I move—

Mr. Speaker, in respect of such a lengthy and tremendously important Bill such as this, a Bill which deals with such a variety of subjects, it is not very easy to make a second-reading speech in which all the subjects which are dealt with in this Bill have to be explained and motivated. I hope, therefore, that the memorandum in which every clause of this Bill is explained briefly but in detail, in the light of existing provisions, has been of great benefit to hon. members as it has been to me in preparing for the introduction of the Bill to-day. For that reason I shall not again touch upon every subject or try to explain every clause. From the nature of things that is, of course, done, if necessary, in the Committee Stage later on. I shall therefore confine myself to those aspects in respect of which there may still be misunderstanding or differences of opinion.

If these things have always existed, why does the hon. the Minister now want to change it?

I have clearly stated that to a varying degree this type of provision has always existed, and we have learnt from experience, and we are amending things which are necessary.

I said I would quote from the Acts. I want to mention to you, Sir, that in respect of idle and undesirable Bantu, Section 17 of Act 21 of 1923, already contains provisions to deal with that type of Bantu, and in the 1930 Act there are also such provisions. And in 1937, during the régime of the United Party, in Section 22 of Act 46 of 1937, the United Party added further grounds and they even included Bantu women, and they also had to prove that they were not idle or undesirable, etc. In the same 1937 Act the present provisions now contained in the Group Areas Act were inserted in order to replace the previous Act. That was done by the United Party Government. The removal of idle and undesirable and superfluous Bantu was made possible. [Interjection.] If the United Party is now opposed to the measures contained in this Bill, they must tell us why in the past they did not repeal measures dealing with the same things, but increased their powers; and then they also have to tell us, if they are now opposed to it—one can now be opposed to something which one favoured 20 years ago—since when they have been against it. If it was because the United Party in the past had no alternative places to which they could send the Bantu who had to be removed, they should give that as the reason, and we will accept it, because it is fairly near the truth. But that was not the reason. The reason was that the United Party was in favour of those removal orders because they considered them to be necessary.

Now allow me for the sake of clarity to mention some of these grounds, for removal and to analyse them a little. I direct the attention of hon. members to Clause 61 of the Bill, at page 80. I will now indicate what is new and what is old. Clause 61 (2) gives a new definition of an idle person, and this definition contains new elements, but much of it is also contained in the old provisions. In essence it is an old provision. The next one I want to mention is at page 81, where it is provided that a Bantu may be removed if work has been offered to him three times and he still does not want to accept it. That is a new provision, for the obvious reasons which I have already mentioned. The next is that he can be removed if twice within six months he has lost his work through his own fault. That is also a new one. The next one is if he has been dismissed three times within a short period owing to misbehaviour. That is also a new provision; or if he cannot maintain himself due to gambling, or cannot care for himself due to the abuse of liquor or drugs, and that in spite of a removal order he is still in the area. All those things exist in the existing legislation, including the one in respect of beggars. That is the first category of sub-sec. (2). Then we come to the next one, where the definition of undesirable persons is set out. It is a Bantu who—

That is an existing provision; also the use of habit-forming drugs and the sale of intoxicating liquor are existing provisions; committing violence against officials who talk to him an existing measure. Now I have mentioned five existing measures. Then I come to page 84 there we find a number of new measures from (f) to (k). That includes the possession of an unlicensed firearm, damage to property, attending a riotous assembly, incitement to crime, belonging to an illegal organization, and committing sabotage. Those are the new ones. Now we rightly expect hon. members to get up and seek to justify the retention of the existing provisions, and to condemn the new provisions. Again I make a very urgent plea to the Opposition to be very clear and very honest particularly on this point, and if a plea is not enough I want to make a serious appeal to hon. members, and if that does not help I want to challenge the Opposition to tell us frankly and honestly what their attitude is in regard to this point. [Interjections.] I want to tell the Opposition that if they tell us frankly that these grounds for removal which are now being added—and it should be noted that these are merely the grounds affecting Section 10 (a), (b) and (c)—should still be retained as in the past, we will not in the least reproach them for it. In fact, I will make an appeal to members on this side not to reproach the Opposition for it. But I now also want to tell the Opposition in advance that if they are honest and they attack us on these points, as they have every right to do, they must be prepared for us on this side not to spare them. [Interjections.] It is very necessary that in regard to these matters we should talk frankly to one another and that no egg-dances should be performed, and that there should be no vagueness, even if it be only vagueness merely to try to make a good impression on the Liberals. Those who maintain that the illegal, superfluous, workshy and undesirable Bantu should be allowed to remain in the White areas just because of their so-called privileges of birth should please tell us so frankly. It is generally known that attempts will be made to rehabilitate any such Bantu who are removed, in order to improve their human quality and their labour potential and to make better people of them in the places to which they are taken, but we must now be told frankly whether we should not even make these attempts to rehabilitate them, and whether those types of Bantu should rather be kept in the urban areas to the detriment of themselves and of the community. I should like to emphasize these so-called privileges of birth, to say that those birth privileges are being exaggerated far too much. In fact, that does not constitute human rights. None of us in this House has such privileges of birth. Is a person to remain all his life in the place where he was born, in a small town where there is no work for him, and is he to die of hunger there simply because he was born there? Is he to be kept away from new, developing towns with their possibilities for employment in the White areas as well as in the Bantu homelands? Is he to be kept out there and must he remain in the little town where he was born simply because he was born there? I told a Bantu the other day that I was grateful that I did not have to remain in the little town where I was born, a small town in the Free State with no possibilities. Even the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) would not have liked to remain in the small Karoo town where he was born.

In this report I referred to a moment ago there is another journalistic lie which I should like to mention briefly, namely that part of the report which says that the Bantu in the White areas will now be turned into a “vast migratory labour force”. It seems to me that the writer of that report said that in regard to what is contained in Clause 60, to which I referred a moment ago, namely the present amendment of the old United Party measures of 1937 and earlier which I have just sketched. But surely it is quite false to say that we immediately want to declare to be migratory labourers all Bantu with their wives and children. Where do they get the idea that all the Bantu workers who are here, with their wives and children, will for as long as they are allowed to remain here because of their labour, immediately or within a short time all be converted into a “vast migratory labour force”, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition thoughtlessly said the other day when he spoke about a “transferable labour unit”? Surely it is nonsense to say such things.

Those are your words.

I emphatically deny that they were my words, and I challenge that hon. member to show me those words in my speech. That is not so. That is one of the untruths of the political correspondent of the Cape Times, which I deny. It is a figment of their own imagination which they want to attribute to me. I want to challenge the hon. the Leader of the Opposition here to show me those words in the Hansard report of my speech last year, or in the reports of the speeches I made outside this House. He should not make use of lies. If one can advance a sound argument, it is much more effective than a lie because, according to the old Dutch adage, the truth always overtakes a lie. Surely it is false to pretend that we want to turn these Bantu into migratory labourers. Why is that fabricated? It is done simply to incite the Bantu against us or to vilify the Government. For what other reason is it done? It certainly is not a question of ignorance because in those reports they boast of having consulted the best lawyers and M.P.s of the Opposition in regard to this Bill. Therefore it cannot be due to ignorance. It will be to the advantage of all of us if we sincerely apply yardsticks to test this Bill, and I can mention four such yardsticks. There is, firstly, the yardstick of fairness, and here our fundamental view about the presence of people in the homeland of other people applies very well. Here the golden parallel rule of course applies that one can be in the homeland of another man in order to render labour or service, which is justifiable, but then it must of course be without laying claim to the rights to which that other man has preference in his own homeland. Between the Whites and the Bantu it applies both ways. Limited opportunities for the Bantu in the White homeland are countered by the actual similar restrictions to which the Whites are subjected in the Bantu homeland.

Another yardstick by which hon. members can test this Bill is that of the harmonious way of life we must ensure among ourselves. I have quoted at fairly great length the provisions which will promote this, and during the course of the debate I hope that many more examples will be given as to how the well-meant application of these measures will make possible greater orderliness in the way of life of the Whites as well as of the Bantu. And of course another yardstick which should be applied is that of practical applicability, and with the long experience gained by our Department it can surely be accepted that we will not come to light with ill-considered ideas, particularly where we are now granting more opportunities for appeal we are definitely making a positive contribution here. Fourthly, I want to mention as a yardstick what I call the conceptional requirements, i.e. that the administration and the policy should be systematic. There should be a proper synthesis, or a co-ordinating unity of conceptions and methods, and not just a sporadic or conflicting series of approaches in regard to things with one apartheid measure being applied here and another there. This yardstick does not tolerate any intermingling of irreconcilable policies or any conglomeration of discrepancies, and this Bill complies with that test also.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that hon. members of the Opposition will agree with me that this Bill gives the lie to the wild fantasies which have emanated from certain Opposition newspapers and which have thoughtlessly been followed by certain speakers.

You have not proved that yet.

I have. I therefore plead that all hon. members should have a balanced approach and that they should voice honest criticism and avoid irritating misrepresentations or unjustifiable emotionalism. I move.

It has been most interesting to listen to the introductory speech by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and his continual appeals to this side of the House and the public in general to be honest on the subject of Bantu affairs and the provisions of this Bill. I can only say that it is strange to hear an appeal of that kind from a Minister who has delivered so superficial a speech, a speech so full of debating points, as the speech which we have just had from the hon. the Deputy Minister who has just sat down.

That is a poor opening gambit.

In fact this has not been a speech of the sort that one normally has when a Bill is introduced. This has been a defence of a Bill by a Minister with a very guilty conscience indeed. It has been a most remarkable attempt to meet criticism which has not yet been advanced by this side of the House, a most remarkable attempt to try to besmirch the Press, and even to some extent an attempt to justify some of the entirely stupid reports which have been in the Press as a result of what appears to have been hand-outs from either the Minister of Information or the Department of Bantu Administration. I would have expected a Minister in this position to give us broadly the basis of the policy upon which he based the provisions in his Bill, because it is a Bill which amends 11 Acts of Parliament, and it is quite clear that there is a theme behind it; there is a belief and a policy behind it which the hon. gentleman at no time expressed. Sir, I am sorry that is so because the policy of that side of the House was so clearly expressed once before by the hon. the Prime Minister before he even became Minister of Native Affairs. In a speech made in 1956, before he became Prime Minister, he said the following—

Sir, I hope the inhabitants of the Transkei will bear that in mind—

Then a few lines lower down—

Hear, hear.

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF: Hon. members say “hear, hear” and yet they deny that this Bill is nothing more nor less than an intensification of the migratory labour system. The hon. the Deputy Minister was hardly fair to himself when he made a statement of that kind. Sir, here is the basis of this Bill—an intensification of the migratory labour system for the whole of the Republic—and the Deputy Minister has the temerity to stand up in this House and to tell us that that is not one of his foundations of the Bill.

[Inaudible.]

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF: I will deal with that at length shortly. I am sure the hon. the Prime Minister will not duck away from it; we know him too well. He will agree with me 𠀦

The PRIME MINISTER: But migratory labour is something quite different.

Sir, I did the Prime Minister an injustice, but we will deal with that later.

I stand by every word I said.

Sir, the words used by the Prime Minister and the words used by me, although they are the same words, have different meanings. However, let us deal with that in the right place. Let me come now to the situation in respect of this legislation. I think the first thing that is interesting about it is the haste with which it has been brought before this House, the extraordinary short period which there has been between the first and the second reading. [Interjections.]

Order!

Sir, when hon. members opposite have finished satisfying their consciences I will go on. The interesting thing about it is the extraordinary short period there has been between the first and the second reading for a Bill as important as this, a Bill which the Deputy Minister tells us is full of changes from the Bill which he introduced last year. He was the man who stressed the changes. He was the man who told us that this was not exactly the same Bill; the underlying principles were the same but it was full of detailed changes and therefore we could not talk about it at a first reading because we did not know what those changes were. Here we have a Bill of 100 clauses in which there are some interesting changes although the fundamental principles remain unchanged. There are some most interesting changes of detail; there are some most interesting changes in respect of some major matters as well, in respect of which the public of South Africa have had no opportunity as yet to express their views and in respect of which the Bantu people, the people most affected by this Bill, have had no opportunity at all of expressing their views. But this Bill is produced before Parliament with this unseemly haste. What is interesting about it is that many of the changes are changes in form only because there are attempts in the Bill to produce the same result by different means. Sir, the Bill was greeted this year with some misleading publicity as it was last year. Last year we had a statement from the hon. the Minister of Information that this was a Bill to remove the friction between Bantu and Whites in South Africa, and when we saw the Bill, of course, we saw just what it meant. This year there seems to have been some sort of hand-outs to the Press because the Press have been caught again.

Why apologize?

I am not apologizing.

You are always apologizing.

I never apologize for my old friend, the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker); he is always caught, and he has been caught again. Sir, here again we have a statement in the Press that certain contentious clauses had been dropped despite the fact that in a number of cases the objects of those clauses have been achieved but in a different way. Here is a report which says—

And then they listed the following—

In which newspaper did that appear?

That was a Sapa hand-out. It appeared in the Burger, amongst others. Sir, let us deal first of all with the question of depots. What has happened here? All he has done has been to change the name and to “provide for the manner and the circumstances in which a Bantu may be admitted to an aid centre instead of the voluntary residence or compulsory detention of a Bantu at a depot.” Sir, where is the distinction or difference between the powers of the manager of an aid centre as opposed to a depot in the 1963 Bill? The Deputy Minister has made great play of the fact that there is no power to detain a man in an aid centre, but I wonder if he would not look at Clause 12, Section 28ter (5) on page 25 which refers to the 1952 Act and the powers given under that Act to detain Bantu for periods of seven days up to a maximum of 30 days.

The Deputy Minister does not know his own Bill.

Sir, have a look at the further powers of the manager of an aid centre. How does he carry them out without the power to detain? How do you hold a court in an aid centre without the power to detain the man you are going to try? Look at the powers they have taken in respect of a youth centre, Sir, and you begin to see the sort of thing that will happen under this Bill. Then, Sir, the second one had to do with the documentation required by Bantu women who enter an urban area for employment. It is true that the provisions in the 1963 Bill prescribing the documents which a Bantu women must have when she enters an urban area for employment are not in the present Bill. But is it not remarkable, Sir, that the State President may make regulations prescribing the form of the documents to be produced by a female Bantu wishing to take up employment. Is it conceivable that the Deputy Minister can come to this House and make a statement of that kind when there is this power in the regulations for the State President under his own Bill? The result is that instead of making regulations as to the form of such documents, the State President in fact legislates as to which documents should be produced, as was provided for in the section of the Bill which has been withdrawn.

Then we come to the next one—labour quotas in the form of work reservation. I agree that these clauses were omitted but the powers retained in the Bill achieve virtually the same result. Clause 8 in the new Section 21ter (6) (b) (vi) allows the official to refuse to sanction the employment or continued employment of a Bantu if, acting in conjunction with the Secretary, he is satisfied that it has not been in the public interest. It is entirely within his discretion. Sir, there is a complete discretion there. The cases dealing with public interest make it perfectly clear that as far as the official is concerned, provided he uses his discretion honestly, there can be no comeback. Then there is another one: The State President is given power to make regulations as to the classes of employers to whom Bantu may be made available by such bureaux for employment and the manner in which and the conditions under which such Bantu could be placed in employment. I go further, Sir. The State President may make different regulations in respect of different areas and in respect of different classes of Bantu or employers or in respect of different classes of employment, and it is unlawful to employ anyone except through these labour bureaux. Sir, must they not act in accordance with the regulations? It is a little difficult to follow an hon. gentleman when he attacks the Press for making statements which he says are false, and then there comes a statement which appears to have the authority of some Government Department, a statement which is as misleading as this one is.

The hon. the Minister in his speech has taken much the same sort of line himself. As I have said, he was on the defensive from the beginning. He spoke of certain new provisions and he spoke at length of the fact that many of the powers which are given to officials at the moment are the same powers as they have in respect of the bureaux created by regulations at the moment. I want to suggest to him just a few changes. The officials to-day can move out law-abiding Bantu falling under Section 10 (1) (a) or (b).

No, no law-abiding Bantu.

Oh yes, they can move out perfectly law-abiding Bantu if they regard them as surplus or if they regard it as being in the public interest, and that is something which they could not do before. They can cancel contracts of employment on the grounds of public interest, which they could not do before; they can decide what future labour contracts can be allowed on the grounds of public interest, which again they could not do before.

Do you regard surplus labour as being in the public interest?

That depends on the definition of surplus labour. Sir what can happen under this Bill? A man who has lived his whole life in an area can be moved out so that a man who has recently come in may stay in his job, and the hon. member cannot deny it. I believe that permanency of tenure and the right to some permanency of tenure in the area is more important than minor considerations of surplus labour. But then I go further. The officials have powers now to refer Bantu to an aid centre, which they could not do before; they can offer the individual work in other areas, which they could not do before. They can determine which Bantu should be employed by which sort of employers because they no longer allow the Bantu to seek work in the area; the work-seeker has disappeared; now it is the labour bureau who decided who the employer is going to be, and by using the power of review the officials of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development can make decisions very often contrary to those of the municipal officials who are in touch with the area concerned.

They can do so now.

Yes, but their decisions are subject to review, and the Deputy Minister knows that. They will be reviewed by an official of the Minister, and that is exactly the difference. Sir, the hon. the Deputy Minister has made great play of the fact that this removal of the so-called protected Bantu, or the power to remove them, is no change. Under the 1963 Bill they could not be removed unless other suitable work was offered. There is no such provision in this Bill, so this is a more severe provision than the one which we had before us last year.

The hon. gentleman has tried to give us a long list of examples of improvements and he has suggested that there is no change from the point of view of the powers of the labour bureaux. I think I have given sufficient indication that that is not the position under this Bill. There are far more extensive powers under this Bill than there were under the 1963 Bill.

Sir, we have spoken of the right of detention and the hon. the Deputy Minister has made great play of the fact that in certain respects nothing can be done without the agreement of the Secretary for Bantu Administration and Development. But there are clauses under which that Secretary can delegate his powers to the most junior officials. It is not he who decides. It is very often somebody to whom powers have been delegated by him, and the difficulty very often is that although there is a right of appeal very often the order is carried out before the appeal can be lodged; the order cannot be stayed, so that in fact it is of very little use to the individual concerned. Sir, the hon. the Minister has complained bitterly about a certain publication which said that the last remaining residential rights of urban Africans were being removed and he said that what he was giving was actually a guarantee. But, Sir, who determines when there is a surplus? Who makes up his mind when there is a surplus? Here you have the position that you may have full employment in an area; you may have a man who has lived there all his life, who has been born there, who has been employed there and who loses his job for one reason or another—perhaps because his employer dies. There is full employment in the area. Is he surplus? Who decides? What guarantee has he got that he is not going to be moved? What guarantee does he have that his home is not going to be broken up? And then, Sir, if he wants to stay and if he does not want to accept certain of the jobs offered to him in other areas, who is going to decide when he is idle? The Bill last year said that they would be the last people to be moved. That provision has disappeared now. This is a much more severe provision. Sir, I could go on. The hon. the Deputy Minister has tried to compare himself to a surplus Bantu labourer and suggested how unfair it would have been if he had been forced to remain in the village in which he was born. But he had the right to move. He did not have to get anyone’s permission to move; he could move where he liked. There was no control over any job he took. There was no-one to prevent him going into politics …

What a pity.

… or becoming a Deputy Minister. What is the position of the Bantu in that area? He has to get permission to move, and they will not let him move unless there is a job designated and he cannot negotiate for that job himself. If that job is offered to him three times and he does not accept it then he is an idle individual under the Bill and the Minister can send him somewhere else. Sir, how can you make a comparison of that kind? The hon. the Deputy Minister said: “Let us be honest with each other.” How can you make comparisons of that kind when you are dealing with the relative positions of the Deputy Minister and the Bantu who has lost his job in an area of that kind? Then, Sir, the hon. the Deputy Minister has complained because it has been suggested that the vast mass of the Bantu labour force would be converted into a migratory labour force. The hon. the Prime Minister intervened and took refuge in the fact that he did not believe that he and I understood the same things by migratory labour. Sir, I want to be quite straight about this. As far as I am concerned migratory labour is labour which has its roots in the reserves, which is not allowed to have its womenfolk or its family with it here and which when it has completed its term of labour goes back to the reserves. That is migratory labour to me, and the hon. the Prime Minister’s statement here made it perfectly clear that as far as he was concerned virtually all Bantu labour was migratory labour. And that, Sir, is what this Bill is setting out to do. It is exactly that and there can be no doubt whatever as to what the attitude is.

It seems to me, that in examining this Bill, there is a somewhat drastic departure from the traditional policy of the old Nationalist Party before this Prime Minister came into power and before we heard the refinements of the policy of apartheid as outlined by this Government. In the early days, in the days of the 1913 Act, these reserves were established for the protection of the Bantu. Efforts were made to look after them and efforts were made to bring them into contact with those with whom they could seek work. There has now been a change. This is to-day the second leg of the Bantu policy. On the one side you have the Bantustan policy of the Government; on the other side you have the policy in respect of labour which is necessary to ensure that the first leg will work. The one is complementary to the other. The one, in some respects, has been before the people but this leg has never been before the public of South Africa. One wonders how the hon. the Minister can claim that he has a mandate for a policy of this kind. Because he is now creating a position where even the most responsible and respectable Bantu has got to go through the machine of the labour bureaux with all the hurts that it may involve to his dignity and everything else in connection therewith. You see, Sir, it is a terrible pity to have a Bill of this kind introduced in this way because this Bill is of vital importance to the future of the Republic; it is of vital importance, I believe, for two reasons. Firstly, because the attempts of this Government and the hon. the Prime Minister to establish a different image of South Africa overseas by virtue of their Bantustan policy have failed absolutely. The result is that today the image which exists in the imagination of individuals overseas of South Africa is dependent upon our treatment of our urban Bantu and those Bantu who, under this Bill, will be in the prescribed areas. We are in this tragic position under this Bill that an African in a prescribed area under this Bill has the onus cast upon him of establishing that he is rightly in a prescribed area. And those prescribed areas may be well over 80 per cent of the land of the Republic. And the onus is cast upon him of establishing that he has the right to be in that area. Is that not a step further in depriving him of the right to citizenship of the Republic of which he was not deprived by the Transkei Bill? Is he not in a position that he now has something which does not amount to a full citizenship of an embryo of Bantustan in the Transkei, and the promise of future Bantustans in other parts of South Africa although the hon. the Minister has told us he has no plans to create future Bantustans. Does it not really mean that as a result of this Bill he is deprived of certain of his common law rights? He is subjected to differential legislation. He is treated almost as a foreigner in a country in which he is supposed to have the full rights of citizenship. Sir, is he not really approaching the position of becoming a stateless person as a result of this legislation?

You talk exactly like Stanley Uys. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) is being adequately dealt with. Here we are faced with the position of a man who has not full rights of citizenship in the Republic and no full rights of citizenship in his reserves which are becoming a Bantustan. Can the hon. member for Vereeniging tell us where he has full rights of citizenship?

Are you willing to give him full rights?

I want to know where he has got full rights of citizenship under your policy? You see, Sir, the hon. the member has not got a leg to stand on so what is he trying to do? He is trying to bluster; he is trying to attack the policy of the United Party which he has not the courage to defend.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question?

No, Mr. Speaker. The second reason why I think it is a tragedy that this Bill has been introduced in this way is that the future security of the White race in the Republic of South Africa is dependent on retaining the goodwill of those Bantu not permanently settled in the reserves or the Bantustan. That is perfectly obvious from the report of Mr. Justice Snyman. He makes it quite clear that we cannot carry out a Native policy unless there is goodwill between the Bantu and the European, unless there is support on both sides of a policy of that kind.

And you are trying your best to destroy that goodwill.

When you are dealing with a Bill of this kind you have to ask yourself: Who are the people we are talking about? Sir, I hope the hon. member for Vereeniging will participate in the debate later; it would be a pity if he made his whole speech now.

Who are these people who are going to be affected by this Bill? I think there are two groups. There is the Bantu permanently settled in our urban areas and there is the Bantu permanently settled in our rural areas. If I am to believe the figure given by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Education as reported in the Nationalist Party paper, the Burger, this morning, then there are 7,000,000 Bantu who live amongst us and earn their living amongst us. And of that figure some 3,000,000 are in our urban areas. According to the figures of the census before last—I have not got the figures for the last census—less than 10 per cent of those follow a migrant labour pattern. That means that something like 35 per cent of them or more than 1,000,000 have retained no ties whatever with the land and they must be considered to be completely and irrevocably urbanized. It is not surprising because close on 80 per cent of the employees of private industry in the Republic are non-Europeans. I know that figure includes Coloureds but it includes a very high percentage of the Bantu concerned. Even in the Ministry of Transport, out of 210,000 employees, over 100,000 are Bantu. The picture is plain for everybody to see, Sir. These people are essential to the continued functioning of our economy. In terms of this Bill they must remain in a permanent state of insecurity as long as they live. There is almost a total denial of individuality. Each one is becoming simply an inter-changeable labour unit. And the labour bureaux are intended to become the dominant factor in the economic lives of these people. Through the so-called aid centres we are going to have a system of bureaucratic manpower control. As I have remarked before, Sir, that bears a marked similarity to what was done in the Soviet Union under Stalin’s second Five Year Plan. I have gone so far in the past, Sir, to say that I believed the only person in the world who really knew what the South African Bantu who wanted a job in Johannesburg or any of our big cities felt like was the Soviet peasant under Stalin’s Five Year Plan.

It seems to me, Sir, that with the introduction of this Bill we have reached a moment of truth in South Africa; a moment of truth in which on the one side we have the stark reality of a policy for all Natives and not only for those privileged to live in the reserves. Those people are being treated strictly, severely, I go so far as to say harshly, by virtue of this legislation and I would go so far as to say that they are being treated as interchangeable labour units from a vast labour pool despite the recommendations of Mr. Justice Snyman in his Paarl Commission’s Report on the position of Bantu coming into the urban areas. Now what is the Government’s excuse for this? Their excuse is that they can enjoy full rights in the Bantustans. Sir, is that excuse not entirely invalid? It could be justified perhaps if they could enjoy those rights within our lifetime or within their lifetime or in the very near future. But what is it they are faced with at the moment? They are faced with the promise of a Bantustan which is merely a fiction because in those areas there is poverty, there are no new jobs for them, they cannot even find jobs for their natural increase, the plans for border industries are so far in arrear that they have become a joke in South Africa …

You are badly informed.

No, I am very well informed. I am informed to the point where the Tomlinson Commission reckoned they needed 30,000 new jobs per year. And nine years after the Tomlinson Commission they have not found a quota for one year yet. That is as far as I am informed; and that hon. member cannot deny it. In other words, the whole justification is a falsehood, but the inhumanity, the hurt and the invasions of dignity as a result of this policy are real. If this is the basis of our policy what rods are being laid in pickle for us for the future? What weapons are we not placing in the hands of our enemies in the future to chastise, to scourge and to wound us as a result of this sort of justification?

There is a third trouble about this policy. It is contrary to common sense. It is contrary to common sense because it destroys all chance of creating a Native middle class in our big urban areas which is the only hope for the future stability of South Africa. It mutilates and destroys the security of family life; it leads to economic insecurity; it prevents the building up of occupational traditions; and it finally dashes any hope of home ownership which those people may have enjoyed except in very very limited areas. In fact, Sir, what this Bill is doing is to destroy the bulwark against revolution which we had in South Africa and the bulwark against Communism which we so hoped might be strengthened even under this Government.

If I were asked to describe the characteristics of this Bill I would define them in a very different way from the hon. the Minister. I think he had five corners to his star when he tried to describe the characteristics of his Bill. I also have five characteristics. I think the first is an intensification of the control measures over the Bantu outside the reserves, to a point where the individual becomes little more than a cypher. Because, Sir, the man and woman, from 16 to 65 or from 16 to 60, with the exception of bona fide housewives, have controlled the jobs they do, the nature of their employment, the place of their employment, where they will reside, their leave, the length of their leave, whether they shall or shall not enjoy undisturbed family life, whether they have a job at all, and very much else as well, Mr. Speaker. They are subject to the complete discretion of junior civil servants in the Native Affairs Department. It is true that there is a right of appeal but, except in one or two cases, I think, only after the decision has been implemented. In other words, the sentence is carried out and then only do they have the right of appeal. They are sent away and then they can appeal. If they are successful they are brought back. But what does that mean to them? After they have reached the age of 60 or 65 perhaps the hon. the Minister will tell us what happens to them then? Can they determine their place of retirement? Or will they be declared to be, not idle, not redundant, because then they do not fall under the provisions of this Bill. What happens to them then? Will they be able to retire in these big urban townships or will they be sent back to the reserves or to some scheduled or released area which we do not know about at the moment?

When you look at that “Intensification of Control” and you bear in mind what the hon. the Minister said, how enthusiastic he was about these regulations that were going to be drafted, one wonders if he appreciates the human tragedies that exist as a result of the intensification of the control that he envisages?

I would say the second characteristic of this Bill is that it creates new injustices which did not exist in the past. The first of those is that the Bantu to-day cannot offer their labour on the market for free negotiation as to the wage they are to be paid. They must place it at the disposal of the labour bureau, and that bureau decides if, where and how they will work because they can only come into the area on a contract basis. The choice they are faced with is that they can stay in the reserves where there are very often no jobs and where very often they may starve in bad years or they may come alone into these areas with no hope whatever of getting a permanent place of abode or of being joined by their families or of establishing a permanent job for the rest of their lives to which every man in this House and in South Africa has a right.

Secondly the protection against removal which existed in the past in respect of Bantu born in an area or having worked there for 15 years or having worked for one employer for ten years, is removed under this Bill. It is true it is only on the consent of the Chief Bantu Affairs Commissioner but it no longer exists. I told you that in passing, Sir, I need not mention that again.

Thirdly, the service contract of the Bantu can be terminated by the State on the grounds of public interest. Once again there is an appeal to the Chief Bantu Affairs Commissioner but it is final. What will that appeal help? Then an aid centre can now direct a Bantu, not only to his home, but to an institution or any other place. The object is that if a man is not allowed into an area and he comes to a labour bureau the labour bureau can direct him to the aid centre. When he has committed no crime, when he has not been convicted, not charged or not suspected he is directed to an aid centre and he falls under its control. I wonder if we appreciate what this means to the ordinary Bantu worker who is seeking to earn a living for his wife and family?

There is a third characteristic of this Bill and that is that sociologically it is unsound. First of all, the new definition makes it possible to extend the prescribed areas virtually throughout the whole of the Republic of South Africa, except for the scheduled or released areas and the Bantustans with the provision of single hostels throughout the Republic. Secondly, Sir, what do you imagine the sociological effects are going to be of basic insecurity which this type of life holds out for the average Bantu. I wonder, when this Bill is in operation, how many married Bantu men in South Africa will be living with their wives and families? How many? Because no wife or child can remain with the husband or father unless they legally came into the area. And legally they only come into the area when they come for work. If a man has married a wife in the reserve and he comes back he cannot bring his wife with him, not under this Bill. I wonder how much family life is going to be left amongst the Bantu people after this Bill is applied in all its strictness, not only in the urban areas but also in the rural areas. I wonder what is going to happen then, Sir?

What do they care!

What do you care about the White man?

The hon. gentleman asks what do we care about the White man. You see—I do not care to whom he replied—it is typical of the point of view of that side of the House. The tragedy is that hon. members on that side of the House do not realize that by legislation of this kind they are undermining the future of the White man in South Africa. If we are faced with trouble and revolution in the future, Sir, there are the guilty men; there are the people responsible. Because they are creating a state of affairs in which you can expect no section of the population to remain stable.

I come to the fourth characteristic of this Bill and that is the invasion of the sphere of the courts and the normal course of justice as a result of the creation of these aid centres and the powers given to the officials there. I want to stress that there is an appeal to the Chief Bantu Affairs Commissioner whose decision will be final. But, Sir, what guarantee have we that the individuals concerned are going to be dealt with in accordance with the normal course of justice? Are we going to have cases again where Bantu go to aid centres and are not prosecuted on condition that they accept jobs in some area or other where there is need for employment? And under what conditions will those jobs be offered them? By a Bill of this kind the opportunity is created for that. The individual who comes under the control of those aid centres can be shunted off anywhere. He has no say. If he has committed an offence under the Urban Areas Act, the pass laws, the Native Labour Regulation Act or if he has contravened the regulations made under that Act he can be directed to go anywhere by the individuals concerned.

Lastly this Bill is full of examples of where the onus is shifted from the prosecutor to the accused in each case. Those are four characteristics of this Bill, but there is a fifth. And the fifth is the dangers inherent in this Bill, if it is badly administered, or if it is wrongly administered, to the economy of the country.

The hon. the Minister has been at great pains to explain that the clause entitling the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development to control and direct labour and things of that kind, has been removed. But there are still powers under this Bill of determining, through the labour bureaux by applying the regulations, who will get labour and under what conditions; there are powers to close down industries if it is decided that the continuance of those labour contracts will not be in the public interest. There is the difficulty of achieving efficiency. Under this system there is no permanence. There are a number of other examples where there are powers to interfere with the economy of the country. There is power to determine in what area the labour will be made available, what classes of employers will get the labour, the manner in which and the conditions under which they shall be employed. There are provisions as to the exemption of certain employers and their relief from certain regulations. There is power to make different regulations in regard to different areas, different employees and different employers. All these things are matters which can affect the economy of the country and prevent our normal course of development. There then are the five characteristics of this Bill, Sir, if I were asked to define them.

There is one other thing that one should notice and that is that under Clauses 78 and 79 the consent to the appointment of certain chiefs now disappears. It seems that this stumbling block to the creation of Bantu Authorities is being got round in this way because the Department does not seem able to sell those particular provisions to the Bantu people themselves. One of the greatest dangers perhaps inherent in this Bill is the danger of corruption on a large scale. We have had too many cases of officials in charge of locations being prosecuted for corruption; we have seen some ghastly instances in the last year or two in South Africa. Here we are creating a situation which is asking for corruption and which is creating opportunities for it in a manner which can be rivalled only by the attempts to enforce the prohibition laws in the United States of America. Sir, you may regard prohibition as good or bad; that does not interest me. But where you try to control the behaviour of human beings en masse in this way you lay yourself open to corruption. If my figures and the figures of the Minister of Bantu Education are correct there is going to be control virtually from the age of 15 years to the age of 60 or 65 of over 7,000,000 Bantu in South Africa. Where are the officials coming from? What is their training going to be? What understanding will they have of the Bantu people and the conditions under which this Bill can be applied? What guarantee have you got that they are going to be honest and that they are not going to be subject to corruption, that they are not going to be a festering sore in respect of the relations between White and Black in the Republic?

That applies in the case of any law.

But I have never known a law that has created greater opportunity for it than this one. I know of no law that creates greater opportunity for corruption than this one. I fear for the relations between White and Black as a result of the opportunities created for corruption in this Bill. Those are the grounds for this side of the House to oppose this Bill and we intend to do so. I think it is right that we should say that as far as we are concerned we stand for something else. We believe there is an alternative. We believe that what we should seek is to have the whole Bantu population of South Africa on our side in the maintenance of law and order, on our side in the battle against Communism to the extent that we can feel that they will fight with us to protect this Republic against the dangers of Communism. I believe, Sir, that that is the objective of the other side of the House as well. But we believe that in order to achieve that then there must be some change certainly in the urban areas. And we believe the first of those changes must be that those people must be given a stake in the maintenance of law and order and in the maintenance of the present order. That means that they should have the right of permanent residence in those areas and the right of ownership of their own homes in those areas. We believe that they should have the right to undisturbed family life just as every Member of Parliament demands for himself. We believe, thirdly, that the responsible class of Bantu should be exempted from the pass laws as far as that is possible. We believe active steps should be taken to encourage and to promote the emergence of a responsible middle class of Bantu in those areas, a middle class that will have a stake in the maintenance of law and order and who will stand with us in any battle against Communism. Examine this Bill, Mr. Speaker, and you will see that every single one of those ideals is undermined and destroyed by this Bill. There is no permanence of tenure; there is no undisturbed right to family life; there is no exemption from the provisions of this Bill from the highest to the lowest. The leading clergyman, the lawyer, the doctor, the outstanding Bantu, the responsible man who should be a leader amongst his own people, is going through the same sausage machine, through the same labour bureau. He is subject to the same indignities. What chance is there for the emergence of a Bantu middle class under regulations and provisions of this kind?

You come to Sharpeville and I will show you.

The hon. member speaks of Sharpeville. Of course he was close to it and I think he got a fright. Some people did.

There is only one appeal I can make to members on that side of the House and that is that in considering provisions of this kind, they should consider their own future security in South Africa and they should ask themselves the question as to whether this increases their security or is going to cause so much unhappiness, so much friction that it will undermine their security for the future. If they will examine that question honestly, there is only one answer they can come to, and then they will support me in the amendment I now moveȄ

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has charged the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Development with not having discussed the broad underlying principles of this important measure. Although the Minister has emphasized that this measure consists of 101 clauses, and is amending no less than 11 existing Acts, he made it very clear that it contains only one single basic principle throughout, namely that the Bantu in the White area constitute only a temporary labour force and not a permanent part of the population of the White area.

At the outset, before replying to some of the statements and the criticisms of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, I should like to state this principle very clearly and emphatically: On the basis of the policy of separate development, the Bantu is a citizen of the Bantu areas and there he must be given his rights, constitutionally, economically and socially, and when he is in the White area, he is there only for the purpose of selling his labour in the labour market of the White economy, in the same way that the White man, who is in the Bantu area, is there only to render service to the Bantu.

The hon. the Leader among other things in his criticism said that all these people are without rights. I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is asleep, for the past years have shown that every Transkei Xhosa has indeed acquired his rights within his own area, even if he were living outside that area, and I could mention to him numerous Transkei citizens who have been working in the White area for the past 20 or 30 years, and yet have cast their votes in the Transkei.

What about the other Bantu?

I take it the hon. member means the other Bantu ethnic groups? They, too, will in due course go and exercise their rights in their own particular areas, as the Transkeian Bantu are doing in the Transkei at the present time. But we are not allowing ourselves to be stampeded by such people as the hon. member sitting over there. We are going to take our time, and when the time is ripe, they will have their rights in their own particular areas. This approach is basic, namely that they are here only to sell their labour; it is fundamental to the whole policy of separate development; as basic as the Transkeian constitution; as basic as the Bantu Self-government Act and the Bantu Authorities Act. This basic principle that a Black man in a White area is there only to sell his labour, appears from the three main parts of this particular measure, and I wish to mention them briefly:

1. (1) By the amendment and revision of the Native Labour Regulation Act in order to control the movement of all Bantu in the cities as well as on the farms through labour bureaux and aid centres to assist the Bantu in the White area not to overlook the primary purpose of his presence in the White area;
2. (2) the amendment of the Native Trust and Land Act in order to regulate the sojourn of the Bantu in the rural areas for labour purposes only;
3. (3) the amendment of the Natives (Urban Areas) Act to emphasize the temporary sojourn of the Bantu in urban areas for the purposes of labour only.

It appears clearly from this that the crux of this measure is the proper control of the Bantu as a labourer in the White area. That is fully in conformity with the policy of separate development, but on the other hand it also has full regard to the fact that the Bantu as an under-developed group in their own areas, need labour in White areas for their own existence and survival. Here I should like to emphasize again that the White man does indeed need the labour of the Bantu for his own economy, but we should never forget that the Bantu actually has an even greater need of the White economy for his own economy in his own areas and for his own survival. It is reciprocal. I should like to see this measure regarded in that light. To judge and criticize this measure outside the framework of separate development, in my view is really pointless and serves no purpose.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has complained that the Minister did not deal with the principle of the matter whereas I was waiting so anxiously for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to deal with the principle of his policy, or his alternative policy, in this regard. He discussed a large number of separate clauses, but the principle on which he wants to state an alternative policy was never touched upon by him. The criticism of the Leader of the Opposition gave the impression that he is a arch integrationist. Listening to him, one has to ask whether the Leader of the Opposition is now rejecting all the bases on which this legislation has been built and in regard to which the United Party and its predecessors played their part, and which they in fact created. Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition now reject the bases laid down in the Native Labour Regulation Act of 1911 which was created by the old S.A.P. Government? Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition now repudiate the basis of the Native Trust and Land Act of which the United Party was the father? Does he repudiate also the Native (Urban Areas) Act which was a creation of his own party, and which was introduced in 1945 by the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl)?

Let us examine some of his points of criticism. This afternoon he repeated the substance of what he said in a Press report—

This afternoon he referred to a “labour pool of interchangeable units”. This statement of his presupposes that the entire Bantu population outside the reserves constitutes a permanent population group outside the Bantu areas …

But surely that is so.

… because he says that this measure now changes it like that. I should like to ask him now whether that is correct? For this statement is historically incorrect. Time does not permit me to repeat the full history, but I should like to ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he really accepts it as a fact that they constitute a permanent part of the population outside the Bantu areas? If so, a number of questions arise: Firstly, is he now prepared completely to repeal the Native Labour Regulation Act in South Africa, and to treat Bantu labour in South Africa on an equal footing with White labour?

The Minister has …

This Bill is based on that Act, and that Act was passed by the then S.A.P. at the time. Is he prepared to repeal the whole basis of that Act now? Of course he is not prepared to do so. Then if he is unwilling to do that, how can he then say: “The entire Bantu population outside the reserves forms a permanent part of South Africa”, for that Act of 1911 does not treat him as a permanent part, but only as a labour force in South Africa.

Secondly, if he regards the Bantu population outside the reserves as a permanent part of South Africa, is he prepared then to repeal Chapter IV of the Native Trust and Land Act so that the Bantu in the rural areas is not only a labour force, but so that the Bantu may also be able to purchase land in the rural areas, and conduct farming operations together with the White man, and so become joint owner of the land in the White areas of South Africa? Of course he is not prepared to do that, for the hon. member for Natal South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) as recently as three years ago, at a congress of the United Party, proposed that not an inch of White man’s land should be given to the Bantu.

For Bantustans.

How dare the Leader of the Opposition then criticize this measure, where the Bantu is regarded as a labour force and not as a permanent part of White South Africa? It is the greatest hypocrisy not to accept the consequences of such a point of view. Thirdly, if the Leader of the Opposition says the Bantu outside the reserves form a permanent part, is he prepared then to repeal the Natives (Urban Areas) Act in its entirety? He says they should be given permanent housing in those residential areas, but I should like to ask him whether he also wishes to give them permanent housing outside those residential areas, because if he abolishes the Natives (Urban Areas) Act, which he apparently is advocating here this afternoon, then he must permit the Bantu not only to reside in the locations, but also to reside in the White residential areas in any part of the cities.

Nonsense.

Now they say “nonsense”. So they want to discriminate. They do not have the courage of their convictions. Can you say now that a permanent part of the population must always live in an inferior part of the city? How can you treat a permanent part of the population as if it is not a permanent part of the population, if you are going to be honest? We say he is part of the labour force, and therefore we have the right to treat him so, but the Leader of the Opposition says he forms a permanent part of the population, and surely you cannot treat him like that? Then your policy surely is dishonest and hypocritical?

To say that the measure under discussion is converting the entire Bantu population into a temporary labour pool in the White areas is a gross distortion of the true state of affairs, for the Bantu has always been treated as if he were in South Africa temporarily only, and they will continue to be treated on this basis in the future, because it is not only an historical fact that the Bantu in the White area is a migrant labourer, but it is equally a fact that in terms of the legislation of all Governments in South Africa, whether it was a British régime or a Boer régime, and whether it was a colonial régime or not—the Bantu have always been treated as a temporary labour force in White areas. To say that this measure is bringing about this state of affairs is simply incorrect, untrue and false. Only when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition states clearly and unequivocally that he will repeal the Acts passed by his party and his predecessors, and which form the basis of the measure under discussion under which the Bantu are controlled and treated as a temporary labour force in the White area, will one be able to accept that he really regards the Bantu as a permanent part of the White area, and then his criticism will contain sense and meaning, like that of the Progressive Party, which believes that the whole population of South Africa should be a shapeless cosmopolitan mass.

I now come to a second point. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition not only says that the Bantu in the White area is a permanent resident, but that he also possesses definite rights as a permanent citizen in the White area, which this measure now allegedly will take away from the Bantu. He dilated upon it at length, and I notice that in his Press interview he said, “It is a fundamental weakness of the Government’s policy.” In this connection he particularly referred to the amendment of Section 10 of the Natives (Urban Areas) Act, which deals with the right of residence. In the first place I should like to refer the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to the history of Section 10. It did not form a part of the Natives (Urban Areas) Act of 1945, nor of the previous legislation that preceded that legislation. In terms of the Act passed by his party, the Bantu would have had no right of residence in White areas. Subsequently an arrangement for residence (I wish to emphasize this) was made for labourers who proved that they were a regular labour force which did not vary and on which the employer could rely—i.e. persons who had worked for one employer for ten years or 15 years for various employers—an arrangement whereby it was provided that their residence in locations would not be disturbed by ejectment. The previous United Party Government effected this by way of regulation. After the present Prime Minister became Minister of Native Affairs, the regulation was incorporated in the Natives (Urban Areas) Act by an amendment in order to give the regular labour force further security of residence. But permit me to emphasize this: The prolonged residence of the Bantu in the White area under this section does not have the effect of making them to any lesser extent a labour force, or of the arrangement being made on any basis other than that they merely constitute labour in the White area. From this history it is clear that this section never conferred any permanent civic rights upon the Bantu. It was purely and simply a residential arrangement of a labour force and was not concerned with civic rights at all. For instance, the concession that the Bantu labourer could have his wife with him for the sake of the family was also just a residential arrangement for a temporary labourer. The fact that Section 10 also gave the children of the Bantu labourer the right not to be removed from the urban area was a residential arrangement also, a concession to the family whereby we could have a permanent and steady labour force there. The history of this section and its amendments since 1945 shows this very clearly. The righteous indignation of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in regard to the Bantu in the White areas now being deprived of these so-called permanent rights has no meaning on substance, as civic rights of that kind never existed for him.

What civic rights does he possess?

He does have civic rights in his own areas. If the intention had been to confer civic rights in the White areas, surely it would not have been done in such an indirect manner, because it is meaningless to confer civic rights upon a person without, for instance, conferring upon him rights of land ownership, or conferring upon him the right to establish himself wherever he wishes, and the Opposition never gave those labourers that right when they were in power. Of what value is such a civic right if a person is treated only as a temporary labourer in a foreign area in every other respect of his residence there? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition wanted to know when a person becomes “surplus labour”, and he was particularly concerned about that. He was particularly concerned about those who have already been in employment for a long time and who are still employed. But when a person is employed, surely he cannot be surplus labour, because then he is in employment, he is not surplus labour, he is working. Then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says this: If there is full employment and he is not employed? Then of course he is an unemployed person, but then he would not necessarily be unemployed anywhere in the country. He could then move to another area where there may be employment for him.

May I ask a question?

I do not have unlimited time at my disposal and cannot reply to questions now. Another criticism I cannot allow to pass is the statement that this measure makes unemployment a crime. That is a gross and dangerous misrepresentation. On the principle that every Bantu in the White area is there only to sell his labour, any Bantu who is in a White area, unless he has been specifically exempted, has no right to be in that White area if he is not employed there. A Bantu without employment is really an unlawful immigrant in a White area. What is punishable is a Bantu in a White area refusing to work. If he wishes to report for work, if work is available for him, he may accept that employment. If he does not want the job, he is unwilling to work, and then he is virtually in the position of an unlawful immigrant. Nowhere in this Bill is there a single provision which makes unemployment as such a punishable offence. If a Bantu is unwilling to work, in other words, if he is work-shy, it is understandable why action is taken against him under this Bill. The Opposition also made another point which I cannot allow to pass. The Leader of the Opposition said: “The Bill creates new injustices.” In this connection I should like to associate myself with the statement made by Archbishop Whelan last week, which I should like to quote because it is important—

I do not deny that, Mr. Speaker. Archbishop Whelan then mentions some examples. He says this—

All the things which the Leader of the Opposition also mentioned, all matters with which this measure pre-eminently concerns itself, and upon which the Leader of the Opposition concentrated his criticism and on which the public Press concentrated their criticism, do not necessarily make this legislation “inhuman” or “unjust”. In my view the Archbishop very decisively replied to all these criticisms—

I think the Archbishop also summarizes the position very effectively as regards this legislation by saying this—

This measure is a practical measure, and I should like to mention a few of those practical factors. It is an historical fact that we have to do with a large Bantu labour force in the White area. Secondly, the legislation of two centuries has always treated these Bantu as a temporary factor in the White area. Thirdly, the policy of separate development gives the Bantu labour force all its rights as individuals and as social beings in their own area. Fourthly, the economic demand in the White area for a great unskilled labour force, and the economic offer of a large unskilled labour force in the Bantu areas are satisfactorily regulated by this measure, and this measure is serving its purpose, firstly, by the amendment of the Native Labour Regulation Act, secondly by the amendment of the Natives (Urban Areas) Act, and thirdly, by the amendment of the Native Trust and Land Act. In the measure under discussion an attempt is being made to carry out this difficult but essential task as humanely as possible, as fairly as possible and as tactfully as possible.

I do not wish to mention the relief measures. The hon. the Minister has already done that, but I should like to mention only one: The whole system of labour bureaux is aimed at ensuring that the supply of labour does not exceed the demand, in other words, the system of influx control is established, in the first place, in the interests of the labourers themselves; if the flow of labour is unlimited it may result in great unemployment, which will mean a great hardship for the labourers. Moreover, a surplus of labour always causes a reduction in wages, which once again means a great hardship for the labourers. So the whole system of influx control with the labour bureau machinery is there in the interests of the Bantu labourer in the White area.

The Minister has mentioned a number of other relief measures, but I should like to emphasize that I do not justify this measure on those grounds. I wish to justify this measure on the grounds that it effectively controls a large labour force in the White area and gives it mobility, and keeps that labour force what it really is in the White area, namely a temporary factor.

I should like now to deal briefly with another aspect of this legislation. I have already referred to this shapeless cosmopolitan mass that is being brought under control, and I should like to confine myself more to this measure as a means of combating the blackening of the rural areas. I should like to mention my own province, the Free State, as an example of the evil of the blackening of the rural areas. The statistics of Whites and Bantu in this province must be a revelation to all of this evil of the blackening of the rural areas. Whereas in the towns of the O.F.S. in 1951 there were ten Whites to every 16 Bantu, the position had deteriorated to such an extent in 1960 that there were only ten Whites to every 19 Bantu, that is to say, 1 against 1.6 in 1951, as compared with 1 against 1.9 in 1960. In 42 towns the number of Whites has decreased, but in 67 towns of the Free State the number of Bantu has increased. The position is much more critical when regard is had to the rural districts, i.e. the towns and farms of the Free State. In 1951 there were 6.8 Bantu to each White man, while in 1960 the position was that there were 10.3 Bantu to each White man. The town of Kroonstad has 29,000 Bantu, in the town alone. Bethlehem has 17,000 Bantu in the town alone, and Bloemfontein has 76,000 Bantu, and in the districts the position is much worse. Those are disturbing figures. By extending to the rural areas as well the measures of control that formerly applied only to the urban areas, that is to say, throughout the country, this measure is rendering a service of inestimable value to the nation. The fact that that control was not hitherto in existence was a shortcoming that might easily have had the effect of South Africa developing into a shapeless, coffee-coloured and cosmopolitan mass. As regarded the provinces of the Transvaal and Natal, this measure is also a great blessing, because we are now dealing with the iniquitous system of labour tenants. The provisions incorporated in this measure dealing with labour tenants are in consequence of a committee of inquiry on this matter under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. J. A. F. Nel). [Time limit.]

I, like my Leader, am utterly opposed to this legislation, and when I say that, I am not only speaking for myself but for my constituents, because I am one of those who have received a number of letters and deputations. When I went to Pietermaritzburg last year when the earlier Bill was before the House, these people interviewed me, and as the Leader of the Opposition stated, this Bill has even wider powers than those contained in the 1963 Bill. The people in my area were utterly opposed to the suggestions in that Bill of interference with the rights of all sections of the community, and that interference is carried on in this Bill. Unlike the suggestions coming from speakers on that side of the House, I do not agree with hon. members opposite who say that this Bill interferes only with the rights of the Bantu. That is not so. I am going to point out that this is a very serious interference with the rights of all sections of the community, the White man as well as the Bantu. That may make some of them think. And when the provisions that are contained in the amending Bill before us in relation to the control of farm labour under the labour bureaux which will be set up when a rural area becomes prescribed, and any area in the White area can become prescribed under this amending legislation, then the same provisions apply to that rural area. The labour will be controlled and they as farmers will have no say as to the labour that they can employ, the number they can take on and the type of individuals they choose to engage.

That is absolute nonsense. Where do you read that?

It is there. If the hon. member stops interrupting and reads the Bill he might know what it contains. There is a definite provision that all farm labour in a prescribed area will come under the control of the labour bureau, and not only the farm tenant labour, which I intend to deal with just now, but all labour on a farm in an area where a labour bureau is set up in a rural area. The moment an area becomes a prescribed area, all labour has to be registered with that labour bureau and the farmer cannot even take on a domestic servant or a Bantu female, even at reaping time when he is desperate for labour, without first getting permission. He is not allowed to look for labour any more than labour is allowed to seek work with him. He has to go to the labour bureau and see what they have available for him.

Nonsense!

Look at Clause 25.

It is not nonsense. When we come to the Committee Stage we will deal with the exact provision. The provision is there. Our legal men will deal with you. There is provision that you will be under absolute control and you cannot even take on a domestic servant, and the Deputy Minister should know it, and if he does not know it he does not know his job. Anybody who has any knowledge of agriculture knows what happens when there is a shortage of labour in a rural area. If we become prescribed in a rural area and we have to rely on a labour bureau, when there is already a shortage of labour, I wonder what reaping is going to take place and how many crops are going to be ruined while you wait for labour to be given to you by the labour bureau. We have not seen the influx control being a success, despite the work of the Department in various areas up to the present. We were told before that influx control would provide labour, and what happened? In various areas people applied for labour in the urban areas and they were given so many bodies—I call them bodies as you do in the Army—people untrained and completely unsuitable for the work. As a farmer I do not want to be given labour who do not want to work on a farm. There is one farmer on that side who has been given compulsory labour, for which you deal with the labour bureau, and I have one farm inside an urban area coming under the present control, and you know how useless it is and what trouble you will have. You have to register and pay fees and you probably have to put down a capitation fee, and it disappears, and is no good to you and he will not work properly if he does not want to work. Nobody wants compulsory labour and I do not want anyone to work for me who does not wish of his own free will to come and work for me. It is amazing to think that this Government should apply such provisions to the whole of the country when they themselves admit that the farmers are short of labour and go in for farm prisons in many areas. I am pleased to say that we have no farm prisons in Natal and I have said before in this House that the day I have to use farm prison labour I will give up farming. I can see still more farmers being driven off the land if they have to come down to accepting anybody, suitable or unsuitable, trained or untrained, as agricultural labour, sent to them by a labour bureau because they are so many bodies. Natives who want to work on a farm are happy in their work and want to do that work, but if you send people who have come from industrial areas, people who may have been moved out as surplus labour, as was explained by the Leader of the Opposition, and they are sent to the farms, you cannot tell me that that labour will be satisfactory labour when they do not know the first thing about farms. And if you want to have trouble on the farms, that is the way to upset the whole of the economic side of farming. You will get old Natives sent to you who are quite useless.

I want to deal more particularly with this farm labour. I want to deal with this because even if you do not like farm tenant labour, large parts of the country in Natal and the Transvaal have got their basic needs of labour, their regular, steady workers, especially their specialized labour, as farm tenant labour. They are trained labour, especially people who are stud breeders or who are specialized farmers, sometimes producing vegetables or fruit. They have a hard core of trained workers in that particular line that they cannot do without. They can do with migratory casual labourers to make up the number, but they must have that hard core of well-trained labour who can lead the way and on whom they can depend. Over the years this was found very satisfactory in many ways. On those farms it has been to the benefit of both the Bantu and the farmer. They have chosen each other. The Bantu has chosen his master for whom he wishes to work and the farmer chooses his employee and they get on well. I have employees who have been with me for over 20 years and they are thoroughly happy. Now this is the point: What are you going to do with all these people? There are 3,500,000 Bantu on the White farms in the White areas. I know they are not all farm tenant labour, but a very great number of employees who are farm labour tenants have their families with them, living a normal happy family life and they are thoroughly happy in their work, and they are economical workers. Now you will remove them against the wishes of both the farmer and of the employee.

That is not so.

Who said, “That is not so”? It is actually stated between pages 36 and 40, that it is the Government’s intention to get rid of all farm tenant labour, and as farm labour disappears off the farm, when this Bill becomes law—I am not talking about squatters, but tenant labour—the farmer will not be able to replace them. He will have to take that migratory labour.

Define a tenant labourer.

You see, Sir, here again there is somebody on that side who is supporting this Bill without having read it. He does not even know what the definition is. Between pages 36 and 40 there is a definition of “farm tenant labour”. I am dealing with the definition given in this amending Bill, and not with any other definitions given outside. I am not talking about squatters now. I am one of those who believe that the squatters should go, and they are disappearing under an Act which is already law. Once again, members on that side are just interrupting without knowing what is in the Bill. Farm tenant labour, it is stated in this amending Bill, is to disappear over a period of years, and as your farm tenant labour disappears off the farms you will not be allowed to register more. I want to know where the Minister will put those Bantu because it will run into millions. He has not yet been able to get rid of the squatters whom we all agree are to go. I think every section of the farming community and of the rural communities as a whole has agreed, and this House has agreed and has given the Minister power to get rid of the squatters, but they have not gone yet. Why? Because I think he has not got the land. There are Black spots he is trying to get rid of, and when we complain and say there are Black spots in which there is tremendous erosion and a tremendous amount of harm being done to the land, and ask whether these spots cannot be removed which are doing so much harm in the White areas, you get a reply back from the Department, after some months, saying that they have nowhere to move them. Now what is the Minister going to do with all these millions he will remove? And when you get down to dealing with this labour bureau and you have to deal with them and you cannot take on any labour if you happen to be one of those unfortunate farmers in what becomes a prescribed area, if the rural area becomes prescribed, and you have to go to the labour bureau, you cannot go out and look for labour. No Bantu is allowed to go around and seek labour. To-day the position is that he can come and look for labour and when a man is a good employer he automatically gets all the labour he needs because he has a good name, but some farmers always have trouble because they are not good employers. You have the same thing in commerce and industry and they will always go to a good employer. But why should he not offer his services to the man he wants to work for, and why should not the employer take on the employee he wants to work for him? So doing away with the work-seeker is, instead of a boon, to my mind taking away a right from both the White and the Black. The Minister said in his opening remarks that here the Government was helping the Bantu; he did not have to look for work, but the Government would do it for him. I do not think there is a single Bantu who would not rather look for that work himself. As an employer, I would much rather look for my own employees. I do not want any Government to look for employees for me, and every farmer I know in my area would rather look for his own labour instead of relying on a labour bureau.

There is another side to this, and I wonder whether the farming community realizes this. You see, Sir, the farming community has not had an opportunity of seeing this Bill. Under this Bill you only have to break the law once. His area becomes prescribed by proclamation in the Gazette. Now how many farmers read the Gazette? We get so many Gazettes that we cannot read them. We would have to employ a full-time secretary to do nothing else but read Gazettes. But all the prosecutor has to present in court is a Gazette to prove that the proclamation has been in the Gazette and that this is a prescribed area, and if he is guilty of an offence the first time he may get off lightly and be fined up to R50 or three months, or both, but I think normally he would get a warning, but the second time he commits some little infringement of this Act by employing an odd Native or making a bit of a mistake by letting someone stay on his land at reaping time whom he has not registered and it is found out, he is then guilty of an offence under the Act, and for a second offence the court has no jurisdiction but must sentence him to at least R50 or three months, or both. I wonder how many farmers will vote for you after being so convicted? I wonder how many farmers have seen that provision and realize that their area can be prescribed and that they can be found guilty of an offence and that the second time they contravene the law, just a minor infringement, the magistrate has no jurisdiction but must impose the minimum sentence. Once again, as my hon. Leader said, here is more legislation and we are being ruled by regulation again. We do not even know what the regulations will be. By proclamation the regulations can be as wide as possible and I think there is nothing that this House or anyone in South Africa or any enemy of South Africa in the world can do which will do more harm to the good name of South Africa than legislation such as this.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Capt. Henwood) will forgive me if I do not reply to all the arguments he advanced because I want to confine myself to broad principles. I shall deal at a later stage with his objections in so far as they support the fundamental objections of his hon. Leader.

It is quite clear that the Opposition are opposed to three things in particular. They are opposed to the setting up of aid centres, they are opposed to the removal of undesirable Bantu from the White areas and they are opposed to the idea of labour bureaux, a system which they themselves brought into being. But before I deal with this matter further, I just want to put a question to the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

He said that 80 per cent of the Bantu workers in the White Republic are permanently settled there. Did I understand him correctly?

I said that 80 per cent of the workers in private industry were non-White.

Very well, then his objection is that the Bill will convert our entire Bantu labour force in the Republic into migratory labour. I want to put this question to him. Why have I never heard any objection from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition or any one of his supporters to the fact that the mines use migratory labour only and that the wives of those labourers are not permitted to stay with their husbands? The Opposition say that the family life of the Bantu is being disrupted completely but I have never heard any one of them object to the fact I have just mentioned. Will they stand up now and tell us whether they object to that arrangement? Are they going to tell us that they object to the system of migratory labour as applied by the mines, particularly the gold mines, and also the diamond mines at Oranjemund, where the Ovambos are used as migratory labourers and are not allowed to have their wives with them? Let one of those hon. members get up and tell us that they reject that system. Why then do they approve of it? Is it perhaps simply because Mr. Oppenheimer has an interest in those undertakings? Is it for that reason that they are not opposed to it? Will the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) stand up and tell us that he is opposed to it?

May I ask a question?

No, I do not have the time to answer questions. The hon. member will have an opportunity to speak. He knows that his Leader had unlimited time but even he did not want to answer questions. Why should I do so? Hon. members opposite have been told quite clearly that the people who will be removed in terms of this Bill will be the undesirable elements, those who are work-shy, people whose presence in the Republic will not be in the public interest. That fact has been put to them quite clearly but these are the people whom those hon. members want to protect. The other people are not affected at all. The faithful workers, the people who do their work and who are law-abiding will not be affected by this Bill. It will only be the undesirable elements that will be affected and the Opposition are acting as their spokesman. I mention this point because I want to deal with it again at a later stage in regard to another point because there was a previous occasion on which it also looked as though the Opposition were acting as spokesmen for those undesirable elements, the saboteurs and those engaged in subversive activities. It may be said that the two cases are not completely analogous and I am the first to admit it. Our position in connection with the Bantu homelands at the moment is not comparable in every way with the case that I am going to mention but we are developing in that direction in that the Transkei has already been given a large measure of self-government and the intention is that they will be given even more authority as they become capable of exercising that authority; and the same applies also to the other areas. But in our labour force that we have in the Republic, we have to deal not only with the Bantu from the homelands but also with the citizens of foreign countries. We have to deal with citizens of Basutoland, Bechuanaland and Swaziland, all of whom come to this country to work, and a large number of the 80 per cent which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition mentioned are people emanating from those territories. Inasmuch as they come to the Republic from foreign territories the position is identical with the position that arose between the U.S.A. and Mexico. The United States and Mexico concluded an agreement in 1953. The agreement was amended slightly but most of the provisions of the agreement were reaffirmed in April 1955. I would like to quote from the New York Times in this regard—

This arrangement between the U.S.A. and Mexico includes the very things to which hon. members are now objecting; it includes the provision that anyone who enters the country illegally cannot be employed, and after all that is a far more drastic measure than the one that we are proposing here. But, Mr. Speaker, I want to give the House some more information in regard to that agreement. The agreement contains a provision that the Government of Mexico will establish migratory stations at various places in Mexico and at other places agreed upon between the two governments. I quote—

In this case the migratory labourers from Mexico are kept in camps on the Mexican border until there is a demand for their labour; they then cross the border and are accommodated and screened in a reception station on the American side. Article 5 of this agreement states quite clearly—

It is precisely the same sort of people with whom we are dealing in this Bill—people who are undesirable, dangerous people, people who are undesirable from the point of view of the safety of the State. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, do I not have valid reasons for saying that these hon. members are acting here as the champions of those elements whom we want to keep out of the Republic?

Where does that appear in the Bill?

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will ask the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) to stop mumbling. He sits here right behind me droning away like a beetle or a horsefly.

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. member an opportunity to make his speech. That hon. member for Durban (Point) is not addressing the House at the moment; the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker) is addressing the House.

I say that we have every reason to interpret the objections of hon. members opposite to the setting up of aid centres where the Bantu can be advised and assisted, as is done in Mexico and America, and their opposition to the removal of superfluous, undesirable and subversive elements, in one way only—and this includes the objections of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Capt. Henwood)—and that is that they are acting as the champions of those people. And then they say that this Bill will give South Africa such a terrible image. That would not be the image of South Africa, if their newspapers, the English-medium newspapers and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition himself and his party did not try to give the impression that this Bill seeks to disturb all decent and peaceful relationships between White and Black. Who are the people whom the hon. members of the Opposition are trying to protect, the people whom we are trying to remove; what sort of people are they? Many of them who enter this country are people trained in certain schools in the Black Africa States in Egypt and behind the Iron Curtain. They are the people who enter this country and they are the ones whom we want to remove.

But the Opposition are trying to protect them.

But the Opposition are protecting them. They do not want those people to be removed. They are giving the false impression that all workers will be affected by this measure while they ought to know that it is very clearly stated in the Bill and that the hon. the Deputy Minister also stated very clearly against which elements this Bill is aimed. If the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) is not satisfied with the way in which the labour bureaux find work for these people, or if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not satisfied that the Chief Bantu Commissioner will act honestly and capably and responsibly, they can always come to this House with factual cases and demand an explanation from the hon. the Minister and his officials. No, they are not opposed to it; they are opposed to the principle of the removal of the type of person with whom we are dealing here.

May I put a question to the hon. member?

Hon. members are trying to waste my time. They will have their chance to speak. A great deal still has to be said in regard to these matters.

Three whole days.

You are afraid to answer.

Mr. Speaker, if the day ever comes when I am unable to answer the questions of those hon. members, that day I shall resign my seat! I have already said that many of these people who will be removed and who must be removed are people who have infiltrated into the country from certain training camps in the Black States in Africa and behind the Iron Curtain. It is not only in South Africa that this sort of thing is happening. They ostensibly look for work but when they are offered work they refuse it, as I found recently when three Bantu came to my house. We also find the same thing happening in countries like West Germany. I want to give the House some information taken from a circular issued by the International Committee for the Defence of Christian Culture (West German Division). The committee has this to say (translation)—

They go to a great deal of trouble to give statistics, and we find that at the end of 1963 the number of both male and female foreign workers who went to West Germany totalled 828,743. Of this number 175,456 were women.

What of it?

I shall tell the hon. member just now; I want him to exercise a little patience. These people come from various countries. I just want to add that those foreign labourers do not ask for West German citizenship; they go there to work, but do hon. members know what they actually do? I want to quote here from another publication by that same International Committee for the Defence of Christian Culture. This committee calls these people Trojan horses. The number of Italians, Spaniards, Greeks, Portuguese and Czechoslovakians totalled almost 900,000 in that year. They go to work in the factories. And now I shall reply to the hon. member’s question. This newspaper states that these people are being subjected to East German influences, to communist German influences. They are canvassing these foreign workers. They tell the foreign labourers not to work diligently because if they work diligently they will be supporting the German capitalists and the German agitators. The newspaper has this to say (translation)—

A trifle louder!

It is quite clear that in the United States to some extent too but particularly in a country like West Germany—and we have the same thing in Holland and to some extent in England as well—these people entering the country are actually the tools of the communists, as is stated in this publication. They do not enter the country to sell their labour. They enter the country as communist agents to stir up trouble in the country. These are the people whom the Opposition are protecting—I make this accusation against them—by saying that they should not be removed. [Interjections.] They have said quite clearly through the medium of their Leader and the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) that they are opposed to the clause which provides that certain undesirable elements and good-for-nothing and similar people can be removed. They have made this fact quite plain and they are now trying to give the impression that these provisions are interfering with the safety of every Black labourer in the Republic.

Nonsense!

That is what they are saying and now they say “nonsense”. Of course, what they have said is nonsense.

May I ask a question?

The hon. member should wait until, politically speaking, he is dry behind the ears, and then he can put a question to me.

Order! Hon. members must not make a farce of their right to ask questions. If they are in earnest in wanting to ask a question, let them rise and ask permission to put the question.

May I ask a question?

I have said repeatedly that my time does not permit me to answer questions. The hon. member will be able to ask his questions later on. Hon. members of the Opposition do not want to tell us in the first instance whether they condemn the migratory labour system of the mines; in the second place, they are now trying to get away from the fact that the provision that people of this kind can be removed in terms of this legislation does not affect the consistent, faithful and law-abiding Bantu in the Republic, but deals only with those undesirable elements. They say so in their speeches; they say so in interviews outside this House, but when we accuse them of acting as the spokesmen for those undesirable elements, we are of course greeted with the cry of “nonsense”. We have given ample proof to show that we are not doing something that is unheard of or unprecedented. Most of the provisions in this Bill have been taken from old legislation that was passed even during the time when the United Party was in Government. The provisions that have been added are in many respects less strict than measures that are being taken by America, for example, and which will have to be taken by a country like West Germany. Those people must be kept out of the country. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) thinks that the best parliamentary manoeuvre is to sit as close as possible to a speaker and then to try to distract that speaker. I can only tell him that in my view that is the grossest form of parliamentary misconduct.

On a point of order, the hon. member has reflected upon the conduct of the hon. member for Durban (North).

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

He threw a stone into a bush and he nit that hon. member!

Order! Hon. members must stop their silly interjections and repartee.

We are dealing here with a problem that is arising in all countries of the world. I cannot emphasize the fact strongly enough that far stricter steps are being taken in certain other countries in the world than are being taken in this Bill to combat the infiltration into those countries of Trojan horses, of the tools of Communism, of communist agents and agitators. The hon. member there said that the farmers will not vote for us if we pass this legislation. Well, then he ought actually to welcome it because that will be the only way in which that party will ever come into power. So he ought to welcome this legislation. But I can tell him that many of our people in the Republic feel that the Government could have gone even further than the steps it is taking in this Bill.

The Agricultural Unions asked for these provisions.

Many people feel that the position is so serious and that the danger is so great that the Government could have gone even further than it is going in this Bill. Let me say immediately that there is no danger of a threat to the relationships between White and Black in this country, but there are many people who feel that the communist agitators and communist tools and agents will constitute a threat not only to the National Party but also to the Opposition and to every White man and White woman here in the Republic of South Africa. It is that danger that we are seeking to combat in a quiet way, in a dignified way, in a way that we can justify to any country in the world. We can tell West Germany and America and Holland: You are taking stricter steps against these people than we are. We are keeping them out of the hands of the police. We are accommodating them at aid centres in order to assist them and so forth, and we shall only use this removal process to free ourselves of the undesirable elements, the good-for-nothing and the communist elements that are in this country simply in order to cause trouble. That is why I feel very strongly that far from our giving an unattractive picture of the Republic of South Africa to the rest of the world, we are proving that we are acting in a more humane and benign way in order to combat that problem than is the case in many other countries. There is nothing in this legislation of which we need be ashamed. But what we are ashamed of is the manner in which certain English-medium newspapers and the official Opposition have attributed certain provisions to this legislation that will be found nowhere in the Bill. Those provisions, as they ought to know by this time, are not embodied in this Bill at all.

I do not propose to follow the hon. member for Fort Beaufort on the Max Wilson trip abroad which he has just indulged in. He travelled to Mexico; he paid a visit to America; he brought in the Common Market, Holland, Scandinavia and Belgium. He travelled in most countries but largely forgot South Africa in his speech. One could almost feel sorry for the hon. member at times because he had to struggle to defend a Bill which quite obviously he has not studied and which he does not understand. I want to refer to one point that he made though, where he did come back to South Africa and where he dealt with the position of the foreign Natives employed on the mines. In the usual airy-fairy manner of the hon. member he threw challenges around which he knew that under the rules of the House members on this side could not reply to. He wanted to give the House some information about the position of the foreign Natives employed on the mines, and the Oppenheimer policy in regard to those employees. Sir, may I remind the hon. member that in the main these Natives are not South African Natives. They are foreigners brought in for a set term of contract labour under conditions set by Government control. (Laughter.) I suggest hon. members should just hold their laughter for a moment or two and they will then be laughing on the other side of their face. These foreign Natives are brought in largely under overall Government control, whereas the Bill we have before us deals with our own South African citizens, irrespective of their colour. Men with families and homes established in this country. Men who form part of the economic structure and the life of this country and whose services are essential for the economic development and the well-being of this country and this nation. That is the difference. But I would also like to pose a question to the hon. member. He appears to be on very much more intimate terms with Mr. Harry Oppenheimer than I am, but I have always understood that when the Free State mines opened up not so very long ago, the mines themselves desired to provide proper accommodation in those areas where their labourers could have their wives and families with them, a step by which the mines felt that family life would have a stabilizing influence on their labour force. I would like to ask the hon. member which Government it was which prevented the mines from doing that? Which Government was it which forbade the mines from taking that progressive step? It was this Government.

The hon. member also went on to say that we were raising the objections which we did on this side of the House because we were against the principles of this particular measure. Sir, I find myself in somewhat of a quandary. Surely it is established parliamentary practice to deal with the principles of the Bill at the second reading. That is what one endeavours to do. In this case we are in this somewhat peculiar position that apart from objecting to such principles as are established in the Bill, our main objection is to the lack of principle in so many of the innovations which are proposed in the Bill before us, a procedure which is completely opposite to the usual procedure followed in Parliament. The Bill itself follows the usual familiar pattern in many of it provisions, which, in the ones with which I want to deal first, either override or diminish the powers of local authorities in fulfilling certain statutory obligations in their own areas and substitute instead State control through the medium of what are now termed aid depots and labour bureaux or bodies of that kind. The term“aid depot” strikes one as rather peculiar. Is it intended to mean aiding the Natives to get out of the White area because that is what the Bill seems to imply. The last thing that these so-called aid depots will do is to aid the native to establish himself as a useful citizen of this country. Sir, the title of this Bill might just as well have been “The Nationalization of Bantu Control”. That would more correctly have described the Bill because that is in fact what the Bill imposes. The more one studies the Bill and the directions in which the various provisions apply, the more clearly it stands out, beyond any shadow of doubt, that this Bill has been designed to give the Government the necessary powers to remove from the urban areas as many of the Bantu as they think they should kick out and send them back, no longer only to their homeland, but to any part of the Republic, a designated area or a released area where it has been decided that their services are required.

That is nonsense. Where do you find that in the Bill?

The Bill overrides the authority of practically every other local organization, whether it be a statutory authority or not, who in the best interest of their own areas and of the Republic as a whole object to carrying out the Government’s policy. This Bill provides the whipping stick to force them to carry out Government policy. The Bill in fact provides the necessary powers to overcome such objections by imposing control over the very officials who are engaged and paid by, and who stand under the disciplinary and administrative control of the local authority itself. By utilizing and controlling the officials of the local authorities themselves, the Government exercises control over those local authorities. I think also we must not lose sight of the fact that although this Bill in all its main features deals with the Bantu people as people, there has never been a Bill before Parliament which, potentially, can do as much harm to the White people of this country as this Bill can. This Bill cuts right across the pattern of sound economic development, both in the urban and in the rural areas. It no longer distinguishes between the urban and the rural areas to the extent that Government legislation has done in the past. It is beginning to put out its feelers with a view to taking control also in the rural areas. Under this Bill any of those areas can be deprived of their essential labour force. Through these labour bureaux the Bill in fact imposes Bantu job reservation right throughout the Republic of South Africa, because when you study the various clauses of this Bill and the implications of the powers vested in this, that or the other body or official, you find that that is exactly what can happen. A Bantu no longer has any right to seek the type of employment that he desires. He has to go where he is told, or else. In certain of its more drastic provisions relating to the control of labour in certain occupations and in certain areas, the Bill itself imposes conditions which are reminiscent of the unsavoury days of the press gang when if you wanted labour for a particular area you introduced certain regulations; you sent out the press gang, you whipped your labour and you sent them off to work. And that was the last that you heard of a good many of them. While this Bill does not go quite so far, it does resurrect those unsavoury practices of days gone by. How can the Government expect—and I would like the hon. the Minister to reply to this when he replies—to enforce the laws proposed by this particular piece of legislation? It means more gaols; no matter whether you call them aid centres or juvenile centres, the stark reality is that there will be more places of detention, what we normally know as more gaols, in order to have a place from where you can move your labour force to where it is required. We shall require more police to handle this particular measure; that will mean more taxation diverted into uneconomic channels in order to administer a Bill of this nature. It is a scheme designed practically in its entirety, to underwrite the Government apartheid and Bantustan policy. I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister to deal with that at some length when he replies.

There comes a time in the life of every person where you are faced with a position where you have to come to a decision whether to go with the tide or whether to go against it. No man can dare to remain silent and retain his self-respect when that position arises and such a position has arisen because of this legislation. No man dare keep silent on a measure of this sort and retain his self-respect.

You are talking like an agitator.

On a point of order, is the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) entitled to say the hon. member is talking like an agitator?

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

It is quite all right, Mr. Speaker, I accept that kind of interjection and I propose to deal with it at a later stage. It is the type of interjection that is always used when unpalatable facts are placed before hon. members opposite and when their own consciences begin to worry them a little.

We have before us a measure—and I am not going to mince words; I believe in speaking plainly—which violates every sense of decency, a measure which sets out to destroy the very foundations of humanity and the teachings of Christianity upon which civilization itself has been built. Those are the facts which underlie the particular measure before us. Even in a Parliament which has grown hardened to some extent after 15 years of constant whittling away of rights, after 15 years of constant hardening in racial colour legislation, which to some extent have eroded our feelings, we cannot remain silent on this Bill. What would have happened in this country 15 years ago if a Bill of this nature had come before Parliament? But people have become acclimatized to it, Sir. It is difficult to conceive of a measure which is more fraught with ultimate peril to the Republic and to every person in this Republic, White or non-White than this particular measure which is before us to-day.

In its 101 clauses the Bill destroys practically every vestige of freedom of choice in those things which really matter to any man, no matter what his colour, namely, the ordering of his daily life, his movement, his work, his place of residence, his family association. And in this case it affects some several million of the Bantu population of this country, more particularly those domiciled in the urban areas.

What clause?

If the hon. member were to study his Bill he would know what clause it was. I am not here to teach him his business. As a member of Parliament he should know what we are discussing. In its sweeping abolition of long established family rights, of the residence, and the employment of Bantu in the urban areas, rights which have been entrenched in practically every main Act dealing with the Bantu resident in urban areas which has come before this House. This Bill not only makes it impossible to retain and to build up a stable Bantu middle class, on which the security of the White man in the country must ultimately depend, but it even—and this is more dangerous—takes away and undermines the faith that the Bantu have in the word of the White man, and the faith and trust that the Bantu can place even in an Act of this Parliament. If one Act of Parliament can destroy the sanctity of and the security given by previous Acts of Parliament, what hope can they have of placing any reliance on legislation in the future? There are many second and third generations of Bantu living in this Republic, men, women and children who know no other homeland. Men, women and children whom the White man in this country have acclimatized to our way of life, i.e. the urban life as opposed to the rural life; families who have no other homeland, no rural connection with the Government’s Bantustans. They have no more connection with them than the average White South African has with the Eskimos. They are completely divorced from that type of tribal life. Yet I say in all earnestness that the provisions that have been thought out and included in this Bill, provisions which have been meticulously thought out and dovetailed together, so that if the one fails the other can come into operation, completely destroy every vestige of any rights those second and third generation Bantu have had.

What nonsense!

The hon. member opposite says “what nonsense”. It is not nonsense; it is sheer downright wickedness; he is too mild. It destroys every vestige of any rights they possess to remain or to work or to live and, in time, to die in the area in which they were born.

They never had that right.

In fact, it destroys a basic principle on which human freedom is founded, a man’s birthright, Sir; a man’s right to live and to go out and to earn his living and to settle and rear his family in the area, in the district, in the country in which he was born. This Bill denies the Bantu that right. It is a complete denial of the most elementary principle of human justice. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister who waxed so eloquent on this point when he introduced the Bill, in fact I want to ask any hon. member who is prepared to answer this question: How would they react if we substituted the term “White” for “Bantu” in this Bill and applied the provisions which this Bill proposes to apply to the Bantu throughout the Republic to ourselves? What would their reaction be to that? The same reaction which we can expect from the Bantu.

The transposition will be applicable in their homelands, not in this country.

I am just trying to tell the hon. member that there are thousands of Bantu in this country who have no homelands other than the place in South Africa where they were born. They have no relatives there and they have no connection at all with the so-called homelands. The fiction in the Bantustan measure is that a man’s homeland was fixed by the language which he spoke and that he belonged to the Transkei because he spoke Xhosa etc. Many Bantu who speak Xhosa have no connection with the Transkei in any shape or form. Many of the Coloureds whom the Government are taking credit for having brought from the Transkei to Cape Town can only speak Xhosa; they cannot speak any other language. But the homeland theory does not apply in their case as far as hon. members opposite are concerned. There are two arguments, Sir, to this question of homelands. If the homeland theory applies in the one case it must apply in the other as well, but it is a one-way traffic as far as the Government is concerned.

We are not dealing with people who are no human beings in this Bill, Sir. Take the clause which sets up these aid centres and which confers certain powers on the labour bureaux. What do we see there? The term used there is not the normal term that one would apply to human beings. Sub-section (g) on page 17, in line 18, for the information of those who have not yet read the Bill, talks about the “treatment and disposal or the return to their homelands or to a scheduled Native area or a released area of Bantu (including their dependants) or those who have been ordered to such an area”. I want to stress the words “disposal” and “ordered”, Sir. It goes on and then it ends with the words “and the detention of such Bantu in such areas”. This clause deals with human beings, Sir, not with wild animals.

That is Botha’s wording.

You do not “dispose’ of human beings. Germany dealt with the disposal of human beings … [Interjections.]

Order!

That is the wording of Botha.

Order! The hon. member must listen when I call for order.

Germany disposed of human beings in gas chambers, Sir. We are surely entitled to evaluate the general sentiments behind this Bill by the use of words of that nature.

On a point of order, may the hon. member insinuate that we are treating people the way Germany treated people by putting them in gas chambers?

Order! The hon. member may continue.

I want to return to a point made some time ago by an hon. member opposite. I have not the slightest doubt, Sir, that any member on this side who spotlights these bad features, these wicked features in this Bill will inevitably be called a saboteur of the good name of South Africa; we shall be accused of putting ammunition in the hands of people overseas; of giving them a stick to flog us with. I want to say this that that practice has become such standard practice on the part of members opposite that I believe it is long past the time that somebody in this country should tell the people overseas that the vast majority of people in the Republic, practically the majority of the White people in our country, have nothing to do with this particular type of policy of this Government, that they are completely opposed to it. The sooner the people overseas understand and appreciate that, the sooner will they have a better appreciation of our country and the sooner will our country begin to get back a little of its reputation overseas. That attack, as far as I am concerned, cuts no ice at all. You can use it as much as you like; if it pleases you, little things please little minds, use it! But it is long overdue that we tell the people overseas the truth about South Africa. We should tell the people overseas that there are many people in this country, practically the equal, except maybe politically, of the Government, who are completely opposed to this type of repressive legislation, particularly this pattern of Government colour legislation.

Sir, I do not propose to take up any more time of the House. I have said there is a time in the life of every man where he has to take a stand. I believe this is such a time for all of us. Do we take a stand against the continuation of this type of legislation or not; do we take a stand for the things that we value in life or not; do we take a stand for the things in life in respect of which we as White civilization are supposed to set the example? We, the much vaunted White leaders of the Black race! They are in our custody; we are their guardians and it is time we began to act as such. Therefore, Sir, I take it that I am speaking on behalf of the whole of this side of the House when I say we stand solidly behind the proposal of our Leader. We need no more detail, with regard to the Bill, that was amply set out by the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon. We as a party stand solidly behind him in his proposal that, according to time-honoured parliamentary practice, this Bill be read to-day six months.

The hon. member who has just sat down has read parts of this Bill which are already embodied in the original Act. I want the hon. member to listen attentively to this. I want to quote from the 1911 Act which was passed when the late General Botha was Prime Minister. Section 23 of the Act provides, amongst other things, that—

and paragraph (g) reads as follows—

The hon. member made a very bitter speech in this connection—something we are not used to hearing from him in this House. He made one insinuation after the other. His was a speech which I think will fall very pleasantly on the ears of the agitators amongst the Bantu people. [Interjections.] The hon. member may know a great deal about Coloured affairs …

Order! I appeal to the hon. member to give me an opportunity to hear the hon. member who is speaking. If he does not do so I shall have to ask him to leave the Chamber.

I repeat: The hon. member probably knows a great deal about the Coloured people but it certainly seems to me that the hon. member does not know very much about what is happening on the other side of the Hex River Mountains. He compared the well-meaning provisions of this Bill, the provisions dealing with the setting up of aid centres, with provisions for the setting up of prisons. I shall return to this point later on. It appears to me as though the hon. member consulted a dictionary to find words strong enough to express his disapproval of this Bill.

I want to come back to a few remarks made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Indeed, the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) only repeated what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had said, but in a more biting way. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that the Bantu would become a stateless people because of this legislation. He alleged further that the urban Bantu no longer has any bonds with his homeland. In this connection I speak as a person representing an urban constituency in the Transvaal where we have some of the largest Bantu townships in the country. I also want to make use of my knowledge in this connection as a person who served for a long time on the City Council of Pretoria and who, as chairman of a committee, had to deal with Bantu affairs. The Bantu in the various Bantu townships are divided up on a basis of ethnic grouping. The best proof of the retention of nationality is language, although the hon. member for Simonstown tried to deny this fact. This is one way in which the Bantu retain their bonds with their homelands. What is more, Mr. Speaker, every Bantu acknowledges in his reference book that he belongs to a certain tribe. They all know who their chief is; they know what their tribal connections are. But more than this, there is a continuous stream of Bantu from the cities to the homelands. They remain in contact with the members of their families in their homelands; they are in close contact with them. Recently too, when a Bantu Authority was set up—I think it was at Mafeking—it so happened that various Bantu from Johannesburg and Pretoria attended that function. It was in connection with the setting up of the Tswana Territorial Authority at Mafeking. Another proof of their ties with their homelands is the fact that the chiefs have representatives on the Urban Bantu Councils and the Bantu Authorities also have the opportunity to be represented on those Councils. Those chiefs try to maintain contact with their people in the city. There are houses for the chiefs in many of the urban townships, so that the chiefs can pay regular visits to and maintain contact with their people in the urban areas.

Although I do not represent a farming constituency I just want to refer to a remark which both the previous speakers—the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Capt. Henwood) and the hon. member for Simonstown—made in connection with the labour quota system. The hon. members spoke about“drastic labour control”. I just want to emphasize the fact—the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker) has already made this point—that the agricultural unions asked for this provision. What is more, the farmers themselves will be represented on the bodies which will have to determine the quotas.

Notwithstanding the fact that the hon. member referred to the speech of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort in which the hon. member for Fort Beaufort gave examples of migratory labour in various countries in Europe, I want to emphasize this matter once again. I want to tell the hon. member that almost half of the Bantu workers on the mines come from foreign countries. The United Party, and more specifically its left wing which is strongly supported by the Progressive Party, is allergic to the expression “migratory labour”. The blood in their political body becomes so overheated that that body comes out in a rash of Liberalism and, because of this allergy of their’s to the expression “migratory labour”, they condemn it most strongly. The typical integration attitude of the United Party and its kindred spirit, the Progressive Party, is that the Bantu should have the right of free movement throughout the whole of the White area; he must be able to move throughout the Republic and must be able to take his family with him wherever he goes. He and his family must be accommodated just where it suits them to live. Accommodation and facilities must be made available to him as soon as he arrives at the place of his choice. The onus for this is placed upon the local authorities. It is the local authorities that have to make provision for the necessary facilities. That burden which is placed upon the shoulders of the local authorities is ignored by the Opposition. The Bantu who are at present living in the White area must, in terms of United Party policy, be allowed free and unrestricted movement. When a Bantu leaves the Bantu homeland, he must also be given the same amount of living room. The United Party and the Progressive Party go further. Not only must the Bantu have living room but he must also have the right to own property in any part of the country. In fact, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that the Bantu should be permitted to become a home-owner. In terms of their policy I presume that a Bantu would be permitted to become a home-owner in the heart of Houghton.

No, he did not say that.

No, he did not say it but that could happen in terms of United Party policy. The question that we want to ask them at this stage is: Are the United Party in favour of Bantu home-ownership only or do they also maintain that the Bantu should be permitted to own land? I hope one of the hon. members opposite will reply to me on that point when it is his turn to speak. Let us thrash this matter out. Is it merely a question of home-ownership or does it also affect the ownership of land? All this living space must be given to the Bantu in the White areas, but on the other hand the White man may not own land in the Bantu homelands or in the Bantu Trust Areas. Is this discrimination advocated by the United Party not a senseless one? [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I shall not be able to finish my speech; the hon. member can reply to me later when he speaks.

The outside world must take note of the attitude of the United Party. The migratory labour system, to which so much publicity is so regularly given, is an old system. Without upsetting the Opposition by going back too far into the past, I want once again to mention the case of the mines on the Rand. That system has been applied since the turn of this century and it is being applied regularly. By the way, I just want to tell the hon. member for Simonstown that there is no question that the Bantu are allowed to have their families with them on the mines. This is a privilege that is only allowed to foremen in individual and exceptional cases. The ordinary labourers on the mines are not given that concession. In any case, the Bantu sells his labour. He goes to the mines voluntarily and accepts employment under the conditions and regulations that are laid down. He goes to the mines under contract. He keeps to the provisions of that contract. Nobody compels him to go. He accepts those conditions. Why are the Opposition now objecting to the general system of migratory labour?

The use of migratory labour which is condemned to such an extent in South Africa has been applied in some parts of the Continent of Europe for many years now. In fact, at this stage of the economic progress of Western Europe, West Germany and Switzerland, it is actually reaching a peak. The migratory labourers are playing an increasingly important role in the economy of West-Germany and Switzerland in particular. It is admitted that Switzerland’s economy depends upon migratory labour. Both countries are making special efforts to recruit labour from beyond their borders but they are particularly selfish as far as the granting of rights and privileges to the foreign workers is concerned. They state emphatically that a foreign worker cannot bring his family with him. These conditions are particularly strict.

After his contract period of ten months has expired, a migratory labourer must return to his homeland for two months. It is contended that there are at the moment between 700,000 and 800,000 migratory labourers employed in Switzerland. The Swiss Government has already considered applying the brake to the great influx of migratory labourers and the recruitment of migratory labourers, because, if they do not, they say that the young people of Switzerland will forget how to do manual labour. We can apply the same principle here in our own country—that where we have too much Black labour, our boys and girls start forgetting how to do manual labour. They see the same danger there. A migratory labourer in Switzerland may not change his employment during his contract period. In other words, he has to stay with the one employer even though his current and future employer may come to an agreement with one another. If the undertaking to which they are under contract closes down, they are sent back to their homelands and they have then to apply for work de novo. This is done with a view to avoiding any housing problems that may arise. Most of the salary earned by that migratory labourer is sent back to his homeland for the support of his family, and from statistics it appears that Italian workers in Switzerland, for example, sent about R26,000,000 back to Italy during the first six months of 1963. Those people are attracted by the higher wages in Switzerland in comparison with those paid in their own countries. Separate accommodation is also provided for migratory labourers in West Germany and Switzerland, the countries attracting that migratory labour. The migratory labourers are accommodated in townships set apart from the ordinary towns and if one asks the Germans and the Swiss why these migratory labourers are not accommodated closer to or within the established towns, they say: “No, these people have a different culture and a different language and we do not want any admixing; we have already had enough trouble because of the Second World War.”

Besides drawing workers from Italy, Switzerland also draws labourers from Spain, Greece and, to a lesser extent, from Germany. The Italians employed in Switzerland complained recently that they were living in what were virtually internment camps without fences, but nevertheless, they still stay there as workers. Reference has been made to the migratory labourers—most of whom come from Mexico—whose services are made use of particularly in the Southern States of America. I do not want to elaborate on this point but the position and circumstances of the migratory labourer in Switzerland and elsewhere remind us very strongly of those to which the Opposition and their satellites in South Africa object so vigorously. Sir, the presence of the Bantu in the White areas is only justified if he has come here to work; it is only justified if there is a labour tie-up. On these grounds the migratory labourer is told that he may not bring his family with him. When his contract period expires he must return to his homeland.

There are many concessions in this Bill and at this stage I want to refer to one of them. This concession is made in Clause 9 in terms of which a Bantu may be permitted to return to his previous employer and be re-employed by him if that Bantu has been out of that employer’s service for less than a year; but furthermore, if his former employer has no work for him, he may enter the service of another employer in that area, provided that the Bantu Commissioner has no objection. Nevertheless, hon. members opposite refer to this Bill as this “inhuman” legislation. Those in South Africa who object to migratory labour will have to agitate on a very wide front: In Switzerland, in Germany and against Mexican migratory labour. No land can afford to throw open its doors and allow the privileges and rights of its own citizens to be usurped by foreigners. I want to quote from a speech made by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Development in connection with the recruitment of male migratory labourers. He made this speech on 1 October 1963, and he gave this very important example. He said: There are about 2,300 morgen of undeveloped industrial land on the Witwatersrand which, by present standards, offer employment to about 95,000 Bantu in the industries there alone. If we accept the fact that provision will have to be made for 70 per cent of them on a family basis and for the rest on the basis of single workers, it means that provision will have to be made for at least 335,000 Bantu for whom we will need 7,000 morgen of land and 65,000 houses. But if the Bantu are employed on a single basis, the number of Bantu will remain limited to 95,000 and their housing will cover about 900 morgen. The hon. Deputy Minister went on to make an appeal to industry to try to make do with less Bantu labour.

This brings me to another point and that is the point in connection with labourers in the border industries. I want to draw a distinction between labourers in the border industries and migratory labourers in this sense that labourers in the border industries are persons who leave their homelands, their home townships, in the mornings, to work in the White area and who return again to their homes in the evenings. They are complementary to the migratory labourers. The Government is already making use of border industry labour and is doing so in order to combat the influx of the Bantu into our White cities. I want to refer again to countries abroad. There were 46,000 labourers working in border industries in Germany in 1963. These were citizens of neighbouring states who went to the factories and other places of employment in the mornings and returned in the evenings to their own homes. These persons lived in various neighbouring countries such as Holland, France, Belgium and Austria. There are probably more labourers in the border industries living in Belgium than in any other European country. I want to refer to our own country in this connection. By making use of labourers in the border industries the growth of the Bantu cities in the White areas must be restricted. A city like Pretoria has the opportunity to set an example and to limit the size of its large Bantu townships—Atteridgeville and Saulsville to the west and Mamalodi or Vlakfontein to the east—and it is hoped that this can be done in the future. We will have the Garankwa Bantu Township and its hinterland and this should eventually supply the demand for industrial labour, particularly in Pretoria. There are numbers of these border areas. I think of the complex Britz-Groblersdal-Tzaneen-Potgietersrust - Pietersburg - Phalaborwa - Louis Trichardt, where we find the North Sotho the Venda and the Tsonga who can go to work there from their homelands. Then there is the other complex of Lichtenburg-Rustenburg - Mafeking - Vryheid - Zeerust where the Tswana national unit can do the work. In the vicinity of Nelspruit, Witrivier, Piet Retief and Pongola the Swazis can do the work. In Durban, Pietermaritzburg, Vryheid, Newcastle, Eshowe, Port Shepstone and so forth, the Zulus can do the work. In the Free State we have Ladybrand and Harrismith, and, in the Northern Cape, Aliwal-North and Kokstad where the South Sotho can do the work. There is also the other complex of King William’s Town, East London and Queenstown where the Xhosas can do the work. This process also enables the money earned by the Bantu in the White areas to be used in the Bantu homelands to assist in the development of those areas. But if the Government is given co-operation, this process will develop very swiftly.

I want to refer to a few more concessions that are being made in this Bill, one of which is in regard to the setting up of aid centres. This holds many advantages for the Bantu but hon. members opposite do not want to admit it. The Bantu will be given the correct information at these centres and will also be given the correct guidance and the opportunity to reorientate themselves. People who have been misled or who are ignorant will be assisted there and helped in the proper way. These centres will also serve as a canal for channelling Bantu labour to other centres. And the Bantu go there on a voluntary basis. They are not gaols; the Bantu do not stay there under protest. They can also appeal to the Chief Bantu Commissioner against any injustice which they consider has been done to them. They can even appeal against the decision of the Municipal or District Labour Officer. I want to repeat that these aid centres are not being set up for “compulsory detention” as has been alleged. This is a great improvement and is to the advantage of the law-abiding Bantu. It appears to me as though the Opposition are making a plea for a small group of Bantu and are completely overlooking and ignoring the vast majority of law-abiding Bantu. These centres are also to the advantage of those Bantu actually seeking work but it appears to me as though the United Party have no sympathy for such persons.

I want to conclude. I want to say that the political mentality of the United Party is full of paradoxes and anomalies. The United Party continues to accuse us and say that in spite of the policy of differentiation of the National Party, or the policy of separate or parallel development, our cities are becoming Blacker. Now the United Party Press is adding its support to the opposition to this Bill, a Bill which aims exclusively at combating the influx of Bantu into the cities. The influx of Bantu into the cities has been caused partly by the fact that some large cities and towns have not applied a strict policy of influx control. From the start the Pretoria City Council carried out the rules and regulations of the law to the letter and Pretoria is the only city to-day in which the White people are in the majority. The White population numbers more than the non-White population because every single provision of the influx control regulations has, as far as possible, been given effect to. A laissez-faire policy has been applied in other cities and there has been large-scale influx into those cities. Although the total number of Bantu in the cities increased after the Second World War, during the period 1951-60 there was a drop of .9 per cent per annum in the growth of the number of urban Bantu in comparison with previous years. The control measures of this Government to restrict influx to the cities have really proved very successful. If all branches of our economy in this country co-operate, we can make do with considerably fewer Bantu labourers without hampering our economic progress at all. I can say without fear of contradiction that if the number of Bantu labourers in the Republic is pruned judiciously by 10 per cent, our economic progress will continue unimpeded. In this process the foreign Bantu must be replaced by our indigenous Bantu and labour shortages that arise as a result of natural development must be supplemented on a strictly labour basis. A plan for co-ordinating our labour has become urgently necessary and I want to ask the Opposition, if this can be done, to approach this matter in a sober and realistic fashion so that they will be able to see it against the background of the future. Sir, a considerable amount of progress has been made and the country expects constructive assistance from everyone, including the United Party but the United Party’s assistance to halt this influx into the cities is lacking, the people of South Africa will remain logical and have every right to consider the ostensible concern of the United Party as being nothing more or less than pure selfishness and shameless hypocrisy.

I was very pleased to see that the hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Dr. Otto) was also on the defensive, because I think it only goes to show that hon. members on the other side still retain the sort of feeling which we should like them to retain in these circumstances. If that were not so, they would definitely not have felt as bad about this Bill as they clearly do, and we are glad to see that that is their approach. Personally I suggest that when the hon. the Prime Minister came along with this policy there were very many hon. members opposite who did not know that it was going to take them along this road, and I strongly doubt whether they would have followed this road if they had known where it was going to lead to. I just want to come back to a few points made by the hon. member for Pretoria (East). He said that under our policy the Natives would be entitled to land tenure in any part of the country, even in the heart of the White man’s residential area. The hon. member ought to know that we are prepared to give home-ownership to the Bantu within the Native townships and also in the reserves, of course, but nowhere else. Many hon. members on the other side, including the hon. member for Pretoria (East), have emphasized that the number of Blacks within the so-called White area must be reduced. Not one of them, however, told us what these people were going to do in the so-called homelands to which they have to be sent. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has already pointed out that the Government has fallen in arrears in providing employment for Natives who are already in the Native areas, and I want to remind hon. members of the article which appeared in the Burger recently with regard to the interview with Trouw and in which it is stated—

Sir, we have not heard a single word from the Government this Session with regard to this massive planning which should have taken place in order to bring this about. All we are told is that the platteland, for example, must become less black; we hear nothing about plans which will ensure a livelihood for the Bantu in the Bantu areas.

Sir, I want to remind hon. members on the other side of a new somersault in their approach. In 1959 the hon. the Prime Minister came along with a new vision, as it was represented to us at that time, and that vision was this: Whereas the National Party used to talk about the eventual ideal of putting all the Bantu back in the reserves, the hon. the Prime Minister admitted in 1959 that that was impossible and all that was needed was for the Bantu to exercise his political rights in the Bantu areas although he would continue to live in the White area. That was his new vision. If that is such a good policy, why has it now become necessary in the year 1964 to take the Bantu back to the Bantu areas? If it is such a safe plan to allow the Bantu to exercise his political rights in the Bantu area, why then is it suddenly necessary now to force all these people back to the reserves? It is perfectly clear that hon. members on the other side have lost confidence in this fiction which they themselves created and that they are now trying to erect a wall, as it were, against the further blackening of the so-called White area. But what is the use of all this if we have these 8,000,000 Bantu in the so-called White area? Many speakers on the other side have said that they do not propose to send out all the Bantu but only those who were idle and, as the hon. member for Fort Beaufort said, the saboteurs in particular, the indolent and the bad ones. Apparently we are going to continue to have these 8,000,000 Bantu here. Why is it necessary to come along with a measure which manifestly deeply affects the human rights of people? It is stated that this policy of the Government is designed to eliminate friction between the various races, but hon. members on the other side know that that is precisely what their policy does not do. That is why they are completely on the defensive. I am very pleased to see that they are on the defensive. They try their best to make one or two good points and to emphasize those points, but the main point is that this legislation is going to cause endless friction, and they know that perfectly well. It is going to worsen race relations in this country to a very large extent.

I want to make a further charge against hon. members of the Government. We have a certain reservoir of goodwill at the present time, but by coming along with this policy and by changing the old approach they are definitely causing friction which will detract from the goodwill which has always existed hitherto. Their whole approach is that it is impossible for us to get along with one another. I should say that that is the last approach to which one should be driven. Our approach should rather be that it is possible, as it always has been, to get along and that we can live together in this country.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

Debate adjourned.