Mr. Speaker, I expressed my surprise yesterday at the rashness of the Leader of the Opposition in coming forward here with one-sided, confused allegations with regard to the Parity case in spite of the fact that he knows that a judicial commission has been appointed to investigate the whole matter.

But we do not know what the terms of reference are.

I am afraid that the action of the Leader of the Opposition yesterday created the impression in the minds of many people that he would first like to publish his own version of the story before the commission arrives at its findings, and one asks oneself, “Why? What purpose can it serve?” After all, it can in no way help those people who hold policies with Parity. A commission of inquiry has been appointed. Why does he come along at this particular stage with only one side of the story? The Leader of the Opposition will have none other than himself to blame if there are some people who see a very close and direct connection between his action here yesterday and the provincial elections to be held in March. After all, here the opportunity presents itself once again to go and fish for some votes! There are 400,000 people involved here, all representing possible votes. That is why we have this strange conduct on the part of a man who has a knowledge of legal practice.

I want to make just a few general statements before I proceed to deal with some of the charges made by the hon. member. In the first place I want to repeat what I have frequently said, and that is that no legislation and no state administration can ever guarantee investments 100 per cent. In other words, neither legislation nor the finest administration in the world is an absolute guarantee against injudicious and dishonest management of companies; it is an impossible task. Every Government, however, when it has learned from experience what clever tricks are resorted to in order to circumvent the law, tries to close the loopholes, and that is what we also did in this case. In 1962 we passed the Inspections Act and if you look at the list, which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition read out here, of companies placed in liquidation, you will notice that in most of these cases to which he refers the liquidation proceedings were started in 1962. It was because the Department was aware of the difficulties which had arisen that it forged this instrument to be able to deal with this evil which was beginning to rear its head. Last year we went further. Last year, after the Bill had been referred to a Select Committee to bring about any possible improvements, we passed the Investment of Funds Act which requires the utmost good faith from all those who have anything to do with trust moneys. This year, in the light of all the experience that we have gained, I again come along with legislation, of which notice has already been given here, in order to give greater protection to policy-holders and depositors.

The second remark I want to make is that there is a great deal of ignorance about the functions and the task of the office of the Registrar of Financial Institutions and about his powers, and there is a great deal of ignorance particularly with regard to the facts in connection with Parity, as was proved here again yesterday. I want to lay down the proposition that the first and main task of the Registrar is not to try to liquidate companies; his task is to try to keep them alive, to keep them healthy, to nurse them back to health again. His task is not to bring the guilty parties to book. That is the task of my colleague behind me. But it is the task and the function of the Financial Institutions Office, to the best of its ability and with the means at its disposal, to protect the policy-holder and the general public. In other words, the obligations of this office do not end with the liquidation of a company. The fact that this company has now been placed in liquidation may give the office and many members of the public some measure of emotional satisfaction, but it does not mean the end of the Registrar’s obligations. There are many cases in which his obligations and his difficulties assume serious proportions only after the liquidation. Liquidation is the last step to be taken after all other measures to nurse the financially sick company back to health have failed. It is only then that this step must be taken, and even then I say it is still the task of the Registrar to protect the public and the policy-holders by finding some alternative cover for their money. The list which has been given here is a list of cases where all measures have failed, but there are also various companies which have again been nursed back to health as a result of the action of the Registrar, and that is something which must not be lost sight of. There is no better example to illustrate the proposition which I have just made than the case of Parity.

If Parity had been placed in liquidation 12 months ago, as the hon. member proposed … [Interjections.] Well, he did not propose it but he said that investigations should have been made earlier and then this would not have happened. If Parity had been placed in liquidation 12 months ago we would have been saddled with precisely the same problem with which we are faced to-day; in other words, there would have been approximately 400,000 policy-holders without any cover. That would have meant that we would have had to see to it that those people, who were exposed to large claims in respect of which they had no cover, were given some measure of cover, and the position would have remained the same whether this had happened 12 months ago or 24 months ago.

But we must also remember that if the Registrar acts too quickly and applies for the liquidation of a company or for a company to be placed under judicial management he may prejudice the policy-holders and the public because then the prospects that the company may recover are so much more remote and the harm which is done to a company by an application for liquidation is almost irreparable. In this particular case of Parity the reproach has also been levelled at the Registrar that he acted too quickly and that he should have given them more time. If he has to apply for liquidation and that application is rejected by the Court, you will realize the position in which the Registrar will find himself as against the policy-holders who have now been prejudiced by the action taken by him against the Company.

I just wanted to make these general remarks, I want to come now to certain allegations made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I know that a judicial commission has been appointed and that is why I do not propose to say very much about this whole matter, but I do want to deal with just a few of his allegations.

In the first place the Leader of the Opposition made the general allegation that the Registrar was unduly tardy, that he did absolutely nothing, that he was lax and negligent in his duties.

My allegation was that the Minister did absolutely nothing.

Very well. Let me just say this: The facts which I am about to mention will provide the answer to that charge but I just want to say by way of introduction that no company has ever received as much attention from both the Minister and the Registrar as Parity did over the past two years. It was not a question of inaction or of negligence. I will prove that statement in a moment.

The first charge which has been made here is that in October 1962 a prohibition was placed on the investment of funds by Parity until such time as the Registrar had had an opportunity of studying the inspector’s report, and the hon. member says that that inspector was only appointed in 1964. Let me just say this to the hon. member: The inspector was appointed in October 1962. He submitted his report to the Registrar in November 1962 and the Registrar said immediately that he was placing a prohibition …

That is not what is stated in the letter.

I am talking about the facts now. He said that he was imposing a prohibition until such time as he had studied the report. Surely this presupposes that the inspector had already been appointed and had submitted his report; it was not a question of still having to appoint the inspector; he imposed the prohibition immediately. Let me tell you why this prohibition was imposed. It was discovered at the time by the inspector appointed by him that Parity had obtained the controlling shareholding in Trans-Africa. At that time Trans-Africa was in a precarious position and there was a danger that Parity’s funds would be used to put Trans-Africa on to its feet again. With that fear in mind the Registrar imposed this prohibition on investments without his approval and knowledge. That prohibition remained in force for a year until November 1963. But in the meanwhile the Registrar was not idle; he remained in constant touch with the company. In April 1963 the company itself caused an inspection to be made by three independent people—not it’s own people. These independent people were instructed to institute investigations. They consisted of an actuary, an auditor and an attorney and they had to carry out this instruction in order “to ease the mind of the Registrar of Insurances who by his correspondence has clearly indicated that he lacked confidence in the economic position and management of your company … particularly in view of the fact that both rumours and the general attitude adopted by the Registrar seemed to imply that the accounts of Parity are not correctly drawn up, that the reserves are inadequate and, in short, that Parity was not a successful concern.” This inspection was undertaken by an actuary, an attorney and a firm of accountants unconnected with the Parity organization.

But appointed by the board of directors itself.

Yes, but with the knowledge and permission of the Registrar and with my permission. The report was handed over to the Registrar of Insurances in September 1963 and it was signed by the firm of accountants, Clothier, Poole and Dreyer. They summarized their findings in these words—

We are satisfied that your company is being run on sound economic lines and there is no reason whatever why it should not continue to make adequate profits. That was in September 1963. In the meantime Trans-Africa had disappeared; it had been struck off the register of the Registrar. The main danger that he feared and which prompted him to impose this prohibition on investments has now disappeared. He gets this rosy report from three independent persons but he leaves the prohibition in operation for three months, a prohibition which means a very great burden to the Department because the Department has to react to every small investment. Then in November 1963 he lifted the prohibition, in the first place because he had received a report from three independent people and, secondly, because the real danger which had prompted him to impose the prohibition had disappeared. Shortly afterwards, in December, the auditor of Parity makes a charge against the company. Let me just say this: Clothier, Poole & Dreyer, after having given this report, also went on to say that they had found that Parity’s unencumbered capital and reserves as at 31st December, 1962, amounted to more than R1,000,000. Sir, I ask any person whether he would expect the Registrar to act in those circumstances when he receives such a report from three independent people? The Registrar was still not entirely satisfied; he still left his prohibition in operation, but then there followed a third inspection. This was still before the inspection, the only inspection, to which the hon. member referred. In December 1963 a charge was made by the auditor of the company; he stated that as at 30 June, instead of a surplus of R1,000,000, which was reported by the other three to be the position as at 31 December, there was a shortfall of more than R600,000 as at 30 June 1963 a change of more than R1,500,000 over those six months. The Registrar then acted immediately. He reported to me what the auditor had said. The company contended that it was merely a question of an estimate of its obligations. Anybody who has anything to do with insurance business knows that it is not a business where one can estimate on an actuarial basis precisely what one’s obligations are going to be. One has to make provision for claims which have been instituted but not yet finalized and one has to make provision for claims which have not even been instituted yet but which flow from events that took place during the period covered by one’s report. The company, Parity, came along to the Registrar and said, “We are convinced that we can produce proof but we must have time, and we will then appoint independent people who also meet with your approval.” We said to them, “Very well, we shall give you time but you will have to buy that time.” In other words, if the finding, in the light of the further assessment, confirmed the assumption of the auditors of Parity that they were in fact in the red, then the public must not suffer as a result of this respite that we were giving the company. That was the condition that we imposed, that they must buy this extension of time. That is the answer to a further charge that was made here. The Registrar insisted as a protective measure upon a bank guarantee in order fully to safeguard any interested persons who took out new insurance policies during the period of respite. Such a guarantee was given. In January a report was brought out by two independent firms of auditors and the auditor of Parity, who had submitted the unfavourable report, and the majority finding was that in June 1963, instead of a shortfall of almost R700,000, as Parity’s auditors had found, Parity’s assets exceeded its liabilities by more than R300,000.

But the old auditor stood by his former report.

Yes, he did not sign the report. He himself admitted that when it came to a question of assessing obligations, one man might arrive at one figure while another man might arrive at a different figure. He said that he stood by his assessment but he admitted that other people might arrive at different figures. Well, in spite of this position in January 1964, the Registrar was not satisfied, although the position appeared to be fairly sound, and he insisted that Parity’s unpaid-up capital of R100,000 be increased to R500,000. R230,000 has now been brought in from outside. To-day there is the R300,000 which was there already and here another R230,000 is now being brought in. He insisted that Parity’s tariffs should no longer be lower than those of other companies, that they must be brought into line with them, this gave Parity an additional income of a few hundred thousand rand, so that it could be in a stronger position in the new year. He also insisted that Parity’s administration and acquisition costs should be more or less in line with those of the other companies. It had been found that their administration costs and their costs in getting policies were very high. As a result of these changes, Parity, for the same risk, netted a further additional income of a few hundred thousand rand.

Having regard to these facts as at 30 June 1963—assets worth R300,000 and additional capital amounting to R230,000 and the higher tariff income—the Registrar felt that he should give Parity a chance to see how the new system worked. This was also followed by reorganization. The old manager was dismissed and Mr. Goldberg was appointed.

Who is he?

The old manager was dismissed.

Who was he?

Mr. Hanley. The chairman of the board of directors who then took over everything and who conducted the negotiations is Mr. Goldberg. In spite of these drastic steps the Registrar said that first he wanted to see how this worked; that he wanted to look at the figures as at 30 June 1964. New auditors were appointed and he told the auditors that he would like to have their report for the year ending 30 June as soon as possible because if he had to wait for the annual report then the company would have time until December 1964. He did not receive the report in October. At first he thought he would receive it in October but he did not get it in October and he then made the fourth inspection on 3 November.

Will you allow me to ask a question? Did the Registrar not have a report from the auditor before that inspection?

He had the report of the auditor in December 1963 but that report was for the year ending 30 June of the preceding year. He then had to find out what the position was for the year ending 30 June 1964. He also had the position as at 31 December 1963 and he wanted to know what the position was as at 30 June 1964 before he made any further decision. He could not get the reports immediately; he then deemed it advisable to appoint somebody to examine Parity’s latest financial position and he sent out his inspectors in November 1964.

The charge is that most of the irregularities revealed at the time of the fourth inspection occurred over a long period. How can one reconcile that with the fact that such a wonderful report was presented in respect of the position as at 31 December 1963? But this fourth inspection then brought to light certain facts, and that is why we applied for the appointment of a curator. A curator was appointed and we were then able, with the assistance of the curator and with the assistance of the auditors of Parity, to bring to light the further fact that Parity was actually insolvent. In other words, we were never idle and the charge that we failed to act is without foundation. I may add that there were two letters from the Registrar regularly every month, and Parity themselves testified as to how they felt about it; they said, “to ease the mind of the Registrar” because of his incessant nagging. But this is the man and this is the Minister who did nothing! [Time limit.]

Mr. Speaker, the Government is having two bites at this cherry. Yesterday the Minister of Transport got up and we all expected him to deal with this matter, but the answer he gave was that he could do nothing because he had no power. It is amazing that the Minister should not know what power he has because we were asked last year to give him the necessary powers. Now this Minister gets up. What is the gravamen of the charge? It was that in the last two years about 13 companies got into difficulties. This Minister first rebukes us for bringing to light irregularities like this in the House, because he says we want to use them for political advantage at the next election. Of course he would not make such use of them! And what has he done in reply? He has dealt in detail with one company. He accuses the Leader of the Opposition of having his facts wrong, but where does the latter get his facts from? He got them from the petition of the Minister’s own Registrar. I am not going to go into details about Parity. We have other members who will tackle this Minister and the Minister of Transport on this very question. But I want to deal with something else that the Minister said.

The Minister of Finance said at Port Elizabeth, talking about the Bantustans, that the stage now reached in the Government’s Transkei policy, showed that separate development was acceptable to the Bantu; the Bantu not only accepted the policy but they were going to make it work. He said: “It confounds our critics who claimed that the Bantu would not co-operate in this experiment of racial cooperation as neighbours. At any rate, they are prepared to give it a try.”

I want to ask the Minister where he got the information from that the Bantu had accepted this policy. The Minister of Bantu Administration and Development does not make a statement of that kind; it is the Minister of Finance talking out of turn. He should know better. The only time the Bantu have been asked to express their opinion, the only time they have been given a chance freely to express their opinion, they have rejected this policy, and the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development knows that. Sir, everybody was convinced on the Government side that Chief Kaizer Matanzima was going to be victorious in the by-election in Gcalekaland because he himself claimed that this was going to be a death-blow to the democratic party, and he called upon them to resign as a party—that was how he put it—after that election. Sir, I do not have to tell you what happened. The Bantu have never given their approval to this policy. This statement by the Minister at that congress is typical of the propaganda put across by this Government to mislead the people outside as to what the true position is.

Yesterday the hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman) attacked the Government for encouraging the impression that only the Nationalist Party stood for White leadership. He proved that that statement was quite wrong. Another impression which they give is that the Nationalist Party is the only party which is prepared to do anything for the Native. Every foreigner who comes to this country is taken straight to the Transkei and there he is shown the development which has taken place, and this visitor then gives an interview over the radio and speaks of the wonderful development that he has seen there. Sir, everybody would think that this development has come overnight. I admit that there has been some development under the Nationalist Party regime, but no country can stand still for 16 years. Admittedly there has been some soil reclamation, but this process was started long before the Nationalist Party got into power. The impression is given too that it is only because of apartheid, because of separate development, that the Native is getting anything, and that under any other policy he would get nothing at all. Recently we had an important visitor here from Germany and I want to quote from the South African Digest what he said—this was published abroad as well—

Sir, who brought civilization to the Transkei? It was the old missionaries and the traders, long before apartheid was even thought of; apartheid as a policy only came into being in 1948.

Sir, the motion of no-confidence moved by my Leader condemns the Government’s incompetence. As far as the application of its Bantu policy is concerned we have lots of ground for condemning the Government, on the policy itself, and many more members are going to do so from this side of the House. I want to deal with their in competency in applying the policy, especially in the Transkei. Sir, the Minister of Finance described this as “a new experiment in the laboratory of South Africa.” One can expect teething troubles, and there are lots of teething troubles. For instance, before the new Transkei Assembly met they had to be given a hall which was appropriate for the occasion. The Government know that they would have to make some improvements to the old Bunga chamber, but they left it until the last minute, and for four months they had to work night and day and on Sundays in order to get the building ready. It is no good the Minister shaking his head; I saw it myself. Admittedly they worked inside the building but on the last Sunday they were forced to work outside as well. And at what cost, Sir? The contract provided for cost plus 20 per cent, and it cost the country a lot of money. The members of that Assembly were luckier than we are; they at any rate had a House ready before they met while we have to put up with inconvenience while our House is renovated.

Sir, there is a bit of confusion amongst the different departments as to whose duties lie here or there and other administrative difficulties. That one can expect, but there need not be any experiment in dealing with the future of the citizens of the Republic, the fellow-citizens of the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, and of the Prime Minister, as to what their future is to be. When the Prime Minister first announced his policy of separation in the Reserves in about 1952. I think, this question of the future of the White and Coloured people of the Transkei was raised, and it has been raised every year since then, as the Minister knows. In 1962 when he told this House that he was going to grant self-government to the Transkei one would have thought that he would have known then what he was going to do about the non-Transkeians, the people who have to get out of the Transkei; one would not have thought that the Prime Minister would have embarked on this “experiment” as described by the Minister of Finance before knowing the full implications. I say that he has built up for himself in the rest of Africa a name as “the defender of the White man …”

Hear, hear.

Yes, except for those White men living in the Transkei. Sir, the Prime Minister’s long-term policy is going to react to the detriment of the White man throughout South Africa, but I am dealing now with the immediate policy and the White people who are affected by the immediate application of that policy.

After the Transkei plan had been announced in this House and the Bill passed, the White Transkeians naturally became more and more worried. They met the Prime Minister and a liaison committee was appointed. Well, the White Transkeians and the Coloureds there thought that at any rate something was being done now and that the Prime Minister was working with the liaison committee, but they soon found that nothing was being done; everything was secret; nobody was allowed to talk; nobody in authority spoke about what was happening, and they became restless again. Eventually, only after pressure at a Nationalist Party congress in East London, the Prime Minister announced that he was going to take some steps to deal with the position, and then he appointed the Heckroodt Commission. Again I say that the Prime Minister should have known without appointing a commission what he was going to do for us. But then what happened? The Heckroodt Commission got busy; the people were jubilant; the commission went round the country giving assurances everywhere that the White man was going to be looked after. We were promised that the commission’s report would be tabled. The commission reported towards the end of 1963. The Minister of Bantu Administration gave an assurance to the White people in Umtata that the report would be tabled and that he would have discussions with the Prime Minister and that we would get the report early the next year. At the beginning of January I asked in this House when we were getting the report and he replied that we would get it at an early date. Sir, we got the report in June—not the full report but a small report of two pages setting out the so-called important recommendations of the commission. In these two pages we have not only the important recommendations, but we also have the Government’s decisions. Sir, I say that nobody will believe or can believe that it took this Government of all talents nine months to consider the few recommendations which were set out there. But again we were promised something; this is the Government of promises; it is the most “promising” Government I have known. Again we were promised something; we were promised an adjustment committee; this adjustment committee would visit the Transkei and place valuations on the trading stations. The Government told the committee how they were to do it. With the appointment of that committee we hoped that at last some action was going to be taken, but nothing happened. The chairman of the liaison committee begged the Minister to appoint a committee; he was given assurances; he said publicly that he had been given an assurance by the Minister that this committee would be appointed last year by a certain Wednesday—I cannot remember the date at the moment—but nothing happened until just this month when we were given the names of the members of the committee. I want the hon. the Minister to tell us when he gets up to reply when this committee is going to start functioning. Are we going to have to wait for another year before it starts its work? Sir, this is not just a question of the Minister or the Prime Minister not knowing what to do for the Whites in the Transkei. They could easily pay us out out of the huge surpluses which they have every year. They could pay us all out handsomely. Once people have paid their taxes they do not miss the money, it is gone; we do not know what happens to it all, so if the Minister pays us out the taxpayers would not even know it! But, Sir, they do not do that because, you see, the slogan is “freedom without chaos”. That is what the Government says in its booklet. They know that once they tabled the report of the Heckroodt Commission they would be required to act so they delayed tabling the report for nine months. This is the “kragdadige” Government; this is the “kragdadigheid” that we are used to! They delayed for nine months. Then once having decided to appoint a committee, they know that when the committee was appointed it would have to start working; it could not sit idle, so they delayed for another six months before appointing their committee. But, Sir, it was done on purpose because once that committee started functioning it would have to value the trading stations. The Deputy Minister said he did not think that trading stations would be offered for sale. We discussed this here last year and they know very well now that all the traders are offering their trading stations. The Government also knows that if the trading stations are valued and they are offered for sale, the Government will have to do something about it, and if the traders get out then there will be chaos. Our complaint in the Transkei is that we, the White people of the Transkei, are not the people who asked for the application of this policy. In fact, we have shown at election after election that we are opposed to this policy of the Government, but we are the ones who are being asked to hear the burden of the application of the policy, the burden of carrying out this experiment. When I talk about the “White people” I include the Coloured people of the

Transkei because they are affected in exactly the same way as the Whites; in fact, in many cases they are worse off because they cannot go where they like in terms of the Group Areas Act whereas we can go more or less where we like. If you compare the attitude of the Government towards the traders with its attitude towards the farmers then you appreciate that the Government is purposely delaying. When the Government wants farmers to give up their land, then it has no hesitation in paying them out handsomely because it does not need the farmers in carrying out its policy; it does not need the farmers to bring about “freedom and independence without chaos”. It did not need the farmers around Umtata, so attractive offers were made to them. Very attractive values were placed on their properties to induce them to sell because the Government wanted them to sell. Take the attitude of this Government towards the farmers in South West Africa; compare the attitude of this Government towards the White traders and others in the Transkei with the attitude of the Administration in South West Africa where it is buying up farms which the Odendaal Commission recommended it should buy. Let me quote Mr. Marais—

Why cannot the traders in the Transkei be treated in that fashion? Why cannot the traders be given “verdrietgeld”? The traders have rot asked to leave; they are being forced to leave.

The Minister of Bantu Administration and Development in announcing the appointment of this committee said—

The Minister knows that although traders are doing well there are widows and others who have to get out at once because cases have been brought to his notice; I myself have brought certain cases to his notice. Widows cannot stay on trading stations by themselves. The Minister knows that you cannot get White assistants at these trading stations. Any assistant looking for a job leaves the Transkei to establish himself elsewhere. Young men who know that they will have to get out eventually—because the Government has stated that that is its policy—want to get out in time while they are still young enough to establish themselves elsewhere. But they cannot sell their trading stations; that is why they are all offering their trading stations for sale, hoping that the Government will buy them. One of these widows, of whom the Minister knows, had to close her station some time ago, and do you know where she has gone to? She has gone to Northern Rhodesia! That is a fine how-do-you-do! We talk about the northern Whites coming down to this country for protection and here we find that a widow has to go to Northern Rhodesia. In another case where the trader died, the executor has simply had to close down the station, a very profitable station, because he cannot dispose of it and he cannot get anybody to run it. It is no good the Minister or others saying, “we will look after you at the end”; we want to be looked after now. The Minister must appreciate how worried the White traders and the Coloureds of the Transkei are becoming.

They are becoming worried because the Transkeian Minister of Justice stated publicly that it was the policy of his Government to strangle the White traders. The Minister will know that the Chief Minister of the Transkei said in the Assembly that it was not the policy of his Government to buy the stations of White traders. Sir, when White traders see that they are being threatened with strangulation, when they see that the policy is not to buy their trading stations, can one blame them for being worried, especially at the inaction of this Government?

I have spoken mainly about the traders but what about the villagers? I am not going to talk about Umtata. In Umtata the White people find themselves in a different position. Unfortunately that does not apply to the Coloureds; Coloureds there are in the worst position of uncertainty. But in Umtata, with the influx of civil servants, the Government has bought up houses and there has been no difficulty in disposing of property in Umtata; in fact, it is difficult to get property in Umtata. We know that the White areas of the Republic are supposed to become whiter and whiter and are becoming blacker and blacker. Umtata is the reverse and is certainly getting whiter and whiter.

Under the Transkeian Constitution Act a zoning committee has been appointed. This zoning committee is to zone the villages and set aside areas for Black occupation. That zoning committee is still sitting. They have also taken an inordinately long time to give their report. They are meeting again next month. One would have thought that they would have finished by the end of last year but they are still sitting. What happens in a zoned area? We have tried to find out but we can get no statement of policy from the Minister. You cannot expect the zoning committee to make a statement of policy. They cannot make policy statements although they do at different times try to reassure the people. When the Bill was discussed in this House in the Committee Stage, we asked the Minister what would happen to the areas zoned Black, in a town zoned in terms of the constitution. He said that once it was zoned as Black and occupied by Bantu it would “automatically” come under the jurisdiction of the Transkeian Government. Sir, you will remember that the closure was applied when we tried to get a more explicit reply from the Minister. Now, what is the position to be? If an area is zoned Black it means that the Black man can buy there. If an area is zoned Black, say in Umtata, will the Government step in and buy all the properties in that area zoned Black at once? If not, does it mean that a Black man can then buy a property and live alongside a White man contrary to Government policy? Because only a Black man will be able to buy there; no White man would want to buy a property to-day in a village of the Transkei. Does the whole traditional policy of separate residential areas fall away now? It will not be by choice that they will be living cheek by jowl; they will be compelled to live like that because the White man cannot sell; only a Black man can buy, and a White man has to wait until there are sufficient Black men who are willing to buy. People who are not suited to do so may be compelled to live next-door to each other with possible racial friction and unpleasantness.

That is apartheid!

I want the hon. the Minister to tell us whether his Government is going to buy up all the properties as soon as an area is zoned Black and I would like him to give us a definite reply as to who will administer the zoned areas. We would like to have a statement from the Minister himself, not from the committee.

Then I also want to refer to the hardship suffered by old-age pensioners because of the policy being applied. I have had cases put up to me, which I have referred to the Department of old people who own properties in the villages and who are too old to work. They cannot get the old-age pension because of the application of the means test. The Pensions Department simply says to them, “You own a property and because you own a property, the municipal valuation of which is so much, we cannot give you any assistance.” They write back to me to say, “We cannot let the property; we cannot live on the property: we cannot sell the property, and we are getting no income from it at all.” In one case there was the burden of a bond charge as well. My charge against the Government, Sir, is that this is another example of incompetency. There is no necessity for this. This is not something which has been forced upon them; it is not something which has caught them unawares. The Prime Minister know for years that he was going to carry out this policy; he said that he was going to do so. He has now applied this policy and he has applied it without having regard to the effect it is going to have on the White people. Sir, he cannot claim that he does not know because we have told him time and again what the position is. These people want to know what is going to happen to them, but the Minister and the Government sit there without doing a thing to help them. That is our charge against the Government. Our charge is that so far from being the protector of the White man they are in fact selling us down the river.

Sir, let me give you another example. Under the Transkeian Liquor Act the Transkeian Government controls all the areas outside of the White townships, except in the case of Port St. Johns. Sir, there are hotels along that coast and they want to develop and they should be allowed to develop. It is the only source of income for the Transkei at the moment, except for one or two small factories. But there is an obvious source of in-come—encouragement of the tourist trade—and with the free supply of liquor one of these hotels applied for a liquor licence. The licensing court granted the liquor licence; this was in October. The licensing authority, of course, used to be the chief magistrate, but now there is no chief magistrate, so the Secretary for Justice acts as chairman of the licensing authority. He considered the application and quite rightly granted the application for a liquor licence. This particular hotelier went to a certain amount of expense. He had to build his bar and he opened on 1 December. The annual sitting of the licensing court took place in November. He had already been granted his licence. The other licensees then all applied for liquor licences too; the magistrates approved, the police approved, so they naturally assumed that they were going to get their liquor licences. The man who had already had the licence granted to him, applied for a renewal of the licence, and what happened? The Chief Minister of the Transkei made a statement in which he said that it was not their policy to grant hotel licences to White people. When the licensing court met it postponed the hearing of the applications for a while, and when it sat again if made it quite clear that they could not grant a licence; that it was contrary to the policy of the Transkei Government. The man who had already been granted a licence had his application for renewal refused. He had been put to a lot of expense; he had had his bar for one month and he was given three months in which to dispose of the stocks. The other applicants, who had also gone to expense because they took it for granted that they were going to get their licences, since the policy now was to grant such licences, all had their applications refused. Well, holders of other types of licences, as you can imagine, said to themselves, “if this can happen to one licensee, can’t it happen to other licensees?” I say that before long we are going to run into trouble. There are going to be differences of opinion between the Government of the Republic and the Transkeian Government; there must be as things are at present. The Chief Minister has already said that if Port St. Johns can remain a White area why cannot the big Bantu cities around Johannesburg be declared Black areas? And why cannot they? Logically he is quite right. He quite rightly says that the Black man must be allowed to own property in the Black cities. That is contrary to Government policy. But if the Prime Minister thinks that Chief Matanzima is always going to play ball, he is mistaken. He will not be allowed to play ball while there is an Opposition party in his Parliament. It is no good hoping that we are going to have a one-party system in the Transkei: you have a two-party system there to-day, and do not forget that the other party enjoys the support of the elected members and they are bound to make trouble. They naturally want to embarrass the Transkeian Government. And why are they elected? Because they put forward the popular view, and one of the popular cries is against the application of influx control, against the way in which it is applied. The Chief Minister is bound, sooner or later, to have differences of opinion with the Government of the Republic as to the treatment of his subjects living outside the Transkei. We had hoped that this Government would protect its citizens living in the Black areas of the Transkei, and so I ask the Prime Minister to protect the White traders and other White people living there.

I am surprised to find that the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) discusses details regarding liquor licences and so forth in the course of a no confidence debate because those are matters which ought to be discussed under the Vote of the Minister concerned. All that he was trying to do was to create the impression that this Government was selling out the White man in the Transkei. But that sort of thing will not get him very far. Even the White traders there have nothing to be worried about because the Committee which is to investigate the position has already been appointed and the chairman has moved into his offices. The traders should take their troubles to that office.

I want to come back now to the main accusation made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition here this afternoon. He said—quite correctly I think—that a prerequisite for good Government policy is to ensure the safety and security of White civilization in South Africa.

Where is the area for Indians?

I am not going to allow that hon. member to distract me from my train of thought; my time is limited. I shall reply in good time to all the questions which they want to ask about the policy of the Government with regard to the Indians. I come now to this important statement by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition who, immediately after having made this statement, went on to try to prove that the Government’s policy of the development of the Bantu homelands will destroy the safety and the security of the White man in South Africa. This venomous attack on the part of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is nothing but a deliberate attempt to sow suspicion on the eve of a general election, because he is not blind to what is happening in the country to-day. He knows very well what is going on in the country. He sees how, from day to day, the National Party is not only growing in popularity in Edenvale but throughout the country, and particularly in Natal where, notwithstanding the efforts of the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) to put up a front of conservatism there, the National Party is making great strides towards overcoming the language barrier. The large-scale swing on the part of erstwhile supporters of the United Party throughout the whole country but particularly in Natal is due to the obvious fact that those people see the National Party and particularly the hon. the Prime Minister as the people who bring security and safety to the White man in South Africa. But that is the feeling not only on the part of the Whites. Amongst the non-Whites too there is a growing realization of the fact that we in this country can live together and progress in peace and in friendship only in terms of the policy of separate development. I can mention a number of examples in this connection but I think one will be sufficient. Last year I had the privilege of attending a large gathering in a Bantu residential area on the East Rand where the chairman of a Bantu school board, in the presence of more than 5,000 Bantu, made a clear and unequivocal statement. You must remember, Mr. Speaker, that this is the area in which the Opposition says that apartheid has failed. This person stated quite clearly that there was a growing realization in the country that all the races could only live together in peace and in harmony on the basis of this Government’s policy of separate development. After he had said this he was loudly applauded by more than 5,000 Bantu. I do not want to say that the majority of Bantu already accept this policy, but I do say that there is a growing appreciation amongst them of the policy of the Government. The same thing can be said in regard to the other race groups such as the Indians. As far as the Indians are concerned—and they are the direct result of the application of the policy of separate development—there is better co-operation with the Whites and a better understanding between the Whites and themselves than ever before in the history of South Africa. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition realizes all these things and he now has to try to destroy this improved image of South Africa, but he cannot do so by formulating a clear alternative policy because he has no clear alternative policy. He now tries to destroy that image by means of scare-mongering, by sowing suspicion and by coming along with the cry, a cry which will only be believed in this House by the few members in his own ranks—I doubt whether even they will believe it—that they are better than the Government; that they can govern better than the Government can! They now come along with a further cry and that is that they can protect the White man in South Africa better than we can. Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition not realize that the public are only amused at his political egg-dancing in regard to these matters? Only last year the cry of the United Party was that their policy of race federation would satisfy the Western nations because it would make a start with non-White representation in Parliament. That was the cry with which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition came along last year. This year he comes along with the cry of White leadership throughout the whole of South Africa and he knows that in doing so he is destroying every hope that he might perhaps have had of obtaining more goodwill for his policy amongst the Western nations.

I want to deal now with a few of the arguments put forward by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He asked “In the light of what is happening in the rest of Africa” (referring to the growth of Communism in the Africa states) “how can this Government continue with the policy of self-governing Bantu states?” He asked what reason there was to assume that the same trend towards Communism that is being revealed in the rest of Africa would not also be revealed in these Bantu homelands, in the Bantustans, as they call them. I should like to make three observations in reply to this statement of his. In the first place, does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition not realize that there is a very great difference between the method of liberation which is being followed in the other states of Africa and the methods that we are following here? The metropolitan powers did not liberate nations in the other Africa territories. They liberated territories. They demarcated boundaries without having regard to national units and, this led inivitably to internal strife in those areas between the various national groups. As a result of this internal strife, Communism found a fairly fertile breeding-ground for its ideas and its methods.

A second important fact that I want to mention is this: During the liberation process in these Africa states, no role was conceded to the traditional leaders of those peoples. In destroying those traditional leaders during that liberation process, they also destroyed in advance the anchors which could have protected those nations against Communism, the anchors which could have acted as a bulwark against Communism. That is why I believe that by extending the hand of friendship to the Bantu and by assisting them, and also because of their own sound common sense and their insight into what is happening in Africa, we shall be able to keep the Bantu of South Africa averse to Communism.

The other point that I want to make is this: Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition think that under his policy of race federation the danger of communist infiltration will be less than it is under the policy of separate development? He himself said that the aim of Communism was to acquire the riches of South Africa. Will a race federation make any difference to that aim? Moreover, Mr. Speaker, I want to go further and say the danger of Communism under the United Party policy of a race federation is far greater than it is under the policy of separate development of this Government. I shall tell you why. If they give representation in this Parliament to the Bantu, even though initially it is representation by Whites, the policy of the United Party will and can only result inevitably in giving the communists a launching pad to obtain and to retain authority in this Parliament. Because then there would be no tribal connections at all; there would be no traditional leaders who could form a bulwark against Communism amongst the Bantu. Under their policy there would only be the vote-seekers—even though they are White—who would outbid other candidates by means of promises of a greater say in the Government, of a greater share in the Government and promises of increased franchise rights for the Bantu. They would come and sit here and try to become the true leaders of the Bantu, leaders of the Bantu who would make ever-increasing demands. Eventually those favourably disposed towards the communists would win the ear of the Bantu. I am not saying things here which I have sucked out of my thumb; we have had experience of these things in this House. They must not tell us that if they come into power they will prevent these things from happening. We know them by their actions of the past. It was they who did everything in their power to keep Sam Khan and others here. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that in terms of their policy there is a far greater danger of the promotion of Communism than there is under the policy of the National Party.

Thirdly, if in spite of our faith in the Bantu and in spite of our assistance and guidance to them, Communism does gain a foothold amongst them, I prefer to have them in separate states where I can deal with them with a stronger Defence Force rather than to have communists here in our own Parliament, as would happen under the policy of the United Party.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition made a further statement with which I should like to deal. He said that the time-table for independence was not in the hands of the hon. the Prime Minister but in the hands of the nations in the Bantu homelands themselves. Once again he bases his statement on what has happened elsewhere in Africa. Does he not realize that there is a world of difference between the various liberation processes? In the first place, the liberation of territories in Africa by overseas Governments situated a long way away from them, is a completely different process from that of liberating a territory which falls within the jurisdiction of the Government and borders geographically upon it or lies within its borders. To free Ghana from domination by Britain is a completely different process from that of freeing the Transkei from the Government of the Republic because there is a completely different economic relationship between them. The only real means of co-operation and of maintaining sound influences in those territories is economic inter-dependence. Take the case of Ghana. Economic assistance for Ghana can be given just as easily by America or Russia as by Britain. It makes no difference to Ghana. But here it is a completely different matter. Our economics are so interwoven, so interdependent, and those territories depend so much upon employment here, that it is an entirely different matter. There are influences operating here which are completely different from those operating in other countries. Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition not appreciate these realities?

I want to go a step further. I want to say that any step which has to be taken to give greater independence to any Bantu homeland must be taken by this Parliament. Is that not correct? In the same way, any step to give representation or greater representation to the Bantu in terms of the race federation policy of the United Party must be taken by this Parliament. Is that not correct? I shall be pleased if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will tell me whether this basic premise of mine is correct or not?

He first has to ask Marais Steyn.

Now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that this Parliament will be compelled, because of demands made by the Bantu in the Bantu homelands, to give them a greater measure of self-government than this Government is prepared to give them. That is the argument which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition advanced yesterday. If that is true, Mr. Speaker, then I want to tell him that it will be just as true under his policy of a race federation, but for much stronger reasons. Why should there not be the same insistence upon greater authority under his policy? There will be an even greater demand. The Bantu themselves will insist on being represented by Bantu in this Parliament. Those demands and those claims will be made. They will claim that eight representatives are not enough and that the number should be increased. These claims and demands will increase, and they will increase until eventually they will demand one man, one vote. In other words, the timetable under a race federation will not be in the hands of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Under both policies the Bantu will insist and demand that they be allowed to progress further and further along the road on which the Government, or the Opposition in terms of their policy, have set them. These demands will be made in any case. But there is a very great difference between the two and that is that in terms of the policy of separate development the timetable for the self-government of his own area by the White man will always remain in the hands of the White man and of the White man alone. But in terms of their policy, the timetable set by the demands and the insistence of the non-White races, will drag the White man along. During the recess, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said very dramatically: “One man, one vote? Over my dead body!” I say that it will be over his dead body, and not only over his; it will be over the dead body of the White man in South Africa! That is what his policy will lead to and he will be dragged along helplessly.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition then came to light with a slogan which we will probably hear very often in the months preceding the election. Thereafter the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) jumped up. What I find interesting is the fact that on one occasion of which I know the hon. member for South Coast, as far as I can remember, and as far as I can remember having read in the newspapers, did not defend the policy of race federation. I do not know of one single speech made by him in which he defended the policy of race federation. He had a golden opportunity yesterday. When the hon. the Leader of the Opposition came to light with his slogan of “White leadership over the whole of the Republic” the hon. member for South Coast immediately jumped up and embraced this statement as though it offered him a ray of light for the future. But we must ask ourselves what this proposition on the part of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition means? What are its consequences? He had another slogan last year. Then it was not “leadership over the whole of the Republic”; he then spoke about “White control over the whole of the Republic”. But what is the difference between the two? The one is perhaps not quite as forceful as the other. I want to put this straightforward question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: If White leadership is not be temporary, if it is to be permanent, as the hon. member for South Coast said here yesterday, what else is it then but White supremacy, White “baasskap”? Perhaps the only difference is that White supremacy is to be enforced by force and force alone while White leadership, as the hon. member for South Coast put it, will be developed on the basis of consultation with the non-Whites. What does this mean? If we want to bring about White leadership in this country on the basis of consultation, it can only mean that one remains the leader as long as one’s followers allow one to remain the leader, as long as the non-Whites with whom one wants to consult permit one to remain the leader.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for South Coast said very dramatically yesterday that the policy of separate development was completely foreign to the Voortrekker tradition and Voortrekker ideals. Do they not know that in fact it was the Voortrekkers who laid the foundations of separate development when they appointed Umpanda as leader of the Zulu nation after Dingaan had been defeated, and concluded an agreement with him in regard to the division of land? Separate development was in fact the policy of the Voortrekkers.

If it was the policy of the Voortrekkers why did the South African Republic in the Transvaal impose the prohibition that Native areas may not be larger than 3,000 morgen?

The hon. member will not be able to change that situation by asking that question. The South African Republic acknowledged the authority of the Bantu Paramount Chiefs over their own tribes and tribal areas through its State President, President Kruger.

I want to say that if ever any policy constitutes a departure from traditional policy then it is their race federation policy. It is a departure from the traditional policy of the inhabitants of Natal because Natal is the Province which voted unanimously at their National Convention in 1909 against the representation of non-Whites together with Whites in this Parliament. Let us look at their plans, Sir, the plans by means of which they seek to safeguard the White man. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition spoke yesterday about eight Whites who would represent the Bantu in this Parliament. He is now running away from what he said last year and the year before that. He said then that he preferred eight Bantu in this House to eight Bantustans. He made it clear previously in his policy statements that these representatives would initially be White but that at some time or other it would be put to the voters whether they could be Bantu; it would be put to the voters for their approval or rejection.

No.

That is what he envisaged. But I do not even want to go as far as that. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) has a motion on the Order Paper in which he states—I take it on behalf of the United Party—that the Coloureds should be represented by Coloureds in this House. If they want to do this for the Coloureds in terms of their race federation policy what right then do they have to withhold representation for the Indians by Indians? What moral right do they have? And if they allow the Indians and the Coloureds to be represented by their own people, what moral right do they have to say that the Bantu must be represented by Whites?

What is the difference between Bantu representation by Whites and Coloured representation by Whites?

There is a great difference. One has to deal on the one hand with existing rights which one does not want to take away and on the other hand with new rights which one wants to grant. We do not want to take away existing rights but they want to grant new rights.

I want to ask the hon. member for South Coast whether he agrees with the policy that Coloureds should be represented by Coloureds in this House.

Of course I stand by the policy of my party. Why do you not stand by the policy of your party?

If it is true that the hon. member for South Coast is in favour of Coloureds being represented by Coloureds in this House, then he must also be in favour of representation for Indians by Indians.

Are you going to give the Indians a parliament of their own in the Transkei?

I have replied to that question repeatedly. I am asking the hon. member what his policy is. If he wants to make himself out to be a person who wishes to safeguard the future of the White man in South Africa, if he wants to give security and safety to the White man, then we have the right to know what his policy is in respect of Indian representation. What is it? [Interjections.] That is so typical of the United Party, Mr. Speaker. They do not give their own people information about the cardinal points of their race federation policy. That is why their congress in Natal last year had to adopt a resolution asking the United Party please to explain their policy of race federation because people could not understand it! They had scarcely explained it when they lost the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) (Mr. Odell) and an hon. Senator!

I say that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for South Coast will not be able in terms of their policy to halt the demand for more representation by non-Whites, the demand for representation by their own people in this Parliament. Their so-called policy of White leadership for the whole of South Africa will envitably result in the eventual death of the White man in South Africa.

We have listened to the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs who at the same time also happens to be the leader of the Nationalist Party in Natal. We would have expected to hear from him this afternoon some sort of indication of his party’s policy towards Natal in the first place (the province in which he leads the small number of people who support the Nationalist Party) and, in the second place, to have heard something of his party’s policy towards the Indian people of Natal for whom he is responsible. In regard to both those issues both my hon. Leader and the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) asked leading and important questions of the Prime Minister and the Government in regard to the policy of the Nationalist Government. In connection with their policy towards the Indian people we have had no explanation whatsoever from any speaker on the Government side. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition alleged that the Government had no policy in regard to Coloureds or Indians whatsoever. So we expected the Minister of Indian Affairs to tell this House and the country what his policy was in respect of the Indians. The sum total of his contribution to that subject this afternoon was to say that the Indians had never had a better relationship with the Whites in the history of this country than they have to-day. We did not hear a single word on what the policy of his party was. I shall tell you why, Mr. Speaker. It is because he has no policy. He has either got to tell this House where Indiastan or Hindustan is going to be in Natal and over what region the authority of this Indian state within a state is going to function or he has to admit that he has no policy. Because the Indians of Natal are either to be under the control, the permanent control, of this Parliament or they are, in terms of the high moral principles of the Nationalist Party, to have separate freedom. Separate freedom is the slogan of the Nationalist Government. We want to know of this Minister where the Asiatic people of Natal are going to enjoy their separate freedom. What area is their parliament going to govern. Are they going to have a parliament? The hon. member for South Coast asked whether they were going to have a parliament but we had no reply to that. This Government dare not tell the people of this country the blatant naked truth.

That has been explained for three years in succession.

For three years the Government has said they will give the Indians separate freedom through their council, a council which will develop into a sort of parliament which will be a state within a state. All I am asking, Sir, is where is this state going to be; is there going to be a parliament and what power will it have. Will it develop to total freedom, separate freedom, for the Indian people or are they to form a permanent part of the South African state? It is a simple question. A simple question which they cannot answer either because they have no policy or because if they admit the truth of their policy then in that admission they destroy the whole morality of their claim to have a non-White policy. This is also the Minister who talks as an expert on Bantu Affairs. I want to ask him a question or two. In the first place I want to ask him how he stands now in regard to “Molo”! Because this is the Minister of “Molo” fame. This is the Minister who not long ago instructed his Department that they were not to sully their hands by touching the hand of a Bantu.

That is not true.

Yes, questions were asked in this House. His Department were not to sully their hands by touching the hand of a Bantu. Their greeting was to be “Molo”!

That is a lie.

Order! The hon. Minister should withdraw that.

I withdraw that, Mr. Speaker.

I challenge the hon. Minister to deny that in reply to questions in this House he admitted that he had given instructions that the traditional greeting of the Bantu people should be used rather than the White man’s system of shaking hands.

Yes, that is correct.

Now I want to ask the hon. Minister whether he still directs his thinking in regard to Bantu Affairs in that prehistoric approach which he then adopted in his approach to the Bantu. These are the people to whom he wants to give separate freedom. These are the people to whom he wants to give independence, people governing themselves, a country within South Africa and forming with South Africa a commonwealth. I want to ask him whether that relationship within the Commonwealth is going to be on the basis of “Molo Nuntu!” or on the basis of equal to equal? It is a fair question. If the hon. Minister meets the Minister of Education of the Transkei, is he going to say “Molo Mnumzana”. (Laughter.) What I am trying to get at is on what basis this commonwealth is going to function, on a level of equals or on a level of master and servant? Because this is becoming a vital matter in the dealings of this Government with the Government of the one incipient Bantustan, the Transkei. I am going to deal with that very pertinently in a moment, but before doing so I wanted to establish this from the present Minister. I know the hon. Minister of Bantu Administration would laugh at such an attitude, as we laughed at it.

Now I want to ask that Minister, the leader of the Nationalist Party in Natal, why he stands up while this House discusses a vital issue affecting the whole future of this country without uttering one single word in regard to the application of that policy in his province of Natal. I can refer him far back: in 1963, “Ministers still trying to sort out the Zulustan”; 1961, “All Natal Black spots to be removed”. Since this Government started talking of their policy of Bantustans, they have been talking of removing Black spots and settling the area of Zulustan. Two years ago, in April 1963, a committee was then “getting near” the sorting out of the boundaries of the so-called Zulustan. Now the Minister says that they are working on it.

I was referring to the removal of Black spots, and I said that they were being removed.

I want to know more about the boundaries of Zulustans. Where will the Zulustan boundaries be in Natal? This is the Minister who leads his party in Natal. Does he not realize his responsibility to Natal to say where the Zulustan is going to be? A committee of this Government has been sitting. Where is its report? Why is this report not before us? It has reported Why is the report not before us? Why do we not know what is to happen to Natal? The answer is that this Government dare not tell the people of Natal what is going to happen. I have the reason on the authority of the Government: Last year, in November, the Ciskei held a meeting of the Territorial Authority in the Ciskei, before which was a motion asking for self-government for the Ciskei. The Commissioner-General for the Transkei, speaking, I assume, on behalf of the Minister of Bantu Administration and the Government of South Africa and also the Senior Bantu Affairs Commissioner for the Ciskei himself said: “No, you cannot have self-government in the Ciskei”. The reason they gave was that it could not take place until there had been consolidation. I quote “Until the scattered Bantu areas in the Border had been consolidated”. I am quoting from the Natal Daily News, and it was reported in all the newspapers at the time. The Minister will not deny it. The reason why the Ciskei could not have self-government was because the territory had not yet been consolidated. Now here we have the hon. Minister of Bantu Education and Indian Affairs …

May I ask the hon. member a question? Does the hon. member not know that the Department of Bantu Administration is busy with the consolidation of Bantu areas in consultation with the Natal Agricultural Union?

That is rather a simple question. I could not expect a very much more complicated question from the hon. Minister, because apparently he does not know what is happening. I am asking him as a Minister of the Government to tell us what is the intention of the Government? These negotiations have been going on year after year. We want to know what is the result of the negotiations? What is the Government’s policy? The Minister cannot tell us. He passes the buck to the Minister of Bantu Administration and Bantu Administration says “the matter is being investigated”. Mr. Speaker, you cannot bluff all the people all the time and the people of Natal are losing patience.

You will not bluff them into believing that we have some sinister plan, as you are suggesting now.

Mr. Speaker, the Government itself is making it clear by its refusal to tell the people of Natal what is going to happen to that province.

Will the report be released before the election?

If I were a betting man I would give very long odds against that. They will not release it before this election or before the next election. The answer can be found in the admission by the Commissioner-General for the Transkei: The Government recognizes that self-government cannot work without consolidation. You have the 242 black spots there plus all the separate reserves in Natal, and that process of consolidation is an impossible task, a humanly impossible task, and the Minister knows it. That is why he keeps quiet and sits dumb when you ask him what progress has been made in the establishment of the boundaries of Zulustan. He knows that neither he nor any other government can sort out and consolidate the Zulu people, the Zulu area of Natal into an area which could receive self-government. These scattered black spots and reserves arc scattered over all Natal. The Minister knows the situation. You only need to look at any map of the Black areas of Natal. It looks like a patchwork quilt. They dare not tackle the job, neither the Minister of Bantu Administration nor the Government, yet they realize that without consolidation there can be no effective Zulustan of Zulustans. Now the Government is faced with a quandary as to what to do. The Government is faced with the question of whom it is to satisfy. Is this a confidence trick on the people of Natal or is it a confidence trick on the Bantu themselves and on the outside world? That is the issue the Government has to face. Either the confidence trick is played on the people of Natal or there is a confidence trick being played on the Bantu themselves and on the outside world. Because if this policy is to be applied in Natal, it must be applied on the basis of consolidation. The Government cannot consolidate without tremendous hardships to Black and White alike, hardships which they are not prepared to face, to face electorally or from the practical point of view. They are faced with a dilemma of to whom to admit that they are playing a confidence trick. Must they say to the Bantu: Of course this is just a bluff, we cannot consolidate, as we have already told the Ciskei, and therefore all our promises to you are valueless. Or are they prepared to face the outside world and the electorate of Natal—I am dealing specifically with Natal, but it applies to other areas as well—will they say to the electorate of Natal: We have played a confidence trick on you; we in fact are going to carry out this policy by consolidation. What has become very clear from this debate is that this Government can be divided into two groups—those who sit back in smug complacency and say “Well, we have got the vote, why should we worry?” and those who are unhappy but say “What else can we do?” And this hon. Minister who has just spoken belongs to the first group, the group whose sole interest is an electoral victory, to win votes. He has made it clear again this afternoon. He is not interested in the people of Natal. He is interested in the number of votes he can gain. The tragedy is that it is not just the winning of votes which affects the political division in this House but this game which this Government is playing affects the future of the White man in South Africa. We have said over and over again in the past, and we are saying it again in this debate, and we shall continue to say that the direction in which this Government is moving shows that there remains only one party in South Africa which has the interests of the future of the White man at heart. This Government is prepared to abandon the interests of the White man and their control over whole portions of this country. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) dealt with the people of the Transkei. I have asked the Minister of Bantu Education and Indian Affairs to tell us about the people of Natal. We will not get an answer. We will get an answer from the hon. Minister with the pleasant smile, the Minister of Bantu Administration, who is a polite and an admirable mannered gentleman; he will be polite and he will tell us that the matter is being investigated. And next year he will give us an even more pleasant smile and so it will go on. We say that the price which is being paid for this confidence trick played on the people of Natal is the endangering of the future of the White man. This Government is trying to indicate to the non-Whites in South Africa that half of the people of South Africa want to hand over chunks of the country to them and give them independence but the other half want to have one “bont staat” in which the Black man will be boss. They put that choice blatantly and callously, and I say that it is a dishonest presentation of the political choice before the people of South Africa. It is dishonest to say to the people of South Africa that those are the two choices. One of those choices is true, the Nationalist Party choice: If you support them, you surrender the leadership of the White man over parts of South Africa, over huge sections of our country—you surrender the leadership and guidance of the White man over areas in which White people live to-day and for whom we as a Parliament are responsible. The other alternative which we offer is that leadership is maintained over the whole of South Africa, and for this Minister and those hon. members to come here trying to play politics with this fundamental issue before us is no less than an insult and a danger to the future of every White man in this country. It is saying to him “We are not particularly interested in your future, we are interested in playing politics”. The question has been asked how long can this White leadership go on. Sir, as long as that party remains in power it will continue to play politics. But as long as this party on this side of the House exists that will be its policy, also when it becomes the government of this country.

The other side of the House has not yet answered the question put to it, put pertinently and clearly,—and we have the right to ask it over and over again: Is it the policy of the Nationalist Party to maintain White leadership and control over the whole of South Africa? The hon. Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration is looking interested …

I will reply to that question.

We have had four speakers from the other side already and not one of them was prepared to answer this simple question: Does the Nationalist Party admit that it is prepared to abandon the leadership of the White man over sections of the present Republic of South Africa? “Tjoepstil.” They cannot answer that question.

Yes.

Here we have an honest member who has no Bantu area in his constituency, but he admits that it is the policy of the Nationalist Party to abandon White leadership over parts of South Africa. I do not see the hon. member for Vryheid (Mr. D. J. Potgieter) nodding in agreement.

One cannot reply to such nonsense.

They are not able to answer that fundamental question because it would be an admission of their failure and secondly, it would be an admission of the price South Africa will have to pay if they succeed with their policy. And while this goes on the rest of the country must suffer. The administration collapses while this Nationalist Party game is being played. [Interjections.] You notice how sensitive they are. They are touchy because this is going to the root of the claims they have made to the people of South Africa for 16 years, a root which being eroded and exposed by the cold hard facts of the policy they have followed—a root which is now being exposed to the view of the people. That is why they are so sensitive. Because for 16 years they have been able to hide the real intent of their policy, to hide the real objective for which they are aiming and working. Slowly, but inexorably that objective is now becoming clear to the people. The people are starting to see clearly where it is taking them, a road which means the abandonment of White leadership, the abandonment of the interests of White people living in the areas which they will sacrifice. No wonder they are sensitive.

They are equally sensitive about the other point which I was getting onto when I was interrupted by several members. I said that while this game was being played South Africa was paying a further price, the price of the collapse of the administration in department after department. That is going to be dealt with by numerous members on this side. I just want to touch on two matters as an example. One of them affects the hon. Minister of Housing who is sitting there. I say to him that the Government has failed in its responsibility to the ordinary low-income group person in South Africa in the provision of housing. In my own constituency and throughout Durban and throughout every city in South Africa there is a desperate need for housing, but this Government plays around with ideological nonsense while neglecting the interests of the ordinary person. The hon. Minister can try to pass the buck to the Durban City Council and the Johannesburg City Council and they will pass it back to him, but you cannot pass the buck for government responsibility. There is one Minister responsible for housing in South Africa. I say that I can quote innumerable examples where the Government has failed the ordinary man in South Africa. One can go from department to department to find that the same situation has arisen. If you deal with a pension case to-day, you are lucky if you get it dealt with within three or four months.

Nonsense!

Possibly those hon. members can get it done quicker, or I may get it done quicker, but the ordinary person who applies for a pension will not get an answer under four months to-day. The ordinary person applying for an investigation into the rent of his flat will not get an answer within six or eight months because the administration is breaking down. Every morning in Durban you can see from 15 to 16 ships waiting out in the roadstead, wasting the money of South Africa, wasting the potential development of our country, wasting potential exports from this country because the Government has not had the foresight or the willingness to listen to the warnings issued from this side of the House year after year. We have warned the Government of Durban Harbour becoming unable to play the role that it should play, right back to Mr. Butcher when he was a member here, and even before that in the days of Dr. Shearer when we were warning the Government. I also have warned the Government over and over again of the impending crisis in respect of Durban Harbour. Now that the crisis is there, they say, “What can we do, we have not got the manpower to deal with it”. But I can tell you what is being done. Men are working 14, 15 hours a day, every day at the cost of their health and their future. Men in administrative offices employed as clerks go out and help to off-load ships after work with a trying interruption of their family life and normal life. Every effort is being made by those men to do the job that must be done at the cost of their own health. But what does the Government do about it. It shrugs its shoulders and says: Let us go on with this game of Bantustan planning. So one can go from department to department and there is hardly one which you can look at without saying “There is an utter shambles of administration”. I cannot think of one where the administration is not breaking down in one way or another. This is part of the price that we are having to pay, not only for the Government’s ineptitude, but for this Government’s obsession with an ideology which has led it to try to play this incomparable confidence trick on the people of South Africa. Now that is being exposed and the people are starting to realize that throughout the whole 16 years that have passed only the United Party has stood firm in its determination to protect—not for now and not for a section—but for as long as it exists and for the whole of South Africa the future interests of the White man and the White standards which we have built up here.

The first thing I wish to do is to reply to a question put by various hon. members opposite. Yesterday it was very pertinently put by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell), and it has now again been put in the whirlwind speech of the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw). The question is whether we as the Government and as a party support it—that is how they put it—that White leadership, domination or control (or whatever word they use and play with) should remain in existence over the whole of South Africa. The question was put to us and the reason why yesterday I did not want to reply to it with a “Yes” or a “No” was that the question was put to us in an integrationist terminology, viz. of viewing the whole of South Africa as one potential mass of people with one potential nationality, something which we do not accept. My reply to those hon. members will be very clear, and the reply was already given yesterday by the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee), and throughout the years, from the time of General Hertzog ever since 1913, the answer has been given. I want to state very clearly that we see the people of South Africa as constituting various nations, various peoples. The Opposition is so fond of the word “races”, which I do not like very much, whereas I would say various nations. There is a White nation in South Africa, there is a Coloured nation, an Indian nation, and there are various Bantu nations.

Where are their areas?

The hon. member knows very well. My reply to the question is: We do not favour viewing all the people as one potential nation in one fatherland and a single area over which the Whites alone dominate. We do not support that.

May I put a question to the hon. the Minister?

No, Mr. Speaker, I am busy answering the question. We are now discussing the problem of the Bantu areas. We are clearly faced with the question of a homeland. Let us clearly realize that there is also something like a homeland for the Whites. There is continual reference to a homeland for the Bantu. Here we also have a homeland for the Whites. For all eternity, as long as we exercise the authority, we stand for the domination of the Whites in the White areas.

May I put a question to the hon. member?

In the limited time at my disposal I cannot possibly reply to all the questions. I have prepared myself to say something and I cannot use all my time in answering questions. As I said, we are in favour of absolute domination by the Whites in White South Africa, in the White homeland, at all times and as long as we hold the authority.

Where is the homeland for the Zulus?

For that reason we adopt the inexorable moral standpoint and principle that what we demand for ourselves we must also grant to the Bantu if he is able to exercise those responsibilities. If they are able to do so we are in favour of giving them the absolute right to govern their homelands.

And the Indians?

There they now have a very clear reply. It amounts to this, that our policy of apartheid, or separate development, is based …

May I put a question?

I am still busy replying to this main question in this debate. Our policy therefore amounts to this, that we are in favour of every separate nation—and there are many within the borders of South Africa—having an inherent right of self-determination to develop along the road of its independence. We accept that in so far as the Whites in the White homelands are concerned, and if the day for it arrives we will accept it for the Bantu in their homelands.

And the Coloureds?

That is the reply that has been recorded throughout the years. Already in 1913 General Hertzog said—

Continue reading. What did he say further, under whose supervision?

Yes, under the supervision of the Union Government. The hon. member now wants to interpret General Hertzog’s words in a way which suits him, 60 years after General Hertzog used those words, and he now wants to infer from those words what General Hertzog desired. What is now happening in the Transkei? The Transkei is busy developing towards independence under the supervision of our Government. That is not in conflict with what has been said for all these years. Let me read to you what was written by Dr. Malan, and I think this is something which will now be read here for the first time. Dr. Malan wrote the following in the Burger on 5 April 1923—

Now the hon. member will come along with his race federation. Just listen to this next point—

But let us come nearer to present times and see what the present Prime Minister said when he was Minister of Native Affairs—

And what did the Prime Minister say on 20 May 1959, when he was already Prime Minister?—

And at about the same time the Minister of Finance said the same thing at a meeting at Robertson—

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. members who asked that question cannot complain that I have not replied to it. I do not hesitate to reply to the question, but the hon. members must not expect me to reply to it like a parrot, by just saying “Yes” or “No”.

On this note of honesty, which the hon. member for Durban (North) attached to it, I should like to go a step further, and I am deeply grateful that the hon. member to whose words I wish to refer, the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn), is sitting here. I take it that the hon. member for Yeoville will still speak in this debate. I want to direct a friendly appeal to him to speak, and if he cannot or does not wish to speak I shall be glad if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will reply to these points just as frankly as I have done. Let us be honest, in the words of that hon. member.

I want to refer to the fact that the hon. member for Yeoville said the following in a television programme which was broadcast in England on 15 June 1964, with Mr. Robin Day as the questioner. Now I first want to give you the question put by Mr. Robin Day. He asked Mr. Steyn: “Then does the United Party envisage that there will be one day Black Members of Parliament in the National Assembly in Cape Town?” Then Mr. Marais Steyn replied: “Our leader, Sir de Villiers Graaff, stated very clearly that whereas on our election we will give the Black people of this country representation in Parliament by White people, he accepts, and we all accept, that that is not a permanent situation, that it will change and the future Parliament will allow Black people to come into Parliament.” Just before I proceed I want to ask the hon. member for Yeoville in all fairness whether those words over television are correct.

I shall reply later.

I should also like to know what the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) has to say about that. Let us get this point quite clear now. The hon. member said over television what I have just read out. May I just say in passing that if we had had television in South Africa we would also have had more candour from the members of the Opposition. It is a pity that one has to seek so far in order to get clarity on these points. That might yet be one reason for the introduction of television! Now let us get it quite clearly. The hon. member did not say: “We all accept that the United Party will allow Black people into Parliament.” He says: “Parliament will allow Black people into Parliament,” but he said “on our election”. What does that mean? What is this Parliament today? It is a Parliament where this side of the House governs. Parliament decides, but we are in the majority. He says “on our election”. In other words, it is not a Parliament which before its election will allow Black people here. [Interjections.] Yes, those are all some of the ramifications referred to by the Sunday Times. The hon. member should tell us. Now we know that the referendum, to which there has also been reference to-day, is one of the steps to which they refer as a step by which these Black people can come into Parliament. Now I want to know this from those hon. members. A few years ago we had a referendum here and then we told the public: “We ask you to vote for the Republic.” We gave guidance and pleaded with the public. I now want to know from the hon. member whether a referendum will be held without giving any guidance? What will their attitude be? Are they going to tell the public that they are opposed to Black people coming in here? Because the Opposition will dominate in that Parliament. They say it will be “on our election”. It is not before their election. We want clear replies on these points.

Then just one more question, and it is perhaps an even more reasonable question than the one I have just asked, and I ask it specifically of the hon. member who used these words, because he should not say these things in England and in South Africa remain silent about them at his own congresses. He must not refuse to answer Mr. Odell in that regard, with the result that he leaves that party, and the hon. member for Natal South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) should not ignore Senator Groenewald either, so that they leave his party. We want to know whether their policy allows the Black man to come and sit in this Parliament “on our election”. [Interjections.] The question is put to us as to whether we admit that our policy of separate development can lead to a Bantu area like the Transkei becoming an independent state, and we say yes.

You denied it.

No, we have always admitted it. Now I ask that hon. member opposite whether he admits that their policy in regard to the Bantu, who will be represented here by Whites, opens the way thereafter for a successive Parliament to bring Black people in here? Because the voters understand things very clearly from that television talk. [Interjections.]

We have heard in this debate from the Leader of the Opposition that there has been inefficient handling of national problems, inter alia, these Bantu affairs. We have heard that apartheid has failed, according to them. I should like to develop that subject a little further in the very limited time I still have, and I want to make the statement that the policy of apartheid or separate development, in the years we have been in power, has gone from success to success in a very significant way, and that this is of course the only prospect for all of us in South Africa, for the Whites as well as the non-Whites.

Now, what is apartheid, or what is separate development? I am not going to try to define it broadly, but there are a few fundamental aims which we can summarize in a few words to include the whole scope of the policy of separate development. Firstly, the policy of separate development aims at the preservation of every one of the separate nations in South Africa and tries to recognize and to promote and to lead to fruition the self-realization and self-determination of each of the separate peoples in South Africa. Secondly, the policy of separate development is aimed at developing their own homelands in the Bantu areas for each of these Bantu peoples, and to develop these homelands in all spheres, socially, economically, educationally and industrially, etc., and that is what we continue to do. Another general object of our policy is, gradually, to bring about separation where intermingling has developed in the various spheres throughout the years, in the spheres of labour, of social intermingling, residential facilities, political rights, etc.; and the last category I wish to mention is the exercising of control over the presence of the Bantu in the homeland of the Whites. That is influx control, residential areas, the clearing up of black spots and everything else.

Now I again want to remind hon. members of what I said in the beginning. Our policy should be seen in terms of our conception, and not in terms of confused conceptions of apartheid and integration intermingled. Our policy should be viewed as a whole. There are quite a number of objectives, as I have already mentioned, and they are all concentrated on the one great objective which I regard as the most important one in terms of our policy, namely that the Bantu must find his fulfillment in his own homeland. Everything is aimed at that. That is why it is a contradiction in terms to say that apartheid has failed but that Bantustans have succeeded. It is foolish to say that, and that is particularly what the Sunday Times pointed out. If the “Bantustans” succeed, then the main objective of apartheid succeeds, and consequently apartheid succeeds. That should be clearly understood. I want to try to summarize the definite successes we have achieved in eight large categories. I just want to mention them because it seems to me that I shall not have time to discuss each one in detail.

The first phenomenal success we achieved was in making the Whites and the Bantu, and the Coloureds and the Indians, aware that all the people in South Africa are not and cannot be one potential nation. That is the greatest success we have achieved hitherto, that we even succeeded in making the hon. member for South Coast understand that the people in South Africa are divided up into various nations and that each has its own right to self-determination, which ought to be anchored to its own homeland. I shall return to that in detail later.

A second great success we achieved is that we were successful in bringing about geographic separation between the homelands of the Whites and those of the Bantu. A clear delineation has been made of where the heartlands lie, even though everything has not yet been finalized and that still has to be done. [Interjections.] If Rome could not be built in a day, then neither can a Bantu homeland be built in a day. Everybody knows what has to be done, and it is only the hon. members opposite, who want to play political football in regard to this matter, who think that they can frighten the people with it as the hon. member for Durban (Point) again tried to do to-day. The machinery has been put into motion to complete this geographic separation during the course of the years.

I want to mention a third facet where we have achieved brilliant success, namely that we have already brought about total political separation between the White man and the Bantu. We have been doubly successful because we removed the representatives of the Bantu from this House, however worthless that was, and created other machinery for them, and we have a system in operation to concentrate all their political aspirations on their own homeland. The political separation is complete. It is not yet perfect, because all the Bantu authorities have not been created yet, but the separation is complete and that is a great success that we have achieved in terms of our policy. [Interjections.]

I want to mention another success which has been achieved. It is the economic development and the creation of opportunities for employment in and near their homelands which has rapidly developed under this regime and is developing increasingly faster. There is the stimulation of trade by the Bantu under the guidance of the Bantu Investment Corporation, and tremendous expansion in regard to the establishment of towns for the Bantu. At the present moment there are in the more than 60 Bantu townships nearly 100,000 plots available where the Bantu may enjoy property rights. No Government of any party before our time has ever succeeded in such a short time in creating for the Bantu so many possibilities for them to enjoy property rights in the right area. This is a great success and it will assume even greater proportion in future. We have made tremendous progress in regard to the general human development of the Bantu in respect of education, to have their own professional people, etc. We have also achieved great success in regard to the provision of separate social facilities in the White areas. I am thinking of the residential facilities we have provided and hon. members will remember such names as Cato Manor. Windermere, Maroka, Sophiatown, Pave View and all those places. They sound like fairy tales from the distant past. The mess was cleared up and slums were removed. Those people have been settled not in shanty towns, to come and work for the industrialist, but in Bantu residential areas outside the White cities, and not within them. Proper residential facilities were provided for them. I want to remind hon. members that in respect of the regulation of labour and industrial measures we re-arranged matters under our regime and introduced new things as the result of our policy. I want to remind hon. members that certain measures were introduced in regard to separate trade unions. Separate trade unions were established for them, and a new system was established in terms of which they can settle their disputes in industry. I want to mention the separate education which was introduced, and the separate universities, and in the industrial sphere particularly I want to mention a new concept for which the Prime Minister was responsible, viz. a better rationalization in industry, so that industrialists and local authorities will have to ensure the employment of labour in our industries being on a properly rationalized basis, in order for there to be as few Bantu as possible in the White areas. That led to the further conception of border industries, where industries can be established which employ large numbers of Bantu labourers, but not in the White urban areas.

I have to devote attention to those things every day and I still encounter many difficulties on the part of employers on that point, but I must say, even in respect of employers who differ from us politically, that this idea is taking root in their minds and that there is an increasing understanding of it as well as on the part of local authorities. Then we took steps to ensure better control over and better regulation of the presence of Bantu and of their numbers in the White area. This includes such matters as influx control, the labour bureau system, and all those measures we introduced. I want to say that our policy here particularly opens new vistas, namely frankly to couple the presence of the Bantu here with the demand for his labour. Last year I repeatedly asked the Opposition: Why do you want the Bantu in the White residential areas? We clearly say that the Bantu is entitled to be in the White areas of South Africa if he works there. He is entitled to be here on the basis of his labour, but not on the basis of any political aspirations he has, nor on the basis of economic integration or residential privileges he may try to acquire. We tell them that those who are in the White areas in order to work are all the more welcome to work here if they, in regard to their political rights, accept that their aspirations in that sphere are not based here but in the Bantu homeland. [Time limit.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration has tried to tell us that the measures adopted by his Government will achieve the fundamental aims of the policy of a White South Africa. He said in effect that their policy was that they would be quite satisfied to have a smaller South Africa provided it was a White South Africa, and in order to ensure that, it was necessary to remove the Bantu; and while he admitted that Bantu would still be left in South Africa he said they would be here only for the purpose of working for the Whites. Now, he must be aware of the fact—and his Minister and his Prime Minister have admitted—that there will always be, even after this policy has succeeded, at least 5,000,000 Bantu in what is left of South Africa, whether it is White or any other colour you care to imagine it. So his simple proposition is that we will have a so-called White South Africa in which the majority of the inhabitants of the country will be foreigners, aliens—Blacks. If he can envisage a country existing, let alone flourishing, on that basis, then I must say he is a very optimistic man—because never and nowhere in the history of the world has it been demonstrated that a country can survive, let alone develop into something worthwhile, when there is the presence of a multitude of aliens with no political rights, and who exceed in number, and will always continue to exceed in number the national inhabitants of the country. However, I do not want to pursue this too far, because there are many of my colleagues who are more than anxious to deal with some of the statements made by the Minister in regard to the policy of the Government. I want to deal now with a matter which I think he and his Government would like to gloss over as far as possible, and that is the question of Parity.

Sir, you saw and heard the performance yesterday firstly of the Minister of Transport, and then of the Minister of Finance, who tried to explain away the involvement of the Government and its culpability and that of the two Ministers and their Departments in connection with what the Minister of Transport himself called the Parity debacle. Their performance was something of a sporting or athletic performance. The Minister of Transport tried to hurdle over Parity, but he came down with a crash as the result of certain statements he made—and he fell flat on his face! The Minister of Finance performed like a skater. He just skated very quickly over the gruesome details and said in effect that all was well and that, if anything, the Government had done more than it need have done in order to ensure that all was well in that financial institution. But right now these athletes have become runners; they have both run out of the debate, and since I cannot discuss this matter by running after them, I am obliged to do so in their absence.

I want to say, in the first place, that the Leader of the House, as he has been since the beginning of the Session—presumably appointed because he is a man of outstanding ability, strength and character—performed in such a way yesterday that I would say it was the most tasteless, witless and pointless performance as a speech that I have ever heard in my life; apart from the fact that he dragged in a statement which was made in regard to the ability of this party to form the Government of South Africa and which referred to the qualifications of certain individuals, and apart from the fact that he referred to the qualifications of one hon. member on this side as being better suited to the sardine industry than to the work of this House, and apart from his references to Rhodes scholarships and to doctors of philosophy, he also dragged me in, because remember, Sir … [Interjections.] I said nothing in the debate yesterday. The Minister of Transport was the second speaker, and he replied to my hon. Leader and I had done no more than to open my mouth to breathe occasionally—which I hope I will be permitted to do even by that Minister. Then, dealing with the statement which my Leader made last year in the no-confidence debate in regard to a crash programme for education to provide the skills we need so badly, the Minister of Transport said he would not even expect such a suggestion from the hon. member for Hospital—implying that it was a stupid suggestion. That is the inference.

Whatever he did or did not expect yesterday I want to tell him something now that he may not expect either. I want to tell him that the first thing that is required in a democratic country and in a democratic parliament of a cabinet minister—the first two essentials—are that he should be both truthful and courteous—and I say that the hon. the Minister of Transport was neither truthful nor courteous. He made this dogmatic statement here yesterday …

That is a serious charge.

Is it indeed? He said in regard to his responsibility over what was called the Parity debacle, the Parity disaster, “I have no powers under the Motor Vehicle Insurance Act.” This, Sir, is from the Minister of Transport, a very highly experienced individual, the Minister responsible for the administration of motor vehicle insurance, the Leader of the House, the leader of us all. Sir, I would never follow a man who makes a statement like that when he has an Act to administer which, inter alia, says this about his responsibilities, powers and duties—

The Minister may for the purpose of obtaining any information relating to statistics to be kept or made available by registered companies in terms of the regulations, assign to any such officer (of his Department) in such manner as may be prescribed by regulation such powers, duties and functions as may be so prescribed including …

I want you to mark this, Sir—

and with the prior approval of the Minister of Transport in each case, the Minister of Transport who says he has no powers—

Furthermore, what is the position under Section 4? This is a very lengthy Act containing many sections, everyone giving the Minister some power or other, and yet he comes here and says, “I have no powers under this Act.” Section 4 says—

Furthermore—

In terms of Section 4 the Minister may by notice in writing not later than one month require any registered company to comply with a string of requirements “including such regulations as the Minister may deem fit to impose in the case of a particular company in connection with the investment and application and administration generally of moneys and interest on moneys.” Under another clause he can impose “any such further conditions not prescribed by any regulation.” I ask you to note that, Sir. Apart from all the powers and apart from his right to formulate regulations for the control of a motor vehicle insurance company he can prescribe any other regulation or condition that he deems fit over any particular individual insurer. And then he stands up here, as he did yesterday, with all the aplomb of the Leader of the House—wearing his mantle without grace, if I may say so—and he says, “Leave me out of this: I have no powers whatsoever.” What has he done since the Parity debacle except to issue frantic warnings and threats—warnings to the public to become insured very quickly, threats to the insurance industry to make sure that they will comply with the requirement that he has placed upon them, and to which they have agreed, to carry these 450,000 people who were left high and dry by the Parity disaster. What has he done beyond that? Nothing at all; so I must say with great respect to his position and rank as a cabinet minister, that what I said last year about the Government is even truer this year now that he is Leader of the House. This, Sir, is a “kakistocracy”, and, Sir, in case that puzzles you, “kakistocracy” means the Government of the State by its worst citizens.

Now, Sir, I want to deal with the Minister of Finance. Again, to my regret, he is no there. He said that it was not the duty of the Registrar of Insurance to place any insurer or insurance company in liquidation. In fact, he told the House this afternoon that it was the duty of the Registrar to nurse financial institutions. He used the word “verpleeg”; in other words, to act as wet-nurse to the financial institutions—not to protect the public in the first place, but to act as wet-nurse to the financial institutions. I am obliged therefore to point out that although it may be the Minister’s opinion, the law says differently; the law places an obligation on the Registrar to protect the public in the first instance, and in order to do so it gives him and the Minister tremendous powers over insurance companies or financial institutions. This is the truth of the matter. Although the Minister may now wish to gloss over this by telling the House that the Registrar of Financial Institutions is no more than a wet-nurse, and although apparently all that gentleman has to do is to change the nappy every time an insurance company like Parity gets into trouble, I must tell him that a learned judge recently took a very different view of the obligations and duties of the Registrar of Financial Institutions. Mr. Justice Hiemstra in the Amca Services case said on December 14, 1964—

“If he will but use them”—what a terrible indictment of the Minister himself. If the Court says “If the Registrar would but use the powers which the Act gives him these things cannot and will not happen,” then surely the Minister cannot stand up here and, by trying to deal only with some of the facts disclosed in the course of the proceedings against Parity, deny the case which my hon. Leader made against the administration of this Department by the hon. the Minister. I want to point out Sir, that whereas the impression has been created—and to-day again the Minister tried to renew that impression—that this is a matter which suddenly came upon South Africa, upon the 450,000 insured, that this was something that nobody could have done anything about until November of 1964, the facts give the lie to that statement completely. It was common knowledge in the insurance industry, and beyond, that certain people had by way of investment in certain companies got their claws into Parity insurance. For example, in the Financial Mail of December, in the course of an open letter, addressed to the Minister of Finance under the heading “Dear Dr. Dönges” this statement appears—

The letter goes on to ask what has happened since there has appeared incontrovertible evidence that the right course for Mr. De Villiers “would have been to tighten, not relax, his restraints.” They say—

Remember, Sir, when the Minister talks about the affairs of Trans-Africa and the loan which Parity endeavoured to make to that company, Trans-Africa and Savings and Credit Bank Limited here in Cape Town, upon which the Registrar then placed the prohibition to which the Minister referred, that all this was known well before 1961, because the Minister himself says it was known that Trans-Africa, which was controlled by Mr. Heller, was in a precarious position; so there is no doubt whatsoever that these facts disclosed to the Court towards the end of last year were common cause in those circles where there was reason to know what the position was in any particular company, and were in fact known in the Minister’s Department. Dealing with the letter written by the Registrar on 12 December 1962 in which he places the prohibition on Parity “to dispose of or pledge or encumber any assets of Parity without the consent in writing of the Registrar’s office,” and goes on to say that “this prohibition shall remain in force until further notice and will be given further consideration when I have had the opportunity to study the report of the inspector appointed to investigate the affairs of Parity,” the hon. the Minister, after my Leader pointed to the lack of a report by that inspector, and therefore assumed, as everybody did assume at the time and still does, that there was no such report, said that a report was made by the inspector appointed and referred to in this letter—but he does not tell us what is in that report. He does not tell us, for example, any of the details of the situation which was found by the inspector who were appointed last year, and did investigate Parity. He does not tell us anything about it at all, and so I want to ask him this question: If there was such a report, as he says there was, arising out of the letter which was written by the Registrar to Parity on 12 November, 1962, why was that report not included in the mass of documents—of which I have photostat copies—which were placed before the court when the liquidation of Parity was asked for? Where is that 1962 report? I am sorry the Minister is not here. I want to ask him here and now—if he wants to make sure that we accept that what he says is in the report, is in fact there, to produce that report. I leave it at that, Sir.

Then we come to the position that arose after the prohibition had been lifted—according to the Minister, for the reason that there port of the first inspector, about which the House knows exactly nothing, had indicated a satisfactory position, the prohibition was lifted. The auditors of the company, who surely were not prejudiced against their board of directors, who were not throwing their bread and butter away, put in a report which disclosed a very parlous, a very serious position indeed; they disclosed the matters contained in their report to the Registrar of Financial Institutions, and he then wrote on 12 December 1963, to the public officer of the Parity Insurance Company saying—

In his final paragraph he says—

Sir, he was merely giving this company more rope, not rope with which to hang themselves, but rope with which to hang 450,000 innocent citizens of South Africa, all because of their belief that the Government was serious in its legislation, that Ministers were efficient in controlling their Departments and that they meant to implement the laws which they had placed on the Statute Book, that they had ensured the protection of these 450,000 people who came along with their R16 in order to get insurance which they were compelled to obtain by the Minister of Transport. But again, Sir, the wet-nurse stepped in on 12 December 1963, to change the nappy once again for Parity and to say, “we will give you a little more time; the Minister is in Cape Town; can you explain this, that and the other thing”? Of course, if that inspection to which the Minister referred in regard to the letter written in November 1962 to Parity, in which it was said that an inspector had been appointed—and he has told the House this afternoon that he received such a report, which I maintain is not available amongst all the documents placed before the Court—if an inspection of that nature had taken place in 1962, it would have disclosed examples of maladministration of Parity’s affairs in 1962 such as were disclosed by the two inspectors whom he finally did appoint, and who worked on a very complex and very complicated set of books, no doubt—but who, within eight days, came back with a report which, as my hon. Leader has put it, disclosed a mass of irregularities. I will give you some examples of what had been going on in that company at all material times. There are obviously several million transactions involved over a period of five years, in the case of an insurance company that trades with 500,000 people. But these are the examples which were found by the two inspectors who were appointed and who did their job in eight days; firstly, that the company had vested in a firm of attorneys the full control of its Motor Vehicle Act claims settlements; that there was no shred of a record in the offices of Parity of their claims position or claims obligations—nothing whatsoever—although both of the Statutes laid down very clearly that the company must maintain these records—in its own premises, obviously—and that these shall be available to the Registrar or to the Minister of Transport or an officer of the Department at all reasonable times; secondly, that the company having no record of claims against it under motor vehicle insurance policies, it had to rely on the records kept by this same firm of attorneys. In fact, it appears from the inspectors’ report that the attorneys have been paid over R200,000 in a period of five months, for which no details whatsoever could be furnished by Parity. Can you believe that, Sir?—you, with some personal experience of banking procedure, of handling public funds; can you believe that there was no record to support payment to an outside firm, regardless of whom the persons involved were, of R200,000 over five months? There was not a piece of paper in the Parity office to show why that sum had been paid. I repeat that if the inspection which resulted in this type of disclosure, in taking the cover off this sorry mess, had been made in 1962, it would have been stopped in 1962 and not in 1965.

Further, it was reported that the chairman of the board of the company was also a partner in this firm of attorneys which had carte blanche in handling claims and which was getting as much money as it wanted, without any rhyme or reason as far as the settlement of claims was concerned.

Sir, there are so many instances here that I could quote—here are others—

This company, Parity, was not even getting the premium moneys collected by the agents. The agents were getting the commission, and one of this pyramid of companies was getting the balance of the money. All this information could have been available in 1962—

Here is another one—

And the Minister was satisfied that all was well.

And the Minister, as my hon. friend says, was satisfied that all was well merely because the Registrar had written a polite letter in November 1962 saying that an inspector had been appointed. We do not know what the inspector reported; we do not know what he did. We know what the two inspectors appointed in 1963 did because it is on record. The Minister was quite happy that the Registrar was doing his job.

No cause for alarm.

No cause for alarm whatsoever. He says in effect that we have tried to make a political issue out of this because we have our eye on the Provincial elections.

I want to tell you something, Sir. In a country where politics consisted of the day to day issues confronting the citizens, where the citizenry have not been blinded with ideologies such as Bantustans, separate development, autonomous development and parallelism, a government like this would have crashed overnight. People would have been barricading the streets outside Parliament to prevent us from getting out of this building. This is what happens in democratic countries.

Sir, let me give you a few more quotations from the same documents—

It divested itself completely of control. Sir, I want to tell you that if this is a situation which is allowed to arise in the business of an insurer who has an obligation under an Act of Parliament, an act administered by a Minister who sits in this House, and when the kind of thing happens that has happened in the case of Parity, the Minister concerned, far from making slighting references to those hon. members on this side of the House who have raised the matter, should apologize to this House and to the country for his ineptitude, his inefficiency and his lack of control of his Department. Here is a company which is supposed to be under the control of two Departments of this Government—Transport and Finance—and yet a person named in this report, Mr. W. Heller, although ostensibly not employed by the insurers, is actively involved in the administration of the affairs of the insurer. Sir, there is a minute of a meeting at which a resolution was passed in terms of which that gentleman was going to be paid, retrospectively to the previous year, a salary of R30,000 out of the pockets of the people who provided him with their premiums. Sir, this is the sort of thing that went on in Parity, as a result of which a large number of innocent people are suffering to this day, and will suffer for years. It is no use whatsoever for the Minister of Transport to make an appeal now to the insurance companies concerned to extend the date by which this new insurance must be effected, to 3 February, because all that happens is that after people have earned their month’s or their week’s salary sometime next week they have to take some R16 out of their living expenses, as it were, in order to go and buy insurance for which they had paid a year before and which, but for the lack of control by the Ministers concerned, would not have been wasted and squandered because they were fleeced, as has been the case in the case of Parity. Sir, there are glaring examples which could have been found if the records had been probed in1962 …

And the Minister did nothing.

The Minister did exactly nothing. Sir, here is a page from the cash book; there was a cheque issued for R2,560. The auditors asked questions about this cheque. The documents disclose that this was going to embarrass somebody not only high up in this company, but somebody outside of the company in an official position, and what do you think happened, Sir? The counter foil disappeared, the cheque itself disappeared. Over the entry in this cash book there is this large blot which I say is also a blot on the hon. Minister of Finance, so the auditors were unable to say what the entry was. All they know is that the amount was R2,560.

Sir, I am not at all satisfied that either the hon. the Minister of Transport or the hon. the Minister of Finance has given this House a satisfactory explanation of their dereliction of duty in administering the Acts placed under their care and in the care of their Departments. All they have done is to walk out of this Chamber, very conveniently, so that they need not hear what I or anybody else may have to say on this subject, because the facts, in terms of the documents placed before the Court in the liquidation proceedings, are so incontrovertible that even if you were to give those hon. Ministers an opportunity of coming back into this debate to argue the case all over again, they could not deny the ipsissima verba of the petition of the Registrar of Financial Institutions himself. They cannot deny, so they have conveniently disappeared.

And this information was given on oath.

Yes, it was verified on oath. Sir, when the hon. the Minister of Finance says, “I have appointed a commission of inquiry, why do you raise this matter now”? I would like to remind him, personally if it were possible, that when this House in April of last year discussed a similar situation in connection with another company, Auto Protection Insurance, and demanded, as I myself did, that the Minister should appoint a commission of inquiry into the affairs of this company and into other matters relating to the administration of the Motor Vehicle Insurance Act, he shrugged the whole thing off and said that it was not necessary. To this day he has not even answered my question on this subject. Sir, this is incompetence indeed. [Time limit.]

I am not in the habit of making unfavourable comments about hon. members of this House, nor do I like doing so, but I can unfortunately not congratulate the hon. member who has just sat down on the speech which he has just made or on the allegations which he made during the course of his speech.

First apologize for the absence of the Ministers.

The hon. member started by attacking the hon. the Minister of Transport. Among other things he alleged that the hon. the Minister of Transport was dishonest in what he said here yesterday. Sir, if I have to decide in regard to who is honest, I cannot but say that the hon. member who has just sat down was dishonest in his remarks and in his interpretation of the speech of the hon. the Minister of Transport.

Order! The hon. member may not say that the hon. member was dishonest. He must withdraw that remark.

I withdraw the word “dishonest”. I think that it is the same word which the hon. member used against the hon. the Minister. The hon. member said: “The Minister was untruthful.” I shall find the Afrikaans translation of that remark which is closest to it and I shall then apply it to the hon. member if it is permissible for me to do so in this House. If I remember correctly the hon. the Minister said yesterday that it was not up to him to decide whether a company should undertake third-party insurance or not; he said that he had no control in this regard. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) has just told us that the hon. the Minister said that he had no powers. Sir, that is absolute nonsense. The hon. the Minister did not say that. We do not need the hon. member for Hospital to quote to us the legislation of last year; we know about that legislation. But the hon. member is unfortunately so ignorant that he does not realize that that legislation cannot be used by the hon. the Minister in the present circumstances. That legislation which the hon. member quoted to us only came into operation on 25 September last year.

Whose fault is that?

We are dealing with facts here; I am dealing now with factual statements made here by the hon. member for Hospital and I say that those factual statements of his were based on ignorance or stupidity or whatever one may wish to call it. In any event, it did not be hove the hon. member to make those allegations against the hon. the Minister of Transport. We know that the hon. the Minister of Transport has the power to order an investigation. We know that the hon. the Minister has the power to ask for deposits or guarantee from companies under taking third-party insurance. But that legislation was passed last year and the hon. the Minister did not have those powers available to him until that Act came into operation. The hon. the Minister did not say that he does not have those powers.

He did say that.

The Act came into operation on 25 September last year. I am not going to discuss the question of whether he said it or not. I contend that he did not say it and the hon. member can look up the Hansard and correct me later if I am wrong. As I said, that legislation only came into operation on 25 September. It was after this that letters were sent to Parity and other companies telling them to send in their statements and so forth so that the Minister could take action in terms of the powers which were given to him in terms of that Act. These things happened before the statements were returned. These are the circumstances and this is a brief reply to the unfair and unreasonable attack which was made on the hon. the Minister of Transport.

The hon. member for Hospital told us here, to the great amusement of hon. members about him, about this report of the inspectors. Among other things, he held up a document on which there was a large blot—this was apparently such a terrible thing—and he quoted to us everything that happened there. If one had to judge from the way in which he put his case and coloured it one would say that these things were done by the Government. The hon. member gave the impression that it was the Government which had done this terrible thing. It is not the Government that had done it; this was done in the offices of Parity. It was as a result of this that the hon. the Minister took action through his Department. No matter how wrong what took place there, the hon. the Minister and his Department had nothing whatever to do with it. The question which you must put yourself, in all honesty and fairness. Mr. Speaker, is whether the hon. the Minister did do something which was necessary by taking action through his Department. If hon. members opposite want to be fair they must admit that, having regard to all the circumstances, in regard to which I shall have more to say a little later on, the hon. the Minister and his Department did everything that it was possible for them to do. The hon. member spoke contemptuously about the Registrar of Financial Institutions as though he were a “wet nurse”.

That was what the Minister said.

No, Sir. The hon. member has the ability of being able to play with words and to give a completely different and wrong impression of the true facts. The hon. the Minister said that it was not only the function of the Registrar to liquidate companies but that it was also the function of the Registrar to see to the other side of the picture. The hon. the Minister went on to point out how many complaints and objections there would be if the Registrar acted too precipitately. One must not only watch the interests of the policy holders; one has to watch the interests of the shareholders in that company carefully. One also has to consider their interests.

While I am on this point, Sir, what would hon. members opposite have said if the Registrar had taken action against a company and it had appeared later that the company was not insolvent at all and that, as a result of the fact that the Registrar had taken action, the company had collapsed? Surely it is obvious that a company will collapse if the Registrar takes action against it. As soon as the Registrar takes action, that company can no longer do any more business. As a result of this fact the company suffers a great deal of harm and so does its shareholders. What would hon. members opposite say in such a case?

Mr. Speaker, you must remember that Parity is not the only insurance company in South Africa. There are many other insurance companies. What we are saying here to-day in respect of Parity and the consideration which we have in their regard, we must also say and have in respect of other companies having thousands of shareholders who also have an interest in the welfare of those companies. That was the theme of the speech of the hon. the Minister of Finance when he said it was not the function of the Registrar simply to liquidate a company. He said that it was also the function of the Registrar to consider the other aspects of the matter.

I think it is a good thing that we should discuss this matter in rather more detail because, as we have just seen, in pursuance of the remarks which have just been made in this House, there is a great deal of ignorance regarding the true facts of this matter. I think that there is a great deal of ignorance in this connection outside this House. That is why it is a good thing for us to discuss this matter in somewhat greater detail in this House. This third-party of motor vehicle insurance was instituted by the United Party in 1942. I have no fault to find with that. I think it is common cause to-day that third-party insurance must continue. It is a good thing that it should continue. I ask myself now to what extent the Government can be held responsible for what happened. The Opposition is to-day making capital out of the fact that more than 400,000 policy holders were affected by the actions of Parity last year. More than 400,000 policy holders were detrimentally affected. The Opposition know that those people feel aggrieved and that is why they think that this is a wonderful opportunity to make capital out of the matter. But I think we must ask ourselves to what extent the Government is the guardian of the public.

To a very large extent.

Yes, it can be said this case is different because the payment that is made is a compulsory one. To what extent should the Government be responsible for where I take out my insurance, where I invest my money or where I obtain cover of some kind or other? If I wish to take out an ordinary life insurance policy, I am free to approach any company. It is not compulsory and I am completely responsible for it. I think that everyone will agree with me in this regard. Hon. members opposite may perhaps tell me that the position in this case is different because we are talking about compulsory insurance and that, as a result of this fact, the Government bears the responsibility. I am not prepared to go so far. I feel that even though it may be compulsory, just as it is compulsory to comply with certain other requirements, for which the services of a garage are required, the Government must not be seen out and out as the guardian of the public as far as the choice of an insurance company or a garage is concerned. I mention this because over the past years—only last year—questions were asked about Parity in this House. Articles were written in the newspapers and questions were asked about Parity in this House. In the previous year Parity sold third-party insurances to about 450,000 people. Notwithstanding the indirect warning that was issued, more than 400,000—not 450,000 but more than 400,000 motorists in the Republic of South Africa again took out their third-party insurance with Parity. They did this notwithstanding the fact that the hon. the Minister of Transport issued personal warnings to the public to be careful in regard to their selection of insurance companies. There are numbers of insurance companies. That is why I feel that we must be fair and that the public must also bear some measure of responsibility in this matter.

Two important problems are created by what happened last year in the case of Parity. Firstly, all those policyholders have to take out new insurance because they do not have cover for the rest of the year. The second problem is that it may be that the company which is liquidated is not able to meet in full the claims that are made against it. I want the hon. member for Hospital and other hon. members opposite who are so eager to express criticism of the hon. the Minister and the Government, to ask themselves what can possibly be done to eliminate the first problem completely? What on earth can be done? It does not matter when that company is placed in liquidation. It is of absolutely no consequence what time of the year it is. A number of the policy holders will always be faced with the fact that a certain part of their insurance year has not yet elapsed and as a result of that fact they will, of necessity, be detrimentally affected. With this in mind, what can be done by the Department or by the hon. the Minister to make it unnecessary for policy holders to take out further third-party insurance when a company undertaking third-party insurance is liquidated? What can the hon. the Minister and his Department do to prevent this? The question of when action is taken is of no consequence; the fact of the matter is that the public will always suffer. This is the position because they have to take out their insurance in the case of heavy vehicles at a certain time and in the case of light vehicles at another time of the year. This is of no consequence, except if one can work things out so well that the company is only placed in liquidation at the end of the year, at the end of the period when the insurance expires so that the policy holder can reinsure with another company. But you know, Mr. Speaker, that this is impossible in practice. It is not even theoretically possible.

The second problem which arises is that a company, in the case of liquidation, may not be able to meet all its claims. There may be claims against the company which exceed the assets of the company. It may as a result happen that those people having claims against the company will not be paid out in full. That is the second problem. But even in this regard the time factor is not an important one. The fact of the matter is that apart from when the company is placed in liquidation, that risk is always there. I want to tell hon. members opposite that if the liquidation had taken place in 1963 the public would in fact have been worse off.

No.

The hon. member for Hospital says no, but the public would have been worse off because in 1963 Parity had more policy holders than it had in 1964. More people would have suffered as a result of liquidation in 1963 than was the case in 1964.

But the company’s assets were higher in 1963.

No. Sir. The hon. member is again speaking from ignorance. How can he tell me what their assets were then and what their assets would have been to-day?

There is another important factor which hon. members opposite must not lose sight of and that is the fact that the Registrar does not always have the authority to decide when a company should be placed in liquidation. The Registrar has to go to court. He has to convince the court that the company which he wants to place in liquidation has fewer assets than liabilities—that its liabilities exceed its assets. The hon. member for Hospital and other hon. members opposite would be the first to complain against and criticize the Registrar or the department if they were to apply to court for the liquidation of a company and the court refused to liquidate the company. They would be the first to accuse the department of maladministration. They would have far more right to do so in such a case than they have now. It does not rest with the Registrar; it is the court which decides whether the company should be placed in liquidation or not. That is why I say that even if the strongest demands were to be made, the crux of the matter is that when a company goes into liquidation, except if we perhaps ask for guarantees and deposits which may cover any shortages, and except where the company makes other arrangements to ensure that its policy holders receive new policies free of charge in respect of their unexpired periods, it is simply impossible to prevent harm being done to the public and we will just have to make the best of this fact in cases where companies who undertake third-party insurance go into liquidation.

There is another problem which one has to deal with in connection with companies of this nature and that is when an estimate has to be made of whether a company is insolvent or rather, of whether its liabilities exceeds its assets. When this takes place, irrespective of the time of the year, an estimate has to be made of the risk borne by that company. In other words, an estimate has to be made of the claims made against such a company; and not only of the claims made against such company but also of the claims which may be instituted for the unexpired period of the policies which it holds.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also referred to the report of those three auditors, a report in which the one auditor said that notwithstanding the fact that his finding was the same as that of the other two, he still had his original doubts. When they made their estimates, they mentioned, among other things, this fact. I want to quote a portion of their report to the House in order to show the House how difficult it is to determine in such a case whether a company’s assets exceed its liabilities or whether it is in a position to make out a case for itself in court. They write as follows on the last page of their report to the Registrar—

That is the problem with which we are faced.

Let us deal now with what actually happened in the case of Parity. I have sketched the problems because the impression is generally created by hon. members opposite that everything is very easy; that all the Registrar has to do is take timeous action and that if he does so the public will not be affected. I challenge any hon. member opposite to tell me that even if the Registrar had taken timeous action, determined by them, the public would not have been detrimentally affected. The public would still have suffered a loss. All the circumstances must be considered in this case.

They would not have insured with Parity.

Of course not. Once the Registrar takes action, it is the end of that company. That is something one cannot prevent. That is the reason why I said just now that the Registrar must be careful not to take action too soon, just as he has to be careful not to take action too late. If he acts too soon he will be detrimentally affecting people who have an interest in the company. As the hon. the Minister stated, in this case the company was a problem in 1963. As a result of this auditors’ report to which I have just referred, the Department was informed that the company had a credit balance of more than R302,000. Notwithstanding the fact that the assets exceeded the liabilities by more than R302,000, the Registrar insisted that they increase their capital. The capital was increased. I want now to put this question to any of those hon. members: How could the Registrar have approached the court and asked the court for an order of liquidation in 1963 while there was a certificate from three firms of auditors to the effect that the assets exceeded the liabilities by more than R302,000? How could the Registrar have gone to court under those circumstances? And if the Registrar could not go to court, why all these attacks? Why all this fuss? Mr. Speaker, this fuss is not based on sound logic. This fuss is simply intended to find its echo outside; it is an attempt to make people dissatisfied in regard to third-party insurance. If hon. members opposite really had the welfare of South Africa and her interests in other spheres at heart this would be one of the things they would not do, Third-party insurance is not a popular thing. It is a measure which this House instituted in its wisdom, not because the public outside wanted it. By far the largest percentage of motor vehicle owners do not pay third-party insurance because they like it; they do not pay it because they are mindful of the protection which is offered them. They pay it because it is compulsory. They do not like it; it is unpopular. Now hon. members opposite are seeking to exploit a measure for political purposes although they agree with us that that measure is a necessary one. That is what they want to do. If hon. members opposite stand up and say that the hon. the Minister of Finance and his Department have not done their duty, I expect them to be able to quote chapter and verse to me of what the hon. the Minister should have done in order to lighten the losses which the public have suffered. Let one of them stand up and tell us this. What should the hon. the Minister have done through his Department to lighten the losses suffered by the public because of the collapse of Parity?

May I ask the hon. member a question? Why did the hon. the Minister of Transport not accept the report of the Select Committee on third-party insurance in June 1963 when it was submitted to this House?

Order! The hon. member cannot make a speech now.

The hon. member was himself a member of the Select Committee; he knows the circumstances. In fact, that has nothing to do with the attacks which have been made here against the hon. the Minister of Finance. The only thing that an amendment to the third-party insurance Act would have effected was to have put the amending legislation into operation earlier than 25 September. That is all. What has that to do with this whole matter? I want to ask hon. members on that side, if they want to make political capital out of the unfortunate position of Parity, to tell us when they make their speeches, that if the hon. the Minister had done this or that, the public would not have suffered in regard to third-party insurance. If they do so, we shall be able to listen to them. We have a case here in fact where everything possible was done to protect the interests of the public; unfortunately, however, there were circumstances prevailing over which we had no control. This will happen again, Mr. Speaker; I cannot see how we can avoid it. If a company does not manage its own affairs properly, as the hon. member for Hospital tried to prove to us, then it must go under. The Government cannot keep it going. It must go under, and if it undertakes third-party insurance, then somebody is going to suffer. We are once again giving more protection to the public. I hope it will help; I am not convinced in this regard. All of us in general are concerned about this motor vehicle insurance. I personally am worried and I think that hon. members opposite are as worried as I am because we do not know the bona fides of the other insurance companies in motor insurance. Every now and then we hear that third-party insurance does not pay. When Parity came into being and took over about 50 per cent of third-party insurance everyone was annoyed with them. All the other companies were annoyed with Parity. In this morning’s newspaper there is again a report to the effect that third-party insurance does not pay. What is the result of all this? All that can result from it is that tariffs will continue to increase. That is why this matter is a source of concern to us. We should be able to expect the co-operation of the Opposition rather than the unreasonable attitude which they have adopted and the criticism which they have expressed.

Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to follow the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. S. L. Muller). I do not think, however, that I can ignore one observation the hon. member had to make during the course of his remarks, an observation to the effect that after all the public which had insured with Parity must accept their measure of responsibility in the Parity debacle, because of the simple fact that they had insured with Parity. The point the hon. member misses is that they insured with Parity in the belief that the Government was doing its duty in exercising proper control and conducting proper inspections of those companies which were doing third-party insurance. To judge from this debate and from the little I have read in the Press it would appear to me that the Minister has failed in his duty of seeing that proper control was exercised over the affairs of the Parity Insurance Company. Let me say to the hon. gentleman that in attempting to white-wash his Ministers in this regard it will help his party’s political ends very little indeed to say to the public: “You must accept a measure of the blame because you insured with Parity.”

I should like to refer for a moment to the speech made by the hon. the Minister of Transport in the debate yesterday. We have all got to know the Minister of Transport through the years. We know that whenever the Minister of Transport is faced with any difficulty in a debate he resorts to one of two tactics. He may resort to abuse and thereby build up a case. If he finds, in the light of the circumstances of the debate, that that has very little political profit, the Minister inevitably resorts to casting challenges across the floor of the House. Well, Sir, he had a challenge thrown at us yesterday and it was this. When he was accused by my Leader that the transportation system of this country, for which the Minister is responsible, was on the verge of a serious crisis, that it was faced with a possible breakdown and considerable discontent on the part of those employed on the transportation services, the Minister said: “Give me just one instance of inadequate planning and lack of vision on the part of the Minister and the Government.” Sir, why that challenge? The hon. the Minister well knows that the planning and the vision, if it exists at all in the Railway Administration, are not available either to this House, or to the public or to industry, or to commerce or to any other part of the economic life of our country. Only the Minister knows what planning and vision there is. If we have to judge it by ministerial standards we can only say that there is in fact no planning at all in regard to the country’s transportation needs in these so-called boom conditions we are experiencing. May I remind the Minister that there have been requests after requests from this side of the House to make available to this House and to the country the reports of his Planning Council, but for years he has refused to do so. May I also remind the hon. the Minister, in answering his challenge, that after five or six years of requesting the hon. the Minister to take some steps adequately to co-ordinate rail and road transportation in this country, that it was only last year, again at the request of his side of the House, that he took the belated step to appoint a commission of inquiry to see how far road transportation could assist in meeting the transportation needs of South Africa.

That is one point, I want to come back to another point the Minister made in the course of his remarks. The accusation is that the Government has failed because of its incompetence to fulfill its obligations to the country and thereby has forfeited the confidence of this House. That is by its very nature a cumulative indictment. The Government must be judged not only in one respect but in all respects during its period of office and by the success or failure of its policy, not only to-day but during the entire period it has been in office. I want to say frankly, Sir, that one examining the portfolios of the various Ministers, I fail to find any example of any new thinking or any bold ideas to meet the future needs of South Africa. I say in all fairness that there is very little that one can give on the credit side for the actions of hon. Ministers in formulating policies for the future of this country. I admit, as we on these benches have in the past admitted, that there are signs of prosperity, that there is a so-called boom condition. But I ask hon. members opposite whether those boom conditions are being enjoyed by all sections of the community? Does the farming community which is caught in the squeeze between increasing costs of production and low prices for its products, enjoy boom conditions? The Minister’s own departmental report says “no”. Are the civil servants enjoying boom conditions? Or are there deputations to the Minister of the Interior for increased salaries and better working conditions? Are Railway servants enjoying the boom conditions? We know the record under this Minister of Transport and this Government that the Railway servants of South Africa have received absolutely nothing unless they have come to the stage of a threatened strike, or halt, or breakdown in our transportation system. But never once in the whole history of this Government or of this Minister—and I challenge the hon. Minister to say otherwise—has there been any one single example of pay increases, better working conditions granted to railway men on the Minister’s own action and without the necessary agitation. In all instances where there have been improvements as far as the salaried man or the ordinary working man in South Africa are concerned, so far as this Government is concerned, improvements have only come about when there has been a threatened breakdown in the services to the public of South Africa.

Sir, we will admit also that law and order prevails in South Africa in spite of the attempts of certain elements to create conditions of unrest and by means of underground methods to overthrow constitutional government. But, Mr. Speaker, I will not admit that the stable conditions prevailing in South Africa to-day, with a flourishing economy at present, are entirely and only due to the Government. The Opposition, this side of the House, had also its responsibilities in regard to these matters. Let it be clearly understood that we on these benches, that the United Party has helped to create those stable conditions by our sense of responsibility to South Africa’s interests and our condemnation of saboteurs and other undesirable elements who by communist means have tried to overthrow ordered society in our country. I do not think any member on the Government side will deny that.

Mr. Speaker, I will also not admit that the prosperous conditions prevailing are entirely due to Government policies. Largely they have been brought about by the initiative and the enterprise shown by South Africa’s entrepreneurs and their vision in exploiting our natural resources. Our whole economy now, as a result of lack of vision and short-sightedness and ideological outlook of the Government, faces a possible slowing-down, if not decline in our rate of economic expansion. And let me say that this has been admitted by the hon. Minister of Economic Affairs who, when addressing industrialists in December last, issued a warning to them that unless new markets are created abroad, South Africa’s industry must face restricted economic expansion. He also took the line—let me say to the sorrow of industrialists and commercial men—that the manpower shortage in South Africa is largely exaggerated. Mr. Speaker, what the Minister did not say and what he could not say to industrialists was, wherein the world they should seek those markets about which he spoke, where in a world of hostility to South Africa, a world of hostility to the Government’s race policy, our entrepreneurs and industrialists can seek those new markets. Let me add also: Neither has his colleague, the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs, been able to offer any words of encouragement, to offer any solution, because his only concern at the present time is to fight a defensive action for South Africa. What the hon. Minister, at that meeting of industrialists in December last, did not tell them was how to meet the crisis of the present manpower shortage in South Africa, which, if a solution is not found, will have the inevitable result of bringing our economy and our rate of expansion to a halt. Nearly a year ago to the day in this House the hon. the Prime Minister stated that, “according to data at his disposal, this manpower shortage is merely a bogy”. And obviously the Minister of Economic Affairs has no alternative but to pursue that line 12 months later. But throughout the country every leader in industry, in every sphere of our country’s activities, has drawn attention to the acute shortage. One has only to look at the advertisements columns of any newspaper in South Africa to find to what extent that shortage exists. But when the hon. Prime Minister said that it was but a bogy, he also added that he was having certain investigations carried out, investigations as to how to meet this present demand, investigations (the Prime Minister said) by his scientific advisory committee, by his scientific advisers, by the Minister of Planning, by the Department of Education, by the Economic Advisory Board. But that was 12 months ago, and from that date to this, with one exception which I shall indicate in a minute, neither this House nor the country have had any indication whatsoever of what steps the hon. the Prime Minister intends to take to be able to meet the shortage that exists at the present time. But there has been one ray of light, Sir, and that was a statement that appeared in the newspapers on 6 January 1965, by Professor Monnig, the Prime Minister’s Scientific Adviser, a reported statement in which he said that he had suggested to the Cabinet a crash programme to meet the growing shortage of technical personnel in South Africa. But what is interesting is that the crash programme suggested by the hon. Prime Minister’s scientific adviser is almost a replica of the crash programme suggested by my leader at the Central Congress of this party in 1963.

The Minister of Transport is not listening.

I hope the hon. Minister will listen carefully. I am trying to indicate to him that this crash programme which he tried to decry as being a farcical, ludicrous and ridiculous proposition was almost a replica of the crash programme suggested by my hon. leader at his party congress in 1963.

In other words, it was not even original.

May I point out that the advice of the Government’s adviser has come two years after this was suggested as a solution at our party congress. The fact of the matter is that, with all this Government short-sightedness, we are facing to-day declining standards amongst the White population group of our country. I ask any Government member here to-day to give me one example, one positive instance, where the Minister of Education or any other Minister has taken steps to ensure that the youth of our nation, irrespective of the income group to which they may belong, are educated to the highest educational standard according to their ability in order to equip them for the role of White leadership in South Africa, for the responsibilities of White leadership in our multi-racial society. I challenge any Government member to give one single solitary example. You see, Sir, the position under this Government today is that in a world of challenge, in our technological age, in a continent where the White man’s position is threatened, that the bulk of our youth are being educated only to the standards befitting high-class labourers. And let me say that that is the position cherished by the hon. Minister of Transport because the gravamen of his argument yesterday, when it was pointed out that he had no alternative but to use non-White labour, was that after all in all these jobs they only needed Std. VI men. Is it the Government’s intention to maintain that as a standard in South Africa? If that is the intention, then it is clear that it is no good the hon. Minister making the statement when he took these 40 non-White men in the Railway service that “it was a temporary emergency measure”, because he won’t find the men in South Africa of such low educational standard to replace these.

Mr. Speaker, we are in the situation of these low standards amongst the youth of South Africa for one reason only, namely, that by the myth of racial prejudice propagated by this Government, large numbers and sections of our younger generation in South Africa are becoming to believe that because they have a white skin they need never fear for the future… simply on the basis that they can live behind legislative barriers created by this Government. Now hon. members may say: On what grounds can you make such a statement? Let me give the House the facts. What are the facts? That the amount spent on education in South Africa is only 4 per cent of our national income—and I include the figure spent on Bantu education—the lowest in the Western world. Let me take fact No. 2: That the university expenditure in South Africa per student per annum is one of the lowest in the Western world. It bears no comparison to countries like Australia, Canada and New Zealand or any other country similar to ourselves, or any country in Europe. Fact No. 3: That our students’ staff ratio, as well as in schools as in institutions of higher learning, is the lowest in the Western world. E. g. in South Africa at the universities: 24 students to one teacher; in Australia it is 14 students to one teacher; in the United Kingdom eight to one teacher. So one can go on. In our scientific departments of our institutions of higher learning the ratio of teachers to students is 100 students to one teacher. And then the fourth fact: A recent survey of the National Bureau of Educational and Social Research indicates that our output of scientists and engineers is quite inadequate to staff the existing positions in South Africa to-day. Fact No. 5: According to the survey of the National Institute for Personnel Research (a section of the C. S. I. R.), who conducted research in regard to our White manpower reserve in South Africa, students who passed Std. X represented less than 22 per cent of the age groups between the ages of 17 and 19; that less than half of our students in these groups obtained the matriculation certificate. In other words, 10 per cent of the youth of South Africa in the age group between 17 and 19 years obtain sufficient education to make them eligible for a university course or an institution of higher learning. And 58 per cent of those—and remember it is less than half the youth—who obtained matriculation standard entitling them to go to a university, did not go to a university. And then this most important fact that 34 per cent of the youth of South Africa who obtained first-class passes in the matriculation did not go to a university. The fact of the matter is that the attendance of the youth of South Africa at places of higher learning has become reserved for those few who are the sons and daughters of parents who fall into the economic group which can afford to pay for the education and to send their children to these higher places of learning. There is little opportunity for the talented youth out of an ordinary worker’s home in South Africa to attend a place of higher learning. State assistance, assistance by the Government in respect of places of higher learning represents less than 5 per cent of the total expenditure on university education in South Africa. I think that these facts blatantly reveal the Government’s lack of responsibility in meeting the demands of South Africa’s manpower needs of to-day and tomorrow.

The Minister of Transport had a great deal to say about the crash programme suggested by my Leader in 1963. But this is the point: To suit his own political ends he quotes what he wants to quote out of that programme. The hon. the Minister cannot even take the statements made by my hon. Leader and quote them in this House factually. What did he say? I ask the hon. the Minister how many of the talented youth in his own constituency can ever reach a place of higher learning? But this is what the Minister said, quoting my Leader: “Assistance should be given in respect of every child who shows ability to be educated to his maximum ability, regardless of the parents’ capacity to pay for such education.” That is how the hon. Minister in his speech yesterday quoted the Leader of the Opposition. What in fact did my Leader say? He said—

Now I ask the hon. the Minister why at least he cannot come and politically honestly quote exactly what my Leader said when the hon. Minister attacked the crash programme suggested by my Leader and endorsed by the Prime Minister’s Scientific Adviser, instead of attempting to give the impression here that our programme was only related to those people who can afford to send their children to a university? I ask the Minister again: How many children or youths in his own constituency who have the ability ever get into a university or place of higher learning?

All of them.

What proposal has the hon. Minister ever made to the Prime Minister to raise the educational standard in South Africa where we as White people live in a multiracial society?

Will the hon. member allow me to quote what I said? On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member accused me of misquoting the Leader of the Opposition. I think I have the right to repeat what I said. I have Hansard in front of me.

I have quoted here precisely what the hon. Minister said. He referred to a statement of policy made by my Leader at a congress of our party.

No, I did not.

Well, I am quoting exactly what my Leader did say at that congress, and I say again that the interpretation given by the hon. Minister was not a correct interpretation.

Sir, this negative attitude adopted by the hon. Minister and other hon. members in the course of this debate is common to all of them. We do not get constructive ideas. What did the hon. Prime Minister say some ten years ago in a speech made at Evaton in the Transvaal as reported in the Vaderland of 12 March 1953? He stated that the United Party policy of bringing 50,000 immigrants per year to South Africa would mean that these immigrants “would eat up our food, live in our houses and get our jobs”. That is what he said at Evaton ten years ago. The immigrants we intended to bring to South Africa in order to strengthen and bolster White South Africa would, according to the hon. the Prime Minister, eat up our food, live in our houses and get our jobs. Now I want to say in all fairness to the hon. the Prime Minister: What would his remarks be to-day if we on this side of the House were to say that because of the policy of the Minister of Immigration who wants to bring 40,000 immigrants to South Africa, these immigrants will eat up the food and live in the houses and get the jobs of our settled population? I tell you what the reaction of the Prime Minister would be. We would be told that we are politically immoral. Now I throw the same accusation at the hon. Minister and the Government benches.

Mr. Speaker, one can ask what is the future of White leadership in all spheres of our national life, Bantustans or no Bantustans, if we as Whites in South Africa are losing the educational race against a Black Africa? Apart from immigration and the necessity of a progressive immigration policy, we have got to solve our problem of manpower resources from our own strength and in our own country. Sir, the race of the future in this regard needs new thinking, new ideas and a new approach, and above all a full awareness of the part that all races can play in the future of our country. If there is any endorsement needed of this, then I refer the hon. Prime Minister to the words of Professor S. Pauw, Principal of the University of South Africa, who in a recent address drew attention to the necessity of more academic training at universities and who concluded his speech as follows—

Mr. Speaker, you do not see any enthusiasm, you do not see any action, you do not see any of these steps suggested by Professor Pauw as part of the policy of the Government benches. Contrast the Government’s negative policy to that of the United Party. We believe that it is fundamental for the preservation of White leadership in South Africa and on the African Continent that higher education should be freely available to all our talented youth, and that in general the minimum standards of education for all should be raised to higher levels in South Africa, plus, let me add, giving a higher status and income and a proper place in society to the teachers and lecturers and professors in our society which is at present denied to them.

As South Africans we live in a dangerous time and an adventurous time. Yet we continue to tolerate a Government which make sits evaluations, bases its policies, on outdated ideas and past prejudices. This Government with no political scruples whatsoever, for party political gain, has exploited race fear and created legislative monstrosities which in the harsh light of economic realities can never be fully implemented, as hon. members themselves know. They have been able to do so successfully in past years against the back drop of events in Africa and the horror stories that have appeared over the past few years. [Time limit.]

I do not want to follow the previous speaker except to react briefly to three remarks of his. Firstly, he referred to the transportation problem and complained about the lack of planning, or, had there been planning, the fact that nobody know about it. I can only tell him that it is not our fault if he does not read the newspapers and periodicals. He is the only person who does not know about it, because had he, for example, read in a periodical like Volkshandel what the General Manager recently wrote, he would have been fully informed in regard to all these matters. I would recommend to him to subscribe to Volkshandel. It gets sent to him. All he need do is to go to the trouble of reading it.

He also complained about the number of students who matriculated but did not go to university. It is unfortunately the position that the serious manpower shortage which exists at the moment as a result of our tremendous economic development puts serious temptation in the way of the youth of South Africa and even attracts them away from school at Std. VIII and Std. IX and Std. X to relieve that manpower shortage. There is a very big labour market which offers very attractive conditions of service to the youth to go and work instead of going to university. The third remark I wish to make is that the Minister was begrudged the opportunity of just reading what he really said and what he really quoted as having been said by the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. member accused the Minister of having misquoted and he levelled certain accusations of which he should be ashamed. All the Minister quoted as having been said by the Leader of the Opposition were the following words—

The Minister based his submission solely on that quotation. These words speak for themselves.

Mr. Speaker, I make no apology for again bringing the debate back to the colour question. At the outset I wish to say that a motion of no confidence is not only a means of putting the policy of the Government to the test, but it is also a means of testing whether the Opposition has anything to put before the people of South Africa. It concerns not only the question whether the Government has been found wanting in its administration, but on the other hand the Opposition must also be prepared to show what they hold out in prospect to the country and the people so that the nation can consider them as an alternative government. As far as the colour question is concerned, it is not only a matter of criticizing the Government; the Opposition must also advance a positive policy in regard to this tremendous problem. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition devoted half an hour of his speech to the colour question, but what he said only amounted to criticism of the Government’s policy. He did not advance any positive suggestions. More than 18 months ago, as well as last year, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had a great deal to say about his federation plan. When the federation plan was announced the Sunday Times, inter alia, wrote the following about that federation plan of the Opposition—

It then went on—

So here we have his positive policy, but so far during this debate we have not heard one word from the United Party about race federation. They are even afraid of the word. So far in this debate they have not even uttered the words “race federation”. Why are they so scared of those words that they are even afraid to talk about race federation, and why do they no longer want to advance that so-called positive policy of theirs? Because the race federation plan was mentioned at such high level I think we are entitled to ask why they are now evading the first opportunity they have this year of giving a complete answer to the people of South Africa and refusing to give that reply? What is the reason why they no longer wish to talk about it? Why can one not talk about it? In April 1963, for the first time, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition announced his federation plan in the Sunday Times under big headlines and to-day the opportunity of an election arises for the first time, an election in which the electorate can voice its opinion of this positive policy of the United Party. Why do they remain silent today? Is the reason because the very Sunday Times which lauded it sky high in April 1963 made the following allegation a year and ten months later—

Is that the reason why the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not even want to mention his race federation plan? He does not even refer to it. It is very important that the people of South Africa know what has happened to-day. Is it a fact that the United Party is now afraid to tell the people that it again has to announce a new colour policy? Is the Sunday Times paving the way so that they can come forward with a new colour policy? [Interjections.] I wish to emphasize that there is no political “deadlock” in South Africa whatsoever. The only policy is that of continuing to build on separate development. There is no “deadlock” but only a “dead party”. I think I have now disposed of that point because I think it is very clear to-day that the United Party intends abandoning this policy of theirs. They are going to bury it finally and they will not have to sacrifice anything in order to accept the so-called plan of the Sunday Times. However, the plan of the Sunday Times calls for another so-called concession on the part of the Opposition in order to break this so-called “deadlock” and it is that they must accept the Bantustans. The Leader of the Opposition has indicated that he is tempted to take the bait because he said in his speech that his party had always agreed with the idea that the Bantu reserves should be developed and that that was common cause amongst all parties in South Africa. These were the words he used. I want to say immediately, however, that there is a very big difference between what they hope to achieve with the development of the Bantu areas and what the Nationalist Party hopes to achieve. The policy of the United Party is solely a policy of regional development. It is solely a geographical concept. It is only a region they wish to develop but it is not the policy of the Government to develop a region only, but a homeland for a nation. And there is a big difference between the two. We do not only regard the Transkei as a geographical region of South Africa but we regard it as the homeland of the Xhosa people, a national unit. To develop it will not mean the development of a region but the development of a home land for a nation. The development of that homeland will not only mean that it develops geographically but that the people of that homeland will develop. That means that the people will develop in every sphere, in the sphere of politics, industry, in the social sphere, the economic sphere, in every possible sphere of national life. We have in mind the national development of the homelands and not only the development of that region.

May I ask a question?

That hon. member is so naive, Sir. Yesterday he asked a question to which I replied and that completely bewildered him. Sir, you will recall that he came to the conclusion from a reply of mine that the Transkei would become independent in 13 years’ time. He is so naive that I really cannot reply to his questions.

This development of the homelands means that every Xhosa in the Transkei, which I only give as an example, must undergo his entire development in his own homeland. Every phase of national life must be developed there. That is the homeland of every Xhosa in South Africa no matter where he is, whether he is in Johannesburg or in the Transkei. In the Transkei he will be given all the privileges which he can enjoy as a citizen of the Transkei. He will not be given any other rights anywhere else. Let me emphasize that the urban Bantu in South Africa is an integral part of the development of the homelands. He cannot be regarded as being separate. That brings me to the third point in the article which appeared in the Sunday Times, their allegation that the urban Bantu creates a separate problem in South Africa. He is not a separate problem. In the implementation of our policy of developing the homelands we have not lost sight of the fact that it will at the same time solve the entire problem of the urban Bantu. [Interjections.] We discussed that question very thoroughly in this House last year. Let me emphasise that our legislation concerning the Transkei Constitution forms an integral part of our policy of separate development but the legislation we passed last year concerning the Bantu in the White areas forms an equally integral part of that policy of separate development because it regulates the presence of the Bantu in the White area which is not his homeland but the homeland of the Whites. The fact that the Bantu are present in the homeland of the White people does not constitute a separate problem because he is here to render a service and as long as he is here to render a service he remains a foreigner in the homeland of the White man but he is a citizen of the homeland of the Bantu. If you accept this principle, numbers make no difference whatsoever. Whether there are 50 or 5,000 or 5 million in the White area makes no difference whatsoever to the principle because the Bantu remains a citizen of his own homeland, a citizen who makes his living in the homeland of the White man.

Let me deal with this other question of discrimination against the Bantu in the White area. I admit frankly that there is discrimination, but why? Because his homeland is somewhere else. If a British subject or a German subject or a French subject comes within the borders of the Republic he is treated like an immigrant; he enjoys no citizenship rights; he has those somewhere else. Why then should there not be any discrimination against the Bantu who moves beyond the borders of his homeland?

I want to deal with another submission of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, namely, that the Government’s idea of homelands introduces all the dangers of the Central Africa Black states into the heart of South Africa. The Minister of Bantu Education has already to some extent dealt with this point but I merely wish to add this: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that if you promise independence to a nation you have no control over the time table. In this connection I just want to read a few quotations because the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said the same thing in Durban. On the 3rd of December he held a meeting there and he said practically word for word what he said here yesterday—

On that occasion too he came with the story about the Voortrekkers which we had from him yesterday and he said this—

Sir, how can the hon. the Leader of the Opposition be so naive? Was he not present during the no confidence debate in 1963? In 1963 he made the identical accusation in this House and the hon. the Prime Minister then replied fully to it. Did he not listen on that occasion; did he not realize that the cases were not analogous? The policy which is being carried out in the Central Africa states is the very policy of the United Party. It is not the policy of the National Party which is being carried out there and that is why the two cases are not analogous at all. The policy we want to carry out differs fundamentally from the policy which is being carried out there. It is the very opposite. Here the development is based on that which is traditional to the Bantu, but there the Black States were given independence on a foreign basis before any training of any kind had been given to the Bantu there, before the way had been paved in anyway. That is exactly what the United Party wants to do; they want to do away with that which is traditional to the Bantu and they want to give them independence and some say in the government on a Western basis. That is precisely where communism finds fertile ground. The two cases are not analogous at all therefore.

I want to deal with another point made by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell). The hon. member said the Bantu of the Bantustans would be hostile towards us. I should like to know why the United Party and the hon. member for South Coast always think that the Bantu in our Bantu homelands are going to be hostile to the Whites in South Africa. On what do they base that submission of theirs? I simply cannot understand why they say that. Only today the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) again said that not a single Bantu had expressed himself in favour of this policy of separate development. We have already read many quotations to him in this House but I just want to read to him what was said by Jeremiah Moshesh, one of the ministers of the Transkeian Government. He was not referring to the Transkei. He was addressing a Bantu audience at Mafeking. I just want to read to the hon. member what Jeremiah Moshesh said on that occasion. I asked the official who was present to take it down and to have it typed out for me. This is what Jeremiah Moshesh said to a Bantu audience. No Whites were present who could give him a lead and this was what he said …

Surely you were there.

Yes, I was there; I listened. I was one of few Whites present; three officials were present.

You said no White people were present.

Jeremiah Moshesh said—

Surely that refutes the allegation that we are making the same mistake which was made in Central Africa. The Bantu themselves area ware of the mistakes that have been made in the North. I want to quote another extract. It deals with something else but I want to quote it seeing that I am dealing with the hon. member’s speech. He went further—

I do not want to suggest that he was referring to the United Party—

What did the hon. member for Transkeian Territories do only this afternoon in this House? He complained about the granting of trading and liquor licences in the Transkei, something which has been entrusted to the Bantu, something which they have to decide upon.

Must they decide as far as the Whites are concerned?

It concerns liquor and trading licences in the Bantu homeland.

Also as far as the Whites are concerned?

Yes. If there are White people they must subject themselves because they are in a Bantu homeland just as the Bantu has to subject himself to the so-called discriminatory legislation in the area of the White man.

That is very clear and that hon. member should not complain to-day because that government has acted the way it has because it is entitled to act like that.

May I ask a question. I would like to ask the hon. member whether he carries this question of the autonomy of the Reserves in matters of authority as far as the Bantu Education Act which the Bantu Parliament recently changed.

The hon. member will remember that they recently passed an Act which was completely different, an Act in which Bantu Education became responsible for the education of the Bantu. And that Act was approved by the State President and is being implemented as they want to implement it. We did not interfere. Does the hon. member not know that? The hon. member can look up the Transkeian Hansard. She can also have insight into that legislation if she wants to.

Did you change the language medium?

That was what they decided. We do not “change” anything.

We are so often asked the question: When will they be given independence? In that connection the naive member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) came to many conclusions yesterday. On that occasion the hon. member asked me this question: If they have to establish their own government on their own basis would they not revert to barbarism? I said “no” because there had been development, and where there has been development they will not revert to barbarism. We know the Bantu have developed. He then asked when they would get independence? I told him I could not say. If they are ready for it, it may be within five years; it may happen within ten years; it can possibly be 20 or 30 years. Let me say this Mr. Speaker: It is not for us to determine. No, it is for them to determine. By looking at a fruit on a tree you cannot tell that fruit that it must now be ripe. You cannot say to the apple: Tomorrow you will be ripe. You cannot say to the apple: Tomorrow you will be rotten. The apple itself will show when it is ripe and it itself shows when it is rotten. Unfortunately the United Party cannot say when it is rotten but it shows that it is. That is why I say that when the Bantu is ready for it, when they have reached the stage where they can accept the responsibility of properly exercising independence, they will get it.

Who will decide that?

That was not what you said.

I have just given you the example of the apple. You do not say to the apple: I have now decided that you are ripe. The apple itself will show when it is ripe.

The hon. member for Pinelands said I had fixed the time factor at 13 years because I had spoken of 15 years two years ago. He then worked out a little sum: He deducted two from 15 and arrived at 13 years. He is the hon. member who is always asking questions and then comes to the stupid conclusions he reacted yesterday. Let me tell him in unequivocal terms that no time limit has been laid down. It is a question of the development of a nation. It was impossible for us in 1910 to have said we would become a republic in 1961 or 1960. We simply could not determine that at that stage but we developed to that stage and we achieved it. The same applies to the Bantu. We are not going to say when Tswanaland will be given self-government.

They will indicate when they are ready for self-government. They will indicate whether they are ready to be given independence. That is the position as far as every Bantu nation in South Africa is concerned. By means of the level of development they themselves will indicate when they are ready for that development. Sir, we must stop doing little sums because they have no meaning or value in the politics of South Africa.

It is a pity that the accuracy of the hon. member who has just sat down does not match the vehemence with which he speaks. He said during the course of his address that the hon. Leader of the Opposition had avoided any reference to race federation in his address. Well, Sir, that is quite untrue and quite wrong. What the Leader of the Opposition did towards the end of his speech was to set out the fundamentals of his policy of race federation and to name it and to suggest that when the hon. the Prime Minister and his party approached those fundamentals then he would be glad to welcome them on this side of the House. If the hon. member who has just sat down doubts my words, then I have the Hansard report here to prove it. But the most interesting portion of the address of the hon. member who has just sat down was his reference to the apple. It was unusually put, but in a picturesque way. He said to us quite clearly: You don’t tell an apple when it is ripe—it tells you when it is ripe. Sir, the analogy goes even further because when an apple is ripe and as it gets riper, it becomes redder and redder. Which fits in entirely with the speech of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition when he was pointing out the dangers which are inherent in this Bantustan policy, namely, the communistic, or let us say red infiltration.