Mr. Chairman, in opening the discussion on this Vote yesterday I raised what I regarded as probably the most important subject in South Africa at the present time, namely, the drought and its effect on agriculture. To-day I want to raise what is perhaps the second most important subject. But before doing so I want to express my disappointment with the fact that the wrong impression created by the hon. the Prime Minister—I take it in error—that this was the first time that agriculture as such had been discussed under the Prime Minister’s Vote, was perpetuated over Radio South Africa.

I believe the second most important matter at the moment is an aspect of race relations in South Africa as a result of which it is becoming increasingly clear to me that the public is not being placed in a position of making an informed judgment in respect of the policies which should be followed and the situation which is developing before our eyes. I believe the public is not in the position to make that informed judgment for two reasons. The first is that the thinking and the policies of the hon. the Prime Minister and his party have vacillated so much in connection with important aspects of this matter that numbers of the public have been left behind, are becoming confused and do not really understand what the Government is standing for or trying to do.

The second reason is that it is quite clear that Government policy has failed in certain very important respects. But those failures are being concealed to all but the most politically-conscious members of the community by stratagems, by adaptations and sometimes by revolutionary changes which are going so far as to undermine the original fundamentals of Government policy but are also resulting in the public being misled as to what the true state of affairs is. I think at no time has this situation been more clear than it was during the last election. At no time was the public more greatly misled than it was as a result of these tactics and these stratagems during the election campaign.

I want to give examples which I think will make this matter very clear indeed. In dealing with vacillations of policy I think the most obvious one which has come to our notice is the change in attitude on the part of the Government and its supporters in respect of the question of the actual physical separation of the Bantu from the European population. We know what the policy of the party was in the past. The hon. the Prime Minister himself stated it on several occasions both in the Other Place and here when he became Minister of Native Affairs. I have an extract here from a speech he made in February 1951 when he said—

In the same year he said—

In 1960 he said—

It is quite clear therefore what the objective was; they were going to stop the flow into the cities; they were going to develop the Bantu areas in such a way that they would provide a living to both the natural increases in the homelands and the returning flow from the cities. By June 1960 the hon. the Prime Minister, when speaking in Düsseldorf, said the following—

Then came the final point, in this change-about-face which we have had on the other side, in the no-confidence debate this year when the hon. the Prime Minister said—

He went on to make it clear that it did not matter if the number of Bantu increased provided only there was separation in the political sphere. What are the people voting for? Are they voting for the Bantu to be sent back to the reserves or are they voting for a policy under which the number of Bantu in the cities has already increased by over 1,000,000 under this Government and is going to increase by at least 600,000 over the next five years according to the Economic Development Programme? Or are they voting for as many Bantu as are necessary here subject just to political separation?

Let us take another example, namely, the position with regard to the Cape Coloured people. We have always had difficulty in getting clarity as to just what the attitude of this Government was towards the Cape Coloured and the Indian people. Here I have extracts from statements made by the hon. the Prime Minister. On 5 May 1959 the Prime Minister is reported to have said—

I have no argument with that; that is quite clear—

He is reported to have said the following in August 1961—

This is a most remarkable statement. Since then we have had talk about states within states.

Where was that speech of mine reported?

In the Cape Argus of 24 August 1961. Now we hear from the hon. the Prime Minister that as far as he is concerned he personally felt that South Africa should rather be poor but White than rich but mixed. Where is this poor but White South Africa going to be? I accept that it is no longer the policy of the Prime Minister that the Coloureds and the Indians are going to have separate homelands but where is this White South Africa when there are more Coloureds and Indians in many areas than Europeans? Coupled with the Bantu permanently settled in the White areas there are going to be more non-Europeans than Europeans in virtually every part of South Africa.

Then we had this election cry during the last election “‘Hou blank Suid-Afrika blank”! Where is this “blank Suid-Afrika” the hon. gentleman talks about? In every big town in South Africa there are more non-Europeans than Europeans. In every province of South Africa, cut out the reserves, and you will find more non-Europeans than Europeans. Where is this “blank Suid-Afrika” that the hon. gentleman is talking about? What is the position? Are the Coloureds and the Indians always going to be part of “blank Suid-Afrika”? What is the policy in regard to them? Is it going to be “ewigdurende baasskap”? What is going to happen about the removal of discrimination that we hear about? You see, Sir, when you face up to questions of this kind you begin to see the vacillations in Government policy. Then you are not surprised that the voter does not know what he is voting for in respect of this Government. Every Government speaker emphasizes something else. “Hou blank Suid-Afrika blank”! Where is this “blank Suid-Afrika”? I have stressed that difficulty.

There is another difficulty with which the ordinary voter is faced and that is that certain aspects of Government policy have already failed or are failing. Those failures have been concealed from the public by various strategems. Let us take one example, namely, the abandonment of any real attempt to develop the reserves industrially internally. We know what the Tomlinson Commission recommended. We know that the kernel of the recommendations of the Tomlinson Commission was the development internally of industries in the reserves. What has happened? There is virtually no industrial development inside the reserves. The hon. the Prime Minister and his party will not allow White capital in the reserves to develop industries privately, so what is happening? There are attempts to conceal this position by emphasizing the Bantu Development Corporation and the loans it has made. What do those loans amount to in terms of industry? There is the policy of depriving the Whites in the Transkei of certain of their rights and privileges. We see the establishment of certain primitive industries like broom and pottery making and a little bit of furniture making which cannot even absorb the growing Bantu population in one district in the reserves, let alone the whole of the reserves. Where is this internal development? What has happened to this grand design to develop the reserves and to rehabilitate this backward and poverty-stricken area? What has happened to the grand design to attract the Bantu back to the reserves? Does the hon. the Prime Minister still want to tell the public that he is developing these reserves to carry not only the natural increases in the reserves but also the expected flowback from the White areas?

It seems to me that one of the fundamentals of the policy of separate development is being shipwrecked. Nothing is happening to justify the whole grand design of the plan. Why does the hon. the Prime Minister now avoid the question of the swamping of the White areas which he spoke about and as set out by Scholtz in “Swart Suid-Afrika” on page 2? The hon. the Prime Minister speaks about 12,000,000 Bantu—

What is the position to-day? The number “woonagtig by en rondom ons blanke stede” has increased by over 1,000,000 under this Government. And under the economic development programme of this Government they are going to increase by 600,000 in the next five years. What is the public to believe is the policy of apartheid? They talk about developing the reserves. Is that really their policy?

Have you read the Tomlinson report?

Yes, I have read it right through. I shall deal with the Tomlinson Report very soon. That is an example of failure of Government policy being concealed by means of these strategies. Let me give another example. There is tremendous emphasis on border industries and their importance, not supported by facts, and certainly not in accordance with the time-table of Tomlinson’s recommendations. The Tomlinson Commission recommended that, if anything like their proposed time-table were to be achieved, there should be border industries to absorb 30,000 Bantu in new jobs annually. What is happening to-day? We have seen the tiny development that is taking place. I believe this emphasis is really designed to disguise two facts, firstly, the failure to develop the reserves boldly and imaginatively so that they can carry this increased population, even the failure to accept the offers of co-operation from this side of the House for the development of the reserves, and, secondly, to disguise the fact that essentially, under this Government’s policy, we will continue to establish White industries, industries managed and owned by Whites, but employing Blacks and transferring the problems concerning those industries from places like Johannesburg and Port Elizabeth to Durban and East London which are now regarded as border areas. The hon. the Prime Minister argues that if you establish a factory with White capital inside the reserves then that is something akin to neo-colonialism but that if you establish a factory within 30 miles of reserves that is developing the reserves. Where does this sort of thing get us, Sir? This policy of border industries itself is failing. What was the reply to the question of the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) to the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development only the other day as to what new industries had been established in the Transkei and the Ciskei over the last five years? The reply seemed to indicate that increased employment in existing industries plus new industries over the last five years had only offered employment to about 4,800 Bantu. In fact, Sir, I do not believe, if the programme is gone into, that in the ten years since 1955 this Government has achieved what Mr. Tomlinson expected them to achieve every four months.

Have you read the Tomlinson Commission’s report? [Laughter.]

What is happening? You have the fiction being adopted by the Government that certain little Black spots, Black spots not originally intended to be part of the so-called Bantu homelands, are converted into homelands for the purpose of industries established near them. All that is happening is that they are merely being transformed into locations for newly established industries in White areas. You have it outside Pretoria. It was discovered only the other day that one of the Black areas in Durban was officially designated as a reserve but for the purposes of certain figures given to the House we were told that the industries in Durban were border industries. This sort of thing is not going to put a stop to the 12,000,000 in and around our White industrial areas inside 50 years which the hon. the Prime Minister talked about.

One gets the impression that this whole policy is so much eye-wash. It is an attempt to bluff the public. In fact, all that is happening is that, subject to the age-old rules of residential separation, social separation, educational separation and now, of course, amusement separation, we are getting economic integration taking place faster than ever before in our history. The only real difference seems to be this: In the past political segregation or separation was regarded as being achieved if you had people in separate rolls—it suited them in those days; that was political segregation, but to-day, in order to have political separation, you are giving political rights in a foreign country, or a country that is going to be foreign, and giving no political rights in the place most important of all, namely, the Parliament that controls your own destiny. The result is that there is still an attempt by members on that side of the House to bluff the public that the Bantu are only here temporarily. It is suggested that the basis on which they are here in their locations is now something new. What has the Government got for it? It has got a rootless proletariat that can easily become the prey of any agitator, any communist or any seditious operation which is based inside or outside South Africa. That is what we are getting.

There is a third example I would like to give to give you an idea of what is happening. The whole basis of the original Tomlinson Report, the whole underlying idea, was that there would have to be consolidation of the Bantu homelands. I think they realized that without substantial consolidation of some sort the whole idea of creating Bantu states was futile. The Prime Minister talked about the possibility of not having complete consolidation. He gave us the example of Pakistan where there are several millions in one area and several millions in another area separated by a few miles. But do we have? The hon. the Minister of Bantu Education tells the people in Natal that there is no question of the consolidation of Zululand; that it will always be four or five areas.

That is not true; I said we were working towards consolidation as fast as possible.

I accept it at once if the hon. gentleman says it is not true. But the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development himself said the consolidation in respect of Zululand would leave them with four or five areas.

Or seven.

Or seven areas. Take the position of Tswanaland. There are separate areas as well. What has happened to the policy of consolidation which was one of the fundamentals of this idea of establishing homelands? The Tomlinson Report made it quite clear what the difficulties would be if you did not have consolidation. Of course. Sir, if you do not have consolidation you will have the eternal difficulty of moving out of one small section of a foreign state into a piece of your own state and into another piece of a foreign state. You will land yourself in the most impossible difficulty. It makes the whole thing absolutely ridiculous. It would offer no difficulties had it not been a sovereign state; had it not been intended to be sovereign. It would offer no difficulties had it been administered under the United Party race federation policy. It would not have offered any difficulty at all as I have said so often in this House. But it presents unsurmountable difficulties if it is to be part of a sovereign independent state. You see, Sir, this is a new concept, a concept of dispersed and fragmentary areas, forming, in the end, a sovereign but dispersed state. It is as unrealistic as it is impossible of fulfillment. It is quite impossible to disguise the fact that this aspect of Government policy has failed, is continuing to fail and has no hope of ever succeeding. The whole foundation of separate development has been destroyed under this policy. When is the Government going to admit that to the public? They have no right to continue on the basis …

The same speech as your election speech.

My election speech was better; much better. I have to assume that the Prime Minister has some knowledge.

I read about your election speeches in the papers.

I have to admit I study those of the Prime Minister very carefully, too, with most profitable results, I may say. It is because I read the Prime Minister’s election speeches that I know he has not admitted to the public that his policy has failed.

I know he is still trying to conceal it. I know he is still trying to lead the electorate to believe that there are ultimately going to be consolidated homelands. I do not believe the hon. gentleman is being as frank with the public as he should be. Take another example, namely, the removal of the Bantu from the Western Cape. The Burger, the Nationalist Party newspaper in the Cape described this as the ultimate test of apartheid; here was the one area where apartheid could be applied, and the theory proved to be correct; here you had an alternative source of labour, Coloured labour, who would do the work that had been done by the Bantu. Of course, the areas varied when we first heard about it from the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. Then the boundary was on the Fish River. It has moved considerably westwards since then. I believe it is somewhere between Port Elizabeth and Humansdorp to-day and it goes up towards Upington. In the few years this policy has been in operation it is quite clear that it is failing. The number of Bantu in the Western Cape is increasing. All that is happening is that the Bantu are being endorsed out from time to time with the result that you have an ever-changing Bantu population, a population which is unable to acquire any sort of skill in the industries in which they work; a population which is putting up cost of production, putting up expenses, not only in the building industry but in many others because they only stay for short periods. There is a tremendous waste of time in travelling to and from the reserves which are between 600 and 700 miles away. That is all that is happening. The population is rotating; it is not getting any fewer. The answers to question as to the number of Bantu in Cape Town itself show what is happening. But the Government is still trying to tell the public that that is its policy.

Then we have the most pathetic of all attempts on the part of the Government to cover up its failures by fixing on this date of 1978 as the magical moment when the flow of Black workers out of the reserves will be reversed and when there will be an exodus from the Republic to the pipe-dream Bantustans. I have always been interested in this day; very interested indeed. I go back to the references in the White Paper which was issued at the time the Tomlinson Commission’s Report was discussed in this House because it seems to me that that is portion of the basis for this claim. That White Paper said—

That was the sort of forecast we had in the Tomlinson Commission’s Report. But that was based on a development that would ensure the finding of 50,000 new jobs a year for Bantu in the reserves. That was the condition precedent to this forecast. What has this Government done towards finding new jobs in the reserves during the period it has been in power? When one looks at what has happened then any reference to this date is entirely illusory. Year after year they tell us that in 1976 or in 1978 there will be a reversal of the flow. What are the prerequisites set out in the Tomlinson Report? Has the Government kept up with that timetable in any way at all? I think I must accept that that forecast, means nothing to-day. It has become ridiculous in the light of the development which has taken place. Is it not time that the Government took the public into its confidence and told them that the number of Bantu in the White areas is increasing; that it has never increased as fast as it has done under this Government; that it is even going to increase faster if the economic development programme is put into operation and that there is no question of their ever going back to the reserves; that they are going to stay here in increasing numbers during the next 25 or 30 years and thereafter as well? But the Government tells the public; “We warned you the numbers would increase till 1976 or 1978 and after that they would start decreasing.” Mr. Chairman, I challenge the hon. the Prime Minister to prove to this House that there is ever any likelihood of the number of Bantu in the White areas becoming less as a result of what has happened.

What is worst of all is that, having failed with this policy, we find the Government trying to conceal from the White electorate the presence of the non-Europeans in its areas by the application of these petty apartheid restrictions, many of them vicious restrictions, restrictions which hurt. [Time limit.]

I merely rise in order to give the hon. the Leader of the Opposition an opportunity of carrying on.

May I express my gratitude to the Prime Minister. I appreciate it very much indeed. We have had this petty apartheid to try to do what apartheid was not doing, what the main policy should have done, and that is to lessen the points of contact. We find it applied even to amusements in South Africa in a way that is hurtful, in a way in which it does untold damage to race relations and causing untold harm which many years will not put right, no matter what the Government does about it. I think the whole attitude of the Government exhibits to the world the essential ingredient of “baasskap” in the apartheid policy.

It is no good their talking about getting rid of discrimination and things of that kind, Sir, the essential ingredient remains “baasskap” and that is exhibited by this action of petty apartheid. I think it is in shrill contrast to the United Party idea of leadership in respect of race relations. If you try to describe the two then I would say “baasskap” was arrogant, that it humiliated, that it hurt the people to whom it was applied. In contrast I would say that leadership was wise and human; that it could not exist except when there was a forward movement; that it brought those on whom it was exercised forward and upwards; that it developed them; that it sought to maintain the standards of civilization and values; that it was willing and eager to share those fruits with those who were ready to share them; but that it was adamant and fearless in its determination not to cast the precious pearls of our civilization before those who were not fit either to accept them, to benefit from them or not prepared to uphold them.

What is the result of this contrast? If you look at the urban Native the result of this contrast means certain differences in policies. When you look at the urban Native under Government policy he becomes a rootless, rightless, proletariat. We want him as a property-owning middle class, a responsible citizen, on our side in maintaining law and order. The Government regards them as interchangeable labour units. We regard them as individuals, as human beings, entitled to dignity and respect and home-ownership in their own locations. The Government treats them all as migrant labourers. We accept that some of them have become permanently detribalized and permanently settled outside the Bantu areas and the reserves. The Government seems to be chary of developing those Native homelands because it wants certain advantages for the Whites from the border development. It is interesting that the development is always on the White side of the border. We never hear of it on the other side of the border. The United Party wants to develop those reserves both from inside and from outside as part of the economy of South Africa but at the same time to relieve the pressure of the Bantu on the White areas.

If I were to ask what was the fundamental sin of this Government I would say the sin of this Government was that they pretended that South Africa was not a multi-racial state. That is also where we differ so fundamentally from them. They pretend that we are different nations within one state, in the political sense. I believe their error is just as fallacious as that of the liberalists who want to pretend that South Africa is a non-racial state. But both can have disastrous results for South Africa. I think the results most noteworthy at the moment are that we stand for a greater South Africa whereas the Government stands for a smaller South Africa. It may be a smaller South Africa but I think it is going to be a South Africa which is certainly going to be much smaller than they imagine, much smaller because of the pressure of the Bantu demanding more land and because they will have to find a solution to the Coloured and Asiatic problem either involving homelands for them or they have to accept that what they are standing for is “ewigdurende baasskap” over those people in the White areas. That is what they accuse us of, Sir. It looks to me that these hon. gentlemen have ceased to be the Voortrekkers; they have ceased to extend South Africa; they are trekking back; they are the “agteruittrekkers” if they are anything to-day. I believe, with due apologies to van Riebeek Day, their policy has resulted in the wrecking of the Goede Hoop and if their policy is carried out they need a Rijger and a Dromedaris to take them off and move them out of South Africa.

I think it is best for me at this stage of the debate immediately to follow the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, so that we may try to deal logically with the various points he raised.

By way of introduction, I want to say that it is clear that this is now the second round of shot which I predicted yesterday would come. I call it that, not to sneer at his argument, but to make it very clearly understood that there has again been absolutely nothing new in this attack. It is just the same again as we have so often had it. This is the matter in regard to which the public has repeatedly given its decision, viz. that they have no faith in these arguments. We have also repeatedly replied to these arguments in the finest detail. That is in fact what I deplore in the attack we have had to-day, viz. that one gets only a repetition of a slanted view on standpoints which we state in all honesty in order to try to achieve a definite object. When people differ, it is right that they should advance their counter arguments, but it is not right to try to cast a distorted light on the arguments of one’s opponent, thereby trying to undermine his argument, whereas in fact one is unable to controvert it. That is the criticism I have of the whole argument of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. But I shall react to his various points. I shall answer every argument he advanced, as far as I could hastily jot them down.

The first allegation made by the Leader of the Opposition was that the public does not gain a proper impression of the policy of the Government because there is continual hesitation, a perpetual change of standpoint—vacillation, as he calls it. Now I think that if there is a party in regard to which the public is convinced that it does not know where it is going, and which can rightly be accused of continually changing its policy, it is the United Party. The United Party has been rejected in election after election, and after every election it has had a different colour policy. We are discussing colour policy to-day for the umpteenth time.

Now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has accused us of vacillating and changing our standpoint, and he tried to illustrate it with a series of examples which I will deal with in order to show where he went wrong. But right in the beginning I want to say that where he says there is no properly enlightened public opinion because we on this side are supposed to have changed our standpoint, the public opinion of the very politically conscious public of South Africa, which is seriously concerned with the future of South Africa in this period of crisis, is on the contrary the well-informed opinion which has come about as the result of its thinking for itself and deciding between two choices. The voter in South Africa is in a position where he can easily obtain clarity, except in regard to the directions more leftist than those of the United Party. There is a clear choice between the United Party policy and the National Party policy which is continually brought to the notice of the public, and a section of the public gains knowledge of it only through the image of a Press which is inimical to this Government. I am referring now to the English-speaking section of the public, particularly those who do not even read Afrikaans newspapers. That section of the public can, in spite of the one-sided views they get from their newspapers, judge as to what the policy of the Government is and as to what the policy of the Opposition is, and through using their own judgment they have come to the conclusion that the standpoint of the Government is the correct one. How could that have happened if a continually changing and vacillating standpoint was being adopted by the party in power? Because the public in that regard judges not only on the basis of what they read in the Press, but on the basis of a policy, the development of which they can see in practice.

Which they hear over the radio.

Yes, what they hear over the radio and what they hear in respect of both sides over the radio. [Laughter.] And what they hear from the Opposition platforms and from the Government platforms. I seem to have a much greater respect for the ability of the public of South Africa to form an opinion than the Opposition has. I evidently have much more respect for the common sense of the public and its ability to judge than the Opposition has, because I allege that the conclusion to which an increasing section of the public has arrived, namely to support the Government, was arrived at by them under the most difficult circumstances in which an electorate can find itself, namely that a large number of these people had to take a decision after being informed not only one-sidedly but in a hostile manner in regard to what our policy is. But still our policy is so clear and strong and makes such an impression on their minds that they are swinging towards the Government. Therefore my first statement in reply to what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said is that there is an informed public opinion in South Africa. That fact should be recognized. The United Party should not, in addition to all its other mistakes, in addition make the mistake of thinking that the public of South Africa cannot think for itself and does not know what policy it prefers. There is an informed public opinion, and that public opinion has decided that the Government knows what it wants to do, that it adheres to its course and that it aims at an objective which is in fact attainable and eventually will be attained, however difficult the interim period may be and however long it might take. The public has further decided that the United Party, the only alternative Government there is for them, has no firm policy; that the United Party continually swings around before and after elections, to the right and to the left; that it is struggling to evolve a policy and to do rethinking and replanning; that at the moment it has landed itself in such a muddle that it must try to struggle out of it again. That is why the United Party also gets all this advice in regard to all the internal reforms in its party and its policy about which we are continually reading. I do not want to rub salt into the wound by quoting what a Press which normally supports, or partially supports, them is now saying. I must honestly admit that I also no longer have the temerity to talk about “the Opposition Press” after what I have read in the newspapers recently. I now accept the word of the Leader of the Opposition that he has no Press supporting him. I have some of those articles here, but I would rather leave them aside and argue purely logically, if hon. members will permit me to do so, about what was said here to-day. With this I have disposed of the first point, in regard to vacillation on our part and the unenlightened opinion of the public.

Then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition raised a second point, namely that Government policy has failed in regard to extremely important matters, and that the Government has really got where it is by conniving and humbug and by announcing all kinds of changes which it does not bring about, and that the Government is even busy undermining its own basic policy, which is called its “old policy”. Of course I absolutely deny everything the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said in that regard, and I shall try to prove it by reference to the examples mentioned by him.

The Leader of the Opposition made another allegation which I cannot allow to pass, namely that this so-called failure of policy became most apparent and that the public was misled most during the recent election. What an admission! What an attempt to get rid of the ignominy of a defeat which was more serious, as the supporters of the hon. member admitted themselves, than any other defeat they have suffered since 1948. Since 1948 when they suffered that great defeat and we came into power, the United Party has suffered one defeat after another, and this side of the House has consistently made progress; but the latest defeat of the United Party, unexpected to many people, unexpected I suppose also to the Opposition and the Press which at times supports them, was so great that it indicated a change in the opinion also of English speaking South Africa, under the circumstances I have just described. Now the Leader of the Opposition has, I almost want to say, the temerity, after having suffered a defeat at the hands of the electorate, to give them a slap in the face by telling them: “You are a stupid lot of voters who allowed yourselves to be misled and that is why you did not vote for us.” Because that is the implication of his statement that the recent election clearly proved how the public had been misled. I have more respect for the electorate of South Africa than ever to dare to say anything like that.

Let me now proceed to deal further with his argument. He mentioned various ways in which we were alleged to act in a vacillating manner. Firstly he said that in respect of physical segregation we had changed our outlook. He says that at first we said—and he quoted from statements I am supposed to have made —that if the influx of Bantu to White South Africa, to our cities and to the rural areas, continues to increase, it must eventually make South Africa a Black man’s land. Yes, I said that, and I still say so now.

You said that it should be stopped.

I should be glad if hon. members would give me an opportunity to argue logically. Yes, I said that this flow should be stopped. I still say so. The third allegation he made was that I said that separate development makes it necessary that the Natives should be accommodated in the homelands, not only the natural increase there, but also those who are in White South Africa at the moment. Yes, I said that, and I still say so now. There is no contradiction at all in what I said thereafter, namely that the crux of our political policy is separation. But what I did not say was that it did not matter if the Bantu increased. I said that was a minor matter, compared with political separation. Political separation is the essence of the matter. It is in fact essential for us to get physical separation, but physical separation is the secondary object, not the primary. Therefore I did not say that it made no difference. It does matter. But this has been the basis of our whole fight with the United Party right from the beginning, that the United Party was not prepared to apply influx control in the way we wanted to apply it. They are not prepared to regard the Bantu as being in South Africa temporarily, and to accept that if moving them back is the object, but that some of them must be here, they are people who are clearly not connected with this country as their fatherland, but who are here and work here in the same way that in Europe people go to other countries to work but do not regard those countries as their fatherland, nor are they regarded by countries like Switzerland and Germany and England as being permanent inhabitants. I must perhaps omit England because I am thinking now of the Spanish and Italian migrant workers in the various countries. We have the phenomenon that as against the United Party’s policy ever since 1948 to allow the Bantu to flow in freely, as against its declared policy after 1948 that the Bantu women should also come to live with them, as against its declared policy that they should be regarded as permanent inhabitants who must also be able to obtain property rights here (wherever that may be)—as against that whole policy which will result in there being an increasing birth rate resulting from an ever-increasing number of Bantu in the whole of South Africa, also in the White area, and that they would be regarded as part of the White population, people who live there with their children and grandchildren as a firm right as the result of which they must obtain all possible rights which flow from their permanence, we set up a different ideal. It is that the numbers of these people in the White areas should decrease, that there should be physical separation, not only physical separation between the residential areas, particularly as regards the Bantu, but that there should be physical separation also in the sense that they would be given homelands, and that their homelands should gradually develop in such a way that not only can they accommodate the increased numbers, but also these other people. That was our policy and it is still our policy. That is the ideal, the objective we strive to achieve. But what we also said right from the beginning was that throughout the centuries there has been a development as the result of which we have an economic and social structure here which we cannot remedy in a few years only; we said that although that was our objective and our ideal it should not be expected that we could achieve it immediately. Even before 1948 and after 1948 we always repeated on our platforms that there would be no question of disruption, that there was no question of removing them immediately. Certain things must be done at once, i.e. the segregation one can implement while these people are still so physically spread over South Africa as we inherited it. And one of the things which should be done first is to achieve complete political separation. Thereafter one should ensure economic and social separation, residential separation and separation also in the various spheres of social life such as e.g. education, etc. Apart from that, one must try to give these people proper housing while they are in our midst. We said that we should build all the locations and all the railways, which cost millions and millions of rand, to transport these people to their work. Why? To send them back again immediately afterwards? Of course not. It was an obvious part of our policy right from the beginning that the process of physical separation should be carried out gradually over a long period, which is obviously necessary unless one wants the whole of the country to be disrupted. We are realists; we are practical people dealing with practical matters. To infer from this, as they have always done merely for political purposes, that we are alleged to have said that within two or five or ten years all the Bantu will have begun to disappear from our country, or will have been removed, and that the economy and the industrial development will just have to look out for themselves, is surely nonsensical! We always said that this was not the outlook nor the policy.

But the point which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made in his speech when he tried to ridicule the year 1978 further reveals how false the argument he advances is in saying that we propound conflicting policies, because the year 1978 was used in argument by us long before there was a Tomlinson Commission. It is a date which was worked out by demographs, and here I want to mention the name of somebody whom they have often lauded, Professor Sadie; They evolved a process by which there would be a reversal of the number of Bantu in the country, and according to which they particularly calculated how the numbers would increase over the years until the year 2000. I myself used this argument long before the Tomlinson Commission was appointed and before we came into power when I said that it should be understood that as against the policy of the United Party which would make South Africa Black, as the United Party was in fact doing before 1948 (and that is why that party was defeated) there should be a policy of separation, politically and also physically, but that the physical process would take a long time. Therefore we said that we make our objective what was worked out as a possibility, namely that the turning point could come in 1978. What do the words “turning point” mean? Surely they do not mean that one must have a decrease in numbers now already. It means that one knows that one will not be able to stop the process whilst the economic development is taking place as it is to-day, and that one will not be able to stop it in the transitional years, but that one hopes that the process of mechanization and automation being introduced in industry will eventually enable one to achieve that ideal. I then gave the example that sociologists were of opinion that the time would come, in 10, 20 or 25 years, when people would no longer have work enough to keep them busy continuously, and that they would have to learn how to use their leisure, because manual labour would decrease in importance in the course of that development. Therefore I said: On the basis of that opportunity which is being created we will be able, without disruption and while continuing with our industrial development, to make this process take place naturally. Therefore the increase in numbers now is not unexpected. It is not in conflict with our attitude. It is something which is clearly proved by this very argument we used in regard to 1978.

I should now like to remind hon. members of something else they should remember in regard to what I and other people said before 1948 already. I said that in my opinion it seemed that the whole process could take place in the way we envisaged it and tried to achieve, and then by the year 2000 we would probably again reach the stage when the number of Bantu in the White area of the country would be equal to the figures for 1950, which was when I said this. Now what value is there in this story about vacillation and uncertainty and hesitation? If one wants to argue and make an attack, then one should attack on the basis of the true facts. Do not twist the other man’s argument in order to destroy it. I have now again used the true argument. Having said this, there is no further argument in this regard for me to controvert, except that I should perhaps say that the Leader of the Opposition concluded with the question: “Is the public therefore voting for an increase in numbers?” No, the public knows what it is voting for. It is voting for a process whereby eventually, after many years —and in the meantime there will be an increase—physical separation will be achieved to the highest degree possible, whilst in the meantime separation will be implemented between those who are here, and there will in any case be separation between the homelands and the White man’s land. They know what they are voting for.

Pie in the sky!

I do not know how to respond to such an attitude, because of course it says nothing. There is only criticism without content of a standpoint which very clearly indicates the road ahead, which sets an objective which is aimed at, in contrast with a standpoint which envisages taking up the Black man in South Africa as part of the country, which is what the United Party intends doing. The United Party will still discover that under such a policy not only the Progressives but also the Liberals will one day be proved correct, namely that the Black man will rule here. As against that, I have a policy with a totally different aim and object, and the public of South Africa believes in it. They not only believe in our genuineness, but also in our ability to lead the country to that safe future.

Now I have been told that I must prove that the turning point will come in 1978. No, Sir, one does not adduce proof for objectives and ideals. One sets oneself ideals and objectives. I could not adduce any proof, and none of my predecessors could do so, that the Republic of South Africa would be established, and that the Republic would not be part of the British Commonwealth, but that it would be a free, independent Republic. One could not adduce any proof for it, but one could state the objective. Just as the objective was achieved in regard to that ideal of the Government, so this objective also will be achieved.

Now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition further referred to the Coloureds in the Cape Province. In this regard there are two problems, one of which was stated yesterday by the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman), and which was just touched on in passing by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and with which I shall deal later. The other is the point made here by the Leader of the Opposition that our policy in regard to the Coloureds and the Indians is not clear. He quoted something from a report in the Cape Argus in regard to a speech I made; I must of course deny that I put it in the way in which the report put it. I did not see that report in the newspaper, but I must say that where he quoted me as having said that the Indians would be treated just like the Bantu and the Coloureds in their own homelands, it is obvious that I could never have said that because it is not in accordance with my views. I have always consistently spoken of the Bantu reserves, their areas, as their homelands; but in regard to the Coloureds and the Indians I have never spoken otherwise than of their own residential areas. It is true that as far as the Coloureds are concerned they have certain reserves where only Coloureds live, but it is equally clear, and we have often said so, that those Coloured reserves cannot be homelands. It is not a potential state for the Coloured community, and for the Indians there is nothing of that kind either. When certain persons try to indicate how certain areas, for example, in Northern Natal, should be set aside as an Indian state, we always opposed it and said that was not our policy. What we say in fact is that there should be separate residential areas, separate, clear, urban residential areas, for the Indians and the Coloureds, although the existing Coloured reserves may be retained and can be developed. Therefore I never put the problem of the Coloureds and the Indians on an equal footing with that of the Bantu, because I have always admitted that they were two separate problems which require separate solutions. But what I did in fact say in respect of the Indians was that in the same way that we want to develop their own residential areas for the Coloureds, and in the same way that within their own circles we want to make it possible for them to develop their own potential, without a ceiling, in regard to the posts they may occupy and inter alia also self-government in regard to their own affairs, so we shall have to accept that, seeing that the idea of Indians being repatriated can no longer be adhered to, we must also see the development, of the Indians in the same light as that of the Coloureds in respect of residential areas, community development, their own council for Indian Affairs, a council which can be elected, and which can have leaders to cater for the interests of their own people. Therefore this attack was also without any foundation. It was a clear statement of standpoint to which I still adhere.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition tried to ridicule my statement that I prefer a South Africa poor but White, rather than intermingled and rich. Of course I said so. But I did not make that statement in the way they tried to interpret it, namely that South Africa would in fact be poor. On the contrary, I particularly said that South Africa would be under White control and it would be prosperous, and that is what has happened. We want a prosperous South Africa for the future and we will ensure that it will remain a White-controlled country, while accepting the fact that the Bantu can develop their own areas to any level of independence they are able to achieve. I adhere to my old, clear standpoint. Therefore if the Leader of the Opposition asks where that poor, White South Africa is, he is asking a rhetorical question and he knows it. He was not asking a question which was intended to be replied to in that form, and therefore he is now receiving the reply from me that he knows very well what we call White South Africa.

But it is not White.

I shall deal with that point. He knows where White South Africa is, viz. that portion of South Africa controlled by the White man and over which he will retain control, exclusive of the Bantu areas which may still develop to independence and which will still remain under the control of White South Africa for as long as it is still necessary to lead them to civilized self-government on a democratic basis.

The hon. the leader then again made the accusation that we are following a policy of perpetual supremacy in respect of the Coloureds and Indians. It ill-behoves him today to talk of our perpetual supremacy over the Coloureds and the Indians. He also tried to give an ugly connotation to “baasskap” (supremacy) later, but at this stage I am just dealing with the concept in its normal sense of supremacy. It is very clear that we adopt the standpoint that the White man should remain supreme in the country he settled and established. That is our clear standpoint. But what did the Leader of the Opposition recently say his standpoint was? He said it was leadership over the whole of South Africa, and when we tried to ascertain what he meant by it he said that he meant control.

Political control.

Very well, political control. I then tried to discover how he would attain that political control.

Surely we have it. [Laughter.]

I shall interrupt my argument for a moment to reply to that. We have political control. We also have political supremacy and political domination. In terms of the constitution of the country as it now is, the White man alone governs the country and it is not within the power of any group to deprive him of that. That is the system which I propose should remain in operation. But what does the United Party want? Is it satisfied with that, or does it put an alternative in the place thereof, namely race federation? And what does it say this race federation means? It says it means the participation of every other non-White group or race. Is that what we want to-day? Is the idea that the Bantu should have a share, not in this Parliament but in a federal Parliament? Is that what we have to-day? How dare the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) make such an unfounded allegation and think that anyone will take any notice of him?

I then tried to ascertain in what way there would be that control under the United Party, and the reply was that it would be done by clearly defining in the constitution the rights of every individual group. In other words, the control given to the Whites must be determined by the constitution, and the constitution will provide that only eight representatives of the Bantu will sit here. For the moment I am excluding the Coloureds and the Indians and the uncertainty which exists in that regard and which we ask them in vain to explain to us. I take only the one fact which is clear, namely that they say that in terms of their constitution they will give the majority of Bantu in the whole of South Africa, which they want the Whites to govern, eight White representatives in terms of the constitution. They will provide in the constitution how many there will be and what they will be. Now I ask what that control is other than supremacy or domination provided by a constitution? In other words, I can infer nothing else but that when the Leader of the Opposition tries to reproach us in regard to perpetual supremacy, he consoles himself with the thought that people in this country and in the outside world will not realize that his alleged perpetual White control by a mixed Parliament under a written constitution, which he hopes will endure although it has not endured anywhere else in the world, is perpetual control or supremacy. If that is not the case, I shall be glad if the hon. the Leader will tell me when that perpetual control will disappear, or when that control will become such that the majority of people in his mixed fatherland which he wants to establish with a mixed population, in which there are no separate nations but only races which will all form one multi-racial nation, will be satisfied with the supremacy of the Whites over the other groups; and if that does not take place he must explain to me in what way his policy is not perpetual supremacy or domination. When he lands in that difficulty, he should not try to sneer at another party which frankly says: We want to have perpetual control over our fatherland. We are not afraid of words; call it what you like, but we will do justice in various ways to the other groups. On the one hand we will deal with the majority group by giving them sovereignty, if necessary, in their various national homelands, and to the minority groups, the Coloureds and the Indians, we will give more rights than are enjoyed by any minority group in any other country in the world. But I shall revert to this point a little later.

Then the Leader of the Opposition said that our policy had failed and he gave various examples of it. Let me analyze it. Firstly, he said that there was an avoidance of any attempt—he really went further and said an abandonment of any attempt—to develop the Bantu homelands industrially. He makes this accusation because we, as he correctly states, do not want to allow White capital to develop the Bantu homelands. What is the real position? We did not abandon any attempts, but we adhered to our basic policy, which I have repeatedly explained. It has been applied to the various spheres of economic life through the years. I have previously tried to explain it in the industrial sphere by referring to agricultural and commercial development. I have pointed out that since the days of Sir George Grey it has always been the standpoint of the people of South Africa that the Bantu have their own areas and should keep them, and even though they cannot properly develop their areas agriculturally their sole right to the agricultural development of the country should be preserved for them in the hope that through the training given by the Whites they will gradually reach a stage when they will become good farmers and when the maximum number of people can make a decent living on the agricultural land of the Bantu homelands. Therefore throughout the years we have refrained from sending in Whites as farmers even though they could have cultivated that wonderful soil available in the Transkei so well that it would have had three or four times the agricultural carrying capacity than it has to-day. All Governments, including United Party Governments, refrained from doing so, Because it was considered that that potential should be preserved for those people because it was their own. We tried to train them in agricultural-schools. By means of our Bantu Commissioners and the experts of the Department of Bantu Affairs, we gave guidance to those people. We suffered bitter disappointments and can show very little for 50 years’ attempts, but nevertheless we always adhered to the basic principle that the farmer there had a right to cultivate his own land and to develop so that one day he would be able to make use of his opportunities.

In the sphere of commerce one could not adopt quite such a firm standpoint. The public there has the right to be served by their own traders, but they are mostly unable to do so although the need exists for the consumers to buy, and therefore the standpoint was adopted that Whites should enter the area to serve as traders. They did that to the great benefit of the territory and of the Bantu. But right throughout, also during the time of the United Party, as is proved by the legislation they passed during their régime, the basic principle was adopted that the Bantu, if he wanted to be a trader, should have the right to compete with the White trader, because it is his basic right to trade with his own people. Various measures were passed giving them a prior right. The basic conception was that the Bantu had a prior right in commerce. The same applies to the industrial sphere in terms of our policy. We are quite consistent. We say that in this period of the tremendous development of the Black states of Africa, of the development of the potential of the Bantu such as never before, of better education, and where particularly in South Africa many have been trained to work in industry, and where there are a large number who have already accumulated capital and have developed managerial ability, the time cannot be too far distant when they can develop various industrial undertakings. They are already beginning to do so. There are the ordinary service industries, brickworks and garages. Some of them have already established that type of industry in the Bantu residential areas near the cities, and some of them have even become rich. Our own industries have developed from service industries. The Ford Motor Company developed from an ordinary bicycle shop. If one wants to give the Bantu the opportunity to develop the basic service industries, one must allow them to do so without the competition of Whites who come in and take the money away from them, just as the White farmer may not take their land away from them. Therefore there is no deliberate policy here of not allowing development to take place by refusing permission for White industrialists to operate there. On the contrary, it is just the opposite; it is the positive policy of saying: I will not deprive the Bantu of his potential opportunities which he is just on the eve of utilizing; what I should do is to create the infra-structure; I must make the roads and supply the water and the electricity and try to solve the problems in regard to capital. We are doing that through the Bantu Investment Corporation. As a State, we should assist them in regard to their managerial ability, and we do that through the economic Development Corporation. With what right, in the light of this whole positive policy of which I have only sketched the outline, dare the Leader of the Opposition accuse us of deliberately not wanting to develop the Bantu homelands? And how will the people in time be drawn there as if by a magnet? [Interjections.] Do hon. members think, if one plans for a period of 50 years and one tries to achieve an average, that one manages to do so in the first year, or does one start with a comparatively small number which after a certain period becomes much more than the average? If hon. members know with what opposition we were faced in regard to this whole development, opposition particularly from hon. members opposite and also from our own industrialists in this country as well as from many others, it is a miracle that in the past ten years we have already achieved what we have in regard to the laying of foundations. Of course the progress will come. If hon. members think that an area like the Transkei has no potential because it is too small, or because its population is too small, and that it cannot become a state, then I just want to give them a few figures which I hap pen to have with me. In any case, I should like to have these figures on record, even it only for the benefit of UN or other people who have so much to say about the few opportunities we grant the Bantu. I wonder how many hon. members have knowledge of the following facts. Let us just take the Transkei. People say it has no potential for development and therefore the world cannot regard it as a potential state. They say we are only bluffing. Let me mention states which are represented at UN, recognized states, and then I will give their sizes and their populations.

The total area of the Transkei is approximately 16,000 square miles. Other states of about the same size in Africa are Burundi with 10,747 square miles, Ruanda with 10,169, Basutoland with 11,716, Swaziland with 6,705, and Gambia with 4,000 square miles. Let me take other countries. There is Albania with 11,000 square miles, Belgium with 11,778, Cyprus with 3,572, Denmark, just like the Transkei, with 16,611, Haiti with 10,700, Israel with 7,993, Kuwait with 5,800, Jamaica with 4,411, Luxembourg with 999, Malta with 94, Holland with 15,784, Trinidad-Tobago with 5,0000, and Switzerland with 15,941. In other words, among the countries of the world which decide the fate of nations and play a role in UN, some of them highly developed, some old, some in Europe and some elsewhere —I have mentioned 19 countries here—there are many which are approximately as large as the Transkei. But let us look at the populations. In the Transkei we have the Xhosa nation numbering 3,250,000. Then I take the following countries of Africa: Basutoland has 727,000, Bechuanaland 335,000, Swaziland 283,000, Burundi 2,600,000, the Central African Republic 1,250,000, Chad 2,750,000, the Congo (Brazzaville) 82,000, Dahomey 2,200,000, Gabon 458,000, Gambia 316,000, Libya 1,270,000, Mauritania 770,000, Niger 3,117,000, Ruanda 2,780,000, Sierra Leone 2,183,000, Somalia 2,250,000, and Togo 1,500,000, Then we take South America: Paraguay 1,903,000, Uruguay 2,556,000,. Cyprus 589,000, Israel 2,237,000, Jordania 1,827,000, Kuwait 347,000, Lebanon 1,760,000. Mongolia 1,019,000; and in Europe there are Albania with 1,711,000, and Malta with 328,000, and there is New Zealand with 2,538,000. I have now mentioned 35 countries-whose populations are all smaller, or in the vicinity of, that of the Transkei.

The figure you have for the Transkei, 3,250,000, do they all reside in the Transkei, or are they supposed to be citizens of the Transkei?

I said that was the Xhosa nation; in other words, that is the nation which can build up the Transkei, and that is the point I want to make. The criticism is that the Transkei is too small, but now hon. members can see how many countries are accepted as states, many of them with a far smaller potential. The states which are so highly developed as New Zealand or Holland or Denmark developed in spite of being so small, and why? Because of the calibre of their people. The opportunities are here, and do not tell me that we are deliberately not giving the Bantu homelands the potential for development when the whole idea of our planning is to develop them, but on the basis of the efforts of their own people. In so far as that human material makes this development slow, it will take a long time, because a nation can only develop by itself; others can assist it, but cannot give it its full development, because then they become its economic over-lords. Because we do not want to do that, because our policy has a positive content,, particularly to allow them to retain their human dignity and all those other things which the Leader of the Opposition says we want to deprive them of, for that reason we are now being attacked. It is my contention that our policy has not failed. Our policy is genuine and clear, and the future will decide as to its success, and not the first few years of laying foundations.

The Leader of the Opposition secondly said that our policy has failed in regard to the border industries. Where does one immediately achieve great development? Here we are faced with a demand for fast development. But when one has an objective in regard to which millions of rands have to be invested and people have to be interested in undertaking that development privately, even in areas where their undertakings may be retained by them, it is difficult and it takes time. Then surely it is clear that it will be even more difficult inside the Bantu areas because there the chances of retaining the undertaking and remaining under White control are less, and therefore the chance that the White man will want to go there is also less. Where the policy is to establish industries in the border areas where the man knows he will be able to retain his undertaking for himself and his children, one of course gets slow development in the beginning. But industrial development becomes the magnet for further development. It is the beginning that is difficult, not the development. It is the beginning that takes time, not the development. As the person who first evolved this idea of border industries and then received very little support for it, I am highly satisfied that within the period of 15 years since I first mentioned it it has already become so generally accepted and support to such an extent by economists and industrialists that the foundations have already been soundly laid in so many places. I am highly satisfied with the growth and I think it is a wonderful success, particularly in view of the continuous opposition of the United Party, which probably has more influence with the majority of industrialists than we have. I think it is a wonderful achievement for us to have triumphed over the opposition and to the undermining of it and to have made so much progress in this period.

The Leader of the Opposition also tried to cast suspicion on the idea of such border industries, but we have a clear object in regard to those industries. It is easier to develop industries there because one can more easily attract the industrialist to a White area where he is under a White Government and will have the support of the White State than when he knows there will be a slow development of Bantu-owned industry in the Bantu area, and one wants to provide a stimulus there for the development of the Bantu areas. Then one must do it in the form of border industries. And if one wants to have a place where the Bantu can be given the opportunity to be trained in industries of the type which he may later develop in his own area, then it should be done there. One cannot attract all the industries and the Bantu to the cities where the residential land outside the cities is expensive and where the Bantu will spend most of their money in the White areas. One can assist the Bantu by allowing them to work in the border areas whilst giving them the opportunity of taking their money back to the Bantu areas, in that way to assist in financing at least the tertiary industries in the Bantu areas with the money they earn in the secondary industries. If we are able to employ 100,000 people in the border industries, it means that 100,000 families live and spend their money and have to be provided with services in the Bantu areas. It means that 500,000 people live on the earnings of those 100,000 industrial workers. The whole community is built on that. The clergymen, the traders, the garages, the builders, the brick-makers, the clerks, the laundries, and all the other services that have to be supplied, the clerks and teachers and everything necessary to serve those 500,000 people, all add to that community because the money is attracted there. That is the magnet we provide in the form of border industries. What right has the Leader of the Opposition to ridicule it because this process must needs be slow? He says it is all eyewash and it is economic integration more than anything else. It is just the opposite. Here the policy of separation is very clear. But what surprises one is that Chose hon. members laugh at this way of ensuring that the Bantu community is enabled to stand on their own feet, while they pretend to be friends of the Bantu.

Let us look at the difference between our policy and theirs. What do they want to do? Instead of allowing the Bantu to work in the border industries and to live in their own areas where they will spend their money, they want to keep the industries near Cape Town and Johannesburg, and they want to attract all the Bantu there so that they will spend their money in the White areas. [Interjection.]

They want to integrate them there into one multi-racial nation, while refusing to grant them the franchise. They will not succeed, of course, and the ultimate tragedy for the country will be that their plans will not work out; what they want to do is to bring these people in there and to keep them down. This being the case, how dare the hon. members sneer at our attempt at positively building up not only our own nation, but also the various Bantu nations, each in its own area and under its own people?

Tell us about the Transvaal Bantustans.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also said that all we could say was that we were establishing areas such as Zululand, Tswanaland, and so forth, but what were the possibilities of consolidation? I have dealt with this matter so frequently that I do not want to deal with it in detail again. I just want to say this, that it is very clearly the object to bring together as far as possible, by means of clearing up Black spots and rearranging small areas, the various areas which belong together. It is perfectly obvious that it will not be possible to do this completely. It is impossible to consolidate North and South Zululand into one continuous unit. That is obvious and everyone knows that, because the concept here is that, as in the Pakistan case, one will have one area, or even more areas, that will be separate but will fall under the same government. That is an unavoidable result. One has a choice between this problem and the other problem which the United Party wants to create, which is that the Black majority will be together with the Whites in one country, in one state, in one government, in one public service, in one defence force, and will then supposedly be kept down.

The other respect in which he says the Government has failed is in regard to the removal of the Bantu in the Cape. As far as the Cape is concerned, we are, of course, faced with a problem which cannot simply be changed or solved instantly. No one has suggested that we are going to remove all the Bantu from this area at a given moment. We said that we are keeping this situation fluid. Why have we had Nyanga built? Surely not because we are going to remove all the Cape Bantu immediately. Why have we had Bantu residential areas built at Worcester and at other places? Surely because we have accepted that there will still be Bantu in the Western Cape for some considerable time. What we have done, though, is to accept the basic principle and to make it a definite object that the Bantu will not be permanent inhabitants of the Western Cape; that as the Coloureds increase in number and become more skilled and better educated and as it becomes possible to absorb them into industry and to reorganize matters completely, which we know will take years, that area will be their guaranteed home, where they will have opportunities of employment, while we have to provide the Bantu with avenues of employment elsewhere, that is to say, in their own areas. We shall therefore have to organize the removal process in these areas as well, to the best of our ability, over the period which we have set for ourselves. As far as these problems are concerned, we are dealing with a long-term policy; we have always said that; everyone knows that, and it is quite unfair to try to create the impression now that we had something else in mind.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that the result of all this is that we are now lapsing into a form of petty or small apartheid. This matter is one which we have already discussed a great deal. I still want to say a few things in regard to the Coloured policy as well, but I think that topic must be separated from the debate on Bantu policy which we are holding now. Therefore I intend to sit down now, so that the Bantu aspects which are under discussion can be disposed of, and then I shall rise again later in the day and reply to the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) and to the questions which she, in particular, has put in regard to the Coloureds.

Sir, we accused the hon. the Prime Minister of vaccilations in policy and gave him certain examples concerning firstly the physical separation of the Bantu and, secondly, the question of Coloured areas, and, thirdly, the position in respect of poor and White rather than rich and mixed. From what the hon. gentleman has said it is quite clear that there have been changes of policy in respect of the Cape Coloured people. He has not even sought to deny it. There has been vaccilation in that regard in so far as the Bantu are concerned and the question of physical separation, it is quite clear that there has been a change of emphasis. The hon. gentleman now tells us that he himself forecast the year 1978 or 1976 even before 1948.

Sir, I do not know on what figures he based it. He says that he had the assistance of a demographer in the person of Professor Sadie but, Sir, Tomlinson had the assistance of the present Minister of Bantu Administration and Development; he had the assistance of an extremely learned commission which went into this whole issue and worked out a timetable. The timetable they worked out was that round about the year 2000 they hoped that the relationship of White to Black in the so-called White areas would be 50-50. But their prerequisite for a development of that kind was clearly stated, and the first of those was that border industries should provide new employment for 30,000 Bantu annually over the first ten years. They gave their reasons for it, which was that they hoped to displace 2,000,000 people from agriculture because of the denudation of the soil and the harm being done to the soil by over-farming. The hon. the Prime Minister tells us now after ten years that he is more than happy with the development of border industries, but he is nowhere near the Tomlinson timetable. In ten years he has not done what Tomlinson expected him to do in four months. He cannot still say that he believes that he is going to get a 50-50 relationship by the year 2000. Tomlinson set a prerequisite and he is not measuring up to it. Sir, there was a second thing that Tomlinson said. Tomlinson said that if you were to achieve that objective, you must average, 50,000 new jobs for Bantu in the reserves every year. The hon. the Prime Minister has been busy for ten years; how many new jobs has he provided in the whole of this period of ten years? You see, Sir, it has become absolutely ridiculous to talk of the year 1978 or 1976. It has ceased to be of any importance at all; it bears no relation to reality.

To talk loosely of that date, in my submission, is misleading the people. But I want to go further. The hon. the Prime Minister tells us that in time to come there is going to be “ekonomiese skeiding” when there will be more mechanization and things of that kind. Does the hon. gentleman really believe that when we have mechanization we are going to be able to get on without our labour force despite the growth of industry in South Africa? Does he really believe that he is going to be able so to shift our industrial complexes that they will all be situated on the borders of the reserves and that the Bantu workers will live inside the reserves?

Who said such a silly thing?

The hon. the Prime Minister says: “Who said such a silly thing?” Sir, I agree. It is a silly idea, it is a ridiculous idea, but unless you have it you will never do with less labour. I think that to tell the people that we are going to have fewer Bantu in our White areas and that we are going to have economic apartheid is to mislead the people. It will never happen, and if the hon. the Prime Minister does not know it it is high time he realized that. Sir, who is going to do the work if he is going to have economic separation? Who is going to do the work in the White areas, work which is at present being done by the Bantu, if he is going to have economic separation? [Interjections.] Sir, I repeat my charge that this is a policy which is misleading the public and causing them to vote on certain matters over which there is complete confusion at the present time.

The hon. the Prime Minister is going to say some more about the Coloured people, for which I shall be grateful, but I come back to this point again: Is it right to talk about “blank Suid-Afrika” when it is going to have Coloureds and Indians living in it …

But you talk about “White leadership”.

I want to know if it is right to talk about “blank Suid-Afrika” … [Interjection.] Sir, if the hon. the Minister of Finance wants to get up and make a speech let him do so.

Do not be so touchy.

[Interjection.] What does it matter if there are certain representatives of the Coloureds in this House? Sir, how can the hon. the Prime Minister talk about “blank Suid-Afrika” when they are going to be living with Whites and Coloureds, to whom he says he is going to give the right of a minority group? What are those rights going to be? He is always complaining to me that the Bantu will not be satisfied with a certain limited number of representatives in this House. Is he going to tell me that the Coloureds are going to be satisfied with a limited number of representatives in this House and the Indians with no representatives at all? He is always making accusations against me that our policy will lead to race friction between Black and Whites. Does the contrary argument not apply that his policy is going to lead to race friction between Coloured and White and Coloured and Indian? Sir, to talk about “blank Suid-Afrika” in the way the hon. gentleman does is to mislead the public into believing that they are voting for something which the hon. gentleman knows will never exist at all.

Then I come to this question of the industrial development in the reserves. The Prime Minister’s point is that he is not going to allow that development with private White capital, White skill and White initiative because it would be removing the potential from the Bantu. Sir, that is not my point. My point is quite a different one; my point is that Tomlinson worked out what the programme was to be. Tomlinson said that if you want a 50-50 ratio by the year 2000 you must provide 50,000 new jobs a year inside the reserves, apart from those that you provide in the border industries, but he was sensible enough to see that you could only do that if you developed industries inside those reserves. The hon. gentleman now comes along with excuses for not developing those industries. Where is his timetable now? What is happening how to the timetable that Tomlinson worked out so carefully? Those 50,000 new jobs are not being provided.

It was not a timetable; it was just an average.

Tomlinson worked out that over a 50-year period up to the year 2000 you would require an average of 50,000 a year. How is the Prime Minister going to achieve that without industries inside the reserves? He is not going to do it. Now when he talks of a 50-50 ratio, it is not the year 2000 but probably the year 3000 the way he is setting about things at the moment, because first of all he is not going to do without his Bantu labour and secondly he is not going to get his industries unless he allows private White capital inside these areas. The hon. gentleman says that he is doing the same in respect of agricultural land. In that regard we all agree. Surely the agricultural land in the reserves is reserved for the Bantu. There is no doubt that we could make better use of it; there is no doubt about that whatever, but the fact remains that the Bantu are using it. Here we have an absolute vacuum; nothing is being done in respect of industries. How can you compare the one with the other? There is no parallel here. I do not see how the hon. gentleman can use an argument of that kind. I come back to my charge that there has been vaccilation. We are faced with the fact that Government policy has either not taken off the ground yet in respect of certain of these things or it is already clear that it is going to fail, and the Prime Minister still brings the public under the impression that that policy is succeeding and that he is going to achieve his objectives.

I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition what right he has to accuse this side of the House of having misled the public during the recent elections? I think the public of South Africa knows that the big faux pas committed by the United Party at every election as far as the colour question is concerned is that it pretends to be what it is not. As a result of consecutive elections the colour policy of the National Party, the policy of just racial apartheid, and the colour policy of the United Party, the policy of race federation and race integration, have become not only the focal point of political interest but the two policies have been compared with each other with the result that the White electorate is fully informed to-day as to the direction in which the National Party is moving and the direction in which the United Party is moving. What is more the White electorate is wise to the old tactics the United Party so often indulge in. Do you know what those tactics are, Sir? It is at every election to camouflage their unacceptable—I can almost say gruesome, dangerous—colour policy under a cloak to make it attractive. I want to tell the Leader of the Opposition that that is the reason why they got such a political thrashing at the last election. This new so-called slogan of theirs of White leadership over the whole of South Africa …

What is new about that?

Very well, call it an old slogan, but it is the same old false disguise. The United Party did not come inward with its real policy; it came forward with a sham policy and it was this sham policy of White leadership over the whole of South Africa which had to be conveyed to the whole of South Africa particularly by the conservative Members of Parliament of the United Party. The hon. Leader of the Opposition should have gone to the constituency of Standerton and he should have seen the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) in action there when she had to serve this so-called policy of White leadership over the whole of South Africa as a political dish to the voters there. Mr. Chairman, I wish you could have attended that political feast.

But you were there.

Yes. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has often attended the Speaker’s dinner with me; you get a balanced diet and it puts you in a pleasant mood but had he attended that feast he would have suffered from political ptomaine poisoning because it only amounted to incitement of the people; it was nothing else than a poisoning of race relations. That is the reason why the defecting conservative voters of the United Party suffered from political indigestion after they had swallowed that food. What is more, when I think of the results of the recent election, I think, the United Party are showing the symptoms of a chronic disease, a disease which I shall call political shrinkage. Sir, look at the United Party to-day. When I came to this House for the first time in 1943 there were 111 United Party members. But having carried out their real policy during the years they sat in the Government benches—the Opposition is most dangerous when it forms the Government because it is then that it implements its policy—up to 1948 in this House its numbers shrank in 1948 from 111 to 74 but it did not even end there. In 1953 their numbers were 66; in 1958, 57 and in 1961 54.

May I ask the hon. member whether he told his voters in his constituency that the policy of his party was to give independence to the Bantustans?

Oh yes I say it because that is the very charm of the truth. We believe in independent states for the Bantu; we say they can become completely independent and what about it? Ours is not a policy of oppression. Our policy is positively attuned. But the hon. member will not divert my attention from the phenomenal way in which the United Party has shrunk. The United Party has lost one member after the other; it has lost its conservative members; the Progressives have left the ranks of the United Party. We on the contrary have not lost one. Whom have we lost? Yes, we did indeed lose Japie Basson but in his case we did not lose anything. We gained by it.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says we are misleading the electorate but I can tell him that it is because of these tactics of the United Party that it is ridiculed in South Africa to-day. “White leadership” on the lips of the United Party sounds more like mockery than good political intentions. Their real policy and their sham policy swear at each other in shrill contrast. The germ of the destruction of the whole object they pretend to be striving at, namely, White leadership in South Africa is inherent in their real policy. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition must not laugh at me because he feels embarrassed; I am telling him why he has suffered this crushing defeat at the recent election. It is because “White leadership over the whole of South Africa” on the lips of the United Party can never become a clarion call in South Africa to consolidate the defecting conservative United Party voters in the arms of a United Party which is now posing as the advocates of the maintenance of the White race. There is no such thing. I want to state clearly that their slogan of “White leadership over the whole of South Africa” does not sound like a clarion call; it sounds more like an anguished political cry; it sound more like a death rattle after the election results. It is the death rattle of a political party which has indeed misled the public by propounding a sham policy; on every occasion they have to clothe their gruesome policy in a pious suit of clothes. They never talked about race federation during the recent elections; they disguised that in the pious suit of clothes of “white leadership over the whole South Africa”. Sir, you get the one disguise after the other; It is not their object to state their policy clearly but to hide and disguise it so that the people will be confused in their choice. That is why I say today that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is afraid and ashamed to put his real policy of race federation to South Africa; that is why they dress it up in a pious suit of clothes. They colour their colour policy to suit the circumstances. [Laughter.] The hon. Leader of the Opposition laughs but his party has generated into the greatest political chameleon South Africa has ever known, a typically South African chameleon. That is why they make such slow progress, not even forward but backwards. They shrink and shrink. This shrinking disease they are suffering from is an incurable disease. Sir, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition deceives himself …

May I ask a question?

I only have ten minutes. I am very tempted to settle accounts with that hon. member when I think of all the stories he spread on the platteland. The electorate know that this policy of the United Party is not their real policy; they know it is only a sham policy. Sir, you know that sham deceives and that is why the voters of Standerton and everywhere in South Africa have said that this policy of the United Party is nothing else than unadulterated fraud, if you would allow me to say it here. Their policy is unadulterated cheating. The hon. Leader of the Opposition knows why the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman), the hon. members for Durban (Musgrave) (Mr. Hourquebie), Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) and many of the Leftists have not taken part in these debates. Why was it that the conservative members had to go to the platteland? Why do they want every Black man to regard the White man as his enemy; why must the White man be incited against the Black man? Why must the good faith between the Whites and the non-Whites be destroyed on the platteland? [Laughter.] Hon. members may laugh about, Sir, but that is a fact.

It is untrue.

It is true. That is what happened: perpetual supremacy by the White man over the Black man—that was what the hon. member for Drakensberg preached wherever she addressed meetings; in Natal they applauded her.

But that is your policy.

This image of apartheid which hon. members of the Opposition have presented as perpetual supremacy by the White man over the Black man throughout South Africa is a gruesome and false image; it is a false label they have attached to this policy of apartheid. They wanted to use it as a deterrent but what they have used as a deterrent they used as political bait during the recent election, but the electorate saw through it. Surely a door cannot be shut and open at the same time. It is true that they can be both dead and alive; that may sound illogical, Sir, but that is indeed the state of the United Party to-day. I want to warn the White electorate of South Africa that the United Party present a sham policy at every election: they only need the White electorate of South Africa once to get into power. They want to get into power on the strength of a sham policy but once they are in Dower they will not implement their sham policy but their real policy and therein lies the big danger. Their real policy of race federation. will ultimately lead to a Bantu controlled South Africa, not supremacy by the White man over the Black man in the whole country or domination by the White man … [Time limit.]

I am glad that the hon. the Prime Minister has deferred his answer in respect of his policy in regard to our Coloured people, because I wish to raise with him a very important aspect of Government policy which is affecting our Coloured citizens in this country very seriously indeed. Sir, I am quite sure that the hon. the Prime Minister could not have foreseen the serious repercussions and the shattering effects which his policy statements on mixed gatherings has produced in this country. This statement was made by the Prime Minister on 26 August of last year in Port Elizabeth, and following that statement Government Departments have attempted to give effect to the policy adumbrated by the Prime Minister. The Ministers who are responsible for the Departments concerned in this matter have sheltered themselves behind the Prime Minister’s policy statement. As it would appear therefore that the Prime Minister is directly responsible for the grave and unfortunate situation which has developed it is appropriate that I should address myself to him here this afternoon on this very important matter. I do so in the hope that the hon. the Prime Minister, even at this late stage, will do something to remedy the grave situation which presently prevails. I would like to assure the Prime Minister that the entire Coloured population of South Africa and a very large section of our European population are deeply concerned about the latest infringements of the rights of a law-abiding section of our community. Sir, it is no exaggeration to say that the mixed gatherings proclamation of 12 February, following the Prime Minister’s policy statement, has created absolute chaos in the Cape in general and in Cape Town in particular and threatens to destroy the last vestige of goodwill on the part of the Coloured people towards the White people of this country. I am quite certain that the hon. the Prime Minister could never have intended that his statement should be given effect to in a fashion which has resulted in tremendous hardships for a very large section of our South African population. Indeed, I am reminded of a statement made by the hon. the Prime Minister on the same occasion in Port Elizabeth when the hon. the Prime Minister said this—

Sir, how the Prime Minister can reconcile these glowing sentiments, with which I am sure every well-disposed citizen of this country agrees, with the humiliating position which his policy has inflicted upon the Coloured people, is simply beyond me. How can this appeal for all the inhabitants of South Africa to stand together and flourish as a nation be reconciled with what the Government is presently doing with regard to our Coloured citizens. The gatherings ban has not only resulted in the deprivation of the civil rights of our Coloured citizens but, what is far worse, it is having the effect of completely eliminating any remaining goodwill between the Coloured and the White people of this country. I do not wish to reiterate many of the incidents which have arisen from this mixed gatherings ban and which have caused so much humiliation and ill-feeling amongst the Coloured people. We have had incidents like the removal of innocent children from the Luxurama Theatre; like the turning away, without prior warning, of respectable Coloured men and women from a theatre which they were lawfully entitled to attend; like the turning away of Coloured citizens from the Green Point stadium which they were also in law entitled to attend. These are incidents which have been quoted times without number and I am sure the hon. the Prime Minister knows of them. I am sure the hon. the Prime Minister never intended, when he made his policy statement, that those incidents should take place. I give the hon. the Prime Minister credit for it that I am certain that he never intended his policy statement to have this effect.

One of the worst impacts this ban has had upon our Coloured people has been the decision of the Government to refuse their admission to municipal halls. This is one of the most important impacts it has made on the Coloured people. All this has been brought about …

Where did that happen?

I shall give you instances in a moment. All this has been brought about, not by any change of the law, and certainly not by any sanction of Parliament, but by a proclamation, having retrospective effect, which seeks to stretch the word “occupation” to mean virtually anything that the Government intends it to mean. This notorious proclamation has brought about more ill-feeling and resentment on the part of the Coloured people than anything yet experienced in this country as fair as the Coloureds are concerned. The tragedy of this upheaval is that the Government has not acted legally and that the proclamation under which all this banning has taken place is, to my mind, of no legal validity. Unfortunately the Coloured people have not the means to test this in court but it will be tested in due course. I venture to suggest now that it will be found by our counts that his banning proclamation has no legal validity whatsoever in terms of our present law. But I have no desire to become involved in the legality of this important matter. I want to deal with the hon. the Prime Minister on the basis of the moral issues involved. I would like to ask the hon. the Prime Minister point-blank whether at any time he intended that his declaration of traditional policy should impose such grave hardships upon the less privileged members of our community? Was it the Prime Minister’s intention that municipal halls, towards the building of which the Coloured citizens of South Africa have contributed substantially as ratepayers, should be closed to them for their private use on occasions when only members of their own group would be present?

When did that happen?

It happens time and again. It has happened in respect of the Wynberg Town Hall; it has happened in respect of the Claremont Civic Centre; it has happened time and again in respect of the Cape Town Banqueting Hall. These people cannot use these halls because, they are told, it is contrary to Government policy. I shall quote instances where that has happened. For generations it has been the tradition in Cape Town to allow our Coloured citizens to use municipal halls for their own organizations and clubs and for their private festivities such as weddings, birthday parties and family gatherings where their own homes were inadequate for the purpose. This traditional policy was accepted without any hesitation whatsoever by the citizens of Cape Town. That is in fact the tradition of Cape Town; that is the tradition of the Cape. The Whites in the Cape realized that the Coloured community, in common with all sections of our community, had made their contribution towards these public halls. What justification can there be, Sir, to deprive them now of the use of these halls merely because they happen to be in an area which the Minister of Community Development has allocated to another group? That is the only ground upon which they are refused to use these halls. There have been instances of respectable and responsible Coloured families being denied the use of municipal halls in Cape Town for private weddings as a result of Government policy. If the hon. Minister for Planning wants the names and the details of those instances I am fully prepared to give them to him. When these people apply for permission to use these municipal halls for their own personal use they are told that they could not get permission by reason of Government policy. They are told to hold their functions at halls situated many miles from where they live. I am quoting from statements made to me. When they remonstrated and pointed out that the situation of these halls laid them open to attacks from skollies and other undesirable elements they were told that that was their concern. [Time limit.]

Everything went reasonably well between the Coloureds and the Whites in this country and also in Cape Town and in the Cape Province until a ridiculous body like Equity tried to tell us what kind of audiences we should have in South Africa. The >hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) has never raised his voice against this deliberate interference on the part of Equity and people who have nothing to do with us whatever. Had he had his way and had the English Press and the United Party had their way this thing would never have ended until all our places of entertainment were multiracial. They would not have stopped until there were mixed audiences in the Colosseum in the Alhambra and in the whole Peninsula. [Interjections.] What is the difference? That was what those people wanted to do. They did not want to appear on the stage unless they could appear before mixed audiences. I have not yet heard the hon. member for Wynberg (Mrs. Taylor) condemn Equity. I challenge her to get up and to condemn Equity for trying to dictate to us which policy we should follow. I want to say this to the hon. members for Peninsula and Wynberg: They would not have rested until the whole issue was so bedevilled that we would never have straightened it out. This Government is doing the right thing by nipping in the bud this unnecessary interference in our domestic affairs.

I want to refer to the question asked by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He took exception to it that this Government raised the cry of “Keep White South Africa White” during the provincial elections. He asked how we were going to keep White South Africa White if Bantu were flocking to the White areas in increasing numbers. That is a reasonable question and a question to which I want to react. I want to tell him how we intend keeping White South Africa White. We are going to keep White South Africa White by keeping this Parliament White. Political power is absolute power. If you want to retain power in the White areas you must retain the political power because that is the last of all the power you have. That is the most important of all power you have; that is absolute power. My reply to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is this, therefore: As far as keeping White South Africa White is concerned; we shall keep it White by keeping this White Parliament White.

Where is White South Africa?

At the moment it includes the whole of South Africa. But that will not of necessity always be the position. The policy of this party is that the Bantu homelands should be allowed to develop to self-government. There will be a gradual process of emancipation in the Bantu homelands, homelands where they will eventually, if they prove themselves capable, be able to have their own Parliament. But here in White South Africa our White Parliament will remain White in all circumstances. That is the fundamental difference between us and the United Party. We say this White Parliament must remain White but they refuse to say that this White Parliament will remain White under their policy. They say, firstly, that they will allow Coloureds here. I do not think I am wrong in saying that. It is not yet clear what they intend doing with the Indians. They do not tell us whether they will also be willing to allow Indians here.

I want to deal with the question of the Bantu. My charge against the United Party is this: Their fixed policy is ultimately to allow Bantu to sit in this Parliament; in this respect they have compromised themselves in their own consciences. When we ask him how he is going to prevent the Bantu from sitting in this Parliament, how he is going to prevent more than eight Bantu representatives from sitting in this Parliament, how he is going to prevent their numbers from growing to 16 or 24 or 50 all of whom will be Bantu, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition always shields behind the argument that our policy is to allow four Coloured representatives in this House. Then he asks how we can continue to have four Coloured representatives in this House without giving way to the pressure for more. He says if we can do that as far as the Coloured representatives are concerned, why cannot they do likewise as far as the Bantu representatives are concerned? The fundamental difference between us is that it is the policy of the National Party to allow four Coloured representatives here and no more. We do not say the number will be increased; we do not say it is possible that the number may be increased. As far as this White Parliament is concerned, Mr. Chairman, there will be four Coloured representatives. The further political development of the Coloureds will take place at a totally different level. Our policy is that the Coloured representation in this Parliament will be limited to four.

There is an exception.

Yes, except if the number of Members of Parliament increases. The ratio will remain the same. The United Party is not prepared to say that. That is the weakness of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn). We say there is a ceiling as far as the number is concerned; it cannot increase. Any further political development on the part of the Coloured people they will get at another level. The United Party is not prepared to say that as far as the Bantu are concerned. They are not prepared to say they will limit the number to eight White representatives. Even the hon. member for Point (Mr. Raw) is not prepared to say the number will always remain at eight. The hon. member for Yeoville has already told us. that it was inherent in their policy of a race federation, and that important members on their side of the House believed, that the policy of race federation would not succeed unless Bantu were represented by Bantu in this House. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition wrote an article in the Friend in which he said the following—

In other words, the Leader of the Opposition does not see his way clear to withhold that. That being the case we are surely quite correct when we say to the public it is inherent in the policy of the United Party that Bantu will sit in this Parliament and an increasing number of Bantu. That fits in completely with the rest of their policy.

Tell us what you said in 1953.

I want to make the hon. member for Durban (Point) this offer: I shall let him have a whole bunch of pamphlets I issued at that time. He can use them as he pleases. If it gives him pleasure I grant him all the pleasure he can get from it because I know he is very unhappy in that party. When I have finished speaking I shall go and fetch a number of pamphlets and he can quote from them what I said in 1953 to his heart’s content. The disaster does not lie in the fact that I have changed my views. We are not living in an unchanging Africa; we are not living in an unchanging South Africa. The disaster does not lie in the fact that I have changed my views; the disaster lies in the fact that the hon. member has not changed his views. I shall post the pamphlets to him and he can quote from them as much as he likes. He must only promise me that he will let me know when he is going to quote from them so that I can be present to listen how hon. members laugh. They are welcome to it.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said to-day that the Bantu were streaming in. The hon. the Prime Minister hold him clearly that the Bantu were entering on the basis of migrant labour. That is why it is a temporary factor. The great objection the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has against our policy is that we do not want to give property rights to the Black people who enter and that Communism will thrive as a result. I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition what property rights he is prepared to give to the Bantu in the cities. Only the right to own a small plot of 50 by 50 feet with a house on it or is he prepared to give them further property rights? [Interjections.] Not only does he want to give them property rights but he also wants to do away with job reservation. It should be possible for a Bantu to be trained as a fitter and turner, as an engineer manager and so forth. When the Bantu have reached that stage and have saved some money—I am addressing this question to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman)— will they have the right to buy farms in the Western Province? [Interjections.] Why not?

If you are not prepared to allow them to buy farms then surely you are not prepared to give him anything more than that little house on that little plot so that they will only constitute a labour reservoir. In that case there won’t be any future for them; in that case they won’t be able to develop; in that case they will remain unskilled workers. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) said that if the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) could find a few more pamphlets he would let him know and he would willingly attend when the hon. member for Point quoted from them. All I can say, Sir, is that I looked at his reaction when that happened last time and if he relished in it I can only say he is a devil for taking punishment.

The hon. member for Vereeniging says they will keep “blank Suid-Afrika blank” by keeping this Parliament White. All he offers to the voters is that they will keep South Africa White by keeping this Parliament White. It does not matter to him how Black the whole of South Africa gets; as long as this Parliament is White South Africa will be kept White. The hon. member also went on to say we lived in a changing world. He has changed his politics three times now. He first belonged to the United Party, then to the Conservative Party and to-day he belongs to the Nationalist Party. He justified that by saying we lived in a changing world. I think he now belongs to the right party because that party is always changing its policy. In 1948 their policy was apartheid. They came into power on the slogan of “apartheid”.

It is still apartheid.

It is not. He is the only member who uses the word “apartheid” because he has been newly converted to nationalism. All the other hon. members on that side have dropped that word. The hon. member for Vereeniging got in under the old policy of apartheid; it is time he woke up and discovered that his party has forgotten about that. After apartheid they had “baasskap”. Mr. Strijdom stood for “baasskap” over the whole of South Africa—political “baasskap” over the whole of South Africa. [Interjections.] I am sorry, Sir, they never use the word “baasskap” now; you never hear the word “baasskap”; they have given up the idea of “baasskap”. To-day the policy is one of no discrimination. In 1959, in justifying his policy of separate Bantu states, his policy of political separation between Black and White, the Prime Minister said that if that were brought about there would be no discrimination between these two groups. The Minister of Foreign Affairs said in Cologne last year that the policy was one of no discrimination between the groups.

Moving away from discrimination.

Moving away from discrimination. If that is so I want to know why the policy of no discrimination must only apply to one group. Does the policy of no discrimination not apply to the Coloureds and the Indians? Are they going to be discriminated against forever? The Prime Minister says that the Coloureds and the Indians will get fairer treatment in this country than the minority groups in the rest of the world. He says there will be no ceiling to what they are going to get. Now the hon. member for Vereeniging assures us that they will never get more than four representatives in this House.

What did I add to that? I said after that their political development will be in an entirely different sphere.

The Prime Minister holds out the hope to these groups that they will be able to develop to a stage where there is no ceiling.

Within their own groups; not the mix-up like under your policy.

Within their own groups. Are they going to have sovereignty? Are they going to have the representation which they have to-day? Are they going to continue to have four representatives? Not so long ago the hon. the Prime Minister was not certain. At one stage he said that once they had their own council they would not need members in this House. I want to know whether the Government is going to keep the Coloured representatives. What about the Indians? The Prime Minister and the Nationalist Party cannot pretend the Indians do not exist. If the Africans are going to have their own political representation in their own reserves and the Coloureds, for the moment, are going to have four representatives in this House, we want to know what political rights the Indians are going to have. We are still waiting to hear that. The Prime Minister is not being fair to the country and the electorate until he tells us what the future of the Indians is.

The hon. the Prime Minister has said that we are continually changing our policy and that the electorate do not know what our policy is. I want to remind the Prime Minister that White leadership has always been our policy. If he does not want to believe me let him ask the hon. Ministers for Labour and Information. They will tell the Prime Minister that that has always been the policy of the United Party. Ask the hon. member for Vereeniging. When he stood for us originally he stood on the basis of White leadership. Our policy has always been White leadership. Our policy has never been anything else.

On a voluntary basis or by constitutional pressure?

I do not know what the Prime Minister means by “voluntary or constitutional pressure”. Our policy is to keep the leadership in the hands of the White man. The Prime Minister asks: “How do you get it?” We have it at the moment. We are not giving it up but if the Prime Minister is not careful it will be taken from him. The record of the United Party and of the old South African Party has always been to keep control of the country. The old South African Party and the United Party have fought not only against unarmed local inhabitants but against foreign invaders as well. We have fought to maintain our country and to keep it free. We are certainly not going to hand it over on a plate now. We and our forebears have fought for this country.

Although members of the Government admit in this House that their policy is to give the Bantustans independence, no matter what they say, they do not say that outside. [Interjections.] Outside on the platteland the impression is given that they will develop constitutionally to self-government but that the Prime Minister, as the defender of the White man, will never give them independence.

They say, for overseas consumption, that they will give them independence.

There is no doubt about it …

We stated our standpoint to the whole country before the election.

If the hon. the Prime Minister were to ask his followers outside what their impression was as to what would happen to these Bantustans they would tell him that their impression was that they would not be given independence. [Time limit.]

I should like to deny with all the seriousness at my disposal that hon. members on this side—I am not talking only of the Prime Minister or of Ministers but of members in general—did not put the implications of our policy to the voters at the last election. I deny that we did not explain to them that the Bantu areas could develop to complete independence. I can tell hon. members opposite that on this point we received the greatest support and ovations from the voters. I received it in the constituency of Zululand, which became National; I received it in the constituency of Umhlatuzana, where I held a meeting; I received it in numerous other constituencies, and other members also. It has never yet been hidden. In fact, Sir, if ever anything became clear from this election it is that on that point we can go back to the electorate even stronger than before. We can go to the public and tell them that the Bantu can attain his independence in his areas if he is able to do so, and that we even help him to become able to do so.

The hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) said something else which I want to controvert. The hon. the Prime Minister referred to it this afternoon, but the hon. member keeps on with it. It may be that hon. members opposite may persist with this idea. In view of the fact that they stand for White leadership, they say that we now have White leadership in South Africa. I deny that, Sir. I deny that we have a sort of White leadership in South Africa, and least of all the sort of White leadership which the Opposition can hold up to the public as the leadership which resembles the leadership they stand for. We have supremacy over the White areas of South Africa. The Bantu areas of South Africa have not yet developed to complete independence. In that sense they are still also subject to the supremacy of the Whites. But this Parliament does not govern on a basis of White leadership, not any sort of White leadership, but on a basis of White supremacy. That should be clearly understood now. This Parliament worked according to a sort of leadership idea, but not the sort of leadership favoured by the United Party, when we still had the Coloureds on the Common Roll, and when the Natives were still on the Common Roll and later on a separate roll. Then there was perhaps a sort of leadership, but what we have now is not leadership at all. Hon. members should not think that they can deceive the electorate by saying that what they stand for is what we are already experiencing, because that is not true.

Now I should like to come back to another point in regard to which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had much to say and that is, as he expressed it, that “economic integration is taking place faster than ever before”. He means now, under the Nationalist Government.

Yes.

The fact that the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson) now also agrees with it means nothing, because he agrees with everything without understanding it. But I want to tell hon. members opposite that I strenuously deny that the presence of the Bantu in the economic development of South Africa, as we control it under our regime, amounts to economic integration.

Then what is it?

I will tell the hon. member. My time is limited and I shall try to do so as briefly as possible. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition makes a big mistake, just as in regard to the misrepresentation about the so-called White leadership and I now want to tell him very clearly: We do not have economic integration now. [Interjections.] There is no economic integration going on between Bantu and Whites in South Africa. We do not have it. I shall explain it, and I shall tell hon. members when it will be there.

You must be blind.

No, I am not blind, but the hon. member does not want to give me an opportunity to explain my point. He wants to shout me down in order to avoid hearing the truth. Sir, what is economic integration? What is integration? Integration means the intermingling of people in all kinds of spheres, constitutional, economic, agricultural, educational, social, governmental—intermingling in all kinds of spheres with the potential of becoming increasingly more equal to each other.

We are talking about economic integration.

Yes, I mentioned economic integration as one of the examples. Take the economic sphere as an example. If integration takes place there, then (and that is what the United Party favours) the Bantu must be allowed in those industries, as I expressed it a moment ago, in such a way that he is potentially equal and will gradually become increasingly more equal to the Whites in that same economy. In other words, those Bantu should not just do unskilled work; they must be able to become apprentices in a trade, and when they have completed their apprenticeship they must be able to become artisans, and they must be able to make progress and become foremen and managers. And that is not all, because it will be dishonest to throw down the boom at managership. Then you must allow him also to become an entrepreneur. In other words, the Bantu must be allowed to build his factory in Epping or at Paarden Eiland or in Johannesburg. That is economic integration, that Bantu and the Whites become increasingly equal in the same context. Now I want to say that this is absolutely not our policy. We clearly say that this is not our policy and in White South Africa we lay down a bar and say: Economically the Bantu cannot develop further than a certain level. Now it is true that the bar is elastic. It can be shifted here and there. But we say that they will not have economic development all the way up to the top. We say that in the White areas the economic potential is the sole right of the Whites, the primary right of the Whites, and we say that that is not available to the Bantu also. But we say at the same time that those economic possibilities are a primary right of the Bantu in his homeland, and there I and all the other Whites cannot share that primary right with the Bantu to develop to the top economically, and where it existed that development must be put into reverse gear, as is now being done in the Transkei. That is the fundamental difference, and let hon. members opposite now clearly understand that when they tell us that there are a large number of Bantu in Cape Town or in Johannesburg or in Kroonstad or in any other place, who play a role in the economy it does not amount to economic integration by far.

And this is not the only example. There is still the point of wage equality. Those hon. members stand for equal wages for equal work. We do not adopt that standpoint. That standpoint of theirs, of equal wages, is an integrationist standpoint, but we reject it. And then the same economic principles goes a little further and it also applies to the ownership of land. The hon. member for Vereeniging just touched on the question of land ownership. The ownership of land is intimately linked with this economic integration I have mentioned, because the man who becomes an apprentice and then becomes an artisan and a manager will, if he becomes an entrepreneur, surely want to own the land on which his factory is built. Surely it is logical, that he should want to own the land on which the factory of his company is built. That is denied to the Bantu here. It cannot happen here. All this is part of the chain constituting economic integration, and hon. members opposite should stop telling us that if the numbers of the Bantu in Cape Town increase then economic integration has increased. All that has increased is employment. There is no economic integration. [Time limit.]

I also want to come back to this question of economic integration. Not long ago we had a torrent of words like this, words, words, words. But let us come back to tin-tacks in regard to this particular matter we are dealing with, this question of the Government’s Native policy. I want to remind the hon. Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration of an occasion not very long ago in this House when he was also shouting and waving his arms about and when he was dealing with this same question of political separation. The hon. the Prime Minister comes now—not by saying that there will be no more territorial separation; I accept that. He says that that is important to remain, but the main thing now is that we have to get political separation. That is the big thing. That is what the hon. the Prime Minister said.

And I agree.

If the hon. Deputy Minister says that that is so, then let me remind him of his own words—

But we have.

But the hon. the Prime Minister now tells us that this is what we must aim at, political separation, and the hon. Deputy Minister told us that we already have achieved that, that it was one of their most brilliant successes. How are you going to achieve what you have already done? It is entirely in line with the way the Nationalist Party talks. They make statements of this kind, and it is the veriest rubbish, because the hon. the Prime Minister immediately contradicts what the hon. Deputy Minister says. The hon. Deputy Minister said—

And what did the hon. the Prime Minister say this afternoon? Truly the hon. the Deputy Minister should resign and get out.

When did he say that?

I am quoting from the speech made on 27 January, this year, two months ago. Then the hon. Deputy Minister talked about separate nations and their right to develop to independence. And now he comes with a cock-and-bull story about the difference between economic separation and political separation. And the hon. the Prime Minister says, we will first have political separation and then we will have economic separation. Perhaps in a thousand years? I am surprised at the hon. the Prime Minister. He is a man of high intelligence, of high learning. He knows the background of the history in South Africa, and then he comes along and talks to a world of men about first political independence in South Africa, and then economic independence the same as enjoyed by the White man in this country. Let him listen to the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration. He is going to give independence to the Coloureds and the Indians. And then the hon. Deputy Minister talks about the moral right of the Bantu. Is there no moral right for the Indian and the Coloured man in South Africa? Have they no moral right to have that independence? Is the moral right only a moral right when it relates as between Whites and Blacks, between the Bantu and the White man? Is there no moral right in regard to the relationship between the Indian and the White and the Coloured and the White man? Is it a moral right only as between the Bantu and the White man? Let the Deputy Minister get up and answer this? I do not want him to bandy about words. Let him get up and say that there is no moral ground …

There is a moral ground. That was my point, but you do not understand it.

Then he should get up and tell us where these people will get their right to independence? Where is the area going to be in which the Indians will be given the right to independence in South Africa? Where is the area where the Coloured people will be given the right to independence? Will the hon. Deputy Minister fight it out with the hon. Prime Minister? You see, this is exactly what my hon. Leader said this afternoon. You get the Nationalist Party speaking with many voices, a cacophony of sound to high heaven.

The hon. Deputy Minister says that he went to Natal and Zululand. Of course he did. And now he tries to avoid the consequences of what he said here in the shadow of Table Mountain.

Mention me one.

The hon. Minister of Bantu Education went on the record as having said that the Bantu homeland for the Zulus could be perhaps three or five or seven separate areas and that was supported by the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration. Let him deny that.

I will make my own speech.

We have this curious set-up of seven separate Zulustans for the Zulus with one central government being independent, and the hon. Prime Minister’s policy is to have political separation between them and the White people in Zululand and in Natal and in South Africa. And thereafter there will be separation along the lines of economics, economic separation. Economic separation. Economic separation for seven little spots dotted about like plums in a plum pudding in Zululand. What kind of concept is that which can be conceived outside a nightmare? Seven little spots under one central government, calling themselves a separate Zulu nation, with complete separate economic independence, separate from the rest of South Africa! You just have to think about it for a moment, to realize how fantastic it is. If this is the policy after five years, haven’t they found one boundary yet for a single Bantustan? Why can’t they say where the boundaries will be?

Wait and see.

The hon. member for Brits (Mr. J. E. Potgieter) gives the impression that he is the author of the whole scheme. I would say that it would be about the level of his intelligence to conceive such a scheme. I think it would be quite fitting. And then they say that we are wrong when we say “White leadership over the whole of the Republic”. The Nationalist Party is trying to deny the Europeans in the Republic that White leadership. We insist upon it. We stand for the maintenance of White leadership over the whole of the Republic. I now want to quote what the hon. the Minister of Finance said, with the approval of the hon. Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration. [Time limit.]

I could not always follow the hon. member who has just sat down, but the last words he said were that they stand for White leadership over the whole of South Africa. Now I should like to analyse what the hon. member means by “White leadership over the whole of South Africa”. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said in the no-confidence debate that leadership is White political control. Now I want to put this questions If White leadership over the whole of South Africa means White political control over the whole of South Africa, do they still stand—and I direct my remarks to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) —by the standpoint propounded, e.g. by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn)? The hon. member for Yeoville made a statement at Green Point on 15 February 1962 which was published in the Cape Argus of 16 February, in which he said this—

If each of those Parliaments of each racial group is going to be sovereign in its own sphere, then I should like to know whether as far as those Parliaments are concerned, there can still be any talk of White political control over those non-White Parliaments. He says that each will be sovereign in its own sphere. I now ask the hon. member for South Coast, who spoke about White leadership over the whole of South Africa, whether the White leadership over the whole of South Africa still applies to those non-White Parliaments of those racial groups of which the hon. member for Yeoville said that they would have sovereignty in their own spheres? Can there still be any talk of White political control if there is a divided sovereignty? Unfortunately the hon. member for South Coast is not listening, but I should like him to reply to this question.

But I should like to go a little further and come to what the Leader of the Opposition himself said on this point. He held a meeting at De Aar after having addressed his congress in Johannesburg, and then he said the following about his race federation at De Aar—

Now note. Sir—

Communal councils.

In other words, those race groups will have a share not only in the Legislative Council, but they will also have a share in the administration of the country.

Through the communal councils.

That was not said. Now the hon. member talks about communal councils. But the communal councils are going to be sovereign within their functional sphere, according to the hon. member for Yeoville. Therefore the communal councils are now irrelevant because they will be sovereign in their own spheres.

That is a misrepresentation.

No, it is not a misrepresentation. I now ask the hon. member for Yeoville, as well as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: Can he bring the participation of the Bantu and the participation of the other races into line with White leadership over the whole of South Africa? Will he please explain that? But still further: The hon. member for Vereeniging has already pointed out that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also said the following in the House of Assembly in 1962 (translation)—

That is what the Leader of the Opposition said as reported in the Volksblad and in his own newspaper, the Weekblad, of 11 May 1962. If the Bantu are then to be represented in this House …

And in the Cabinet.

Yes, but I am speaking now of the House of Assembly only. If the Bantu are to be represented in this House, how can that be reconciled with what the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) has just said, that we now have White leadership in this House and that they will retain this House as it is now forever more? That is what the hon. member said. How does the hon. member for Transkeian Territories reconcile that statement of his that this House will for ever more remain as it is now with the statement of his leader that the Bantu cannot be denied the right of also being represented by the Bantu in this House? I also want to quote what the hon. member for Yeoville said in this regard on 21 January 1962, when he wrote the following—

Now I should like to know whether they still adhere to that standpoint they adopted in 1962 when they came along with their race federation plan and all these statements were made. Now they have deviated from it and they now talk about political White leadership and White political control over the whole of South Africa. I should just like to put a question to the hon. member for South Coast: Does he agree with what the hon. member for Yeoville said here? Will he reply to me? The hon. member for South Coast is so allergic to these questions since South Coast was won by an independent. Does the hon. member for South Coast agree with what the hon. member for Yeoville said, that—

Does he agree with that? Why will he not reply? Must I translate it into Afrikaans or Zulu to get a reply from him? No, the hon. member is not able to reply to him. He cannot reply to it. He accuses our side of the House of making contradictory statements. Here I have now quoted four different members of the United Party and not one of them tells the same story as the others. Who now makes the contradictory statements? We, or that side of the House? After the debacle of the defeat suffered by the United Party in the last provincial elections, the country is entitled to know whether the United Party still stands by that federation plan of theirs and whether they are still continuing with it. I am not even referring to the Bantustan part of it. our homeland policy which they now evidently want to accept, but I ask whether they still stand by the other parts of it? I want to know whether they will stand by the sovereign Parliaments for every racial group and how they reconcile that with political control over the whole of South Africa?

The hon. member for Yeoville went further. He pointed out that in this federal Parliament each of these Parliaments for the different groups would be represented. He embroidered on it and also said that the various areas would also be represented in that Parliament. And he did not say it about the provincial areas. [Time limit.]

A great number of challenges are being thrown at this side of the House and most prominent amongst the challengers has been the hon. Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Development in regard to the accusation that we make against the Government that for certain purposes they say that their policy means independent Bantu states to be created out of the present body of South Africa. They attach great importance to that and when the Minister of External Affairs goes to Cologne in Germany, he tells his German audience that this is a policy which means no discrimination. There will be no discrimination among the races in South Africa.

That is not so. He did not say that.

So it does mean discrimination?

He was referring to what ultimately might be the result.

The essence of Nationalist Party propaganda, the essence of Nationalist Party apologies for their policy of so-called separate development is that there will be independent Black states, that the Black states can get this independence when they ask for it.

Who said that?

The hon. the Prime Minister said to my Leader that they will get it when they ask for it, and that neither my Leader nor the Prime Minister would be able to stop it. We are told for certain purposes that this will inevitably happen, that neither the Prime Minister, nor the Leader of the Opposition can stop it. It will mean no discrimination in the end. Sir, what happens when they face political audiences at election time? The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration challenged us to give examples of where they put the emphasis in a different way or told another story, I see that in the Senate on 11 February it was disclosed and it could not be denied that the hon. Nationalist Senator Potgieter speaking at Donnybrook quite recently, on 2 December 1964 lulled his audience into a sense of security on this issue by telling them: “Not one of you will live to see the day when the Transkei will get independence.” I do not know the hon. Senator Potgieter and I do not know with what degree of authority he spoke for the Nationalist Party. I would like to have a somewhat more authoritative statement, and since the hon. Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration made this challenge, I looked through a few notes, and I found in the Cape Argus on 25 May 1962 that the Minister of Bantu Administration himself speaking in the Senate said that it would take generations for the Bantu areas to become independent. He told them not to worry because it would not happen. He said they would be dead for many years before anything like this would happen. He said this policy was not for the living, but for the unborn. On 11 May 1962 the Minister of Bantu Administration, speaking in this House, said that he had always maintained that the Bantu states would not easily be led to complete independence; he was convinced that it would take many generations before they were independent states. He was setting people’s minds at rest and telling them not to worry too much about the policy of the hon. the Prime Minister. On 3 February 1960 the Minister of Bantu Administration denied in the Assembly that there would be independent Bantu states in South Africa as the result of the Government policy. He said that it was true that if they wanted it they could get it, but he said—

[Laughter.] But that is not all. On 16 June 1961 the Minister, addressing the Calvinist Union at Stellenbosch, said that because it was advisable that the Bantu learnt to walk before he tried to run—no, that is a similar one; I have better ones. There are so many that I must be selective. The Minister of Bantu Administration on 25 May 1960 speaking in the Senate, said that it would take generations for the Bantu areas to become independent. Sir, I am looking for the excellent reply which the Minister of Bantu Administration gave to the hon. member for Wynberg at Maclear in 1959, when she asked him questions about the borders of the Bantustans. He gave the people of Maclear the assurance—I have it here somewhere—that they need not worry. [Laughter.] I must titillate them a little. Sir. On 25 May 1959 at Maclear, according to a report in the Cape Argus, the Minister in reply to Mrs. Taylor said he did not believe that the future Bantu states would ever develop to full independence because they would be economically dependent on South Africa.

Is that the best you can give us?

Yes, it is the best I can find in the short time at my disposal. But I leave it to any impartial judge. What we have here is a most interesting phenomenon. For overseas consumption the story is that we have a Government which is moving away from discrimination because they are going to create independent states for the Bantu, but then the Minister and other speakers go round the country and reassure the people: Do not worry about this; it will take generations, and none of you will live to see it. The Minister denied that it would ever happen. Has that policy any moral value, is that the morality we have to hear about day after day? The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) thought he had discovered a tremendous thing when he quoted from speeches I made and articles I wrote in which I supported the statement made by my leader and said that under a policy of race federation the various races would all participate in the Government of South Africa at administrative and executive level. What is so surprising about that? That is the very essence of our policy. We believe— and that is where we differ from the Progressive Party—that to give people merely the vote and representation in Parliament and Provincial Councils does not solve the problem. [Time limit.]

I should like to address myself to the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) in regard to the passage he quoted from my speech. I hope, therefore, that he will remain in his seat for at least ten minutes, but I first want to deal with the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn). The hon. member has now done precisely what he did nine or ten years ago also, and the older members will still remember it. On that occasion the church clause was being discussed in legislation introduced at the time by the Prime Minister, who was then Minister of Native Affairs.

That unnecessary piece of legislation which has never been used yet.

I think the hon. member knows what I am getting at. On that occasion the Leader of the Opposition, who was then the hon. member for Hottentots-Holland, denied that he had said certain things at Vereeniging according to a newspaper report, and I still remember what he said. He said there that this Bill introduced by the Prime Minister would make it impossible for Bantu to worship together with White people in South Africa. [Interjection.] On that occasion, when we challenged the then member for Hottentots-Holland in regard to that untruth, the brave member for Yeoville, who was then the member for Vereeniging, jumped in and said that he was present at that meeting and that he could confirm that the newspaper report was wrong, and then he produced as proof the same sort of evidence which he brought forward here today. He said: Here are my notes; I sat there and made notes of the speech of the hon. member for Hottentots-Holland. To-day we have again seen the same inelegant egg-dance when the hon. member stood up and read notes, in handwriting, as to what was said in the Senate and in Maclear and which were given to him by other of his henchmen who made notes for him. I do not take any notice of that sort of thing. The hon. member should adduce better proof than notes made later by other members of his party.

In regard to the point he made in connection with the time factor as to when the Bantu areas may reach independence, nobody on this side can say that it will take ten or 100 years. [Interjection.] The Minister said it could take generations, but the Minister was referring to all eight of these potential areas, and it may take generations before the last one becomes independent. But we have never said that it may or will take generations. A week ago a very prominent American visited me and discussed these matters with me and he wanted to know precisely when it would happen. I said: Here we differ radically from all the other powers who withdrew from Africa. In Belgium they said that on 30 December 1960 at midnight the Natives would receive their independence, and almost immediately all of them including the king had to flee in the night. We do not set any such period. It depends on human capabilities and on the rate of development and on all kinds of unpredictable factors. We say we will assist them along that road, but nobody can speculate as to how long it may take. Nobody has said that it would happen by the year 2000 or over the course of so many generations. It may happen, and it may not.

I now come to the hon. member for South Coast. He quoted from my speech and committed a blatant injustice. To begin with, I spoke in Afrikaans. He quoted me from the English translation. It is official, but it is not precise, and he quoted me incompletely. [Interjections.] I am not dealing with somebody else’s notes now, but with Hansard. In Col. 131 of the Afrikaans volume, and in Col. 126 of the English volume I said this here, and you will see how I was interrupted by questions from a whole series of hon. members opposite, inter alia, by the hon. member for South Coast. The hon. member for South Coast asked whether he could put a question and I said—

The English version also has the same words: “We are now discussing the problem of the Bantu areas.” I had nothing to do with Coloureds and Indians but was dealing with the Bantu only. Then I very clearly said what I wanted to say, and later I came to the bit from which the hon. member quoted to-day. It is to be found at the bottom of Col. 126 of the English Hansard and at the top of Col. 132 of the Afrikaans Hansard. In reply to an interjection by the hon. member for Green Point I said that I was still dealing with the main question, in regard to the Bantu areas, and now I want to read everything which I said here, and that is precisely what the hon. member quoted a moment ago—

I stand by every letter of it, because I was discussing the main matter, the Bantu areas. I said that I was in favour of all those nations having that right. I said that day that we did not have one Bantu nation in South Africa but numbers of them, and the hon. member quoted only up to there. “The hon. member read only up to that point.”

Order!

May I not switch over to the other language? Or may I not switch over in the Committee Stage?

No.

The hon. member read up to that point, and here we have a translation difficulty, but it does not really make any difference. The English version reads as follows—

“Independence” is not an accurate translation of “self standigheid”. But there is no positive word in English for “self standigheid”. There is only the negative word for “onafhanklikheid”. But let us accept the word “independence”. I now read further in English. I then explain that sentence, and I repeat the words—

The hon. member quoted me up to that point. Why did he not read the next few words also, then he would have seen how they fitted it with my introductory words where I spoke about the Bantu areas. The words which follow are these—

[Interjections.] Let me just finish first. That marching member for South Coast has a complex about running. I may run away from many people, but never from him. [Time limit.]

It appears to me as though this egg-dancing is now getting out of hand. I well remember the speech of the hon. member in which he spoke about the various peoples and nations, but he has neglected to read that portion of his speech. He did not speak only about the Bantu. This is what he said (Col. 125)—

Why does my hon. friend shy away from what he said? I congratulated my hon. friend the other day on being honest enough to give us a frank exposition of the policy of his party. Now he too is running away! Why? It is unnecessary to do so. It is clear from what I have quoted that my hon. friend was speaking about the various race groups in South Africa. He said that he did not like the word “races” but referred to speak of nations, peoples or nations, and he said that each one of them would be guided to their eventual sovereignty and independence.

Where did he say that? [Interjections.]

He says that he spoke only about the Bantu but he did not. He spoke about all the various “nations” in South Africa.

It is a pity that one has to return to another aspect of the matter. Hon. members opposite know that in the recent election they ran away from the true state of affairs. Why do they deny this? This side of the House says openly that race federation with all its implications is its policy and that it stands or falls by that policy. The hon. the Prime Minister says that he has remained consistent. I also thought so but on the last occasion—a week or so ago—on which I addressed this House in regard to this matter, I pointed out that his present attitude was not in conformity with his attitude in 1951. In 1951 he stated categorically, together with Dr. Malan and Mr. Strijdom, that complete territorial apartheid or Bantustans was not the policy of the Nationalist Party.

Did Dr. Malan say, under present circumstances?

No! I want now to quote from the Hansard of the Other Place in regard to what the hon. the Prime Minister, as Minister of Native Affairs, said at the time—

The hon. the Prime Minister went on to say—

May I ask a question?

No, I only have ten minutes. I want to go further. This was said in 1951. I attacked the hon. the Prime Minister the other day and said that he changed his mind in 1959, and that what he said in 1959 was now being denied outside this House. In 1959, the hon. the Prime Minister said that nobody could determine when those people would receive their independence. The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) said that when an apple is ripe, it falls from the tree, and that we cannot stop its falling. This is what the hon. the Prime Minister said on 20 May 1959 (Hansard, Col. 6221)—

Of course, we know that that is correct. They, the Bantu, will decide that. This House will not be able to decide it: those people themselves will decide it, and Mantanzima is already saying that he wants certain powers, that he wants to extend his territory and that he wants independence, and who is going to prevent it?

But what is being said outside this House?

“The Bantu will never receive their independence”! That was said during the recent elections and nobody can deny it. I ask again: Why then that court order, if I am not correct? If my hon. friends do not deny outside the House what is said in the House why then that court order?

Which court order?

The hon. the Prime Minister says that this side of the House wants to make South Africa Black.

I have never said that. I said that that would be the result of your policy.

That is correct, but the result of the policy of that side of the House is that South Africa is becoming blacker and blacker; the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development said so himself. He asked whether I did not understand that in terms of their policy South Africa would initially become blacker and blacker before it became whiter and whiter. Now the hon. the Minister says that it is not dangerous because these people are not being integrated economically. Have you ever heard such a thing? Every man who contributes towards the production of whatever it may be in one’s country is, after all, integrated economically. The man who contributes towards one’s welfare and one’s profits is, after all, integrated economically. The man who contributes towards the production of a bag of wheat or a bag of maize is surely integrated economically? [Interjections.] This is another attempt on the part of my friends opposite to run away. They may be able to say these things to people who do not know any better but I think that they underestimate the intelligence of hon. members on this side. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) says that if the Black man helps to produce a single bag of wheat, then he is integrated in the economy of the White man. Let me ask him this: If he has 20 non-Whites on his farm, are they economically integrated in his farming; do they have a share in the control?

Of course.

If that is the hon. member’s answer then it is perfectly clear to me that the United Party has no inkling as to what integration means. The United Party and its leaders have made many inconsistent statements that they have confused their own people to such an extent and had alienated the voters to such an extent that to-day they are on the wane. Last year at their Party Congress in Bloemfontein none other than the Leader of the Opposition made an attack in his opening speech on the policy of the National Party; he said that the policy of separate development, in terms of which the Bantu is to be given full political rights in his own area and no rights in the White area, was wrong, and he used the following words—

Sir, have you ever heard anything which is a greater condemnation of their own policy ?I want to put this question to the Leader of the Opposition: He talks about the limited representation of the Bantu in the United Party’s federal parliament, in which the urban Bantu are to be represented initially by Whites. Let me put this very pertinent question to him: They also want to develop the Bantu homelands. They have gone so far as to say that it will fit in with their race federation plan because these homelands will be able to serve as constituencies for the federal parliament. Those were the words of the hon. member for Yeoville. Let me ask them this: How many people and who will represent the Bantu homelands in their federal parliament? will every one of those Bantu homelands be given representation in their federal parliament? Who are those representatives going to be? Are they going to be Whites or non-Whites, even in the initial stages? I should like the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to reply very pertinently to these questions.

Sir, I made the accusation in this House recently that the United Party, in consulting people in connection with the political rights of the Bantu, had also consulted pro-Left elements: that they had even consulted former A.N.C. leaders; that they were prepared to consult those people and in fact had consulted them. I also made the accusation that a non-White leader had addressed their party caucus. Do they want to deny that? I challenge them now to deny it. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said the other day that this was a lie: that there was no such thing. I challenge them now to deny that a non-White leader addressed their party caucus. Is that untrue? [Interjections.] Sir, the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) says it is untrue. Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also deny it? Does he deny that a Bantu leader addressed their caucus? No, he cannot deny it because he is the person who made that statement at a public meeting; and he went very much further. He said that he was not prepared to disclose the name of that Bantu leader because the Security Police were also present. It looks as though hon. members of the Opposition want to deny this allegation. This is what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said at a meeting held in Mowbray on 2 October 1961 in reply to a question as to whom the United Party had consulted before deciding to give the Bantu eight representatives in the House of Assembly—

Where do you get hold of that?

I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition again: Did a leader of the Bantu community, a Black leader of the Bantu community, address their caucus? Did they consult him with regard to political rights for the Bantu?

What are you quoting from?

From the Volksblad of 5 October 1961. Mr. Chairman, we have heard a great deal here to-day about discrimination. The hon. member for Yeoville has stated very pertinently that he also stands for discrimination. Let me put it this way: The Prime Minister has said on various occasions and we have all said on public platforms that our policy of separate development will gradually do away with racial discrimination, and that is quite correct; I say it again and we all say it. Our policy is steering away from racial discrimination. The United Party also say that they are steering away from racial discrimination, but on what basis? On the basis of equality between White and Black in one integrated community. What situation will the removal of racial discrimination bring about under their policy of one integrated community? It will inevitably result in wiping out the rights and the interests of the White man here in South Africa; surely that is self-evident. Sir, hon. members of the Opposition talk with many different voices; they come along with all sorts of stories. They come along with one story for elections, but on the other hand they also have to satisfy their pro-Left members who did not have a single word to say in the recent election. [Time limit.]

I wish to return again to the Government’s policy in respect of our Coloured people. I am sorry to interrupt the trend of the debate but I feel that this is a very important subject which should be raised again at this stage to enable the hon. the Prime Minister to deal with it later on in this debate.

Sir, I am not going to be distracted by the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) who, as usual, is trying to evade the real issue by introducing political red herrings into the debate. The hon. member for Vereeniging asked me why I had not raised my voice when the Equity Association of England tried to impose their wishes upon South Africa. Let me tell the hon. member for Vereeniging that I did protest against this outside interference. In February I protested in this House against this interference but I claimed that our Coloured citizens should not be prejudiced because of Equity’s interference. I pleaded with the Government on that occasion not to be so petty as to be influenced by Equity or by the outburst of that little girl, Dusty Springfield, against this country. But, I am not interested in Equity to-day because the incidents that I complained of in this House and to which I want to draw the hon. the Prime Minister’s attention has nothing whatsoever to do with Equity. I would like to ask the hon. member for Vereeniging what Equity has to do with the cycle marathon at the Green Point Cycle Track from which nearly 2,000 respectable Coloured people were turned away because of Government policy. The cycle marathon was not conducted under the auspices of Equity. Equity had absolutely nothing to do with that function.

They were on their bicycles!

We find that 2,000 respectable Coloured men and women were turned away from this function. Sir, what has Equity to do with the graduation ceremony of the Western Cape University College? We find that the University College applied to hire the Civic Centre at Bellville for their graduation ceremony, which was going to be attended by the cream of Coloured people in this area. They were refused the right to hire this hall in terms of Government policy.

That is not true. It was not refused by the Government.

Bellville is not a Coloured area.

What has Equity to do with it? Permission was refused by the Municipality because of Government policy. The Town Clerk of Bellville said publicly that the University College was refused permission to hire the hall because of Government policy. Now. what has Equity to do with that decision? What has Equity to do with our municipal orchestral concerts in the City Hall from which our Coloured citizens are banned because of Government policy?

When were they banned?

They have been refused permission to attend the concerts since the mixed audiences proclamation.

That is not true.

I say it is true. The tragedy of it is that only a handful, not more than ten, cultured Coloured people have availed themselves of the opportunity of coming to these orchestral concerts and they have been refused permission to attend. These Coloured citizens, as I am reminded, have subscribed towards the maintenance of this orchestra, as ratepayers of this City, and they have been denied the privilege of attending these concerts by reason of this proclamation.

Equity cannot by any stretch of the imagination be blamed for what is happening to-day. There is only one body responsible and that is the Government. I appeal to the hon. the Prime Minister because the Ministers concerned are shielding behind the Prime Minister’s policy statement in regard to this matter.

When my speech was interrupted by the time limit I had mentioned that responsible Coloured persons had been denied the right to use public amenities to which they had subscribed as ratepayers of this City. I want to cite one example, and that is the position in regard to the Wynberg Town Hall. This public hall has for the past 22 years, to my knowledge, been used almost exclusively by Coloured people and Coloured organizations for their private functions. They are now being denied this facility. They were told that they had to hold their functions in another hall at Gleemore.

That is not right.

Sir, these are facts. Let the hon. member get up and deny it. They were told that they could not have the Wynberg Town Hall because of Government policy and that they should go to Gleemore. I do not know whether the hon. the Prime Minister has been to Gleemore, but let me tell him that this hall to which they were sent is situated many miles away from where the people who have used the Wynberg Town Hall for many years live. Apart from transport difficulties they are subjected at night to attacks by the skolly elements which gather around these places in outlying areas.

From which section of the community does the skolly element come?

I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether he intended that such a situation should develop? Sir, I received a telegram from responsible Coloured leaders whose names I am prepared to give to the hon. the Prime Minister, in which they urged me to endeavour to persuade the hon. the Prime Minister to ease the unfortunate situation which has now arisen in this city and throughout the whole of the Cape. This telegram reads as follows—

Who sent the telegram?

I will give this telegram to the hon. the Prime Minister, not to the hon. member. I am afraid of intimidation. The Prime Minister, however, can have this telegram with the greatest of pleasure because I know that he will respect the wishes of these people. I would like to assure the hon. the Prime Minister that this telegram by no means exaggerates the grave and alarming situation which has arisen in the Cape. The Coloured people are most resentful and angry because of the grave individual hardships which have been inflicted upon them. They are fully conscious of the fact that they, in common with all other sections of our community, have contributed towards the creation of social amenities in the Cape. They resent the humiliation which has been inflicted upon them as a result of Government policy. What justification is there for depriving our Coloured citizens of these amenities to which they are lawfully entitled and which they have enjoyed for generations without in any way intruding upon the rights of the White people? Sir, the tragedy of this whole matter is that we are alienating almost irrevocably the goodwill and the friendship of this highly-educated, cultured non-White group of South Africa. After all, it is this section of the Coloured community who are really being hit by this ban. I would like the hon. the Prime Minister as a highly cultured man to bear this aspect in mind. It is the educated and the cultured non-Whites who resent so bitterly this inhuman action in banning them from these functions, and enjoying the facilities to which they have been used for so many years. Sir, they are denied these facilities merely because of the colour of their skins. In these times, with all the difficulties confronting our country, can we afford to allow this frustration and bitterness to continue? Can we stand by and allow these indignities and insults to be inflicted upon these unfortunate human beings? What crime have they committed other than the fact that they are of the wrong colour? That is their only crime. Sir, I appeal to the hon. the Prime Minister: What has happened to our national conscience in this country if we can stand by and allow a large section of our people to be treated in this cavalier fashion? Surely we cannot allow this bitterness created by Government policy to continue. From a purely human aspect, we cannot allow decent, respectable and responsible Coloured citizens, who are as civilized as we are to be treated in this cavalier fashion. [Time limit.]

I do not propose to reply to the hon. member who has just sat down. I want to come back to the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp). The hon. member for Hillbrow has tried here in his usual way to make out a case; he tries to create the impression that he is quoting somebody else when he knows perfectly well that he is not doing so.

On a point of order, I object to the accusation that I know perfectly well that what I am quoting is wrong.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw those words.

The hon. member tried to create the impression that the hon. the Deputy Minister was referring …

On a point of order, I ask you, Sir, to order the hon. member first to withdraw those words.

He did withdraw them.

I object to the way in which my time is being wasted. The hon. member for Hillbrow tried to create the impression that he was quoting the hon. the Deputy Minister; he sought to create the impression that the hon. the Deputy Minister was referring to all the various population groups, including the Coloureds and Indians and that the hon. the Deputy Minister had suggested that all these population groups would eventually be given independent homelands in the same way as the Bantu. I challenge him or any member on that side to quote the words of any person on this side of the House who said, as alleged by him, that the Coloureds and the Indians would be placed in their own homelands and that those homelands who achieve the same status as the Bantu homelands. I say that the hon. member cannot do so.

The hon. member was very concerned at the hon. the Prime Minister’s reference to guardianship. He tries to create the impression that he does not know what guardianship means; that he does not know what “guardian” means. Sir, must guardianship never come to an end? After all, the concept of guardianship implies that the ward will eventually become emancipated.

I am pleased, Mr. Chairman, that we have an opportunity again this afternoon to discuss the race federation plan of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. the Prime Minister put certain questions to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in the recent no-confidence debate in connection with the maintenance of White leadership. When the hon. the Prime Minister practically forced him to say whether he meant “baasskap” when he spoke about leadership, he replied that he would come to it later on in the course of his speech. The hon. the Prime Minister then again pertinently asked him later on in the course of his speech how he was going to maintain his leadership and by what means. The Prime Minister said that he was prepared to maintain his policy of White rule by means of force, if necessary. The Leader of the Opposition then replied that he would maintain his policy of White leadership with all the means at his disposal. Sir, I want to deal for a few moments with the means that he will have at his disposal. We must remember, Sir, that he is going to give eight representatives to the Bantu in this House. In the no-confidence debate the year before last he not only said that there would be eight representatives of the Bantu in this House but he went further, and I now quote his own words—

When was that?

This is what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said the year before last in his reply to the no-confidence debate. The hon. member will find it in Col. 33 (22 January 1963). The question was put to him: “And what is going to happen when the Bantu insist on further representation?” He then said that he would hold a referendum. He was then asked, “Will that eventually lead to Bantu representation by means of Bantu members in this House; what is the United Party’s reply?” Unless I am mistaken it was this cardinal issue which caused Mr. Odell to leave the United Party. The reply to that question is contained in an article by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) which appeared in the Sunday Times of 21 January 1962. The hon. member for Yeoville was replying here to a question as to what their advice would be when a referendum was held; what they would advise the voters to do. This is what the hon. member for Yeoville wrote—

And “responsible opinion” means the leader—

I come now to the bravado of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in saying that he will maintain his leadership with all the means at his disposal. What means will he have at his disposal? In his speech of the year before last he referred to participation in the day-to-day administrative processes of the State. What will that mean in terms of their race federation policy? Sir, I challenge any member on the other side to say that what I am saying here is unreasonable. Once the Coloureds have disappeared as a race, in terms of their policy that the Coloureds will then be treated as Whites, there will be three Bantu as against one White man. Under their policy of race federation, what can that mean other than that there will be one White Judge on the Bench as against three Black Judges? In the Defence Force there will be one White soldier as against three Black soldiers, and remember, Sir, this also includes generals and colonels. In the Police Force there will be one White policeman as against three Black policemen. According to their rate-for-the job policy the tradesmen will all be Blacks. The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) now comes along and says at a public meeting at Coronation that if the Blacks put forward more demands, “then we will shoot them”. Those are the words he used—“We will shoot them.” Let me put this question now to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: If you have three Black soldiers as against one White soldier— and I say again that this includes generals and colonels—who is going to shoot whom? I am now discussing the means that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will have at his disposal. When he comes to the third stage which the hon. member for Yeoville wrote about, the means that he will have at his disposal will be the means to which I have just referred here. Those will be the means that he will have at his disposal to maintain his White leadership. He will have to maintain his White leadership with three Blacks as against one White man in the Defence Force, in the Police Force, in the judiciary and in the day-to-day administrative processes of the State.

The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Sadie) raised the question here of a Bantu who had apparently addressed the caucus of the United Party. The position is that the United Party has a Native Affairs study group and prominent Natives have on occasion, by invitation, addressed the study group. This will happen frequently. What a ridiculous attitude for that side of the House to adopt! Here we are in this House and we have to govern millions of Natives, but hon. members opposite consider it wrong that we should remain informed and that we should find out what the feelings of these people are whom we have to govern. This proves how wrongly orientated that side of the House is. Sir, we will continue to consult these people.

The hon. the Prime Minister has given us to understand that he will reply at a later stage to matters in connection with Coloured policy. I want to say a few words in this regard. There was a time when the hon. the Prime Minister said that he still needed a little time to consider certain aspects of his policy in regard to the Coloured people. Now, this Government has been in power for 17 years and the hon. the Prime Minister himself has been at the head of affairs for nearly six years. I think that it is only fair that after all this time he should be able to tell us how the scheme and the theories which he has for the Coloured people of South Africa are going to work out in the long run. Sir, we hear a great deal these days about the meaning of separate freedom, with the emphasis on “freedom”. We are continually hearing about “separate development to separate freedom for all”. I think that the hon. the Prime Minister himself is the originator of this idea. The whole intention is that there should be no damper on anyone. Every group will be master in his own area—and now I quote—“the one group in no respect subordinate to the other”. We can all understand that if a tribal area like the Transkei were to become independent to-morrow, or whenever it may be, it is self-evident that the people who live there will be released from discrimination; but that release will not spring from the value of the policy itself; it will spring from the fact that they will, as it were, have moved away from the jurisdiction of the Government. The same thing would hold good for a man who takes his hat, leaves the country and goes to live in another country. He will have freed himself from the policy of the Government and thus escaped from discrimination. Therefore, the test of “separate freedom” is not going to lie with those who leave the Republic; the test of that policy of separate freedom is going to lie with those who remain; and I think that after six years as Prime Minister the hon. the Prime Minister ought now to be able to explain to us what his scheme of a state within a state for the Coloureds in which their freedoms and rights are going to be “equal” to those of the Whites, is going to look like eventually. I want to ask him whether he actually wants to give us to understand that there can be a number of Parliaments in the same state, each of which makes its own laws, for people living within the same political economy. Will each group have its own court? Will each have its own public service, its own police, all with equal powers? What will happen then if a case has to be resolved between a Coloured and a White? In which court would that case he heard? Let us imagine that the Coloureds are to be given full power and freedom in their own group areas. Will the Coloureds have the right in their group areas to abolish all discrimination between people? Will they have every right to sell their land there to whomsoever they please? Will they have the right, for example, to introduce a lottery there for Coloureds? Will they be able to open a radio station there? Will they be able to start television for Coloureds in their own group areas, although this Government does not want it for the Whites? Sir, the expression “freedom” can mean only one of two things because a man is either free or he is not free, and I think that the time has come for the hon. the Prime Minister to convince us that his policy of separate freedom for all—this is also being declared in the outside world—rests on a firm foundation and is not simply a game.

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

Evening Sitting

I do not want to refer to the hon. member who spoke just before me. He falls in the leader class nowadays and I leave him there with great humility. I rise at this stage of the debate to say three things which I think materially affect the official Opposition in South Africa. Opposition politics are always important in a democratic country. In South Africa, where our colour policy is always a matter of real importance, Opposition politics are always important. In saying these three things in respect of the official Opposition at this stage of our political activities in this country, I do not want to refer in the first instance to the election results and the weak party organization that existed as far as the official Opposition is concerned. The hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman) is fully aware of that. I do not want to refer either to the clumsy attitude of the English language Press and the support given by it to the United Party. I do not want to refer either to certain persons in the United Party who should now perhaps be shifted to other places where they can once again serve that party. Sir, three important things have happened in the past few weeks In respect of Opposition politics in South Africa. The first is that for the first, time in history the Coloured has turned his back on the United Party. The Coloured in South Africa, throughout the years, has always found a home within the broad framework of the Opposition Party. [Interjections.] The hon. member refers to Bruchner de Villiers. I admit that Mr. Bruchner de Villiers did perhaps transport a small number of Coloured voters to the polling booths to vote for the National Party. But the truth is that the image presented by the United Party was such that the Coloured found a home within that party. We saw that in practice. What happened before the Coloured was taken out of the political arena was that when election day came along shiny motor cars from Sea Point and Rondebosch and all those areas were used to transport hundreds of Coloureds to the polling booths. [Interjections.] That is true, Sir. I adhere to my statement that the image presented by the United Party was such that the Coloured found a home within the framework of their policy.

As recently as 5 February of this year the hon. the Leader of the Opposition stood up in this House and took pride in the fact that the proposition that I am advancing here was the truth. This is what he said—

You will see therefore, Mr. Chairman, that here he takes pride in the fact that basically the Coloured finds his home within the framework of that party’s policy. [Interjections.] He said this on 5 February of this year. Two weeks later the provincial election took place and for the first time in the history of that party the Coloured turned his back on the United Party. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. members for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) and Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson) must please control themselves.

I say that for the first time in the history of the United Party the Coloured, three weeks after this statement by the Leader of the Opposition, turned his back on the United Party. I want to go further: the Leader of the Opposition knows as well as I do that there is a very strong movement afoot in his party at the moment to try at their next Union Congress to change the party’s policy so that the Coloureds will no longer be placed on the Common Voters’ Roll in terms of their policy. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition cannot deny that. At this moment there is a strong movement in his party, a movement that will come to a head at his Union Congress. None of them can deny it.

But, Sir, there is a second thing that has happened in respect of the United Party; for the first time in many, many years, the English-speaking voters have started permanently to turn their backs on the United Party. The election results proved it; the United Party cannot get away from it. The United Party has always represented itself as the one party which is able to unite English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking within its ranks. The results of the recent election prove that as far as the United Party is concerned this situation is coming to an end. The English-speaking person is turning his back on the United Party.

Where?

In Natal and elsewhere. I want to predict here that the more progress we make in respect of the new Republican set-up in South Africa, the more the English-speaking section will turn its back on that party.

There is a third thing, and that is that everybody in this country is beginning to realize that the United Party’s formula for handling a Black majority is out of date, awkward and clumsy. That is why the election results were what they were. As far as this formula is concerned the United Party has no message to-day for South Africa. I say that for two reasons. The United Party believes— I should like the hon. member for Maitland to listen carefully now—that, in the long run, a White minority will be able to remain the masters over a Black majority within the framework of an undivided political set-up in South Africa. That is what the United Party believes basically. That is the first reason why it is suffering these defeats. There is a second basic proposition and that is that the United Party believes that one can regulate the basic urge for freedom of a Black majority by means of written formulae. Sir, one cannot formulate the basic urge for freedom of the Black majority by means of some written formula. It is these two basic principles, these two basic approaches, which are responsible for the United Party’s failure to-day. In that respect it has no message for the people. Let me use this fine analogy, Sir: In this respect the United Party is like a small buck strenuously fighting for survival during a summer drought on the vast Karoo plains. That is the position of the United Party. It is this attitude of the United Party in our basic political reasoning that makes them antiquated and that will cause it to disappear permanently from the scene. [Time limit.]

I want to ask the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. P. S. Marais) what is so terribly strange about the fact that a small group of English-speaking people is supporting the Nationalist Party? There have always been race jingos amongst both the English-speaking and the Afrikaans-speaking people. There was a section of English-speaking jingos who took it out on the Afrikaner; and now that that era is past, they are taking it out on the non-White. I am not at all surprised. The jingo type would sooner or later have gravitated towards that side. But I am convinced that the vast majority of English-speaking people will remain sober-minded, not because they are English-speaking but because they are South Africans, and that they will continue to support the United Party.

When business was interrupted, I was dealing with the meaning of the Government’s “state within a state” for the Coloureds, the idea of separate equality for the Coloured. I said that it was time that the hon. the Prime Minister convinced us that this idea held water, that it was practicable politically and that it was not simply a game, because in our eyes it is somewhat in the nature of a hat without a brim and having no crown!

There sits a great party; it boasts about its power; it boasts about how strong it is in the country, but when one comes to the question of the Coloureds, it does not have the courage to face up to the position of the Coloureds squarely. And in the meantime the sands of time are running out for us. The Government is to-day creating a false atmosphere of complacency amongst its followers. The truth is, Mr. Chairman, that things are building up in the world around us; they are building up against us as a result of the Government which we have. As we sit here this evening and day after day plans are being drawn up against us in the highest Western circles as a result of the Government that we have. In the meantime, the Government is playing with formless ideas such as a state within a state, and over and above this, it continues to add fuel to the flames of hatred against South Africa in the outside world by its extremism and by interference in the daily life of decent people. I say without reservation: There sits the greatest creator of unrest in South Africa —the Government. The Government is also the greatest originator of agitation against South Africa in the outside world because of its laws, its regulations and its actions. I say this without reservation.

I was discussing the question of the Coloureds. The Coloureds are a minority group in regard to the Whites. They only number about half the number of Whites in South Africa. They can therefore not constitute any threat whatsoever to the White man as far as numbers are concerned. Culturally, they are our people; they are brown Afrikaners. The Coloured problem is therefore the easiest of all our problems. And if the Government cannot work out a practical policy for the Coloureds, then there is no hope at all of its being able to solve our more difficult race problems. If it is powerless when faced with the easiest problem, what are we to expect of it when we come to the difficult problems?

The question is, what do we suggest? We readily admit that the Coloured has progressed in the material sphere but this is no favour which we have done the Coloureds. It is their right as citizens to be given what is their due. I believe that every citizen in South Africa, no matter what his colour may be, is entitled to certain basic things—a living wage for a good day’s work; secondly, a roof over his head for himself and his family; thirdly, full education for his children and fourthly, assistance in time of illness. Every citizen ought to be able to demand these things. Accordingly, the Government must stop telling us about the favours it is doing the Coloureds. It is their right to receive those things. The development of the Coloureds in the material sphere must therefore continue. Secondly, we say that in the interests of the White man himself, the Government must stop building artificial walls; it must stop deliberate alienation. Our task in South Africa is not to find out how people must live past one another and act as though the other one did not exist; the work of a sound Government in this country is to find the way for us to co-exist—not how to live away from one another. Our attitude is that the Government must stop its negative, petty apartheid.

What does separate “development” mean? I shall be pleased if hon. members opposite will explain to me what development it is for a person to be told: “You are not good enough to enter by the same door as I do” ?Is that development? That is apartheid, yes, but it has nothing to do with development. All that results from this is humiliation. [Interjections.]

You are a liar.

Order!

On a point of order, the hon. member said that it was a lie.

What they say does not affect me.

Order! The hon. member for Durban Point (Mr. Raw) must withdraw the word “liar”.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Hon. members must please give the hon. member an opportunity to make his speech.

On a point of order, the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) said that somebody else had said: “It is a lie.” [Interjections.]

It does not worry me at all. We ask the hon. the Prime Minister why he cannot give the Coloureds the right to be represented by their own people here. What is his fundamental objection to the fact that a man like Mr. Tom Swartz should sit here in this House? What is so wrong about that? I am a member of the D.R. Church and there is a non-White on the Federal Council of the D.R. Church; there are non-Whites on the Synod—the Parliament —of the D.R. Church. No members on the other side of the House have resigned from the D.R. Church because there are non-Whites in the “Parliament” of the church. [Interjections.] Let me say this: There are members sitting on that side—I will not be so mean as to mention their names—who are in full agreement with me that the Coloureds should be allowed to take their seats here. [Interjections.]

Order!

Hon. members must please not conduct themselves in this way. I shall have to take steps against them if they do.

When foreign visitors come to this country—and I wonder whether the hon. the Prime Minister knows this—there are hon. members on that side— and I know who they are—who tell these foreign visitors: “It is just a question of time before the Coloureds will be sitting here.” These visitors repeat these things to us.

Mention their names!

I shall not do that, but it is the truth. Let hon. members opposite themselves decide whether they want to believe me or not. There are numbers of hon. members sitting there who agree that the Coloureds should have direct representation here.

On a point of order, may the hon. member make such an accusation against this side of the House? [Interjections.]

The hon. member can discuss the matter with the hon. the Prime Minister in his caucus. That is the time when the hon. the Prime Minister investigates his own party. Numbers of his followers are in favour of the Coloureds being represented here by their own people.

In conclusion I want to say that I think it is time that the Government put an end to its intimidation of the Coloured population. The Coloureds were on a common roll. The Government removed them and gave them four members here and two in the Provincial Council. We have had a Provincial Council election. I am sorry that the Coloureds did not elect members of our party but I am convinced that it is only a question of time before we win back their support. But that is not the important thing. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, it was alleged some time ago by certain members on the other side that three hon. members on this side of the House had behaved in a reprehensible way. Nobody was prepared to say who those members were. There were no such members. The hon. member who has just sat down has again hinted at reprehensible conduct on the part of hon. members on this side of the House, but once again, like the writer of an anonymous letter, he dare not say who the members in question are. I am going to take no notice of what he said, just as I would take no notice of the writer of an anonymous letter.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition availed himself of the privilege, both yesterday and to-day, just to repeat his previous arguments after I had put forward counterarguments. In doing so he only testifies to the fact that he believes that the mere repetition of the same old story is tantamount to a cogent reply. That, of course, is symptomatic of tactics which have been employed here throughout the years. We have become accustomed to the fact that the United Party, instead of coming forward with something new, merely repeats the same charges and arguments over and over again. That is why they have alienated the confidence of the electorate. I do not propose therefore to set out my attitude once again. I have made my attitude sufficiently clear. I just want to point out also that after that stage the debate assumed a deplorable form; it turned into a play upon words, a quarrel over what people had allegedly said or had not said, with different meanings attached to a certain form of expression. What on earth does anybody achieve by doing this; what does it produce that is of any value to the national cause? I want to mention a few examples. When we were discussing economic integration we clearly had in mind the question of integration or otherwise of people in our economic life. In this connection I said that I did not believe in it; that we believe in economic separation. Quite clearly the expression in that context referred to persons in our industrial life or in our economic life generally. It is perfectly clear that in saying that I was indicating, as I had often indicated before, that this party did not believe that in our economic life there should be an amalgamation or a fusion or integration between White and non-White. I do not propose to go again into the obvious difference, as far as terminology is concerned, between hon. members on the other side and members on this side, as to what precisely constitutes “integration”. It is quite obvious that they want to interpret the word “integration” as meaning the mere presence of non-Whites in an industry. According to the United Party the mere presence of non-Whites in an industry means that they have been integrated economically. Our attitude, of course, is that that is the wrong meaning to attach to it and that one cannot talk about the integration of people in our economic life unless they have been fully absorbed to form part of our economic life. It is only when they have been absorbed in our economic life, both as workers and as entrepreneurs, when they can become partners, when they can become the heads, when White and non-White can be thrown together indiscriminately at every level of our economic life, that one can talk about economic integration. We say that that is where United Party policy would lead, but in that sense we do not have economic integration. In that sense we are in favour of separation in the economic sphere. Having explained that— I do not want to enlarge upon it—I just want to deal with what happened here this afternoon. I do not know whether it was done deliberately or because of a misconception but this issue was confused with the question of integration or separation or co-operation between territories, between the Republic of South Africa and neighbouring territories, or between the White areas of South Africa and Bantu areas. It was said that my attitude revealed that we believe in economic separation between as many as seven areas in Zululand, or whatever the number may be. Of course I said nothing of the kind. We on this side have stated perfectly clearly over and over again that we believe in political independence and economic interdependence. This refers to the relationship in the economic sphere between territories, between states, between neighbours, but it has nothing to do with my use of the term “economic separation” in respect of the absorbtion or otherwise of persons in the industrial life of this country. Why cause such confusion; what useful purpose does it serve? That is one example. I want to mention a second example of a useless play upon words—and I make this charge against the hon. members for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) and Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp). They quoted here what I and others are alleged to have said in 1950, in 1959 and on other occasions. It was pointed out, amongst other things, that I had said in 1950—and I do not deny it—that we visualized the retention of the White man’s guardianship over the Bantu areas that were being developed. Other members are alleged to have said that they did not know how long this would last, that it would last a long time and that what might very well happen—I think so myself—was that the relationships might become so harmonious that these people would not ask for greater independence in the shape of self-government. Such things were certainly said. The world of 1950 is not the world of 1965. At that stage both Dr. Malan and I said that under the then prevailing circumstances the time was not ripe. In saying that we indicated perfectly clearly that in determining what is practical politics, apart from one’s long-term ideal, one must take into account what the prevailing circumstances may necessitate or make possible.

In 1946, when General Smuts was at UNO, he could not foresee this movement towards the emancipation of the Africa States. Plans were then devised for a junior partnership in Kenya and Tanganyika. They thought that this would last for 20 year, but it was thrown overboard within the space of five years; it ended in independence and, within a few years after independence, there was an infiltration of Russian influence. Could anybody foresee all these things? One will naturally have one’s own views in the light of the circumstances prevailing at the time as to whether one can retain one’s guardianship. One may find in the course of time that that is not what will happen, but that is neither here nor there. The main difference between the policy of the National Party and the consequences that the National Party is prepared to accept, and the United Party and the consequences that the United Party is prepared to accept, or that will follow in any event even if it does not want to accept them (just as in our case)—the difference which is now debatable before the electorate of South Africa, and in regard to which the voters in every constituency will have to give their decision—lies in the attitudes of the parties when they go to the electorate. We have left the public in no doubt as far as our attitude is concerned, and that is that if the Bantu states are to obtain independence —it will probably have to come—then that would be better in our opinion than to turn the whole of South Africa into one multiracial nation, into one community, with all the misery that would result from it, as the history of Africa over the past few years has proved. That is the choice. Why all these reproaches about having said one thing at one time and saying another thing now? After all, it makes no impression upon sensible people.

Let me refer to a few other debating points made by the Leader of the Opposition himself. He made great play of the fact, as they constantly do, that we talk about “White South Africa”. Who determines to whom a state belongs? Surely in the first place one asks oneself who the people are who brought that state into being. One asks oneself: Who were the settlers who came to this country; who developed the country; who guided and built up the State? Secondly, one asks oneself:

The entire State?

I am not dealing with silly things now; I am dealing with the realities of the present political position of our country. The people who are governing here are the Whites; the people who brought this State into being are the Whites; the people who settled this country are the Whites. [Interjections.] No, certain parts of the present South Africa were not settled by Whites; they were settled by the Bantu, and those areas should rightfully go, in the form in which they have existed to this day, to those whose forebears settled those areas. Surely it must be clear that when one talks about “White South Africa” one refers to the State in terms of settlement and in terms of government, and that one is justified in calling South Africa a White State. There are some members who point out that when the Bantu’s separate rights are recognized, you will still have Coloureds and Indians here, the suggestion being that we are not entitled to talk about a “White State”. But let us look, for the sake of clarity, at what is happening in Malaya, for example. There we have a state in which the Malays constitute the majority group, but there are two other large population groups, groups with separate languages, with separate origins, which have also been there for generations, namely the Indians and the Chinese. Is Malaya regarded as a sort of Chino-Indio-Malaya? Or is it regarded as Malaya, the country of the Malays? Let us take another example, that of Ceylon. In Ceylon there is a minority group, the Tamils, who are Indians by descent, with a language of their own and a national identity of their own. They have citizenship rights in the country and they complain about oppression. But they are not Ceylonese at all. How would you describe Ceylon? As the country of the Tamils and the Ceylonese? No, you describe it as Ceylon, the country of the Ceylonese. There one has to do with certain groups who have been living there for a long time; they are not all the same; they are entirely different, as different as we are from the Bantu, as different as we are from the Indians. Let me take another example. In Britain there has recently been an influx of a large number of Jamaicans and other non-Whites. They have been absorbed there to such an extent that Britain proposes to give them franchise and other citizenship rights because they come from Commonwealth countries. Has that made Britain a multi-racial country; has it made Britain a Coloured state? Or is Britain still the country of the English; is it still the Britishers’ country? Can we describe Britain as a White country, or can we no longer talk about Britain as a White country because of the presence of a minority group in that country in which the Government is obviously a White Government—a minority group with whose creation they had nothing to do, with whose development they had nothing to do? If all this is true, why on earth should the United Party begrudge us the right in South Africa, a country governed by Whites, a State established by Whites, to talk about our fatherland as “White South Africa”?

I do not deny that we also have and will continue to have minority groups in our country—Coloureds and Indians; but that fact does not alter the real character of the country. The United Party, however, wants integration with the other population groups so as to bring about one multi-racial nation in the hope that those groups will give it the necessary support to get into power, support which it cannot get from the Whites in this country; that is why the United Party pleads for a mixed society. Sir, I think that disposes of the accusations which are continually made against us when we talk about “White South Africa”.

I want to come now to the question which I said I would deal with further, and that is the position of the Coloured community. Let us go back for a moment and ask ourselves of what value the United Party’s policy was to the Coloured community. Before 1948 the United Party also accepted that the Coloureds formed part of this common society. The Coloureds were on the Common Voters’ Roll and the United Party wanted to treat the Coloureds as a section forming part of one common society. What benefits did this give to the Coloureds? In the political sphere the United Party courted the Coloureds purely for the sake of their votes whenever there was an election, but for the next five years after the election they were never properly consulted. It is true that there were a few isolated cases where Coloureds received a certain amount of recognition, where they were employed by municipalities, or where they were absorbed in some church or in some social group, but in actual fact the masses of Coloureds derived no benefit from this so-called partnership in this so-called common society. The National Party recognized that fact, of course, and this was what gave rise to the birth of its policy of acknowledging the existence of heterogeneous groups! It adopted the attitude that the policy of separation was the best policy to ensure that justice was done to both the Whites and the Coloureds, viewed as two separate national groups with big differences between them, quite apart from the question of colour but also as far as colour is concerned. We then deliberately accepted as our policy the concept of separation; we accepted it not with the object of appropriating all the benefits for ourselves, but in order to create the opportunity both for the Whites on the one hand and for the Coloured community on the other to develop as separate communities within which each community would have the opportunity and the right to develop to the maximum of human ability. I am not suggesting that the maximum ability of development is precisely the same in both cases. I say that quite clearly, but I want to state here unambiguously that the principle on which this Government was elected, on which it has built over a period of 17 years and on which it will continue to build so as to complete this process more and more, is the principle of separation between the two groups of the community, a separation which will exist not only in the one sphere—let us say the political sphere—but which will also exist in the residential sphere and in every sphere of community life.

And in the economic sphere?

Hon. members on the other side are not anxious to know what our true policy is with a view to arguing the matter. What they are anxious to do is to hinder one because they want to mislead the public. I propose to take no notice of these interjections, therefore. I hope I have now made my point perfectly clearly that the attitude of this Government, the policy on which this Government was elected and by which it will stand or fall, is that there must be separation.

Separate factories?

Order! The hon. member must not interrupt continually. If he wishes to put a question he should do so in the customary manner.

I am trying to comply with the request which came from the entire Opposition, and that is to give a clear picture of our policy; and if hon. members opposite were in earnest in putting forward that request, then I think the least they can do is to give me an opportunity to deal with that request in a serious way. I can deal with them in a political way, as they know well enough, but I want to avoid doing so this evening, if possible.

I have said that that is the one principle, but that principle has been interpreted as though it means a lack of positive intentions in dealing with the Coloureds and as though we are simply out to grab everything for the White man. I want to say specifically that that is not the case. The basic principle is that there will be separation because separation is really and actually in the interests of both groups. Let me start by applying this immediately to the one sphere in regard to which certain questions were first put to me, namely, the sphere of entertainment and the other social phenomena that we have had to deal with. I want to say at once that it is not my intention to deal with the individual cases which have been raised here, such as the Luxurama Theatre or the Wynberg Town Hall. These are matters which fall under the Ministers concerned, who administer the Act and the regulations, and I hope that the hon. the Minister of Planning, who is present here, will still have the opportunity this evening of dealing with those specific points. But my duty, as I see it, is to give a clear policy picture; to outline in unambiguous language the broad lines of the party’s policy, as I now propose to do. I say that the basic idea of separation is to give each of the two national groups the best one can. I think it has been proved that the Coloureds got practically nothing out of the old dispensation, which is the set-up that the United Party wishes to re-introduce. Under that dispensation the Coloured was given few opportunities of advancement in the economic sphere. But in the cultural sphere, too, in the sphere of Coloured education, in the sphere of entertainment. in every sphere, he remained just an appendage, a small appendage, a weak appendage, an appendage that had to be fed through the body of the White community and which thereafter simply had to vegetate without being able to develop and to achieve anything for itself. As against that we in the National Party want to make the Coloured an individual in his own right in all these spheres, a self-developing unit, a community which will be able to get and to utilize its chances, a community which will be able to govern itself in all matters directly affecting it, in matters such as Coloured welfare and Coloured education. I will deal separately in a moment with the political aspect. I want to proceed now to apply to these other spheres this principle of affording opportunities of development. I have already referred to the sphere of education. When we established the separate universities for the Coloureds it was also attacked as a means of oppression. But what did we actually do? We took the Coloured student away from universities where he had to play second fiddle and third fiddle and sometimes fifth fiddle, and we gave him an opportunity to develop self-respect in his own university, to develop respect for his nation, to feel that it was his duty to take upon himself the leadership of his own people, and to have himself educated for that purpose. He has now gained experience in the community circle of the university, which is a reflection in miniature of the broader community life outside. By giving him his own university, therefore, the Coloured has been given the opportunity to allow fundamental developmental work to be undertaken as far as his own intellect is concerned, but to do it in the interests of his own people. As a result of the establishment of his own university he now has the prospect of being taught in due course by his own professors and lecturers; he has the prospect of his own university being under the control of his own rector and of the university having its own university council and its own university senate. Can this be compared with anything that could be achieved under the policy of integration? But that is true not only in the sphere of education; it is also true in the sphere of entertainment. What hope have the Coloured masses of ever getting anywhere in the field of entertainment and of achieving a higher standard in the sphere of entertainment if they do not have the opportunities; if they can only go to the cinemas and theatres of the Whites? Who are the people who would wish to go there? Some of the Coloured Representatives have made reference here to the way in which we are unnecessarily hurting the feelings of Coloureds with regard to the question of attending a certain performance, a performance which in any case is attended by no more than about nine Coloureds. That is not our ideal as to the opportunities that should be given to the Coloureds in this sphere. Our ideal is that the masses of the Coloureds should be given the same privileges which these nine Coloureds enjoy but that they should be given these privileges amongst their own people at tariffs within their financial means. We do not want them to constitute the audiences only. We want to make it possible for them also to be the performers. And how can one develop any group of performers unless they are assured of an audience? Must they be dependent. once they have formed a group like the Eoan Group, upon White audiences; must their survival as a group of performers be dependent upon White audiences, or must it be based on their achievements before their own people, supported by their own people? Hon. members opposite seek to create the impression that this goal is unattainable. But 50 years ago it also seemed to be unattainable to the Afrikaner. I predict that within the foreseeable future, within a reasonable time, with the proper community development of the Coloureds by means of concentration in their own residential areas, with the development that we will promote, large useful halls of their own will come to be erected in their immediate neighbourhood, halls which will be suitable for every type of entertainment; I predict that, the whole community will get away from the state of affairs which the representatives of the Coloureds themselves mentioned, a state of affairs in which at the present time they are not keen to go to their own halls in their own neighbourhood because of fear that they will be molested there by skollies and therefore prefer to go to White cinemas. What a terrible indictment against a section of that community! We want to make all this something of the past; we would like these people to develop into a community group which is able to maintain itself, even against the disorderly elements in its own midst, so that they can live their own cultural life in their own community circle, in their own residential area and so that there will be no necessity for them to flee to the White man’s area.

When steps were recently taken in this direction, it was not done with the object of oppression as it has been so wrongly represented in public. Indeed, this is part of the process of developing the Coloured community and promoting their own interests. Why did we establish the Department of Community Development? It was not established just to provide these people with housing; it is not just a Department of Housing. We also hope, by means of these new residential areas, to be able to mould them into communities which will be able to take care of themselves in every respect, which will be self-sufficient and which will be able to find happiness there, a community that does not lose its leaders because there are political and other groups outside of the Coloured community who for their own purposes try to entice the few Coloured leaders away from the broad masses so that they can use those leaders for their own purposes. We shall see to it that these people retain their own leaders so that they can play their part not only in the development of their fellow-citizens but lead them on the road towards that development. This policy has a positive character therefore which is of the greatest value, but it is being belittled in the Press and in attacks such as these so as to bring the outside world under the impression that what we are doing is to oppress the Coloureds! Sir, when this policy is discussed in public and when journalists write about it in their newspapers, why is this positive aspect, which we have explained over and over again, never emphasized? What pleasure do they get in refusing to let it become known that there is this positive aspect to the Government’s policy? Why do they carefully conceal it so that the whole world is brought under the impression that this is a mean trick on the part of the Government? And why does the entire Opposition associate itself with that movement? Why? I think we are justified in strongly criticizing the United Party in connection with this abuse of the situation.

As far as the sphere of entertainment is concerned. we are now told that there was a different tradition; that the tradition in the sphere of entertainment was that the Coloureds had access to certain halls, that in the sphere of sport they had access to sportsgrounds, etc. In the first place it is true that in certain respects, in the Cape particularly, in the Boland (Western Province), the Coloureds had an opportunity to attend various cinemas under certain segregation arrangements and to attend sports gatherings and the like. It is true that there was such a custom and there is a long history attached to it. But at the same time this custom. which was a traditional one, was ruined later on by persons who tried to abuse it. It was really on the basis of segregation that the Coloureds attended these places; in other cases where they had access to certain halls, it was for the purposes of attending purely Coloured functions. Where they attended cinemas at which Whites were also present, the two groups were segregated. It was a later development, an almost willfull development, inspired by Liberals, in terms of which an attempt was made to let Whites and non-Whites sit together on such occasions; to allow them to mix socially. That was not the old tradition. This willfull campaign has been grossly intensified in recent times, and the result is that where as otherwise it might have been possible to bring about segregation gradually through the sheer powers of attraction of this developing community, on the basis on which we are dealing with the matter, it has now become essential to take steps against these various abuses which have been set in motion deliberately, inter alia, by people with political motives. In saying this I refer inter alia to the Progressive Party, whose representatives first raised the matter in this House. I want to add that when one is faced with an attack one must meet that attack and one must do so as quickly as possible in the interests of both the Coloureds and the Whites. After all, it is common knowledge that the policy of this Government is one of separation in all spheres. And we did not leave it at “separation in all spheres”: we did not leave it at “separation in the political sphere” and “residential segregation”; we also made it perfectly clear that it included “social separation”. When we started implementing this policy, particularly as it unfolded in connection with the development of group areas, which goes hand in hand with this policy, it was clearly provided for in the Act that in order to facilitate the transition, use would be made of a permit system which was deliberately introduced. The permit system does not represent a different policy. It is simply a method whereby, in carrying out the policy on which we were elected and which we have every intention of carrying out in the interests of both communities, an attempt will be made to give relief where possible. We are making use of the permit system therefore to try to solve problems that may arise and to make concessions where it is reasonable to do so. not only from the point of view of the Coloureds but also from the point of view of the White community whose views we also have to take into account. But what do we find? We not only find that what actually happens is continually misrepresented but that incidents are deliberately created, and having been forced now, because of abuses which have taken place, to set out the method of application of the policy in clearer terms, we find that an attempt is now being made to exploit the permit system in such a way that it inevitably creates practical problems for the authority administering the system. The aim in doing this is to create an opportunity once again for attacks to be made, both internally and externally, upon the Government, and to attack the attitude of the White man towards the non-White. Sir, this is tantamount to sabotage of the policy of the State, it is a form of sabotage which this Government does not intend to allow. I hope that it is clear therefore that in terms of the principle which is involved here in respect of all forms of social intercourse. including entertainment and sport, we are obliged to adopt the attitude that we must help the Coloured to build up and see to it that they build up their own community life in those particular spheres; that they have their own facilities and their own teams of entertainers, audiences and visitors. We are going to see to it that they have their own facilities in every sphere in spite of opposition from the United Party who simply want to turn the Coloureds into a sort of appendage of theirs for their own selfish purposes. In spite of the United Party and all its attacks we are going to give these people a community development to which they themselves (the United Party) will be able to point with pride in later years, as has happened so often before once our policy has been fully implemented.

But there is another issue in connection with the Coloureds to which I also have to refer and that is the question of their political position. Are these people free at the present time or are they not free? Are they or are they not to be given sovereignty? In this connection one must look again at the situation with which we are confronted here. It is a very simple and a perfectly clear situation. If we eliminate the Bantu from our political life and ignore them in the situation that we are considering here, then the position is that we have a White majority in South Africa and two minority groups. What happens to minority groups in other countries? Even where minority groups have the vote, the position is that their chances of getting into power are very slight, unless they hold the balance of power between two equally strong parties, two majority groups, and the result is that they are powerless. The great grievance of the Tamils in Ceylon, for example, and the great grievance of the Madhis and the Sikhs in India is that as minority groups they are powerless and that they have absolutely no say therefore. If the minority group becomes the tail that wags the dog because it happens to hold the balance of power between two equally strong parties, a colossal injustice is done towards the majority of the people because then it means that the minority rules the majority. But unless that happens, that minority has nothing; it can achieve nothing and such a minority, which has nothing, although it seemingly has a share in the control, although it seemingly has rights, has no real control over anything that it can put to its own productive use. Surely it is much better then to give such a minority group limited powers and opportunities. That is the basis of our policy. One must not only ask for separate freedoms in the sense of freedom for a minority, freedom which is equivalent to the sovereignty of the entire nation. It stands to reason that the position of power of the majority in a state is such that the control of the State is in the hands of the majority. But when we give our minority groups something which the Chinese and the Indians in Malaya would dearly like to have and that the Tamils in Ceylon would dearly like to have, why should we be accused of unfair treatment of these minority groups to whom we want to give something which practically no minority group has ever been given in any State in the history of the world? Because what is being given to them is self-government over matters which are of real importance to them. That is what we are doing, and the privileged treatment of the two minority groups in South Africa lies in the fact that we are prepared to allow bodies to be developed for them which will be parliamentary in character, which will exercise control over all matters which affect them as a group and which one can entrust to them within the group. It is true that for the rest, in respect of foreign affairs, in respect of taxation and in respect of other similar matters, they will be subject to the authority of the entire State which is controlled by the majority group of the population. That is true but the position would be no different if they had a sham vote, except that the sham vote would enable them in the circumstances to which I have referred to do an injustice to the majority group.

If we look at this matter from the point of view of justice therefore, we must look at it from every angle. We must ask ourselves which people are going to benefit and in what way you can best serve the interests of everybody, even if it means that the one gets slightly less than the other. That is the honest and right way to view this matter.

Hon. members of the Opposition can now go and represent the position to the outside world as though we are committing an injustice here; they can go and tell the outside world that we are not giving sovereignty to the minority groups within our sovereign state; that we would only be doing justice to them if we gave them a minority share in the control of the State, but I say that this concept as we are developing it is much more honest, much more genuine, much more valuable to these groups, than to give them sham representation here by means of constitutional means and by ensuring at the same time by means of an entrenched section in the Constitution that the White man retains absolute supremacy, as the United Party proposes to do.

All that remains for me to do is to say a few words about the question as to why we have said that we are not going to allow Whites to interfere in matters which affect the non-White groups themselves. What I am concerned with here in the first place is the hard fact that we are instituting various forms of self-government in the Transkei and in the other Bantu areas, and also for the Indians and the Coloureds. In each of these cases these people are being given a council, a body of their own, which is being given jurisdiction over matters which are of real importance to them. What right would the Government have, in respect of all the machinery which it is giving these people to regulate their own affairs, to serve their own interests, to allow other people—the Progressive Party, the Liberal Party or anybody else—to go and interfere in the affairs of the Transkeian Parliament and to try to influence those people, by means of intrigue or the spending of money, to do the things that they (the Parties concerned) want, so as to give them an opportunity to come and make fresh demands in this Parliament and in this House? What right have they to misuse the Transkeian Parliament in an attempt to cause trouble in the Republic of South Africa? What right have those people to deprive the Bantu of the first opportunity given to them to control their own interests and their own affairs? And if they have no right to meddle there and to misuse the form of government which is coming into being in another state, what right have they then to deprive the Coloureds, or for that matter the Indians, of the right to manage their own affairs in accordance with their own views and in accordance with their own line of thinking? What right have they to poke their noses into the welfare work that the Coloureds want to do amongst their own people in their own way? What right have they to try to exercise any influence over the educational trends which the Coloureds may wish to follow in their own schools and in their own university once they are under their control? I say therefore that it would be an injustice for the Government which seeks in terms of its policy of separation to give something positive to a community, to make it possible for that community to build itself up—to allow groups of Whites, outside of the sphere of their interests and their rights, to deprive those people of guidance and leadership by means of all sorts of forms of intrigue, designed not to promote the real welfare of those people but to promote their own selfish interests.

I frankly admit that in terms of our Constitution, apart from the Coloured Council which is to be established, the Coloureds must be represented in this Parliament by Whites. I accept that that is right in terms of the Constitution, and in that sense I accept that there must be contacts between Whites and Coloureds with regard to matters which are discussed in this Parliament and which affect their interests. In other words, I do not deny that it is the duty and the right of the White representatives of the Coloureds to go and consult with their people and to come here to state their attitude, and I accept that when elections are held they must naturally go and tell their Coloured constituents what attitude they would adopt here on behalf of them. But what is their duty? Must they come here to act as interpreters of what the Coloured community regards as being in its own interests, as evidenced by its vote and its choice of candidate, or must they secure election by bringing the Coloureds, under the wrong impression, as the Progressive Party did—I am not accusing the United Party in this connection—that they are coming here to promote the interests of the Coloureds? [Laughter]. The United Party in greeting this statement with laughter, is telling the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) that she and her people ought to go all out at the next election to kick out the two Coloured representatives of this House who represent the United Party and the one independent Coloured representative; that is what they are doing. [Interjections]. That is why I say that it is also the duty of the Government, to the best of its ability—and I admit that it is a difficult task—to ensure that the Coloureds, of their own volition, send to this Parliament those Whites who they believe will best represent the true and real interests of the Coloureds.

In other words, only Nationalists.

I do not believe that they must be Nationalists; I do not believe that they must be Progressives and I do not believe that they must be members of the United Party. I believe that they must be independent representatives of the Coloureds who will interpret the true interests of the Coloureds. [Interjections.]

Is the Prime Minister saying that the people who he thinks must represent the Coloureds must be people of his choice?

Not at all. I want no part at all in the choice of those people. What I want to happen is that the Coloureds amongst themselves, whether they do it on party lines or not, should decide upon the policy directions which they feel are in the interests of their population; that they should argue the matter amongst themselves, uninfluenced by Whites, and that those who receive the support of the Coloured voters should then decide which people should represent them here. I want to take no part in it and my party wants to take no part in it. I do not want the hon. member for Houghton to try to dominate them and I do not want the United Party to do so either. What I want here is a true interpretation, by independent members, on behalf of the Coloured population, of the innermost thoughts of the Coloured population, even if I do not like what they say. [Interjections.]

I think I have said enough now to indicate clearly the broad policy directions followed by the Government. I say again that I am sorry, in the light of this debate, that we have not had more opportunity to discuss and to argue real problems of this kind in a calm fashion, but the United Party chose to discuss a matter which really should have been discussed under the separate Votes. I am sorry that in giving this policy exposition, which I wanted to give very calmly, I was provoked by the other side into giving a certain amount of emotional colour to it; I do not want to do so and I am sorry about it, but I think it will be a good thing in the future if the Prime Minister’s Vote is used to discuss the real, basic problems of this country.

Hear, hear!

By means of proper analysis from both sides we can then give the public a true picture of the directions that we want to follow. I have done my best to do so but I must naturally confine myself in my reply to the attack from the other side. When the hon. the Leader of the Opposition starts talking about agricultural matters I cannot talk about international affairs or about Coloured affairs. When hon. members come here with the same old story about the Bantu I cannot ignore them; I must reply to them and that I have done here.

The Leader of the Opposition pointed out to me in passing yesterday that I was wrong and that there was in fact an agricultural debate under the Prime Minister’s Vote in 1946. That is correct, but I was not aware of it. I admit that I did not know it. However, that was years and years ago, which shows that the Prime Minister’s Vote is not the appropriate place to discuss agricultural matters. I might say that their own chairman in those days drew the attention of members of this House to the fact that the Prime Minister’s Vote was not really the appropriate place to discuss agricultural matters. They did not heed his admonition but their own chairman, who naturally had very great respect for the United Party of those days, sounded this warning note—I take it after consultation with the experts in respect of parliamentary usages— that it was wrong to do so. All I am doing now is to repeat what the chairman of the United Party said at that time and that is that they acted here in a way which to my mind does not appear to be appropriate or useful to South Africa. I leave hon. members opposite to stew in their own juice.

I take it I must deduce from the remarks of the hon. the Prime Minister that the serious drought from which this country is suffering, with its threat to the agricultural industry, is not one of the serious problems with which this country is faced. From what the Prime Minister has said, I must assume that the variations in policy of this Government and the finer developments during the past ten or 12 years in that policy are not of fundamental importance. I take it that the position of the Coloured people is also not of fundamental importance.

I said yesterday that agriculture is important, but that it should be discussed at the proper time.

The Prime Minister knows as well as I do that what he has been saying about the Coloureds could have been discussed under the Vote of the Minister of Coloured Affairs, and he knows that Native Affairs could have been discussed under the Vote of that Minister, and he knows that agriculture could have been discussed under his Vote. These are matters of fundamental importance at the present time, and they have been raised under his Vote, because they are not just the responsibility of one Minister, but they are so important at present that they are matters of Cabinet responsibility and of vital importance to the people.

The hon. gentleman has given us an idea of the philosophy underlying his attitude towards the Coloured people. I want to say to him that I do not believe I have ever heard a better case made out in this House for the Coloured people being represented by their own people than what we have just heard. He does not want their representatives, to be attached to any political party. He does not want them to exploit the position for their own political advantage. He wants them to interpret for him the soul of the Coloured people. Who could do that better than representatives of their own people? He told us that he takes no notice of allegations that there are members on that side of the House who believe that this is the right step. You know, Sir, some of us have longer memories. We remember the campaign in the Burger, the organ of the Nationalist Party in the Cape Province, for just this step to be taken. We remember the conference that had to be held at the Goodwood Showgrounds. We remember the speech the Prime Minister had to go and make at Swellendam to crush that movement in his own party. Nobody knows better than he does how strong that movement is, and no one has done more to advance it to-day than the Prime Minister himself.

Now, what is this talk from the hon. the Prime Minister that there must be no interference by Whites in non-White politics? Since when has this become the policy of the Nationalist Party? One remembers when there were Bantu representatives in this House and that candidates were put up by the Nationalist Party both for this House and the Senate. Nobody worried about interfering then, but when they found that those people did not vote for the Nationalist Party, then we got this development. What was the position during the elections for Coloureds’ Representatives in the Karoo last year, when one of the candidates standing was Mr. Scholtz, the honorary president of the Nationalist Party Branch in Springbok?

He was not standing as an official member of the Nationalist Party.

No, he was not officially appointed, but they accepted his R1,000 donation which he gave to the branch. [Interjection.] The whole trouble is that this Nationalist Party, as the hon. the Minister of Finance said the other day in another context, are like the Bourbons; they forget nothing and they learn nothing. The trouble with them is that their original idea in respect of the Coloureds was that they should be on a separate roll and should have second-class members of Parliament who would not have the full rights of an ordinary Member of Parliament. That is really what they are up to; that is really in their hearts. I am afraid this is just another example of the attitude of this Government towards the Cape Coloured people.

Let us look at this philosophy. The Prime Minister advised the Coloured people this evening to follow the example of the Afrikaner to develop on his own, to develop his own culture and to develop economically and to develop his own amusements and entertainments. [Interjections.] I wonder how the Afrikaner people, my people and the Prime Minister’s people, would have felt if they had been restricted economically and politically as the Coloured people are to-day. I wonder what their development would have been if they had been limited in their cultural opportunities by ministerial direction and legislation in the way in which this Government is limiting the cultural opportunities of the Coloureds at present.

We are expanding them.

The Prime Minister says we are expanding them, but they are denied the opportunity of attaining culture by the precept and example of others, making it more and more difficult for them to enjoy those things on which they could build. Does the Prime Minister think for a moment that the Eoan Group, of which hon. members opposite are so proud and of which they talk so much, would ever have got where it has got unless it had had White patronage and had been assisted by White people? Does he not think that from that they may develop and probably will develop something outstanding for the Coloureds? But where would it have been if it had been denied that assistance which it got from the White community? I am sorry, but there is a fundamental difference of approach between the Prime Minister and this side of the House. You see, Sir, they are so obsessed with their idea of separation that they even took away the subsidy from the Eoan Group because it appeared before mixed audiences.

Shame!

How foolish can people become in their pursuit of an ideology, and how stupid can they become when they try and rationalize it in this House! I want to tell the Prime Minister that he is doing South Africa a disservice to-night in trying once again to emphasize the points of difference between the Coloureds and the Whites. I would have thought, situated as we are on the southernmost point of a Black continent, we could ill afford to lose allies of that kind. I believe it will take many generations of immigrants before they have as much in common with the White population as the Coloured people have. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) accused this party of being responsible for attacks from abroad and said that we must be careful, because the Western countries are at this very moment making plans to destroy us, and that this party is responsible for that. According to the Sunday Times he is the obvious successor to the Leader of the Opposition, and I can only say this to the Leader of the Opposition: He and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout may judge for themselves which party is responsible for the fact that harm is being done to South Africa abroad. I can only refer to a quotation from the Star of 16 March, in which reference is made to the documents bearing on the pending case in which we are being charged by Liberia and Ethiopia, and this quotation reads as follows—

[Laughter.] The hon. member for Bezuidenhout has accused us of doing things which cause the West to attack us. Here those Opposition members are being quoted by our attackers and the leading figures in that Party are being quoted against South Africa.

Japie probably wants to win the Nobel prize.

The Leader of the Opposition accused us of depriving the Coloureds of their cultural amenities, and he referred to the Eoan Group and said that they would not have achieved what they have achieved if it had not been for Whites. The fact of the matter is that the Eoan Group held performances in the City Hall the week before last. They were not prohibited from holding performances there, as the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) said they were. They were granted the necessary permit to hold such performances.

Where is the subsidy?

The hon. member for Peninsula said that they had been banned, but that is not a true reflection of the position. The hon. member spoke twice this afternoon and referred to quite a number of matters in regard to which I feel I must correct his facts. The fact of the matter is that, as the Prime Minister said, we refuse to live multiracially. In the social sphere and in sport there is also a tendency to want to live apart. But attempts are being made to undermine this approach as far as these spheres are concerned, and particularly in the Peninsula it is still being said that an old tradition is continuing. The fact of the matter is that we are establishing separate group areas, and that more than 750 group areas have already been established in this country. As far as residential areas are concerned, a systematic and rapid process of separation is therefore taking place. The larger part of our towns has already been proclaimed. This necessitates a larger measure of separation in these other spheres as well. Since 1960 the position in terms of the existing proclamation has been that no mixing of races has been allowed in cinemas or clubs or restaurants. But the proclamation of February this year extended this prohibition to apply to mixed audiences at places of entertainment as well. That proclamation also amounted to this, that once any particular area has been proclaimed for some race or other, members of another race cannot, for purposes of entertainment, make use of public places of entertainment there, unless they obtain a permit. There can also be no mixing of races at such places in uncontrolled areas unless a permit is obtained. All these matters can therefore be arranged by way of permit.

The hon. member mentioned quite a number of examples. He said the Coloureds were prohibited to make use of the Cape Town City Hall, but that is not correct. I have a copy of the relevant permit here, and they are allowed to continue attending Sunday evening concerts, but separate facilities have to be provided. So there is no total prohibition in this regard. The City Council holds different views on the matter. They made representations to me and said that they wanted to continue with the “special relationship of the orchestra to the ratepayers of the city, and the wisdom of leaving undisturbed the happy traditions of audiences at concerts of the Cape Town Orchestra by expunging the conditions.” But the fact of the matter is that, while this position obtained here, representations had been made by other newspapers, before this proclamation was issued. I can just refer to what The Star said in January, 1965—

The next day The Rand Daily Mail made the same demand—

Demands were therefore made that this matter should be put right. And as far as the City Council is concerned, the matter has been put right and they have been told to provide separate facilities, and they have been given a certain time to provide separate facilities. Therefore they have every opportunity to do so. No permit has been refused as yet as far as the City Hall is concerned, although the requirement has been laid down that separate facilities must be provided as far as these mixed audiences are concerned. The hon. member also referred to an athletics meeting held at Green Point, a cycling event. I do not know whether he is referring to the meeting held there by the Coloured Cycling Association, or the one held by the White Association. I do not know what the circumstances were as far as the White meeting was concerned, but the Coloureds also held a meeting and they applied for a permit, and I have a copy of the permit here, which says that “Whites and non-Whites be allowed and that they use separate entrances, seating accommodation, etc.”

But what about the White one?

I shall tell you what happened there. They were not turned away because no permit had been issued. A permit had in fact been issued, but these conditions had to be fulfilled. The same happened in the case of this Coloured organization. They went to the Cape Town City Council and said, “We have a permit and we want the separate facilities there”. The City Council said that they could not provide these facilities, and then the Coloured organization came back and asked for a permit for Coloureds only, which was granted. Then they asked permission to use White starters, which was also granted. But the fact of the matter is that as a result of all this the City Council has now seen to it that separate facilities are provided at Green Point. These facilities have been virtually completed. If they want to continue holding meetings there in terms of this permit, it will therefore be considered, but they were granted a permit to do so, and with the facilities that have now been provided they can go there. It was therefore not a case of their having been prohibited from going there.

The hon. member also referred to the Luxurama. At the time the proclamation was issued the statement was made that we were depriving the Coloureds of the Luxurama. It was announced to the world that we would apply that proclamation in such a way that the Luxurama would be taken away from the Coloureds and used for the Whites. This was what the world was told, although the very opposite was done. I have already pointed out that 12 days before the proclamation concerned the owner of the Luxurama submitted a request to the Minister of Community Development in which he wrote as follows—

I should like to say immediately that I am very disappointed with the reply we have received from the hon. the Prime Minister this evening with regard to the representations made from this side of the House to him in connection with the unfortunate position which obtains in Cape Town and the Cape generally as the result of the policy statement made by the Prime Minister himself at Port Elizabeth last August. During the course of the debate this afternoon I was at pains to explain to the Prime Minister a very serious position which obtains in Cape Town, and how we have gradually whittled away whatever remaining goodwill there was between the Coloured people and the White people. I was at pains to point out to the Prime Minister the extreme hardships which these people were suffering and would continue to suffer unless there was a change of policy on the part of the Government. I addressed my remarks to the Prime Minister because I regard him as being the only man in this country who would be able to bring about a change in the unsatisfactory and undesirable state of affairs which presently exists. I say that because it was his policy statement which started this trouble, and he is the only man who can end it. I was hoping that the Prime Minister would be big enough to realize the extreme difficulties and hardships now confronting the Coloured people, and that he would say that he would give directions to those responsible for carrying out his policy to ensure that these hardshipare eliminated as soon as possible. But instead of receiving a statement of that nature, what have we had from the hon. the Prime Minister? We had a very lengthy dissertation from him on his general policy in regard to the general future of the Coloured people, with a total disregard of the issues raised in this debate. I did not wish to enlarge the scope of the debate in the limited time at our disposal to discuss the future political standing of the Coloured people. The sole object of my intervention in the debate this afternoon was to draw the Prime Minister’s attention to these hardships and the bitterness and frustration which are taking place now as a result of Government policy in regard to the proclamation dealing with mixed gatherings, and to urge the Prime Minister, as the man responsible for commencing this trouble, to do something to ameliorate the position. I am extremely sorry that the Prime Minister has not thought fit to answer these points, but has indicated that the Minister of Planning will deal with the matter. With all respect to the Minister of Planning and his colleague, the Minister of Community Development, they are not in a position to deal with this unfortunate position I have described. That unfortunate position has resulted from the policy statement by the Prime Minister, and the Ministers who are responsible for these two Departments shelter themselves behind the policy statement of the Prime Minister. I repeat that it is only the Prime Minister who is able to bring about a change.

What has the Prime Minister indicated? He has totally disregarded the traditions which have obtained in the Cape for over 100 years. Suddenly the Prime Minister has declared what he regards as the traditions of the Cape. I want to ask the Prime Minister what right he has, and I say so respectfully, to declare what the traditions of the Cape are? The traditions of the Cape are something which emerge from the people of the Cape themselves. The people of the Cape have accepted the situation for over 100 years that there shall be mixed gatherings, and nobody objected to it. In the City of Cape Town we have had mixed gatherings permitted by law and accepted by the people for generations. In all our municipal halls, whenever we have had municipal functions, the Coloured people, as ratepayers of the city, were entitled to attend. They were never refused admission and what did we find? We found that the more cultured among them came there, in small numbers it is true. They did not obtrude upon the White people of the city. They behaved themselves and took part in the cultural life of the city in their own small way, and what harm was done? But suddenly we find that the Prime Minister takes it upon himself to declare what the traditions of the Cape are to be, and may I say, without referring the matter to Parliament and affording Parliament an opportunity of discussing what the policy should be. But the Prime Minister takes the opportunity at a Nationalist Party congress to declare what the traditional policy of the Cape is.

How long has he been here?

Emanating from that, we find that this chaotic position now exists, and that all this bitterness and frustration exist. I feel that the Prime Minister has done the Coloured people and the country a great disservice in not being big on this occasion and saying that he would be prepared, as the head of the Government, to look into the position and that he would take whatever steps were necessary to try and ameliorate these hardships. The Prime Minister has treated the Coloured people of the Cape and of South Africa as second-rate citizens. He is completely ignoring the fact that these Coloured people are a modern and literate community, that they speak a European language, and that they are reared in the religion of the White man and carry out the traditions of the White people. He has compared their position with that of the Bantu in the Transkei. Surely the Prime Minister must realize that the Cape Coloureds are part and parcel of the White population of the country.

Where do they stem from?

Obviously they stem from the White people. The Prime Minister seeks to deal with them as if they are a people apart, and compares them with the Bantu in the Transkei. I am sorry that the Prime Minister has adopted this attitude. I am terribly disappointed at his approach to this problem, and I shudder to think what the outside world is likely to think about the policy statement the Prime Minister has made this evening in regard to the Coloured people. I want to say that the Prime Minister, by his attitude this evening, has to my mind eliminated whatever vestige of goodwill there still existed between the Coloureds and the Whites of this country. No one has done greater harm to the cause of bringing the Coloured people to the side of the White people, as allies of the White people, than the Prime Minister has done this evening. I do hope, Sir, that even at this stage, upon reflection, the hon. the Prime Minister will realize that something must be done to try and terminate this unfortunate situation that exists. The Prime Minister has also said that, in accordance with Government policy, there will be established housing schemes, villages, towns, business and so forth for the Coloured people. But, and I say this advisedly, with the progress that is being made, and considering the opposition that the Coloured people are offering to that form of separation, that is likely to take generations. What is to happen to the Coloured people in the meantime? Are they to be cut off culturally from receiving the advice and benefit of the White people? [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I cannot quite agree with the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) when he says that permission had to be obtained from Parliament. My reason for saying that is that the principle was accepted as far back as 1957, when the law was passed by Parliament and this power was granted in terms of clause 1. Therefore this authority had already been granted by resolution of Parliament. This authority has now been exercised by proclamation. The hon. member referred strongly to the Western Cape tradition, but I want to point out to him that that tradition has disappeared to a large extent. That tradition did exist in some circles, but the fact of the matter is that in the first days of the settlement at the Cape we had mixing of the races even in our churches, and in the schools as well. But that disappeared in due course. It has disappeared in other spheres as well. Take our rugby, for example, where there are separate facilities. I admit that I do not know what the position is at Ascot and Milnerton. The hon. member will probably be able to tell me what it is …

Those places are in your constituency, though!

These are places in my constituency which I have not yet visited. [Laughter.] The hon. member will be able to tell me whether there are separate facilities at those places. I take it that there are such separate facilities there. What I have said here, shows that in practice the mixed tradition is disappearing, and there is a great deal of pressure that it should disappear. At the New lands Cricket Ground there are no separate facilities and no separate seating accommodation, but I can tell the House that it is being strongly urged that the same measure of separate facilities should be provided at the Cricket Ground as have been provided at the Newlands Rugby Ground. I admit that the mixed tradition does exist among certain people, but the tradition which is accepted by the vast majority is not the tradition which is advocated by that hon. member. There are people who strongly support the other approach.

I referred to the Luxurama earlier this evening, and the hon. member contended that the Coloureds had been done an injustice in that regard. But the Luxurama re-opened this week or last week. The artists performing there are Coloureds, and it is clear that this theatre will become a place where Coloured artists will be able to perform and Coloureds will be able to attend artistic performances. Such opportunities are therefore being created for them. But that does not necessarily mean that they are being banned from other places. In the case of the Alhambra theatre permission was granted for non-Whites to go there one evening to attend an ice-skating show put on by a company from abroad. Permission was granted in respect of a performance in Johannesburg as well. Therefore it cannot be said that they have been totally deprived of all these facilities. In other cases all that is required is that separate facilities must be provided.

As far as halls are concerned, I want to point out that there are many halls at the disposal of the Coloureds. I want to acquaint the hon. member with the true facts, because I said by way of an interjection this afternoon that his information in regard to Bellville was not correct, and I want to put the position right and reiterate what I said. The facts are that the Bellville Municipality was approached by the rector of the University College. However, the Mayor and the Town Council refused the request on the ground that the hall concerned was a theatre, and that they were acting in accordance with the policy that had been followed since that hall had been erected. Their decision was therefore not a new and unusual one; no new decision was taken. The hon. member can read the newspapers if he likes, but I want to tell him that I telephoned the Mayor of Bellville this evening to find out what the position was, and that the position is as I have explained here now. He can investigate the position if he likes. If the newspapers want to create the impression that the use of the hall was refused for that reason, it will therefore be a false one, because the Town Council had adopted this attitude in regard to the hall long before the proclamation was issued.

Can a Coloured man hire the Cape Town City Hall for his daughter’s wedding, which is to be attended by Coloureds only, without a permit?

If it is for an entertainment he cannot …

I am talking about a wedding?

Surely a wedding is a form of entertainment. [Laughter.] But I can tell the hon. member that numerous functions have been held in the Cape Town City Hall, functions which were held after Coloureds had applied to hire the City Hall and had obtained the necessary permission. This has happened in the case of the Drill Hall as well.

Under a permit, yes.

Yes, that is correct; under a permit.

Is that still the case to-day?

Yes, it still is.

Even without a permit?

No, not without a permit. But there are many halls which are available to the Coloureds.

But that is the whole point: You want to chase them away to the other halls!

No, I am dealing with those falling under me. The facts are that the Minister of Community Development refused permits in respect of Sea Point, which is a proclaimed White area. He also refused applications in respect of Claremont, which is also a proclaimed White area. He refused these permits because some of the inhabitants of Claremont objected to their being granted. But they can use the town halls of Wynberg or Woodstock—they will not be refused permission to use these halls. The Minister of Community Development did not refuse to grant permission for the function referred to by the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett). As far as my Department is concerned, the Coloureds will not be refused permission to use the Salt River Hall either, and no application has been refused to date.

What about Wynberg!

Wynberg falls under the Minister of Community Development, and I have here a letter from my Secretary to the effect that it is not the policy of that Department to refuse applications in respect of wedding functions in those two town halls. I think that is an adequate reply to that question.

I want to mention that there are many halls —about 20—in Coloured areas, and the Minister of Community Development feels that these halls in Coloured areas should be used. Let me deal with this subject from another point of view. The Luxurama has been set aside for the use of Coloureds, but if members of the Bantu group want to use the hall, and the residents of Athlone object, you will probably appreciate that the Minister of Community Development will hardly be able to issue permits for the use of that hall by the Bantu. Therefore we feel that, as almost 20 other good halls, apart from the public halls, are available to the Coloureds, halls which belong to private concerns and which are extremely suitable, the Coloureds should use those halls and should not hold functions of this type in White areas. In my opinion there are quite enough facilities, but where their needs have not been provided for, additional facilities are being created for the Coloureds.

I should like to point out that only three of the 60 or so applications for permits which have been submitted to the Department of Planning have been refused. The “certain measure of harshness” referred to by the hon. member therefore does not exist. As far as the Department of Community Development is concerned, there have been 192 applications, of which 106 have been granted. The applications which have been refused were in respect of mixed social functions that were to be held in certain areas. It is therefore obvious that sufficient facilities are available for the functions in respect of which permits have been refused to be held in their own areas by the Coloureds. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, time will not permit me to reply to the hon. Minister of Planning, but I should like to point out that he has not explained the refusal of permits in several instances, such as in the case of the Marion Institute and St. Phillips, application to use the Woodstock town hall simply because that town hall is situated in a White area. The people who applied for permits were told that it was a waste of time applying because they would not be allowed to use the hall in question.

Were mixed audiences to attend the functions?

No, it was to be a Coloured function, organized by the Marion Institute, for Coloured people in the Woodstock town hall. They were told by officials of the Minister’s Department that there was no point in applying because this particular hall is situated within a proclaimed White group area.

That would not be correct.

Well, but officials of the Department of Community Development gave that information.

If they said that, it is not true.

I can assure the hon. the Minister that that is what the applicants were told. Anyway, be that as it may, I want to come back to the hon. the Prime Minister’s statement about this so-called meddling by Whites in Coloured politics. First of all, I should like to tell the Prime Minister that I take the strongest exception to his insinuations about the Progressive Party. He has made out no case to justify the insinuations he makes, for instance in regard to meddling in the Transkeian Assembly. What exactly does the hon. the Prime Minister mean when he says that the Progressive Party has been meddling in the affairs of that Assembly? What does he mean when he says that the Progressive Party is attempting to make capital out of the question of mixed audiences? He insinuated at the beginning of his speech that this whole fracas about mixed entertainment has developed because of certain action taken by the Progressive Party. But he has not told us what he meant by that. He merely continues with his veiled insinuations. I say that I take the strongest exception to that. It is interesting to note that this alleged meddling in Coloured politics only applies when a party which is diametrically opposed to the policy of the Prime Minister as regards race discrimination has enjoyed success in elections. It is only now that the Prime Minister objects to political parties nominating candidates for Coloured elections. Up to now he has not had the slightest objection to so-called White political parties, or persons belonging to such parties— even if they do not necessarily stand under the banner of parties—contesting elections and being voted into this House. Why does the situation change so suddenly and become a matter of “meddling in Coloured politics” when the Progressive Party is successful in a provincial council election? What does the Prime Minister mean when he says that only “independent” persons should stand for the Coloured seats in this Parliament? I do not know whether the Prime Minister means that independent candidates are people with no political views whatsoever, people with no party affiliation whatsoever and who offer no policy whatsoever to the voters whom they are supposed to represent in this House. I think the hon. the Prime Minister should explain to the country exactly what he means when he says that if he had his way and he could overcome the difficulties inherent in changing the present set-up, he would allow only independent candidates to stand for Coloured seats in this Parliament.

I want to point out to him that when these seats were created—and goodness knows that separate representation is no compensation and is no substitute for ordinary rights on the common roll—when these seats were created his predecessors made no mention whatever that only independent persons would be allowed to offer themselves as candidates for these seats. Any White representative could contest those seats and, if successful, represent the Coloured voters in this House. But now all of a sudden that has become meddling in Coloured politics.

Now, I wonder what the hon. the Prime Minister calls nominated members in his Coloured council, what he calls nominated and appointed chiefs in the Transkeian Assembly, appointed at the behest of this Government, at the behest of the hon. the Prime Minister, if those people are not representatives of the so-called Government point of view in those councils and in the assembly. I have no doubt either that the appointees to the Indian council also are people who are Nationalist Party orientated, in order to create the impression abroad that the non-Whites have accepted apartheid. Yet the Prime Minister knows very well that if there were free elections, the non-Whites of this country would indeed reject his whole policy of apartheid and his whole policy of race discrimination. I say unequivocably to the Prime Minister that this i.e. the fact that a party which is unequivocably opposed to race discrimination has had success at the polls in the recent provincial council elections for Coloured seats, this is the only reason why the hon. the Prime Minister now comes along with this nonsense about meddling in Coloured politics.

But, Mr. Chairman, the Government does nothing but meddle in Coloured politics. Because every Act that it passes which attempts to enforce segregation on people is meddling in Coloured politics. That is the whole gravamen of the Government’s reason for even existing in this country. The Prime Minister talked a lot about allowing the Coloureds to develop in their own communities and giving them opportunities which they formerly did not enjoy. He talked about the Coloured university and various other fields where the Government has allegedly advanced the interests of the Coloured people. But all this has been done by compulsion. I say that, given the choice, the Coloured people would still prefer to go to the “open” universities of Cape Town, Natal and the Witwatersrand. The Prime Minister dare not give them that choice, because he knows that unless he makes these segregated facilities compulsory, he does not have a snowball’s chance of getting the Coloured people of this country, as well as the other non-White groups, namely the Indians and the Africans, to accept his brand of segregation, apartheid, separate development, or what I call race discrimination, and what those people also know and recognize to be race discrimination.

That is why all these measures have been made compulsory, otherwise the hon. the Prime Minister could surely have put his policy to the test. He could have set up his separate universities, he could have given the Coloured folk their separate entertainment, he could have given the Africans their separate sports facilities, and he could have told them to choose between their own entertainment, for instance, and mixed entertainment which they have attended in the past. But he dare not do that, and that is the reason why he has to come along with one compulsory measure after the other and force it down the Coloured people’s throats and down the non-White people’s throats generally.

This is what he now proposes to do in the matter of separate representation. If he can help it, if he can circumvent constitutional difficulties, he is not going to give the Coloured people the opportunity of choosing their own representatives. Instead he is going to make a mockery out of the last vestige of representation which the Coloured people still have set in this country. He wants to vet, directly or indirectly—whichever way he can possibly do it—the candidates from whom he thinks the Coloured people ought to choose. Nobody knows what yardstick he will use, but one has the deepest suspicion that his yardstick will consist of choosing those candidates who most closely approximate his way of thinking, the so-called apartheid ideal. No doubt he will find people prepared to stand as candidates under those conditions, but he will not fool the Coloured people, and he certainly will not fool the outside world into believing that this is any form of democratic choice whatsoever.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. the Prime Minister ought to be warned that he is wrong if he thinks that people will be so foolish or so naive as to be taken in by the arguments which he advances. He is a past master at advancing logical arguments based on false premises. And that is all we have listened to in this House to-night. For hour after hour we have listened to the Prime Minister advancing all his logical arguments, step by step, until one sits down quietly and examines the premise upon which the hon. the Prime Minister has based his arguments, and one then discovers that in each and every case the premise is utterly false.

Therefore I believe that the Prime Minister has a much more sinister aim than just the attitude towards the Coloureds which the hon. member for Peninsula talked about. His aim is to ensure that only people who represent his views and the views of his Party are allowed any political say whatever in this House as far as the non-Whites are concerned. I do not believe that he will bluff the Coloured people in any way, and he certainly is not going to bluff anybody else in this country about the so-called representation which he now envisages for the Coloured people. I say it is a disgrace and it is making a mockery of even those paltry arguments which were advanced way back in the 1950’s when the idea was first mooted in this House of the removal of ordinary common roll representation for the non-White people and the substitution thereof of separate roll representation. At least then the Coloured people were given to understand that they could choose representatives of their own particular choice. [Time limit.]

I want to thank the hon. the Prime Minister for having at least been frank this evening. There was a time when he openly admitted that he had not fully considered the position of the Coloureds. We now know that he has considered this matter fully. He has now given his final decision. I must say that it was a shock to learn that the result of his consideration of the matter is that the policy of the Government is now finally to be one of permanent second class citizenship for and permanent supremacy over the most highly developed section of our non-White population. We know that now, and we are sorry that we have to accept that all the statements, inter alia, of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the hon. the Minister of Defence in regard to the future of the Coloured, were just meaningless. The hon. the Prime Minister of course still owes us a reply to various questions. Nobody objects to the Coloureds in a Coloured residential area having a council—such as a municipal council—with the assistance of which they can make decisions inregard to local matters. But after this evening we also know that under the policy of this Government the Coloured will never have any say in the making of the laws which affect all the important things in his life. One asks oneself what loyalty one can expect on the part of the Coloured as far as the laws of the country are concerned if he is never allowed to have a share in the making of those laws. [Interjections.] No, no! There is no direct representation here. The hon. the Prime Minister is sowing the seeds of bitterness and revolt. But the greatest shock of all is the fact that the hon. the Prime Minister this evening has taken the political intimidation of the Coloured a step further. I was on the point of dealing with this matter earlier this evening when my time expired. I was pointing out at the time that this Government decided that the Coloured voter was to be placed on a separate vote with the right to elect two members to the Provincial Council and four members to the House of Assembly, but that they could choose any candidate they wanted to choose. These representatives had to be White, but the Coloureds had the free right to choose their representative. During the recent Provincial elections they elected two members of the Progressive Party to be their representatives in the Provincial Council. I am sorry that they did not vote for two members of my party but the fact is that they elected members of the Progressive Party of their own volition. We still adopt the attitude that that is their right, a right which we will protect to the end—the right of people to elect freely the candidate of their choice. Why cannot the hon. the Prime Minister also allow the Coloured a free choice?

The hon. the Prime Minister must realize that there is an extremely important principle at stake here. A very far-reaching principle is being affected in this regard. If the Government continues with its present attitude, namely, that the Coloureds can send representatives to this House but that they cannot elect the candidate of their choice—that they must do what the Government wants them to do or else!—then one must ask oneself of what value the franchise is to the Coloured. I agree then that the sooner we get rid of it the better.

Must they be allowed to elect a communist?

No, of course not. The communist party is a banned party. But the hon. the Prime Minister also wants to deprive the Coloured of the right to elect a representative from a recognized political party. That is the difference. Now is the time for the hon. the Prime Minister to tell us how he is going to give effect to these threats of his. He must tell us how he is going to stop the so-called White interference in Coloured politics. I want to ask him pertinently in this respect whether it will lead to the position where the Cape Argus or the Burger will not be able to print articles in which political guidance is given to the Coloureds? Will it mean that such newspapers will not be allowed into Coloured areas because they contain political articles in which political guidance is given to the Coloureds? Will it mean that Aat Kaptein will be prevented from publishing the Banier, which is the political newspaper of the Coloureds, on behalf of the Coloureds?

But Aat Kaptein is not a political party.

But we are dealing here with the “interference of Whites in the politics of the Coloureds”, and Aat Kaptein is the editor of a political newspaper for the Coloureds. Will he then be prevented from continuing to publish his newspaper because he as a White man is “interfering” in the politics of the Coloureds? The principle laid down by the Government is that a White man may not interfere in the politics of the Coloured. In practice this may mean that a White man may even be in danger if he discusses these politics with a Coloured because he will then be interfering in the political affairs of the Coloureds. But the Government must also explain to us how it is going to stop itself from interfering in the political development of the Coloureds! The Government is the greatest meddler of all in the politics of the Coloured! I want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister that if he is going to implement and carry out this intimidation, these threats, against the rights and freedoms of the Coloureds to elect the candidates of their choice, I predict that he and his Government will be playing with fire. We will oppose such a move with all the power at our command. We will protest most strongly against this further demolition of democracy in South Africa. This is nothing but blatant totalitarianism which is increasing more and more in South Africa. We will oppose this. I say that the Government is playing with fire in this regard and it is time the Opposition issued a most serious warning to the Government in regard to the direction that the Government is following here.

The hon. the Minister of Planning, when he started speaking, read out a quotation in which I was apparently involved. Unfortunately with all the noise I did not hear what he quoted, but I believe that he referred to a quotation published overseas of something that I had apparently said …

No.

But I got the point the hon. the Minister wanted to make. I want to extend an invitation to him. I shall bring along all the reports which have been submitted to UNO, and also oversea newspapers in which political reports on South Africa are published. We will then find that members of the Opposition are occasionally quoted—that is true—but people do not judge a country by its Opposition; they judge it according to the words and the deeds of its Government. We will find that for every one quotation of something said by a member of the Opposition there are 99 quotations of what was said by leaders on the Government side.

You ought to know that that is not true.

I shall bring that hon. member all the reports on South West Africa; he will then see that he and the hon. member for Karas (Mr. Von Moltke) and the hon. the Deputy-Minister for South West Africa Affairs are all quoted in regard to the policy of the Government. The same thing applies to the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and the hon. the Prime Minister himself. Did hon. members see what Dr Danie Craven said in London recently? Dr. Craven is there to fight for the interests of our South African sport but while he is engaged in doing this, these ridiculous things are happening in South Africa and the newspapers are full of reports in this regard—not in regard to things which we as an Opposition say but in regard to things done by the Government. Dr. Craven is at his wits’ end as to how to defend South Africa while this Government continues to drag politics into sport which they are doing, amongst other things. How can Dr. Craven fight the introduction of politics into international sport if this Government is the worst offender as far as the introduction of politics into sport is concerned? I have had this experience over and over again. Ask our foreign representatives and they will tell you that they work for weeks and make progress in favour of South Africa by winning new friends but as soon as they start making progress something happens here in Parliament and the Government once again does something which spoils all their good work. [Time limit.]

We have already become used to a number of characteristics displayed by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. The first of these is that he is very fond of giving moral lectures. In this regard I want to say that we are all rather sick and tired of his moralizing, of his political moralizing. The hon. member places himself on a pedestal of high morality, while suggesting that everything that we on this side do is at a lower level of morality. But there is something else which characterizes the hon. member, and that is the various stages he has passed through in his process of political evaporation. Personally I am very glad that he has entered the final stage of evaporation lately. He has evaporated to such an extent that he no longer has any connections with his old party—the National Party. He belonged to this party, he sat here on our side and in that capacity had a hand in all this legislation which he is condemning now. He was a supporter of apartheid, as an hon. member here has just observed. The hon, member used to go from one platform to another to propagate this policy as advocated by this party all these years.

It even won him elections!

Yes, it won him elections. But now the hon. member has undergone the final process of evaporation. In other words, even his spectre has disappeared from this party. Now he has to be bolstered in that party by elements such as the English Press, which has a specific object in wanting to break this party. Unfortunately I do not have the time to deal with that object now. But the hon. member is now flaring up like a shooting star. I want to warn the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that that hon. member will evaporate in the United Party as he did in the National Party. I want to tell the hon. member for Houghton that the hon. member will be her ally soon. And let me tell the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that political history is not made by egg-dancers and the so-called moderates and moralizers. No, on the contrary, history shows that political history is made by men who stick to a principle unwaveringly, in spite of all scaremongering. We have been hearing in the past number of years that the outside world is plotting against us, and is alienating itself from us to en ever-increasing extent so that we are becoming more and more isolated. We know all these stories. But the more they scheme in this respect—according to the hon. member—the stronger this party becomes. The hon. member said that this party was the biggest instigator of unrest in this country. I think that is a terrible accusation, besides being an untruth, a blatant political lie. Is there any other country in the Western world where there is greater peace in industry and labour than in this fatherland of ours? I challenge the hon. member to show me any country whose economic development is as free from disturbances.

That was the position under Hitler too.

The rest of the world is struggling with economic problems which are caused largely by unrest in labour and industry. But we are in the fortunate position that we can go from strength to strength in the economic field, thanks to the absence of unrest in this field. And yet that hon. member comes along and makes these allegations.

I still have three minutes at my disposal and want to conclude this debate by dealing with the same topic that the Leader of the Opposition opened it with. Hon. members opposite say that the percentage of Blacks in the rural areas is increasing. I accuse the United Party of having started this process, a process which we shall terminate. In 1946 the United Party issued a White Paper on agriculture in which it was stated that in large parts of the country the production capacity of White farming areas was being undermined, and that large areas were being destroyed in the Native areas as well. Because the then Government did not provide a livelihood and employment for the Natives in their own areas, we found that under their regime the Black masses began to exert pressure as far as agricultural labour was concerned. But we shall put a stop to that process, though it will not be possible to do so overnight. There on the opposite side we have the culprits who are responsible for the increasing infiltration of Blacks into the agricultural sector. They started that process.

This debate has proved that the National Party is establishing the four comer-pillars of agriculture more firmly. In spite of its rummaging, the United Party has failed to prove anything with its criticism.

Vote put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.

Resumption of Committee of Supply on 8 April.