only study their own pockets: they make no effort to give the non-Whites a decent living. They do not look after the interests of the Coloureds and the non-Whites; they are only interested in the profits that they can make. We know that there are people of that kind, and if we continually allow cheap labour to come into this area it must result in a lowering of the standard of living of the Coloureds. There are prominent Bantu throughout South Africa who are reproaching us to-day because of the fact that we are allowing foreign Bantu from other areas to come to South Africa. They say that but for that fact, the standard of living of the Bantu in South Africa would have been higher than it is to-day. I agree with that. The hon. member’s argument holds no water therefore.

Now I come to the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson) who made a few reckless statements here. In the first place he thanked me for seeing to it as he put it, that the Bantu were not removed from the Western Cape. The fact of the matter is that that is what our policy is designed to do. We have succeeded in a very large extent in pegging the position. If we had not done so, what would the position in the Western Cape have been to day under a United Party Government? What were the conditions here behind the mountains in the days of the United Party Government? We gave our serious attention to this matter and we achieved a great deal. But the hon. member comes along and makes another statement which is equally irresponsible. He wants to know how many farmers have written to me to thank me for the fact that we have not removed the Bantu here.

That is not what I said.

He said, “What about the letters that you received from farmers in the Western Cape?” I just want to say that I have not received a letter from a single farmer asking us not to remove the Bantu here. What has happened, however, is that various farmers have said that we should tackle this matter judiciously and that they will then assist us in every possible way. That is why an organization has now been established in which all interested parties are co-operating to realize this ideal. The hon. member made an nasty accusation which I think is a reflection on our farming community in South Africa, and I am glad that the hon. member for Namaqualand dealt with him so effectively. The hon. member for Sea Point comes along with the statement that the Paarl farmers are enticing his labourers away from his farm at night.

That is true.

I challenge the hon. member to stand up here and to mention the name of a single farmer who has done this sort of thing.

I could mention the names of these persons. There is a well-known farmer in the Western Province who appointed an agent by the name of Van der Merwe; I refer to Mr. Jan Kirsten, one of the best-known farmers in South Africa. He apologized to me personally and said that this person had no right to entice my labourers away. I could also mention the names of a few in Bonnievale.

These are typical United Party tactics. There may be a person here and there who oversteps the mark but the hon. member comes along and accuses all the farmers of Paarl.

I did not accuse all of them.

The hon. member must not run away now.

That is an untruth.

He comes along with this accusation just because one person did the wrong thing.

He is telling a lot of lies.

Order! The hon. member for Sea Point must withdraw the word “untruth”.

The hon. the Minister may have said the wrong thing in all innocence, but I withdraw the word “untruth”. I say that the hon. the Minister’s information is completely wrong.

On a point of order, the hon. member over there said that the hon. member for Sea Point had told a lot of lies.

I am prepared to withdraw it.

Just because some person does the wrong thing, all the farmers are insulted.

I did not say “all the farmers”.

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

The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman), who has apologized for not being able to be present, says that she is still not quite satisfied with what is being done for the Bantu in the Northern Transvaal under the drought conditions prevailing there, and she would like a further statement in that regard. I have given all the facts. Briefly the position is that we have been helping the Bantu there since last year. They have their chiefs and their councils; there are Bantu Authorities there which are functioning well; they also have their Regional Authorities and their Territorial Authorities in the Transvaal, but we also have our Bantu officials there, our Commissioners, our agricultural officials, etc. I visited this area personally last year and we created the necessary machinery to be able to provide the necessary food there in an effective way, and there is no reason to-day why a single person there should starve. I have seen the Rev. Snyman’s letter. I do not know what the position is on his mission station, but if that is the position there, then he has been negligent in not getting in touch with my officials. The hon. member says that if the Government makes money available to the Provincial Council of the Transvaal the Provincial Council will be quite prepared to make the necessary arrangements there. But that is nonsense. We have all the machinery we need. Why should the Government make money available to the Provincial Council which has no contracts there? It is ridiculous. We have the necessary money and food is being provided there. I have already said that our policy is to give free food to the children, the aged and the deformed. For those who are fit to work we create avenues of employment. The hon. member for Houghton, of course, knows much more than I do. She says that I do not know what is going on there, but then, of course, she always knows everything. We are constantly in touch with these people. She said that avenues of employment had been created for about 150 only and she talked about a few hundred bags of maize having been sent there. That is what was sent to one place only. But the food is being distributed over the whole of the drought-stricken area. It was only at one place perhaps that 150 jobs were created. Special jobs have been created so that these people will be able to earn their food. The hon. member has been given the wrong information. Her information always comes from those people who are constantly out to blacken South Africa and then she just exaggerates it a bit.

I come now to the hon. member for Durban (South Coast) (Mr. D. E. Mitchell). He referred with very great indignation to an article which the Burger wrote. He was good enough to send the article to me to read, and I saw at once that the hon. member had completely misinterpreted it. Nowhere in that article is the statement made that the people of Natal are colonists and settlers—nothing of the kind. But the Burger does issue the warning that the attitude which is adopted there, particularly by the hon. member for South Coast, is in line with the sort of colonialism which one also found elsewhere, and the Burger warns that that is a dangerous spirit. I too warned here yesterday evening against the spirit of colonialism which is revealed by many members on the other side, that spirit of colonialism which is responsible for the fact that the White man has already been driven out of the rest of Africa. I think the hon. member was being extremely unfair to the Burger. He wants to know whether I approve of this article. I think if the hon. member wants to render a service to Natal, he will go and buy all the available copies of the Burger and pin a copy of this article over the heart of every Natalian, because the warning contained in it is a serious one which should not be ignored. It is of no avail to camouflage these things. We should learn from the experience of these other countries and we should warn our people not to make themselves guilty of the sort of things which in other parts of Africa led to the collapse of the White man. The Burger was merely issuing a warning.

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether he is actually advising us to leave Natal quietly before we are kicked out? Is that what his advice amounts to.

The hon. member knows that that is not my advice. That is not a fair question. The hon. member asks whether we want to give the whole of Natal to the Zulus only. In point of fact we pointed out that if the policy of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was followed, it would be simply a question of time before the whole of Natal would belong to the Zulus. That is why we are trying so hard to get the hon. member to accept our policy, under which there will be protection for the White man and the White man will also have a place in Natal. The solution for Natal lies in the policy of this side of the House. The hon. member need not be afraid. This side of the House will also save Natal for the White man. The hon. member also wants to know what happened at the meeting of chiefs. I can only say to the hon. member that the Paramount Chief of the Zulus simply put forward the suggestion that he would like all his chiefs to meet once again at his seat because there were a few matters which he would like to discuss with them, and he stated that one of the matters which he would like to discuss with the people who were still not in favour of it was the question of Bantu Authorities. My reply was that that was their own affair and that he was at liberty to invite them to come there; that we were not inviting them, that it was his affair. This meeting was not convened by the Department of Bantu Administration. On the contrary, the Paramount Chief invited these people and he specially asked the Commissioner-General to come and say a few words there, which he did. He did not make a long speech. A few important matters were then discussed, and one of them was whether the other Zulus, who had not yet accepted the system of Bantu Authorities, would not agree to accept it. Buthelezi then stood up and proposed that every chief should consult the members of his tribe, not only the tribal Bantu but also those who were in the cities, because he said that they still formed part of the tribe. What more convincing proof can one get of the fact that there is no truth in this story that the Natives have become detribalized? The majority of these people then decided that it was good advice that those who had not yet accepted the system of Bantu Authorities should consult their people about it. I have no objection to that. On the contrary, that is the very thing that we always encourage. They should consult not only the Bantu in the reserves but also in the cities. The hon. member now wants to know whether we are going to allow them to consult their people in the cities. Of course. I can give the hon. member the assurance that if he brines one case to my notice where an official of mine does not permit such consultation. I shall take very drastic steps against the official concerned. They have the fullest right to consult their people. It is something that we encourage. The hon. member asks whether we are not going to force them to accept it. No, it has never been our policy to force these people to accept the system of Bantu Authorities, nor is that our policy in Natal. It has always taken place on a voluntary basis. In no single case in Natal has a Bantu Authority been foisted on to the people. But a large number of the tribes have accepted it. A large number of them have accepted Regional Authorities, and there are many of these people who have indicated that they would also like to have Regional Authorities there as soon as possible. But they have the fullest freedom to consult their people. A few other important matters were also discussed on this occasion, and one thing which we specially asked the Commissioner-General to bring to their notice was the question of the tribal fights which were taking place at Msinga. I let them know specifically that I should like to have their advice in that regard, and they gave their advice. For the rest, however, they were given no lead or anything of that kind by the Department. I want to add, however, that pamphlets were distributed on a large scale by certain people, appealing to the Zulus net to accept the system of Bantu Authorities. I am investigating the question of the authorship of these pamphlets; we have certain clues already. Generally speaking, however, a very fine spirit prevailed there. The hon. member asks why I do not leave the Zulus there alone. He says that we should leave them alone; that we should not worry them with Bantu Authorities and that sort of thing. The hon. member is making a very great mistake. He ought to know the Zulu and he ought to know that it is also the desire of the Zulu to manage his own affairs. There is no tribe which has greater national pride than the Zulu has. There is more and more evidence of the desire of the Zulu to develop. I wonder whether the hon. member has visited Ngoma recently to see what development has taken place there. If this development had not taken place thousands of head of cattle would have died there in the recent drought. This has made such an impression even on Buthelezi that even though he does not yet accept the system of tribal authorities, he has nevertheless asked that we should help him to undertake developmental works in his area, and he is even prepared to pay the entire cost. That is the impression which it has made on the Zulus.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) put a question to me in connection with the Bantu Development Corporation. Time does not permit me to go into this matter at great length. He is quite correct in saying that to a large extent we still have a stagnant economy in the Bantu areas, but the Bantu Development Corporation is one of the instruments which we are using to introduce a dynamic economy there. We realize that it takes time, and indeed we have said so from the beginning. The fact that already we have enabled 138 people in the various areas to conduct their own businesses is a worthwhile achievement. The hon. member must remember that in the economic sphere and in the commercial sphere the Bantu still do not have the experience that we have. We have a rehabilitative task in connection with these businesses. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that we have already achieved very fine results We have a number of cases where people have started their own businesses and where within a year or two they have repaid in cash the full amount of the loan. Just think what these businesses mean to that community. They are gradually converting the economy of the Bantu community into dynamic economy. That is one of the wonderful results that we have achieved. But I admit that it is no easy task. We receive applications but they have to be sifted carefully. We would not like to do an injustice to any Native; we have to go into each application very thoroughly and it takes time to do so. But we are proud of the results which have already been achieved, in spite of the pessimism of the hon. member. I do not see how the hon. member can make the statement that this is simply being done to help the Whites and not the Bantu. On the contrary, in the past two years we have done a great deal through the Bantu Development Corporation to develop Bantu trade. Take Sekukuniland, for example, where we have taken over a large business and where we are giving business training to a number of Bantu. The hon. member wants to know whether money is being made available under this Vote for the Transkei. No. We are, of course, carrying on with our ordinary developmental works, but I want to refer the hon. member to Section 52 (2) of the Transkei Constitution where the position is very clearly set out, and that is that the Department will continue to provide the necessary money up to the financial year commencing in April 1964. In the meantime every Department will continue just as in the past to make available these amounts. I would advise the hon. member to read the last page of the report of the Recess Committee; there he will see what the estimated amounts are in respect of the Transkei. The hon. member wants to know whether provision will be made later on for further moneys. He can rest assured that provision will probably be made in the Additional Estimates for further necessary sums.

The hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) also put a few questions to me. He asked what the norm was for border industries. This matter, of course, really falls under the Minister of Economic Affairs, who has a permanent committee which decides where the special border industries will be encouraged.

Are there no members of your Department on this committee?

Yes, we naturally have very close links with it, but I do not think it is my duty to take this function out of the hands of the Minister of Economic Affairs, and I shall be glad if the hon. member will put his question to the Minister of Economic Affairs. I just want to say, however, that he is quite correct in saying that a place like Durban will not be regarded as falling within a border industry area, but since there is a large Bantu area in close proximity, the necessary labour will be drawn from that area. East London is going to be a border industry area. That also applies to King William’s Town and Pretoria-North and Pietersburg, as well as other places in Natal. The hon. member says that he cannot understand how I can make the statement that the Bantu will not always just continue to be labourers but that they may also become strong financally. He asks how I can reconcile that statement with our border industry policy. Sir, it is clear that the hon. member has no conception of the role of border industries. We are developing these border industries on the borders of the Bantu areas and the labour will then eventually come from the Bantu areas. But we have repeatedly said that one of the important considerations is that in the first place these people will now be given freehold title in the Bantu towns, but in addition to that they will also have the right to build up their tertiary industries, and the hon. member knows that in the national economy as a whole tertiary industries play a very important role in capital formation, etc. There will now be traders there who will build up businesses, who will even build up big bazaars and other large businesses. We do not allow that in the White residential areas, but we do allow it in the Bantu areas. The time will come later on therefore when you will have a moneyed class there

Will these industries have to draw their labour exclusively from the reserves’

In the first place we adopt the attitude that the people in such a town will belong to a particular ethnic group. The local people will, of course, have a preferential claim when it comes to employment in those industries, and in fact we are encouraging our industrialists to give them preference. But one may find that there is not sufficient labour available locally and that Bantu from some other place may perhaps have to be engaged. That might well happen. At Hammarsdale, for example, our policy is to encourage our industrialists to make use in the first place of the labour which is available in that area. We may find, however, that such an industry will not be able to obtain sufficient labour there, but as far as it is at all possible to do so the labour of the ethnic group concerned will be used, and in this connection we have had no difficulties up to the present. The hon. member made the general accusation that although the National Party talks about the establishment of border industries nothing was being done by the Government; there is Hammarsdale, it is true, but there are no houses as yet; the basic services have not been provided yet. But after all the hon. member knows that there are other places where border industries have already been established. In many cases the houses are completed even before the industries are established. Take Pretoria-North. The industries have not yet started operating but most of the houses there are already occupied. The hon. member takes Hammarsdale as an example and says that that is the result; but he forgets the other places in Natal where we have established housing schemes. The hon. member has no right to muke such a general accusation. I come now to Hammarsdale. I readily admit that nothing has been done at Hammarsdale yet. But it must not be overlooked that Hammarsdale is not a Bantu area. We were asked just recently to undertake the planning there and to erect the buildings, and I want to give the hon. member the assurance that attention is being given to the matter. But proper planning must first take place. The hovels which are there today are not situated on land which has been planned for industrial development. This place is receiving attention. Hammarsdale is one of the exceptional cases where nothing has been done yet. But we want to improve the conditions there and steps will be taken to that end. The hon. member may rest assured on that score. I want to ask the hon. member, however, to raise this matter when the Vote of the Minister of Economic Affairs comes up for discussion; he will then be given all the relevant information.

I should like to add that the success we are achieving at the present time with the development of the border areas, in spite of all the prophets of doom on the opposite side, is truly encouraging. There are inquiries at every place and people are putting up factories. Go and look at East London. There is a factory there already.

Where? Which one?

The hon. member does not know his own country. [Interjections.] The hon. members say there are a number of factories at East London, but if they had been there they would have seen there is one very big factory, a textile factory, near Undanzani. [Interjection.] That is the difficulty. The United Party says no attention is being given to the border industries while the factories are there already. Take Rosslyn. You will be surprised to see what has happened there in a short while. One can hardly recognize the place. [Interjection.] The hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) has quoted from Dr. Norval’s report, but that is a little straw the hon. member is grasping at. There are, however, other economists in South Africa advising us. Take a person such as Professor S. P. Viljoen. He is convinced that this thing is going to be a great success, and the indications of success are there already.

Now the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) asks what about Port St. Johns. My objection to the hon. member is that he is not a good Member of Parliament, because if he were a good one, Port St. Johns would have progressed much more than it has up to the present time. But he scares the people to such an extent that hardly a single Transvaler goes to Port St. Johns any longer. Everybody asks me whether what Mr. Hughes says is true. The hon. member suggests there are terrible things going on. Proclamation 400 hangs like a cloud over the people there. The hon. member is the cause of the people’s unwillingness to go to that place. I shall be glad if he will rather help me to build up Port St. Johns. I should like to assure the hon. member that he need not worry about it. Port St. Johns will remain a White area and we realize that those people must be assisted, and at the present time a number of matters in that connection are being attended to. The necessary attention is being devoted to it. I cannot say at this stage what the results are going to be, but one of the things is the possibility of developing the harbour. Quite a number of other things there are also receiving earnest attention at the present time, so that those people need not be uneasy. But why make the statement that a little group of people are now sitting on the other side of the borders of a foreign state? He scares away all the people with that statement. Surely it is not a foreign state, and it is not fair to use that representation. If he really wishes to serve the Transkei as well as Port St. Johns, he should not make such wild statements. Those areas are still a part of South Africa. The day when they no longer form part of South Africa he may make those statements, but it is unnecessary to scare the people in advance. I appeal to the hon. member. He can do much for the Transkei and he can serve Port St. Johns much better if he would rather co-operate with us instead of scaring the people. The hon. member is very concerned too about the roads there. He can be quite reassured that the roads will be constructed by the province, and will be maintained by the province through Port St. Johns. I should like to give the assurance that all the other roads will be maintained equally well, because we are employing experts to help us in this task, and the same amount that is being spent on those roads at the present time, will continue to be spent there in the future, and the roads going via Port St. Johns will be constructed by the province. I repeat that with the development of the Transkei, the people at Port St. Johns will ultimately be grateful to us for the benefits they will derive from it. I think I have now replied to all the questions. Of course there are fine points here and there, but it is absolutely impossible to reply to everything, but I have at least replied to all the major questions.

May I ask whether the hon. the Minister agrees with the statement made by the hon. member for Vereeniging?

That is also a strange thing which I cannot understand. The same question replied to by the hon. member for Vereeniging was asked in this House years ago, namely whether it is our policy to remove all the Bantu from the White areas to the Bantu areas, and Dr. Malan gave the reply on that occasion. He said it was the ideal we aimed at, but it was not practical politics at present. Dr. Malan replied to that question, and Advocate Strijdom replied to it, and the present Prime Minister also replied to it; but the hon. member for Germiston (District) cannot understand it yet. That is the ideal that is aimed at, but we realize fully that we shall need the Bantu for many years yet, just as he will need us. It is not intended simply to drive them out here and to dump them there. Surely that cannot be done. It can only be done as those areas are developed, and I have pointed out that the best results will be achieved when all those areas lying fallow there are developed so that they can build up a dynamic economy. We have a single economy for the whole of the Republic of South Africa. That is the only way out, and in the meantime we are trying to give as many of the Bantu as we do not need here a livelihood there. We do not believe that they should congregate in their thousands at Cook’s Bush and live in hovels, as the United Party has done. No, we believe in seeing to it that all the manpower of South Africa, White as well as non-White, shall be harnessed in the interests of the greatest productivity of our economic structure.

I conclude by saying that I really had expected that in this debate hon. members opposite would at least have given us the alternative policy for South Africa. Once upon a time I also sat on that side and I also criticized sharply. [Interjections.] But when asked what our policy was, I could put it clearly and succinctly. Go and read the Hansards. Time and again we stated our policy during these debates, and on the strength of that we won the election in 1948. [Interjection.] The hon. member asks why the Sauer Commission was appointed. It was appointed for only one purpose, and that was merely to recapitulate the policy we already had in their report, because a policy grows with the nation. We are going further in many instances than General Hertzog went, because we are not a stagnant party, but a dynamic party. We have seen the phenomenon that at one time the United Party also had a policy, and eventually it had a sixpence policy, but to-day that policy cannot even be sold for one penny. We cannot get any policy from the United Party. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Green Point asks whether General Hertzog did not say that apartheid was unrealistic. I have just said that Dr. Malan said our ideal is total apartheid, but it is not practical politics to-day. I am convinced it is not practical politics even today, but we are working in that direction. If that ideal could be achieved, nobody will be gladder than that hon. member. But the United Party have no ideal for the achievement of which they are working. Here we have been debating the matter for days, and they cannot expound a policy. Not one of them has even mentioned the federation plan. I want to say this. The hon. member for South Coast has waged a whole campaign in regard to land in Natal. I want to warn him beforehand that the people of Natal are no longer as scared as they were. People cannot be attracted to a party by scaremongering. You must do so by means of faith and ideals. That is what makes a party strong. You have to grip the imagination of the public, and that is why the National Party came into power in 1948 and that is why it will still be in power in 1988.

Amendment put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

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

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Revenue Vote No. 26.—“Bantu Administration and Development”, as printed, put and agreed to.

Loan Vote N.—“Bantu Administration and Development”, R25,596,000, put and agreed to.

Precedence given to Revenue Votes Nos. 42 and 43 (Labour and Immigration).