I move as an unopposed motion—

Agreed to.

When the House adjourned yesterday evening I was saying that I could not associate myself with the objection raised by the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) to the speech made by the hon. member for Randfontein (Dr. Mulder) to the effect that school-children should be taught to love the flag. The hon. member for Kensington subsequently said that he would be grateful if, when I was called upon to speak, I would just repeat what I said, because he had not been present here. I just want to point out that in American schools the pupils pledge their allegiance every morning, and that they make, inter alia, the following affirmation—

Six elements of the national culture are mentioned in this affirmation. These are the Flag, the Republic, the unity of the nation, religion, liberty and justice. We must instil love for and loyalty to the Republic into our children at school, we must teach them to have the highest esteem and respect for our State President, and the true significance of the Flag and the National Anthem must be impressed upon them. I therefore think that a formula must be found for pledging allegiance to the State and to the State President and publicly expressing love for the language and the Flag and the National Anthem in the school hall at morning assembly at least once a week. As far as the two official languages are concerned, I should say that they must pledge an abiding love for the home language and an unshakable esteem and respect for the other language.

Let us critically examine our education, from the primary through the university and the post-graduate to the very highest level, in order continually to adapt it to changing circumstances, to reform it if necessary and to test its universality by world standards, while at all costs retaining its inherent individuality which derives from its specifically South African character. And let us compare it with comparable countries throughout the world, and let us then admit that we equal the best among the very best in the entire world. Our talent, Mr. Chairman and our achievements in the fields of medicine, engineering, education, agriculture, law, etc., are not surpassed by anything or anyone in comparable countries. I know of a case in which an open-heart operation was performed in this country after the couple concerned had been to Europe and had been told there, “Go back to your own country; you cannot have a better operation performed anywhere.” Irrespective of who performed the operation and in what hospital it was done, the fact remains that it was done in this country, and that this incident served to suggest that it could be performed not merely as well, but even better, in this country. Our policy is to develop the talents of our people to the utmost, and it is for that reason that innumerable bursaries are made available by innumerable institutions. Bursaries are available particularly to the A course matriculants who obtain first-class passes, but also for some A course matriculants who obtain second-class passes. Now I want to point out a problem. These young people are trained as first-rate technicians at enormous cost to the State, and we find that the bottle-neck caused in the Government service by the shortage of technicians is to a large extent the result of wastage, of erosion: These people are shamelessly enticed away by private and semi-private undertakings which offer higher salaries and more attractive conditions of service. Many of these young people are then lost to the professional field for which they have been trained in that they merely become agents for selling some or other commodity for some or other company. I want to refer to a certain Government Department in which it takes four years for a man to obtain his bachelor’s degree, two years more to obtain his M.Sc., and then three years overseas to obtain his doctor’s degree; after nine years, when he is fully equipped for the work, his market value is extremely high, and it is then that private concerns entice him away by offering him almost double the salary he can get from the State, a free house and a motor-car, repayment of his study debts and many other benefits, things which the State cannot even consider, because it would be impracticable to offer such benefits. This amounts to a system of parasitism, with the private concerns not contributing a farthing. Cannot we counteract this state of affairs to some extent? I want to recommend that we counteract this state of affairs by making available thousands and, if possible, more thousands of bursaries to the A course second-class pupils from the high schools, and bursaries to B course matriculants as well. And for diploma courses, not for degree courses, because then their ranks will be less subject to erosion, as they will not be so useful to these private undertakings which entice them away by offering them higher salaries. Less erosion will occur than at present, and these people will be of inestimable value to all sections of the Public Service. Mr. Chairman, just as drenching rains cause the water table to rise in the soil of the earth, so mass training of the people by means of a very large number of State bursaries must raise the level of development of the broad masses of the population and make them capable of rendering service to the nation. That is very necessary in our country, which will already have a total population of 22,800,000 by 1975; if a nett immigration of 20,000 per annum is taken into account, the increase will be 37 per cent or 209 per day as far as the Whites are concerned, but 50 per cent or 832 per day as far as the non-Whites are concerned.

If we consider the educational facilities provided to the non-Whites in our country and their eagerness to attend school and their willingness to make sacrifices and to pay for what they get by way of education, it must give us some cause for alarm. For them there is a prize to gain, and their numerical preponderance and the development which they are eagerly striving to attain, and will attain, will bring that prize within their reach within the foreseeable future, and that prize is autonomy, independence, liberty and control. And if we are asked “Where?”, then our reply is, “In their own areas.” Very well, but do you know what? The way in which that will affect us will depend upon what our education has made of us. In a certain sense our Defence Force stems from our schools, and for that reason our educational budget must not compare unfavourably with our defence budget.

Now I just want to deal with a minor matter of a personal nature, and it is in connection with the technical high school at Nylstroom which is now in the hands of the Department of Public Works. We have had many pleasant discussions in this connection and have made good progress, and I know that matters have progressed so far now that the private architect was instructed on 2 February 1965 to begin preparing the working drawings and to work out the specifications. It will take nine months to complete that task. And then the quantity lists have to be prepared. I just want to make a kind request to the Minister of Education, although the matter is now in the hands of the Department of Public Works …

Order! That has nothing to do with this hon. Minister.

It is only a kind request. [Time limit.]

I am sure the House listened with keen interest to the speech of the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. Heystek). The hon. member is in full agreement with me that in the Vote of this Minister, the amounts we spend on Education, there lies the only true security for White South Africa. Where the hon. member pleads for a broader extension of Government assistance as far as education is concerned and where he pleads that it is not only legislative barriers that are going to keep South Africa White, we fully agree with him. It depends to a very large extent on the ability of White South Africa to educate its new generations whether we will be able to maintain our nation in future against the threat of Black Africa. That is why I find it so surprising in listening to the reply of the hon. the Minister that when he attempted to criticize the allegation of this side of the House that the Government is not spending enough on education in South Africa, the Minister could come and quote a lot of figures to prove in fact that as far as Education in South Africa is concerned we can adopt a self-satisfied attitude in regard to the whole matter. One would have thought that the hon. Minister would have said: Yes, your figures are right, we are spending to little, and as Minister of Education in this Government I am going to see how much more I can get out of the Treasury and from the Government to educate the youth of South Africa in all grades of education, right up to the higher education. The hon. Minister agreed with the overall figure that I quoted on a previous occasion in this House that we spend only about 4 per cent of our gross national income on education as a whole. The Minister went on to say that that is a very favourable figure compared with other countries, whilst it is my contention that we do not spend anything like sufficient money on the education of our White population in comparison with what is spent on education in all fields in other Western countries. The record of this Government is not so good in that regard. The hon. Minister took the period from 1954 to 1963 and he quoted certain authorities here, but the Minister did not tell us what authorities he was quoting from. Where did the hon. Minister get the figures and the percentages that he quoted here? Were they assessments made by his Department, or were they dependent authorities or surveys or statistics that rest on independent surveys that are being carried out by other authorities? I am going to quote a couple of figures to the hon. Minister. I have in my hands the South African Journal of Economics, the latest issue of September 1964 and there is an article here dealing with the financing of higher education in South Africa, with particular reference to the universities. The hon. Minister will agree with me that the figures given in this journal bear no comparison whatsoever with the figures quoted by the hon. Minister in this House. What does it say here? It says here for instance—I quoted a figure of 4 per cent—that Professor Horwood states that we spend much less than 4 per cent of our national income on education. He quotes these figures: That in 1950, expenditure on education represented 3.25 per cent of our total national income, and it declined until in 1963, it was only 3 per cent. But there are other figures quoted in this journal, which, I think, are of considerable significance. One is that the total expenditure on education as a percentage of total Government ordinary expenditure has shown a continuing decline over the last five years. For example, in 1959, it represented 19 per cent of total Government expenditure, in 1960, it declined by 1.7 per cent. From 1961 it became 19.4 per cent and 18.6 per cent in 1962, and 17.4 per cent in 1963. In other words, a steady decline in Government expenditure on education in the higher field. These are figures quoted in the “Journal of Economics”, and they refute entirely the figures quoted by the hon. the Minister. I do not know on what basis he was making his calculations. But I have another authority, a book recently published on “Public Expenditure in South Africa” by Peter van Waasdyk. It says this—

Do you believe those figures or those you quoted first?

What I am trying to show to the Minister is that all three authorities that I have now quoted disagree with the Minister’s figures.

The authorities you have quoted also disagree amongst themselves.

Of course they do, but they show still less than the Minister’s figures. The point I am trying to make is that there is no cause for self-satisfaction. I quote these figures to indicate to the Minister that insufficient is being done in regard to the educational needs of South Africa, that the expenditure is too low in the face of our national needs. If that is so, then let us take other issues. Let us compare student-teacher relations. Will the hon. Minister say that our student-teacher percentage compares favourably with any other Western country? The hon. Minister must surely be aware, if he takes an interest in his portfolio, of the facts published by the Education League of South Africa, and that they point out that our student-staff relationship is one of the lowest in the Western world, and that in the mathematic and scientific field, whereas in a country like Australia you have eight students to one teacher, we sit with a ratio of 100 students to one teacher Which all shows an unsatisfactory educational picture as far as South Africa is concerned.

But there is another issue which the hon. Minister until now in this debate has completely ignored. I think it is an issue about which we all should be concerned, irrespective of the party we belong to, and that is the decline in standards as far as secondary education is concerned. Too many of the White youths of South Africa are being permitted to be wasted in the industrial and private sector of the economy. Too many of the White youths of South Africa are leaving school at too early an age, and if the hon. Minister does not believe me in this respect, I do hope that he will believe a survey that was conducted by the Council for Industrial and Scientific Research. I quote here the National Institute for Personal Research, which conducted a research recently on the White manpower reserve in the Republic of South Africa, and this is what their researchers discovered. It was found that the number of pupils who passed Std. X constituted a little less than 22 per cent of the young people of South Africa within the age group 17-19. In other words, that less than a quarter of our entire youth potential in South Africa received an education of matriculation standard which qualified them to enter a place of higher learning. Time does not permit me to go deeply into these figures, but one finds a falling figure in respect of the actual admission of capable youths to university institutions. That is why I say with the hon. member for Waterberg that a lot more must be done, because the fact remains that less than 5 per cent of the total amount available from Central Government resources is devoted to free education for the youth of South Africa in the way of bursaries or other forms of assistance. I hope that the hon. Minister, if he ignores our pleas in this regard, will at least heed the plea of the hon. member for Waterberg that much more must be done as far as assistance is concerned for those capable students who are unable to afford to go to places of higher learning although they have the talent to benefit from such higher education. The tragedy in South Africa to-day is that the attendance at our universities to-day in the main is becoming the privilege of the economically privileged, the children of parents who can economically afford to send their children to a university and to meet the fees and the costs of maintaining the child whilst at the university. We make bursaries available through Government grants and what not for the pure educational side, but no assistance, or very little is rendered to maintain the child whilst it is going through its studies at a place of higher learning, whether at a technological institution or at a plain university. [Time limit.]

I want to reply to the debate as briefly as possible and I shall try to do justice to all. The hon. members for Randfontein (Dr. Mulder) and Pretoria (East) (Dr. Otto) have pleaded that history as a subject should be given greater recognition in the high schools. I can only inform them that approximately ten days ago I asked all the school principals how many Std. X students were taking this subject in the various Afrikaans medium, English medium and parallel medium schools and how many schools there were in which not a single student was taking it. I myself am of the same opinion as those two hon. members. I also regard history as one of the most important formative subjects and that much more attention should be given to it.

The hon. members for Randfontein and Waterberg (Mr. Heystek) spoke about the flag and the National Anthem and photographs of the State President. The hon. member for Pretoria (East) pleaded that our schools should be more nationally orientated, in the broad sense of the word, than they were. I can only tell him that my Department issues a flag free of charge to the schools under its control. In every school the National flag and the National Anthem occupy a place of honour; the National Anthem is regularly sung and a beautiful coloured photograph of the State President and Mrs. Swart hang there. I am not suggesting that that is enough. A code was also drawn up to ensure that the flag is properly honoured as the true symbol of our national unity and national existence. But more must still be done. We ought to cultivate even greater loyalty towards the Republic of South Africa in our schools by means of those symbols.

The hon. member for Randfontein complained about the way in which the humanities were neglected. During the past two years the amount for research purposes in respect of the humanities has been increased by R 100,000. Those persons who have to do the research work are somewhat lax and if there is no demand for money to undertake research projects there is no sense in voting money. I can only say that if the demand is there—I hope people will wake up—more money will be voted for that purpose. I personally am a very great protagonist of the humanities.

I can just tell the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) that I am as fond of Kosie as he is and that I think Kosie is a wonderful boy but I cannot agree with the hon. member that every young man who has to do his duty towards his country and be trained to do so should be paid for it. Everybody has to do it at some time or other. Kosie is not the only one. The hon. member pleads that everyone who has to undergo compulsory training for a few months or ten months or a year or whatever the period may be should be given one year free education at a university. I can only say that if Kosie is a student who deserves it he can get a bursary, I agree that more bursaries should be made available and the Government has given the lead. I said yesterday—the hon. member for Waterberg also pleaded for it—that legislation would be introduced next year in terms of which R500,000 would be contributed by the Treasury to form a nest egg for these study and loan bursaries. We have made a very urgent appeal to the private sector, trade and industry to contribute their share. The Government can do no more than that.

The hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Emdin) asked that the question of the long vacations students had should be gone into. The whole matter is dealt with in the Cilliers report. Professor A. C. Cilliers sets out the whole position in his report which was made available at the beginning of this year and the matter has now been referred to the advisory committees of the universities of which Professor A. C. Cilliers is the chairman. I think the tendency is to lengthen the period students have to be at university by a month. The hon. member has quite rightly said that the ratio of seven months’ study and five months’ vacation was a wrong ratio. A great deal of time is wasted in that way. I must say, in defence of the universities, that they have long vacations largely due to the fact that they want to give the lecturers an opportunity to do research work during that period and even to travel overseas which is necessary if they want to be kept fully informed as to what is happening. However, the fact remains that it is very detrimental to the students.

The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) and the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Oldfield) respectively pleaded for medical faculties in the Free State and Natal. I can only say that representations have also been made to me for a medical faculty at Potchefstroom. Officially we have nothing on record as far as Natal is concerned. We only hear the rumour. We have not had an official request from them as we have had in the case of the Orange Free State and Potchefstroom. When those were received the Government immediately went into the matter because it was aware of the shortage not only of doctors but of the shortage in many other fields, as in the engineering field, for example. I personally went into the matter immediately knowing that an additional medical faculty would have to be established. The Government then asked its scientific advisers to go into the question of solving this problem of a shortage of doctors as soon as possible and towards the end of 1963 or at the beginning of 1964 Dr. Mönich reported that the quickest way in which to meet this shortage would be to extend the facilities at the four existing medical faculties. The investigations revealed that it was possible to extend all four existing medical faculties and that the proposed extensions would result in about 100 additional doctors per annum as from the beginning of 1970 and even 180 more per annum from 1972. The Government consequently accented that recommendation because by establishing a new faculty it would hardly be possible to produce 50 within the next ten years as has been the experience at Stellenbosch and else where. By extending the existing medical faculties we would require less staff, it would cost less and we shall see the results much sooner. For the time being, therefore, the establishment of a new medical faculty is quite out of the question. That does not mean, however, that hon. members or the institutions concerned are now prohibited from stating their case. They can continue doing so because I do believe that before 1972 the Government will have to give very serious consideration to the establishment of one or more additional medical faculties because we shall not be able to extend the existing universities further. We shall have to attend to that, therefore, and continually bear that in mind.

The hon. member for Westdene (Mr. van der Spuy) made a plea on behalf of the University of the Witwatersrand. I can only tell him that finality, has not yet been reached with the University of South Africa in respect of many matters but the Government has already approved of a further university, the university of the Witwatersrand, in principle. Due to the tremendously large population and the development that is taking place there a university will eventually have to be established on the Witwatersrand. The hon. member need not worry about this matter, therefore.

The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) mentioned a long list of figures. I can only tell him that the figures he quoted—he quoted two sets of figures—also differ from each other. The hon. member wanted to know where I had got my figures from. I got my figures from the Research Bureau of the Bureau of Statistics and the various Departments concerned. Those were genuine expenses as audited by the Auditor-General. If the hon. member does not want to accept them I don’t know what figures will satisfy him. Those figures reflect the actual expenditure.

Are you suggesting that the position is satisfactory?

I am not dealing with fictitious figures but with actual facts. I am dealing with the genuine national income on which the percentage has been calculated. If the hon. member chooses to call them political figures he is at liberty to do so.

I think I have replied to all the questions and in conclusion I just want to thank hon. members on both sides of the House for having taken part in this debate and for their assistance in discussing this important question of education as objectively as possible. I can assure them that we shall give further attention to many points raised by them. We note the criticism because we realize that everything is not what it should be and that there is room for improvement. Hon. members can rest assured that if conditions in the country make it possible for me to get more than 4.5 per cent of the national income I shall fight strenuously for it. I shall be the happiest person in the world the day I get 10 per cent. That will enable me to produce the best in the entire Western World.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question before he sits down. Does the hon. Minister know that he was entirely wrong when he said, as he did, that all young men were treated on an equal basis in their choice for military service?

That was not what I said.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Revenue Vote No. 19.—“Schools of Industries and Reform Schools”, R2,045,000,

This Vote is an important Vote and is perhaps one of the few votes on the Estimates which shows a decrease in the amount to be expended during this current financial year as compared with the last financial year, a decrease of some R55,000. In studying these Estimates, one can understand perhaps the decrease in the expenditure as far as the reform schools are concerned in view of the fact that figures show that the reform school at Constantia for instance, shows a decrease in the number of pupils accommodated there. The other aspect is in connection with the schools of industries, and it is surprising to see that in the Estimates before us there has been a decrease in the number of posts for instance of male teachers from 172 and 154, and similarly in respect of other staff there was a decrease in the personnel. I mention this fact as surprising in view of the fact that in reply to a question in this House, the Deputy Minister replied that there are to be extensions at these schools and that additional schools are to be created in order to meet the increased demand. It is also a fact that at these various places of safety and detention, where these young people are kept before being transferred to these industrial schools, in many instances these persons, particularly girls at these places of safety, are kept there for considerable periods of time pending their transfer to a school of industries, and invariably the excuse is that the schools of industries are full and that they have to wait for a vacancy to occur at a particular school of industries. I would like to know whether the hon. Deputy Minister, who I understand is responsible for this particular aspect, can give some indication as to what extensions are envisaged during the coming year so as to meet the position, particularly as far as schools of industries for girls are concerned. We know there has been some difficulty at the Industrial School at Oudtshoorn and that an inquiry was instituted. I should like to know whether the inquiry has been completed and what further information can be provided in regard to what happened there. I have suggested in the past that a survey should be carried out to assess the degree of success achieved at industrial schools, a similar survey to the one carried out in respect of the Constantia Reform School. That survey was carried out by Dr. Lotter and it showed that only a 26.3 per cent degree of success was being achieved at that school. Naturally the type of pupil accommodated there is perhaps the most hardened and difficult of all, and they are not on the same basis as those pupils who are accommodated at the industrial schools. However, it would be interesting to know what steps are being taken to recruit additional teacher-psychologists who are trained for the necessary clinical work that has to be undertaken. The latest report of the Department of Education, Arts and Science mentioned the shortage of the type of teacher-psychologist who is so necessary in the rehabilitation of these maladjusted young people. The point was mentioned that at the industrial school at Oudtshoorn there was no one on the staff who was trained in psychology and who could give the necessary attention to the type of student there.

The Deputy Minister might perhaps give some indication whether the Department has any plans in mind to increase the number of teacher-psychologists so that this aspect of the work is not neglected but is rather extended. While dealing with the industrial schools another important factor I think we have by which to measure the degree of success achieved is the classification of the institution. It has been found that children committed to industrial schools return home far worse as far as their behaviour is concerned than they were before they entered those schools. Perhaps the question of the utilization of the places of safety as observation centres could perhaps to a certain extent obviate the misplacement sometimes of these pupils at industrial schools where perhaps they are not developing any behavioural difficulties themselves, but they have been committed there by various children’s homes and they then have to associate with some of the children there who are habitual truants or who have developed delinquent tendencies. On the question of the grading of the industrial schools I feel that some of these children who are committed to these schools through no fault of their own but due to circumstances completely beyond their control, should not be kept in close association with many of these young persons who have been committed there due to the fact that they are developing delinquent tendencies.

The other important aspect in the question of the re-education and the readjustment of these pupils is the after-care, and it has been suggested on numerous occasions that some effort should be made to establish after-care hostels in some of the larger centres where these persons, after being detained at these schools and receiving good training—and there is no doubt about it that many of these pupils have certainly benefited from their stay in these industrial schools—could be accommodated. I have mentioned the ones who are perhaps failures, but I must also mention that there are many cases of outstanding success.

However, the whole question of these aftercare hostels where these children can readjust themselves to society is a very important facet in the education of these people. It is interesting to note that in the magazine, Penal Reform News, under the editorship of Professor Dr. Herman Venter, it says that when they consider certain other aspects, mainly dealing with the survey carried out by Dr. Lotter, “Die Rehabilitasie van Blanke Jeugoortreders”, that he came to certain conclusions, one of which was that a certain degree of failure was attributable to the fact that many of these people return immediately to an environment which is not conducive to their re-education and rehabilitation. I quote from the editor’s notes—

Then he goes on to mention the fact that due regard should be had to the personal and social background of those admitted for treatment and the fact that all too frequently the ex-inmate is returned to the very same circumstances responsible for his criminal conduct in the first instance. So it appears that there is a vacuum which is left in the re-education of these people, and that is through their readjustment to normal society and to a normal life once they have completed their period at that school. We know that in the training carried out at that school there is vocational guidance, but the training they receive has in many cases placed these persons at a distinct disadvantage in obtaining employment. Unfortunately there are certain employers who are inclined to attach a certain stigma to these young people who have undergone training at one of these institutions, particularly at the reform school, and also in many instances at an industrial school. It is a very important task for us to see that the stigma that is sometimes attached to an ex-pupil of these schools is eliminated as far as possible. Therefore I believe that with the grading of the industrial schools on a basis whereby they are carefully selective in the placing of these children, it would go a long way towards further improving the degree of success achieved at these industrial schools.

The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) wants to know what is the reason for the decrease in the expenditure and in the number of posts. It is due mainly to the decrease in the number of students. It is perhaps necessary for me to make a comparison between the last financial year and the present financial year as far as the number of students is concerned. In 1964-5 there were 2,261 students in industrial schools. For the purposes of the ensuing financial year it is estimated that that number will be 2,454, a decrease of 107. In the two reformatories the numbers will drop from 203 to 193, a drop of 10. It is estimated that each student costs R500 per annum and on that basis it works out at R55,000. That means a decrease in the expenditure and obviously a decrease in the number of posts at these institutions. The question can justifiably be asked what is the cause of this decrease in numbers. There are various reasons for it. The decrease in the number at industrial schools may be attributable to the new Children’s Act. Those children who are in need of care can now be placed with private persons. The majority of the children at the industrial schools are children who have not committed any offence but who have been declared children in need of care due to their family circumstances. I think we all agree that it is much better for the children in need of care rather to be placed somewhere where they can enjoy intimate family life than in an institution. I personally have the highest regard for our industrial schools and our reformatries. I have already visited a number of them and on each occasion I have been impressed by the dedicated way in which the staff at those institutions do their work. I have often been impressed by the loving and tactful way in which they handle those children. But no matter how good these institutions are and how scientifically they set about their work they remain institutions and can never be a home in the true sense of the word. I sincerely hope therefore, that the public will come forward to an even greater extent than they have in the past year and take these children, who would normally be admitted to industrial schools, into their homes so that they can have the benefit of home life and home education.

There are other reasons for this decrease, one being—this applies to all the reformatories—that the very difficult cases, the offenders of over 18 years of age, are to-day transferred to the rehabilitation centres attached to our prisons. That has also caused a decrease in the numbers at the reformatories. However, I think it is only fair towards the youth to lay that one of the reasons for the decrease is the general improvement in the behaviour of the youth in this country. I do not think I am exaggerating when I say there is much less cause to be concerned about our youth to-day than there was three or four years ago. One notices far fewer duck-tails on the street and other places to-day than a few years ago. I think we are gradually getting rid of that epidemic. That may be due to the fact that more employment facilities are available in the country to-day or to military training to some extent.

The hon. member wanted to know whether we intended extending the industrial schools. I can only tell him that an industrial school is in the course of construction at Utrecht. The plans for an industrial school at Wolmaransstad have reached an advanced stage and we are still planning the extensions at the schools at De Wetsdorp and Schoemansdal.

As far as classification is concerned to which the hon. member has referred I can only say that the Department and the Cabinet fully appreciate the desirability and necessity for classification and that the child in need of care should not be placed with the one who has stolen a motor-car and those industrial schools do indeed see to it that the children are properly classified. The most serious cases are referred to a particular industrial school and the less serious cases to others. We do classify them therefore. We are limited, however, by existing accommodation because many of these places are old buildings and do not offer accommodation which lends itself properly to classification. However, the intention is to continue classifying them by placing certain types of children in certain industrial schools. We are also continually trying to find new ways of classifying them; for example the children in these hostels are divided into smaller groups. That is the system which is being applied but there, too, we are limited by existing accommodation. The new industrial schools which are being built, however, like the one at Utrecht, for example, are planned in such a way that the hostels will be much smaller units. At Utrecht there will be accommodation for only 36 students in the hostel and hon. members will appreciate the fact that that will make it possible for the housemaster and the matron, with their assistants, to supervise the children exceptionally well and also to create a homely atmosphere.

As far as a survey similar to the Lotter survey at a reformatory is concerned I just want to assure the hon. member that we as a Department are continually trying to improve our methods of rehabilitation. We are continually sending experts overseas to go and study their methods. Our difficulty at the moment is that we have not enough psychologists to serve on the staffs of all these industrial schools. At some of these industrial schools there is not a single psychologist and I readily admit that that is an unhealthy state of affairs; that position is disturbing but if we cannot find the people it is no good attempting the impossible.

The hon. members pointed out that aftercare was very important. It is no good the State spending this enormous amount of R500 per student per annum for two or three years if that child falls into all sorts of pitfalls when he goes out in life. In that case all the rehabilitation work is wasted and the man is thrown to the wolves. We appreciate the importance of after-care. The Department tries to meet this position by placing these children, when they are discharged, in the few special hostels we have. I agree that there are not enough of these hostels to accommodate these boys and girls but we must continually move further in this direction and we must continually try to establish more of these hostels so that they can be accommodated when they are discharged. Further after-care is done, of course, by the Department of Social Welfare, although we, as the Department of Education, Arts and Science, are anxious that our own staff should look after these students in the hostels where they are accommodated on discharge for at least a year. We are continually trying to do that. In view of the work that is being done and the success obtained we can really say that the Department and its officials have done wonderful work in the rehabilitation field and I am pleased that I have had the opportunity of putting this across to hon. members.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 20,—“Bantu Administration and Development”, R28,920,000.

Members may at the same time discuss Loan Vote “N”, Bantu Administration and Development, R43,302,000.

May I ask for the privilege of the half-hour? I intend talking to the Minister about Bantustans, but before I do that I want to raise another matter very briefly, but I hope the Minister will give a full reply to it during the course of the debate.

In terms of Section 5 of the Administration Act as substituted and amended, the State President can order Bantu to move from one place to another. We know that many of these orders have been issued, but I am not sure how many are still in effect. I ask the Minister to tell us how many of these orders are still of force and to give us details as to the reasons why these people are ordered to move from one place to another, and why they could not be prosecuted, and how long these orders have been in operation. The Minister will probably take some time to get this information, but we should be able to get it before the end of the debate, which will probably last for some time.

The Minister, as a member of the Tomlinson Commission, has said that the so-called Native question is undoubtedly the most formidable and urgent of South African problems; the realization of this fact and of the gravity and the urgency of the situation must be brought home to every thinking person in our country. That was said in 1954. It remains true to-day, except that it is even more urgent and more formidable now. The Commission was quite right in suggesting that people should be told what this problem was. Very few people take any interest in the administration of Bantu affairs. It is only now that the Government propaganda machine has gone all-out to publicize what is happening in the Transkei, and because of the developments to the north of us and in Rhodesia that the public is taking more interest in Bantu affairs and their administration, but the fact remains that the majority are still very ignorant. I wonder how many people know that local Government was first granted to the Bantu in 1894, when the Glen Grey Act was passed, giving the Bantu in the Glen Grey district a certain amount of local government. I wonder, too, how many know that this development was applied to the Transkei and eventually in 1930 the Transkeian General Council came into being, a representative council, a more democratic council than the Legislative Assembly which exists at present in the Transkei. This political development has gone on over the years, but few have realized it, and the difference between the General Council of the Transkei and the Transkeian Assembly we now have is very slight. The old General Council, as I say, was representative and it had an Executive Committee of four Whites and four Bantu, and it also had to get the approval of the Governor-General before any of its resolutions became law, in the same way that to-day the Bills of the Transkeian Assembly have to get the assent of the State President before they become law. The old Transkeian General Council employed White civil servants up to 1944, the same as the new Government employs White civil servants who have been seconded to it. The Executive and the members of the old General Council had White magistrates to advise them, in the same way that the Cabinet Ministers in the Transkei to-day have White officials to guide and advise them. So we see that the type of government was very similar before the Transkeian Government was established. Of course the General Council was abolished by the hon. the Prime Minister, then the Minister of Native Affairs, who wished to institute his own form of government, namely Bantu authority, but that experiment did not last long in the Transkei, as we know. It was abolished as soon as possible after the riots in Pondoland. The development taking place in the Transkei now could have taken place under the old Bunga system. It was not necessary to abolish the old Bunga or the General Council at all. Everything that is being done now could have been done then. In addition to that form of local government—I would just like to read what the functions of that Government were—

Those functions of the General Council of course fit in with the United Party policy of race federation. There was another body, called the Representative Council, which was elected by Africans throughout the country. It was also an advisory body. Admittedly it had no executive powers, but General Smuts in 1947 proposed to give it executive powers and also to give the members portfolios if they so desired. That Representative Council has also disappeared, as has the General Council. But with this new philosophy of political segregation being the sole criterion now, and no longer territorial segregation, I suggest that before long we will find a similar body to the Representative Council again being introduced.

It is not the sole criterion.

In the main. If there is so much similarity between the policy of the United Party and that of the Government on the question of the constitutional development, one might ask why we are opposed to Bantustans. The public must realize this. When you talk about Bantustans you mean a Native area which can develop constitutionally not only to local self-government but to complete sovereign independence. Without sovereign independence the word “Bantustan” means nothing. The United Party policy is, as I think everybody knows by now, to allow the reserves to develop constitutionally to local self-government, in order to govern their own affairs, but what we refuse to do is to allow these reserves to develop to sovereign independence. We do not oppose the economic development of the reserves or the constitutional development so as to govern local matters, but we quarrel with the Government about the method of developing the reserves. Our complaint is that the development is not dynamic enough and that in fact no development at all is taking place. One can almost say that the basis of the Government’s policy of separate development must be the recommendations of the Tomlinson Commission. After all, that commission was appointed to go into this very question, and the Minister was a member of that commission, and he made his recommendations, and the whole tenor of the recommendations of that commission was to stress the urgency of the matter.

It recommended separate development, but throughout the report they stressed that it was a matter of urgency. They said—

They also said that the choice was quite clear. It was the development of the reserves or the consequences of integration. They said the development programme must be tackled in the spirit of an act of faith. It said that the tasks set out in the report should not be described as impossible, when compared with the task of reconstructing the war-devastated countries of Europe after 1945. They compared it with the magnitude of the task confronting Europe after 1945. But in recommending this development, this Commission did say that it could only be accomplished with the assistance of White capital and White initiative, both private and Government capital and initiative. The Prime Minister, who was then the Minister of Native Affairs, refused to accept the recommendations that White private capital and initiative must also be allowed to play a part in the development of the reserves. The Minister had accepted it, and at the time I was very pleased to see that the Minister stuck to his guns and did not bring in a minority report afterwards as did certain civil servants. He stuck to his guns, but when the report came to this House he surrendered completely to the Prime Minister. The Tomlinson Commission had a ten-year plan. It went into this plan in great detail. It recommended the spending of £104,000,000 in ten years. Those ten years were up last year. I want to ask the Minister to tell us in all honesty whether, thinking back to 1954 when he helped to prepare the report of the Tomlinson Commission, he thinks that the development which has taken place in the reserves is what was envisaged at the time by that commission. Sir, I want to refer him to a reply which he gave here the other day as to what has happened in the Transkei, for instance. Do not forget, Sir, that the Transkei is the showpiece of the Government. More development has taken place there than in any other reserve; every foreign visitor is taken to the Transkei. African visitors from other parts are taken to the Transkei.

You are very badly informed.

Sir, what has happened in ten years? The Minister gave us a list of industries which have been established in the last ten years, or rather from 1948 when the Government came into power, until 1964. I am not talking now about industries which they took over from White firms which were already in business there; of these there were three not employing very many. In the one case the firm employed 91, in another case 85 and in the other case 72 Bantu. I refer to new industries for the establishment of which the Government has been responsible. Those industries employ only 841 Africans. That is what this Government has done in 16 years. But let us take the period of ten years since the report of the Tomlinson Commission. Supposing the Government had then started actively to develop industries, what would the position have been? We find that in those ten years they have provided employment for 841 Africans, an average of 84 Africans a year. Sir. they should be providing additional employment now to 841 Africans in one year, not in ten years. What future development is envisaged? All the Minister could tell us was that they planned a meat deboning factory. Sir, that factory has not even been built yet, but it is envisaged that it will employ between 200 and 300 Africans; that is all that is envisaged in the immediate future. That is the only factory mentioned by the Minister. Sir, amongst the 841 Africans there are 400 who are employed in phormium-tenax decortication. These Africans employed on phormium-tenax decortication. I understand, were working in any event in agriculture and they would still have been employed in agriculture. Sir, why is there no development taking place in the Transkei? Why is the Government so slow in bringing about development there?

There is one reason for it only: The Prime Minister would not allow the use of private White initiative and capital in the Transkei. He is going to show his supporters that he stands for economic separation. He applies this policy to the reserves because he cannot apply it to the urban areas. It does not apply outside the reserves, only inside the reserves. In the White areas segregation means petty apartheid but not labour segregation. Bantu labour is allowed to integrate with White capital for the simple reason that if it did not development would simply stop and our economy would collapse. The Prime Minister has attempted to deny that there is integration by likening the labour which is used in the industries and factories to a beast of burden used on a farm. He says that when he uses an ox to do his ploughing he is not integrating it into his society. The ox, however, is part of his capital, his capital which is integrated with his labour and with his land and with his management. The ox is integrated into the farm management and the farming industry. The Native labourer in the industries in the White areas is indispensable, and if any part of industry is indispensable, then it is integrated into that industry. Industry could not carry on in the White areas without labour and capital, and the Black labour and the White capital are integrated in industry in the White areas. Integration has taken place, whether the Prime Minister likes it or not. He does not like it but he cannot stop it. He does not shut his eyes and pretend that he does not see what is happening, he actually encourages it by building bigger and bigger African townships and supplying more and more amenities for the urban Africans. At one time he did make an attempt to stop Black labour from coming into the Western Cape. But what is happening? In the Government’s own recruiting office in Umtata they have been recruiting more and more Bantu labour every year for the Cape. In 1961 they recruited 666: in 1964 they recruited 10,590. and in the first three months of this year they have recruited 4,070.

What is wrong with that?

Firms and farmers have been allowed to do their own recruiting of Black labour for the Western Province from the Transkei. The hon. member wants to know what is wrong with that. Sir. the point is that this policy cannot be applied even in the Western Province under the most favourable circumstances. Instead of Black labour becoming less and less in the Western Province it is increasing apace. In three years the Government itself has recruited thousands upon thousands of Black labourers. These Africans did not sneak into this area. They themselves were recruited by the Government agency, and the number increased from 666 in 1961 to 10,590 in 1964. But integration is allowed in the White areas for obvious reasons; in the Bantu areas however it is frowned upon. The Nationalists themselves are not all agreed that this integration should be allowed to take place in the Black areas. The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) probably agrees with the Prime Minister that Black labour is not being integrated.

It is not integration.

Mr. F. C. Erasmus is not of the same opinion. In his first public speech upon his return to South Africa from his ambassadorial duties takes the opportunity to warn the Nationalists of the dangers of what is happening and he asked them to call a union congress to discuss this matter. He says—

He goes on to say—

He does not agree with the hon. member for Heilbron that this is not integration. Sir, the Government in trying to carry out the recommendations of the Tomlinson Commission did take certain steps. They established a Bantu investment corporation. This Bantu investment corporation was to have mobilized Bantu capital, the money which was hidden in blankets and under stones and in walls, as we heard from the hon. the Minister. The Bantu investment corporation was to have given an impetus to the establishment of Bantu industries, but it has failed completely, so now, although the Bill has not been introduced yet, we are going to get a Bantu development corporation. The Minister said that in establishing a Bantu investment corporation we are creating new possibilities for the Bantu areas, that we are creating possibilities which will convert the economic development in the Bantu areas into a dynamic force. Where is the dynamic force? Does the Minister call this a dynamic force? What industry has the Bantu investment corporation started in the Transkei? Admittedly they have given some money to Bantu to buy trading stations, but they bought very few trading stations too. Sir, what impression is given by the Government through its Publicity Department as to what is happening in the Transkei. The impression is given that it is only because of separate development that anything at all is being done; that without separate development nothing would happen in the Transkei. We had a visit recently from the Ovambo chiefs, and we saw what they said; they said that they were most impressed with the school that they saw for handicapped children and that they liked the school for chiefs’ sons and they thought that they might also accept separate development if it meant that they could get these things. Why cannot they get those things without separate development? Recently we had another visit from councillors of the urban areas advisory board to the Transkei, and on that occasion the Chief Minister in the Transkei made a speech in which he said—

Why does he give the impression that now for the first time they will be allowed to own property? That, of course, is not right. The Minister knows very well that any Black man has always been allowed to buy a trading station. It is not only now that he is allowed to buy a trading station. Those trading stations were specially preserved to him. Before a White man could buy a trading station he had to get the Governor-General’s consent, but any Black man could buy a trading station. The Chief Minister knows that Black men bought private property in the town of Umtata itself long before this Government came into power, and it is quite easy for the Government to agree to their buying land in villages just as the old United Party Government agreed that they could buy land in Umtata. Why give the impression that it is only because of separate development that they are now allowed to own their own properties? Why give the impression that now for the first time Natives can be employed as civil servants. It was not necessary to have separate development to employ Natives as civil servants, but that is the impression that is being given. The Chief Minister then went on to say—

The Chief Minister made a speech a few weeks ago in Nmakwe in which he said that the Africans in the Ciskei would want the land from the Fish to the Kei. He was referring to the Provincial Council elections. He said that the English had lost the Provincial Council elections and he went on to say: “I tell the English that after we have taken the land from the Fish River to the Kei they will have less land still.” The English are going to be booted out; he is also building up a dividing line now between Afrikaans and English-speaking people.

Sir, this statement by the Chief Minister that they can ask for more land, that they can go to the mother country and ask for more land, again brings or should bring to the notice of the country the importance of our demand that the Government should tell these Africans where the boundaries of these reserves are before it goes any further, otherwise it is going to become more and more difficult for the Minister to refuse the plans put forward by a friendly Government. Sir, the Government has failed miserably, it has been inefficient and incompetent. Its policy of development has been totally inadequate in the reserves. The position could have been better if they had allowed White capital and initiative to play its part in the reserves. I know that the Minister will probably say that White capital can play its part in the Transkei, that there is nothing to prevent a White man from putting up a factory on an industrial site in Umtata or from putting up a business in the urban areas. But they were discouraged by the Prime Minister. He discouraged them at the time we discussed the report of the Tomlinson Commission. He then said: “I warn White industrialists, entrepreneurs, that if they put up industries in the reserves or in the Protectorates and they are nationalized, they must not come to me for protection.” He warned White entrepreneurs and White industrialists, and what White man would now go and put capital into the Transkei when he does not know what is going to happen to the different villages? We know that a zoning committee was appointed last year; it has completed its work but still we do not know what is going to be done. The Minister is sitting on the report of the zoning committee. I think he received that report in February. Everybody is living in a state of uncertainty. The Chief Minister gets up at Nqamakwe and he says that Nqamakwe and Tsomo are going to be zoned completely Black, but we have heard nothing further. I would like to know whether those two villages are to be zoned completely Black. Why does the hon. the Minister not tell us what is happening? Until the proposals and the decisions of the Government are made known everybody in every village lives in a state of uncertainty. What development can there be in these circumstances? Who is going to invest money anyway in White industries in the Transkei now? Mind you, Sir, there is of course a possibility that the Government’s policy may change. I think there must be something in the wind; they have changed their policy so often. All the economists have warned that the reserves are a drag on the economy of the rest of the country; that you cannot have huge areas like that remaining under-developed, and because Africans cannot develop these areas themselves and the Government cannot do it, I suspect that one of these days we are going to hear that they have changed their policy. It is most interesting to note that Volkskas has bought a property in Umtata and intends putting up a seven-storey building. Something must have leaked out from inner circles, and we ask the hon. the Minister to tell us what is going to happen. If there is to be a change of policy I think he should tell the country. If there is going to be a change of policy with regard to White co-operation and White initiative and capital being allowed to play their part in the reserves and if they are going to listen to the advice of Mr. Anton Rupert they should tell us so that we may all know. We also want the Minister to tell us what the adjustment committee is doing. The White traders are still sitting there with properties which they cannot dispose of. The Government appointed a committee to value the trading stations and to make recommendations to the Minister. The hon. the Deputy Minister some time ago said that not one White trader would sell his station; I think he said it last year or the year before. He said that they were doing so well that they would not sell their trading stations. Sir, he should look at the Transkeian Government Gazette. Has he seen how many trading stations are now being offered for sale? The traders are all offering their trading stations to the Government because nobody else will buy them. They can only sell them to the Government. What does the Government do? It does not come to their assistance. Is this the way to treat the White people there? After all, they are fellow South Africans, not Transkeians. This Government leaves them in the lurch. [Time limit.]

Just like Kenya.

We have seldom listened to an opening speaker on the Opposition side who has had such difficulty in finding some or other little point on which to attack the Government. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) began by pointing out that the former Bunga was not much different from the institution that exists in the Transkei at the moment. We know, of course, that the Opposition are now looking for excuses because they no longer oppose the action which the Government took in the Transkei. They also want to claim a share in this very successful experiment, and that is why the hon. member now tries to climb down in this way. Sir, it is ridiculous to suggest that there is no difference between the old Bunga and the present system of government. Why did the hon. member not say that when the Bill was discussed in this House? Why did he oppose that Bill so strongly at the time, and why did he say that we would have to carry out this plan over his dead body? At that time he did not think of saying that there was not much difference between the old Bunga and the present system of government in the Transkei. At that time he did not come along with that kind of talk. But we are getting accustomed to the Opposition’s opposing a measure to-day and supporting it to-morrow. Let us consider the Bunga as it existed before. It was a representative body, and in addition to that it was a mixed body. But today more than half the members of the new legislative body are chiefs; three-quarters of them are chiefs. To say that the present legislative body of the Transkei has no connection whatsoever with the Bantu Authorities system introduced in 1951 is another ridiculous statement, and one simply cannot understand how anyone with any common sense can make such a statement. The present legislative body of the Transkei is based on the Bantu Authorities system as introduced by this Government.

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon. member has had his turn to address the Committee.

There is no need to go into that matter any further. I want to come to the real point which the hon. member again made this afternoon, and that is the fact that we are still recruiting Bantu from the Transkei. The hon. member mentioned three different figures. He said that in 1961 only 666 Bantu were recruited in Umtata, that 10,500 were recruited last year, and that 4,700 were recruited in the first three months of this year. What on earth is wrong with it if we are in fact doing that? We have said repeatedly in this House that the Bantu need the wages they earn here and that we need the Bantu labour. But the fact that we recruit them from their homeland and employ them here does not mean that we are integrating them in our White state and in our White economy. It does not mean integration.

What is it then?

Integration has been explained to those poor stupid people how many times already. I do not know how many times more I must explain it to them before they will understand what integration means. Integration means truly to become one with, to become fused with, to be incorporated in the economy. The Bantu are not being incorporated in our economy. They will only have become integrated when they have a joint say in regard to the way in which our economy must be run, but as long as the Bantu are only allowed to sell their labour in the White area, they are not integrated in our economy. Must we say that because we are importing machinery from Britain we have integrated Britain’s economy with our economy? Surely the fact that we are importing machinery from Britain does not mean that we are integrating the economy of Britain with the economy of South Africa? This old assertion that we are integrating the Bantu into our economy has been denied by us so many times in this House that there is no need for me to go into it again. The Bantu who come to work here accept employment here on the basis of migratory labour; they come to sell their labour here. All we are doing is to import labour into South Africa, and when those labourers have completed their work here, they return to their homeland, where they have their roots, where their future lies, where they can realize their ideals and where they are getting their rights. They only come here to supply labour. They are only supplying a commodity, the commodity of labour. Just as someone overseas who sells machinery to us is supplying a commodity, so the Bantu labourer is supplying a commodity to us, but that does not mean that we are integrating them into our economy as individuals. Their labour is absorbed into our economy, but that does not integrate them as labourers, because as individuals they have their livelihood, their home and their rights in the Transkei. How many times over must we state that position before hon. members on that side will understand it? As soon as the Opposition understands this principle that it is labour we are importing and not labourers as individuals, the question of numbers will no longer worry them either. As far as the principle is concerned, it makes no difference whether one or 5,000 or 5,000,000 Bantu come here to supply labour and then return to their homeland again. We have often mentioned the example here of what happens in Europe on the same basis. We have on previous occasions mentioned to you the numbers of Italians who go to work in France …

Order! The hon. member must address the Chair. There is only one “you” in this Chamber and that is the Chairman.

I want to make it clear that numbers make no difference, because those people come to the White area on our terms and on the basis of our philosophy and not that of the United Party, which believes that as soon as the Bantu are present here and work here, they are integrated here. On their basis it might possibly mean integration, but on our basis, in terms of which we only buy labour from them and they again return to their homeland as individuals and get their rights there, there is no integration whatsoever. Let me also emphasize the following aspect here this afternoon. The policy of Bantu homelands cannot be divorced from our policy in regard to the presence of Bantu in the White area. Many United Party members divorce our policy of Bantu homelands from our policy in regard to the presence of Bantu in the White area. [Time limit.]

I will deal with the points raised by the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) in the course of my remarks. Sir, in the Budget debate I stated that the Government’s border industry policy was a complete failure. I gather that quite a number of Government members are beginning to realize that as well and the remarks made by the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) also bear that out. Sir, I find that the Prime Minister stated in the debate on his policy motion that he was very pleased with the progress that had been made in the matter of the establishment of border industries in the past 15 years. He also said that he fully confirmed his previous statement that by the year 1978 the trend will be for the Bantu to commence moving back to their own territories from the White areas. I cannot see how that is going to come about judging by the establishment of White industries in the main border areas of South Africa over the past 15 years. I refer to the East London area which is obviously the most important border industry area because it lies between what is by far the greatest concentration of Bantu peoples in South Africa, and therefore if the border industry policy of the Government is to be a success, one would at least expect to see that area developed very rapidly. On the contrary, I read recently that the land available in the Rosslyn area had now all been sold out. Quite obviously this border industry policy has gone awry. It is being used to draw industry to the Pretoria area and it is certainly not functioning so far as the real border areas are concerned.

What did your mayor say last week?

I feel sorry for the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and also for the Minister of Economic Affairs in trying to carry out their policy of industries in the Transkei and in the border areas. I feel sorry for them in view of the sort of statement that the hon. the Prime Minister has made.

I quote his statement made on 7 April in this House—(Hansard col. 4187)—

I want to emphasize that—

Surely a statement like that must bedevil the efforts of the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development to establish industries in the Transkei when his own Prime Minister says it is no use White industries starting there because the development process is going to be too slow. Quite obviously he is not going to encourage White industries there on that basis although the Minister has also stated that he has no objection to industries going there. How can he expect industries to go there after statements like that by the hon. the Prime Minister? The statement of the hon. the Prime Minister also seriously bedevils the efforts of the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs to establish industries in the border areas. The Prime Minister said industries should be established in the border areas in order that the Bantu may later develop those industries in their own areas. The Bantu will therefore learn in the border industries in the White areas so that they may start the same type of industry in their own area in competition with those in the border areas. They will establish their own industries under a different Government, a Bantu Government, which will be able to fix wages and conditions in such a way as to undercut the industries in which the Bantu were trained. What sort of an industrial set-up will flow from that brain-child of the Prime Minister? Under the United Party’s race federation plan of one Government, under the United Party’s decentralization plan, none of those difficulties will apply. Border area industries will have a far greater chance of success.

Those who try to defend the Government’s Bantustan policy show an appalling lack of proportion. Let me give two examples. I want to refer to statements made by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and the other by the hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) when the latter replied to me in the Budget debate.

The hon. the Minister made a speech on the occasion of the opening of the Transkei Parliament in which he said—

This important step in the development of any country has not even been considered but in the meantime the Government has been endorsing Bantu out from the Western Province before having even considered the methods whereby it is going to absorb those Bantu back into their own areas. By that means the Government has brought about complete chaos in the labour conditions in the Western Province. Anyone going around amongst the farmers or anybody who speaks to the hotel industry …

You do not know the position in the Western Province.

I have made a special trip around the Western Province during the recess in order to get information. You can go to any hotel in this area and you will be told of the difficulties they are experiencing in getting labour because of the Bantu having been endorsed out of the area.

The hon. the Minister defended the Bantustan concept in his speech but what is this Bantustan concept? It is independent states and the flow is to be reversed by 1978. That means that the Government has 13 years in which to reverse the flow. What is being done in this direction? They have simply brought about chaotic conditions here but there is no sign of the trend going in the other direction They have put the cart before the horse and they have completely upset the economy of the whole of the Cape Province in both directions.

We find, on the contrary, that the first thing the first Prime Minister appointed to the Basutoland Government did, was, to broadcast a statement urging White industries to come and establish in Basutoland promising them security of tenure if they did so. There is sense in that kind of policy and is quite contrary to what this Government is doing in our Native territories.

In the Ciskei the Government’s policy is to establish industries along the border and in that way provide the funds to develop the Transkei. What progress is being made there?

I now come to the remarks made by the hon. member for Somerset East. When I said in a recent debate that the border industries were a failure he said the people in East London were very happy about the progress which had been made there. I admit that the people of East London are happy about this progress which has been made … [Time limit.]

The hon. member who has just sat down, as well as other hon. members on the other side who have already taken part in the debate, accused the hon. the Minister of moving too slowly. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) rode some kind of see-saw: On the one hand he approved and on the other he disapproved; on the one hand he attacked the Government’s policy and on the other he discussed the Vote.

The hon. member who has just sat down said we were putting the cart before the horse. I put it to the hon. member that he is accusing the Minister of not putting up the roof before laying the foundations.

Correct.

He agrees, Mr. Chair man. He agrees that he has accused the hon. the Minister of not putting up the roof before laying the foundations. In other words, all the hon. member’s policy amounts to, is that it has no foundation. Is that the kind of policy the hon. member advocates? He now accuses the hon. the Minister and his Department of not being prepared to put up the roof before laying the foundations.

I wish to express my appreciation of the judicious and wise way in which the hon. the Minister and his Department are performing these services. Hon. members who live in the Transkei area can see one thing only and that is the Transkeian territories. But this Vote covers the Bantu policy in the broadest sense, and it also covers services rendered throughout the country. If we want to appreciate these services properly then we must see them against the background of a vast untilled country, a country inhabited by masses. Before the hon. the Minister can establish industries, he has to lay sound foundations, as we did in the White areas before we started industries. The extent to which the Minister and his Department succeed in carrying out the agricultural policy that they are implementing at present, will determine the success of their development in the other economic sectors of those territories. That is the hon. the Minister’s most important task; it is his primary task, for if he fails in that, his entire effort will fail.

I therefore wish to express my appreciation of the fact that the hon. the Minister is starting the development on such a broad front. He is putting special emphasis on agriculture. This is a broad front because he is starting with the establishing agricultural training schools for Bantu boys—I know of three; there may be more—and in due course attention will be given to the other aspects of agriculture. There is soil conservation, soil reclamation, soil stabilization, forestry, irrigation, fibre cultivation, sugar growing and stock breeding.

I should like to deal with the crux of agricultural development, namely soil development and planning. Under the five-year plan that the hon. the Minister is now dealing with, 50 per cent of the agricultural land has been planned and 34 per cent of the land where overcropping used to be practised, has already been reclaimed. That means that an area of 4,500,000 morgen has been planned or reclaimed since 1962, and an area of 183,000 morgen has already been stabilized. The hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. Field) occupies the same position in the House as that occupied by me—we are both back-benchers—and I should like to tell him what this reclamation process means. It is not just a question of saying “abracadabra” and the job is done. The hon. the Minister is saddled with a mass of human material which has to be educated; people whose goodwill has to be gained in the course of years. Hon. members are aware that the hon. the Minister had to use force to protect many of these reclamation works; that shows how much persuasion had to be done before the Minister could really start development in those areas. The problems were vast. If any Minister had to do as much developmental work over such a large area in any White area as this Minister has to do in that area, he would encounter tremendous problems. The Minister and his Department had to face much more in dealing with that conservative and raw mass of humanity. Surely it is an achievement on the part of the Minister to be able to produce these figures as regards the planning of the soil. Anybody who did not approach the matter from this angle would naturally say that nothing spectacular has been done but the picture changes completely when one sees it against the background of a comparatively raw mass of human material and against the background of a vast, extensive and completely uncultivated area.

Stabilization comes within the ambit of reclamation. Stabilization means that the hon. the Minister has had to resettle the rural population that used to inhabit those areas—I am taking the Transkei as an example—on certain portions of the land. The two remaining portions were divided into grazing enclosures and enclosures where agriculture could be practised intensively. The task of persuading those people to resettle somewhere else was in itself a tremendous task. It was done with considerable success, and when one drives through the area, one notices the results of that sound planning.

Under the soil conservation scheme 1,143 square miles of land had been contoured, and 8,145 square miles per year had been converted into grass strips by 1962. In the course of three years no fewer than 223 smaller dams were built. Large irrigation dams were built and 21,000 morgen placed under irrigation. If regard is had to the fact that these works have been completed in the course of five or six years, can hon. members say that the progress has been slow? Actual exploitation of an area has to be preceded by planning.

It started before the war.

The actual work started long after the war. The Bantu homelands policy came into being long after the war. How can the hon. member say that it started before the war? It certainly did not start before the war. The National Party Government took over in 1948.

They did not start that kind of work.

We started it. Or is the hon. member attacking his own policy? If he accuses the hon. the Minister of making slow progress, then he is attacking his own policy.

What is the position as regards forestry? Forest husbandry in this area may be divided into three sections. The first is non-commercial plantations, that is, plantations that belong to individual Bantu communities. These do not cover more than 13,000 morgen. Then there is the conservation of the indigenous forests in the territory. These forests cover 200,000 morgen and include valuable timber forests that would have been stripped if the Department had not acted as protector. The third is Government plantations. In 1963 these covered 130,0 morgen. By 1963 the total amount derived from this project amounted to R 16,000,000. Considering the fact that these plantations had to be established from scratch, this is an achievement that has been made possible by planning and by means of a scheme under which the forestry industry of that area is being built up. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. G. P. Kotze) appears to be confusing two concepts. He is confusing the concept of betterment schemes with the concept of Bantustans. One must point out to the hon. member that betterment schemes are not a Nationalist Party invention. Betterment schemes were engaged upon in the reserves many years before the advent of this Government. It is perfectly true that there has been an acceleration of efforts in so far as agricultural improvements in the reserves are concerned over the last few years. One must give credit to the agricultural development officers who are attempting to improve agriculture in the reserves and I do so at once. But to try to identify the idea of betterment schemes with a completely different basic concept of Bantustans is, of course, utterly incorrect.

I want to point out that when the original idea of Bantustans was formulated, agricultural development was only one part of it. The idea was to move people from the land in an attempt to provide some diversification. The subsidiary aspects of the development of industry inside the reserves were very important. As far as that is concerned the Government’s policy has fallen down completely. As the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) has already mentioned, as far as the actual development of industries by the Government inside the reserves or by the Bantu Investment Corporation is concerned, the amount invested and the number of people employed has been minimal up to the present time. I personally see very little hope for an intensification of that part of the policy simply by virtue of the fact that of the R114,000,000 set aside by the Government for its first five year development plan in the Transkei, the enormous amount of RJ35,000,000 has, in fact, been pigeon-holed for a use completely divorced from industrial development inside the reserves, and that is the building of rural townships.

Where do you get that from?

I get it from the Minister’s own figures and I get it from Bantu, which, I presume is a Government publication. In the September 1963 issue of Bantu it is stated—

The rural towns are to represent R85,000,000 of the total amount, which all of us know, was to be R114,000,000. How the development of these Bantu rural townships can in any way be construed as part and parcel of overall development within the reserves themselves in an attempt to supply diversification for a poverty-stricken community, is beyond me.

I now come to the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman)

I suppose they live on wind.

No, they do not live on wind. What they live on is what has now, unfortunately, become the focal point of Government policy as far as Bantustans are concerned. How this can ever be justified in the light of this being the quid pro quo for the deprivation of rights in so-called White South Africa is beyond me. The focal point has now become for dormitory towns either to provide labour in the border industries or to house the families of migratory workers who are working in the existing industrial complex in the “White” Republic of South Africa; “White” to be in inverted commas, whenever I use it in this context. How this can be a justification for the deprivation of rights inside the areas where working people in fact live their lives is beyond me. The tragedy is that the whole emphasis is on migratory labour. Whether it be migratory in the dormitory sense of working in the border area or migratory in the sense of people coming to the Witwatersrand complex or to the established complex in the Western Province is, quite immaterial, of course.

The hon. member for Heilbron has the impertinence to talk about integration of machinery when he is talking about African labour. His Prime Minister, of course, used the example of the ox not being integrated in the farming economy. This hon. member, being more advanced, has already cottoned on to the idea that South Africa has an industrialized community, and he uses the analogy of the African labour unit as a machine. Well, I have got news for that hon. member and, indeed, for his Prime Minister: The African is neither an ox nor is he a piece of machinery. The African is a human being.

Nobody denied that. You should be ashamed of yourself!

I should be ashamed of myself! Sir, one cannot divorce labour from the man who produces the labour: one cannot divorce labour from the hands that perform the labour; one cannot divorce labour from the person that embodies the labourer.

Why not?

Because the Good Lord has decreed otherwise. The Good Lord has decided that where a pair of hands comes to work in White South Africa that pair of hands is accompanied by a black body, whether the hon. member likes it or not. He is not a machine nor an ox.

So what!

I shall tell him what. What is, that human beings have aspirations, desires and demands well beyond the demands of oxen and well beyond the demands of machinery which require a minimum of attention, a little oil here and there in a squeaky joint and a fair amount of upkeep. The human being requires basic rights; he requires recognition as a human being. This whole orientation of the policy of Bantustans, on the basis of migratory labour, is therefore nothing short of a disgrace to a country which considers itself to be a civilized, westernized, Christianized country. And I say that with every bit of emphasis at my disposal.

The hon. member for Heilbron came back to another analogy—he got distracted by the Chairman for a moment—but he was going to refer to the labour in Switzerland. Let me tell the hon. member that Switzerland is to-day finding it extremely difficult to continue on the basis of her existing policy in regard to migratory workers from Italy. In Switzerland the migratory workers represent 17 per cent of the total working force. In South Africa our African labourers—all of them are now considered temporary sojourners, even if they were born in the urban areas—constitute, I think, something like 80 per cent of the working force.

What is the difference in principle? A human being is a body with hands.

I shall tell the hon. member what the difference is, if he would only keep quiet for a few moments and restrain himself. Even Switzerland with her 17 per cent is finding it impossible to cope with the demands of its migratory labourers, labourers who have full citizenship rights in their own fully-developed homeland of Italy. Switzerland is therefore restricting the number of migratory workers. Why? Because those workers are demanding social rights and political rights. They are also demanding full citizenship rights. It was found in Switzerland that generally, after the migratory workers had returned four or five times they were entitled to full citizenship rights. Here you can live in the area all your life, you could have been born in the area, but you still don’t get full citizenship rights. Why this Government should imagine that it is forever and a day going to be able to restrain the normal aspirations and demands of human beings living in urban areas and working all their working lives in these urban areas is quite beyond me. The policy is doomed to failure. It is true that at the present stage the Government is able to maintain its policy by force.

What do you mean by “force”?

I mean exactly what I say—by force. The Government is maintaining its policy by denying these legitimate aspirations to the Africans who work in these areas. But they are deceiving themselves if they think they can do that forever.

If time permits me I want to return to these famous Bantu towns that are being established; particularly those which are serving the so-called border industries. The joke of all this is that the three show-places are the following: Umlazi which is, of course, on the borders of Durban; Mdantsane near East London and the one just outside Pretoria, four miles east of the industrial area of Rosslyn and 21 miles north-east of Pretoria, namely, Ga-Rankuwa. All these three show places happen, just by accident, to be African areas near industrial townships. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) has done the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) an injustice. As I know her it is not necessary for her to adopt this method in order to state her attitude as she did here this afternoon. To accuse the hon. member for Heilbron of regarding the Bantu in our industries in the same light as oxen and machines is to misrepresent what he actually said.

He did say that.

He did not say that, but it will serve no purpose to explain that to the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw); it does not suit him. He is a man who puts up his own skittles and then proceeds to knock them down. This is one of the skittles that he put up himself and if he cannot knock them down then he is not happy.

In reply to the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes), who tried to suggest that the Bantu had become integrated in our industries because we employ them in our industries, the hon. member for Heilbron argued that the Bantu was not integrated in our industry simply because of the fact that we employ his services any more than an ox or a machine becomes integrated in our farming because of the mere fact that we use it. Why should the hon. member give a slanted representation and suggest that in using that argument the hon. member for Heilbron was implying that the Bantu, in industry and agriculture, must be compared with an ox or a machine? Why? That is not how we know the hon. member. I should like to refer to another remark made by the hon. member for Houghton. The hon. member said: “This Government is maintaining its policy by force.” Surely this is simply one more comment for overseas consumption; it is intended for export, and it will be received eagerly abroad to-morrow morning. I challenge the hon. member for Houghton on this point: Where is the Government’s policy maintained by force? Surely that is not ture. The hon. member knows that the Government does not employ force to maintain its policy. The hon. member also said that it may be true that great progress has been made in the reserves as far as agriculture is concerned, but some of the other members remarked that this had started before the war. Let us quote some comparable figures. The hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. G. P. Kotze) has already mentioned it, but I think this comparison is important: Prior to 1960, 368 contour walls were built annually, 98 dams and 1,248 miles of fencing were constructed. Since the institution of the five-year plan the corresponding figures are: 1,181 contour walls, 223 dams and 3,945 miles of fencing annually. In addition to that grass strips covering an area of 9,133 miles are planted annually in order to protect the soil. I could quote more figures, but I quote these comparable figures in order to show that the rate of development in the Bantu areas has increased tremendously during the last five years. The hon. member for Houghton made another incorrect statement when she suggested that the Government was focusing its policy on establishing Bantu townships merely in order to enable the migratory labourers who come to the White industries to find accommodation for their families who remain in the Transkeian territory. She went on to say that of the R 114,000,000 that will be voted over the next five years, R85,000,000 will be spent on the establishment of these Bantu townships. But surely that is not true. It is not true that of the R 114,000,000 to be voted, R85,000,000 will be subtracted so that there will be less than R20,000,00 left for other developmental projects there. The hon. member knows that that is not true.

Then what does the first five-year plan say?

The hon. member is trying to suggest that of the R 114,000,000 voted for the five years, R85,000,000 will be spent on Bantu townships only, so that a meagre R 19,000,000 will be left for other development.

Exactly.

No, on this point I shall cross swords again with the hon. member at a later stage; her deductions are entirely wrong. The hon. member suggested with great relish that the Government’s policy had failed and that we were applying an un-Christian policy in South Africa. When she made that statement she received a good deal of applause from the Opposition. It was clear that they agreed with her; that in this regard they are kindred spirits. Allow me to tell the hon. member that we congratulate her on being so frank as to present her ideas without disguise. The policy that she advocates here in South Africa is a policy which envisages the integration of the Bantu in our industries, in residential areas, in Parliament, in politics. Sir, that policy she will only put into operation over the dead body of White South Africa. The hon. member will never be able to put that policy into operation in South Africa.

I should like to deal briefly with the hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. Field). The hon. member once again suggested that the Government’s policy had failed in respect of border industries and that for that reason Government policy in general cannot succeed. I was struck by the fact that he suggested in the same breath that nothing was being done about border industries in the vicinity of East London, and yet he also said that all the land at Rosslyn had been sold out. In other words, he is rather envious. It looks as though the Government’s border industry policy is succeeding in the vicinity of Pretoria, but not in the vicinity of East London. That is just where the hon. member is wrong. I told him that in a previous debate. He will not believe me, but perhaps he also read this pamphlet, the “Eastern Cape Report”. Has he had a look at it? It says—

They continue—

Etc. The hon. member is one of the members who derives the greatest benefit from the Government’s border industry policy, but he closes his eyes to everything else except the fact that the Cyril Lord factory is the only one which was opened there with Government assistance. But the hon. member has often been told that the Government also employs other methods to attract industries to the borders, and if there is one person who has benefited from the development of border industries it is the hon. member for East London (North). But of course it does not suit the hon. member’s political book, and that is why he makes these reckless statements and suggests that the Government’s policy cannot succeed because its border industry policy has failed. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Somerset (East) (Mr. Vosloo) has referred with great pride to the development which has taken place in the reserves, in the Bantu areas. I do not mind if he is proud of it, but I think he should ask himself: To what extent has this development, if it has taken place, contributed to shaping the so-called policy of separate freedom? There may be a good deal of development, but that is not the point. The point is whether that development takes place in order to implement the specific policy of apartheid as formulated by the Government.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Gordonia is absent. He says that our charge against the Government is that it first puts up the roof before laying the foundations. No, that is not our charge. Our charge is that the Government asked its architects to draw up a plan for a house and then put the plan into its pocket and asked a builder to build the house. What is happening now is that the builder is building the house according to a different plan. That is our problem and that is our charge against the Government.

Let us consider this policy of separate freedom for a moment. I do not wish to be unfair. I think I would be correct in saying, firstly, that I am speaking the language of the people of the Cape when I speak of “separate freedom”. In the Transvaal the term “separate freedom” is very rare indeed, but in the Cape it seems to be the term commonly used in reference to the Government’s policy.

The policy of separate freedom has been formulated and designed with the prime object of safeguarding the Whites in South Africa. That is the yardstick with which their policy should always be measured. And if this policy seeks to do that—that is, to safeguard the Whites—then I think—and there are numerous other people who agree with me— that the policy should comply with certain requirements. It is no use speaking of development of the entire field. The policy has to comply with certain requirements, and if the policy of separate freedom is to be successful, the paramount requirement is that the number of Bantu in the so-called White area should bee reduced to a number considerably smaller than that of the Whites in the White areas. That is the main requirement.

Who says that is the main requirement?

I find it interesting to hear that there are some members who hold a different view. I may mention that I am not the only one holding this view. I should like to read out to hon. members what a man like Dr. A. L. Geyer has to say in this regard. He expressed concern about the very fact that this requirement was not being complied with. Dr. Geyer says (translation)—

You know, of coursee, Sir, that their carrying capacity is much below that figure—

And this is for the edification of the hon. member for Somerset (East)—

What does Dr. Geyer say? He says that unless you succeed in reducing the number of Bantu in White South Africa considerably, this policy actually means nothing. That is my difficulty with the hon. member for Somerset East. He speaks of sporadic development—of a few contours here and a few ploughed fields there; he mentions the fact that we maintain that the policy has not succeeded. Mr. Chairman, it has failed as a means of drawing the Bantu back to the reserves. In this regard it has most certainly failed, and I cannot foresee any possibility of success for the future.

How is the National Party trying to get away from this basic requirement? The National Government knows as well as we do that the Government has failed miserably in respect of this fundamental requirement. I shall tell you how they are trying to get away from it. The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) supplies the answer. He says: Numbers do not matter, as long as there is no economic integration; as soon as one integrates the man, then one is in trouble. Let us carry the hon. member’s argument to its logical conclusion. I fail to understand why they still want to develop the reserves. Forget about developing the reserves; let all the Bantu come here because in the light of the hon. member’s argument, numbers are of no consequence. Why are hon. members opposite struggling so much then? After all, the problem solves itself. All one has to do is to pass a few laws and to change one’s views on the facts of South Africa. I think there is one fact that calls for clarity. The hon. member says that if the Bantu come here as workers then they are trade commodities, so to speak.

I did not say that they were; I referred to their labour.

Quite correct. He said the labour of the Bantu could be likened to a commodity that one imports. I should like to give the hon. member a very good example. Cyril Lord came to East London with machines and White labour. I am prepared to acceept that the machines have not been economically integrated. But what happens to all the White labourers? Are they not economically integrated?

They did not come as migratory labour.

I think that is the point that calls for clarity, and the hon. member must listen closely because I am going to give him a practical example. After all, we are supposed to be the people who are stupid. Sir, if an object consists of five parts and one of those parts—Bantu labour—is such that if one removes it, the object will be damaged then I regard that part as an integral part of the object. I want to ask the hon. member this: Is he suggesting that one can eliminate Bantu labour from the South African economy without irreparably harming that economy? If he can prove that, then I am prepared to agree that we are considering labour here which can practically be compared with tractors and oxen.

The second point I want to put to the hon. member is this: He says that the labour has been integrated in our economy. But does the Bantu stay at home? Is his labour imported into South Africa while he himself stays at home? The hon. member speaks of labour as a commodity. But the fact that a man supplies labour does not stop him from thinking; it does not destroy his aspirations as a man. The fact that as a majority group in South Africa he constitutes a threat stems from the very fact that he thinks, that he has human aspirations.

On the basis of a particular line of thinking the Government tells us that numbers do not matter. The hon. Prime Minister has told us that numbers do not detract from their policy; that we can allow them to come here. But let us view this matter in its proper perspective. The Government is taking pains to cultivate a certain kind of Black nationalism, a political awareness, in the Bantu, and not only to cultivate it but to cultivate it as soon as possible. We now find all those people, who are described by the Government as “labour”, coming here, but hon. members opposite completely overlook the human factor. They do not want any rights whatsoever to be given to these people who are selling their labour here because the National Party Government says: “We expect you to exercise your rights elsewhere”. I ask myself how I would feel if I were to supply my labour in some other country and I discovered that I formed part of a majority group with a political awareness such as that cultivated in the Bantu by the National Party. Surely it would only be a question of time before I started using every means at my disposal as a member of the majority group to force my will upon the Whites. And that will be the effect of the policy of the National Party, and if that is not the effect, then I am sorely mistaken as to the aspirations of the normal human being.

What about the labour that comes from Basutoland?

The argument is carried even further; we are told not to worry; that the same thing is happening in Germany and in Switzerland …

And in France …

Very well, add a few more countries. I want to compliment the hon. member for Vereeniging on being the only one on the other side who has shown some political vitality lately. I give him credit for that. But surely the position is completely different. [Time limit.]

I did not intend to speak, but I cannot contain myself any longer. I want to make one statement and that is that as the position is developing to-day, there is no question of economic integration. In the limited time allowed I want to substantiate this statement by putting forward three propositions. The first is that one can only get economic integration, and that economic integration can only become an accomplished fact, if the Bantu acquire a right through their participation in economic life, and as far as the acquisition of that right is concerned, there is a world of difference between the National Party and the United Party. The United Party’s view is that by participating in economic life the Bantu acquires a right, and they want to allow the Bantu to acquire that right, and I can divide that acquisition of rights into a number of sections. In the first place they want to grant the Bantu the right to own property here. In the second place, apart from the acquisition of a right to own land, they want to grant the Bantu a right to obtain control over capital. Economic integration only becomes integration, and can only be really called economic integration, if the Bantu’s participation in the White economy will ultimately give the Bantu control over White capital in their economic life. And, in terms of the National Party’s policy, that control over capital within the White economy is made impossible. In this respect we also differ fundamentally from the United Party. The United Party couples the Bantu’s participation in our economic life with their acquiring a right to control capital. That is why the United Party is also pleading for White capital to be integrated in the Bantu areas. That is only an extension of their real object with their interpretation of economic integration. We say that although the Bantu will contribute his share to the economic life in the White area, for which he will be remunerated, in other words, although the Bantu markets his labour in the White area for a good remuneration, together with the additional intangible services which the White man makes available to him as a labourer, the presence of the Bantu in our economic life by no means grant them a right eventually to become controllers of capital in the White area. The presence of the Bantu within the White economy can only lead to economic integration if the Bantu in the White area increase in numbers to such an extent that their number eventually exceeds that of the Whites by far, and if their numerical superiority eventually results in economic integration becoming an accomplished fact. That will only happen if we fail to return the Bantu to their homeland again. That is the basis of our standpoint and our belief, as repeatedly stated here, that a time will come—it has been put at 1978 …

Why 1978?

It is expected that that will more or less be the turning-point. One gets turning-points in history. Have there been no turning-points in the history of the United Party? I can mention many turning-points in their history. There was the turning-point when they unavoidably landed on the other side of the “line of no return”, and they are still on the other side of the “line of no return”. But we do get certain turning-points in history, and we are saying that at some future date, more or less at that time, there must be a turning-point when, as a result of the development we are carrying out in order to increase the absorption capacity of the Bantu areas, the stream of Bantu will flow back to the Bantu areas and it will be possible for them to be absorbed in those areas. Our view is that the numbers will decrease and that those numbers will not be a decisive factor in regard to the question as to whether or not we shall have economic integration. I maintain, it is my belief, and it is my personal view, that if we cannot succeed in eventually diverting the Bantu to the Bantu areas, and if we fail to develop the Bantu areas so that they will be able to absorb the Bantu, and if such failure leads to the number of Bantu in the White area increasing progressively and to there being no question of return or absorption, then we shall be able to speak of economic integration as an accomplished fact with which we are faced. On these three points we differ fundamentally from the United Party. I therefore say that there is no economic integration, firstly because with its policy the National Party does not couple the presence of the Bantu in our economic life with the acquisition of a right; secondly, because the presence of the Bantu in the economic structure of the White area will by no means grant the Bantu the right to control capital; and thirdly, because the National Party’s policy is inexorably linked up with the eventual return of the Bantu to their own area, depending upon the success we are able to achieve as far as developing the Bantu areas is concerned. On these three points we differ radically from the United Party. [Time limit.]

The hon. member who has just sat down has said that he differs from this side of the House in three material respects. I do not think it is correct for him to say that he differs from this side of the House in any material respect. He does differ, but the three respects in which he differs are from the facts of the situation, not from the point of view of this side of the House. The point at issue is that he differs from reality, not from the point of view of this side of the House. We hear so often from hon. members opposite that they say that there is a “keerpunt” in 1978, a stage when we will reach the position where the flow of industrial labour into the white areas will cease and will go into the opposite direction. As an old gentleman said to me once, Mr. Chairman: Mr. Cadman, I know you say that, but why do you say it? That is what I would say to the hon. member who has just spoken: I know this is said over and over again, but until one person on that side of the House can put forward one single tangible argument of the most tenuous kind, if you like, how this is going to come about, why there should be this “keerpunt” in 1978, it is a complete waste of breath and of time ….

And if it did happen, they would call out the army to stop it.

The debate has rather taken the searchlight away from the main figure on the stage and that is the hon. Minister himself. We have been arguing backward and forward dealing with the arguments of this opposite number, but we have rather left the hon. Minister out in the cold.

I propose for a moment to bring him back on to the stage and to give him something with which I trust he will deal later. Now we know that according to the Press there is apparently to be established a Territorial Authority for the Zulus in Natal. I would be glad if the Minister would give us some information as to whether it is in fact the policy shortly to establish a Territorial Authority for the Zulus, and whether this will be an Authority merely for Zululand, or the Native areas of Zululand, or whether it is for the whole of the Zulu ethnic group living in Natal; and if it is, when it is to take place. A further aspect arises. In view of the speech made by the Minister of Indian Education recently that there is no longer to be a wholesale consolidation of land in Natal, and in view of the deviation from previous statements made by the Government in that regard, and in view of the fact that that hon. Minister says we are going to have three, five or seven Bantu consolidated areas in Natal, which is to say that the existing 30 Native Reserves will be consolidated into three, five or seven areas, and those areas will comprise the territorial area over which this Authority is to function, I would like the Minister to tell us upon which main centres he proposes to bring about this consolidation. You cannot have a Territorial Authority without an area over which it is to rule. We are told by a Minister of the Government that there are to be three, five or seven main centres. I would like the Minister to tell us in broad outline on what centres he proposes to make those consolidations; where will be the regional centres of this Territorial Authority, and where will the seat of government of that Authority be? You cannot create a Territorial Authority without at least having thought out the principles on which it is to be created. I believe that these questions I have put to the Minister, if he chooses to answer them, and I hope he will, will give the House an indication of the Minister’s thinking in this regard.

Now I come to the second aspect with which I want to deal, and that is the Dunn community. The Minister and I have discussed this question from time to time. If you form a Zulu Territorial Authority, it is important to know whether the Dunns, who are Coloured people, will be subject to this authority; or are they going to be given their land? The Minister will know that I am not doing him a disservice when I say that the two sides of the House, Principally the hon. the Minister, the hon. member for South Coast and myself, over the last four years have thrown this issue backwards and forwards. We have this settled, indigenous Coloured community living on land granted to them by an Act of this Parliament, and for four years we have been asking that those people be given their land, which Parliament has promised, and we have had no clear reply from the Government at all. The Minister will say that I know there are Native squatters there and that they constitute a difficulty. I know that, too, but I would say this to the Minister that if it comes to removing Natives who constitute a black spot in a white area, no matter how much opposition is put up, those people are removed. So it does not help for the Minister to tell us that his difficulty in regard to giving the Dunns their land is because there are Native squatters on that land. If the Minister wants to remove Native squatters from any other land, he does so, and if he is not prepared to move them from the Dunn land he must tell us why. There is land adjacent to which these people can be moved. I would also refer the Minister to the reply by the Minister of Coloured Affairs. When I asked him last year whether it was the policy of the Government to remove all the Coloureds holus-bolus from Zululand, the Minister said no, not yet. I asked whether the Cabinet had considered that policy, and he said yes. Now these are straws hanging in the wind, and I think it is time that the Minister came clean on this issue and told us what he proposes to do with these people. Are they going to be removed from Zululand, and if not, are they going to be given title to the land promised to them by Act of Parliament; and if so, what does he propose to do with the Natives squatting on their land, and how does this fit in with the scheme of a Zulu Territorial Authority which is apparently being established for all these Native Reserves either in Zululand or in Natal?

There is another issue which I have already raised with the Minister, but I have not yet heard his reply, and that is the question of cane quotas which have been granted to the Dunn community and which they are not able fully to enjoy because of the presence of Native squatters on their land. The Minister was good enough to allow me an interview on this question and said he was going to reply at some time in the future. I hope he has now been able to formulate an answer in that regard, seeing that it is some months since he and I last spoke on the matter, and that he will give us an indication of how he proposes that difficulty in regard to the Dunn community.

The Opposition has again advanced the argument to-day that the presence of the urban Bantu is causing our policy to collapse, and the hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman) asked why we fixed the date of the turning-point in the curve at 1978. I should like to deal with this matter.

I want to begin by saying that if there is any proof that the hon. member for Maitland has no historical background, then it is the fact that he divorced his whole argument from the past. He is a man who does not have the past as his background and who is therefore unable to project himself into the future. Every right-thinking person accepts that the ideal state of affairs in South Africa, if we could have arranged it, if we had had a say in the matter from the very start, would have been that the Whites lived together in a certain area and were self-supporting, and that the Bantu were in another area where they could be self-supporting. No one in this House would suggest that it would not have been an ideal state of affairs if we could have arranged matters in that way. But what are the historical facts? Initially that was indeed the position as far as the Whites and the Bantu were concerned. The Bantu moved southwards in a mass until they reached the Fish River, and the Whites moved from the south to the north, and at the Fish River the two met each other.

At that stage the White man was the absolute ruler in his part of South Africa, and the Bantu in his. But then the complication arose that the Bantu could no longer gain a livelihood in their own area and could not maintain their standard of living there, and that the land could not carry the masses because the Bantu did not possess the requisite knowledge, and that the Bantu, by their own free choice, turned to the area of the Whites and came to offer their services as labourers in order to gain a livelihood. The Whites, with their superior knowledge and capital resources, developed their own area rapidly through mining, agriculture, etc., so that the White area made quick progress in the economic field, and the Bantu of their own free will came to ask the Whites for employment. They did not come to ask for political rights or control of the White area. They did not come to ask for the franchise or a say in the White man’s area. They did not ask us to hand over our country to them by reason of the mere fact that their numbers had increased, but they came here to seek a livelihood, since they could not make a living in their own area. That is the historical background, and our policy is projected against that background. Now we have the situation that we have many Bantu in the White area, and that they have become so incorporated in our industries that to a large extent they have become essential. But the fact that they are present here as a labour force does not mean that there is economic integration, as stated by the hon. member. The presence of a person in another area does not bring about economic integration. Now the question arises: What is the present position? The United Party has been telling us lately what our so-called object was supposed to have been, but what they are saying is not true. It has never been our object to remove all the Bantu from our area. They are judging us by the criterion of things which we never undertook to do, and now they are levelling accusations against us because we are not doing what they said we would do.

What precisely did we undertake to do as far as the Bantu were concerned?The Bantu have come to settle in the White area. What did the National Government undertake to do in connection with this state of affairs when it came into power in 1948? This was the first Government which began to consider taking active steps to control this unrestricted influx, and what are the three things which we undertook to do? We undertook to do only three things as far as the Bantu in the urban areas were concerned, and these are, firstly, that their presence in the White area would be brought under control; secondly, that their influx would be controlled, so that they would not be able to enter freely; and thirdly, that we would gradually reduce their numbers and would see to it that there was a proportionate decrease in those numbers. But we did not give any undertaking that by a certain stage, by 1978, all the Bantu would have been removed from that area. How far have we progressed along that road?

The Opposition is accusing us of having failed to do things which we never undertook to do, and then they think it is a tremendous achievement to tell us that our apartheid policy has collapsed, that our country is growing economically because the apartheid policy has collapsed. But our policy has succeeded in the urban areas just as much as in the rural areas and in the homelands, because we have done what we undertook to do. What have we done to control the presence of the Bantu here? We immediately established the various Departments which have dealt with the matter. We immediately introduced registration of contracts of service so that only essential labour could come here, and if it were not essential it was controlled. The registration of contracts of service was undertaken. Restrictive measures in regard to industrial development in the cities were immediately imposed. The Department of Bantu Administration were immediately granted a say as far as approving or refusing new industrial areas was concerned, and that was essential, because if one left open that avenue there was no other method to exercise control. Now we have the wonderful phenomenon that the town councils are realizing that it is in their own interests to cooperate with the Government in this field and to keep the numbers as low as possible.

I just want to refer briefly to the figures for the West Rand in order to show what the position is, and then I want to say what decisions have now been taken in this regard. The average ratio between Whites and non-Whites in industry in South Africa was ten Whites to 22 Bantu in 1957, and in 1960 it was ten Whites to 21 Bantu. In the three West Rand towns of which I have made a special study we find the position that in Krugersdorp in 1960 the ratio was ten Whites to 26 Bantu in industry, or 2.6 to one, in Roodeport the ratio was ten to 46, or 4.6 to one, and in Randfontein it was ten to 53, or 5.3 to one.

These facts were submitted to the town councils concerned by the Department, and I am grateful to be able to say here to-day that those three town councils adopted resolutions that in future—and remember that that is an area where the mines are busy closing down and where future development has to be based on industry—those town councils were going to be very selective as to which industries they were going to place on existing industrial land and that the ratio between White and non-White labour in those industries would be the decisive factor when these matters were considered. It is against that background that I am saying that we are now getting the co-operation of the town councils and that we have the assurance that by a certain stage, which is at the moment calculated as being 1978, we shall reach the point where the influx to the urban areas will be so restricted and controlled, and where as a result of automation and immigration the Whites will have developed to such an extent in industry, and the influx control measures will be so effective, and the industrial development in the border areas and in the Bantu areas will be such, that all these factors combined will have the effect that the gradually rising curve— which began to rise in 1952—in respect of the influx of Bantu to the White area will gradually be flattened, so that it will reach its apex by 1978 and we could expect a gradual drop from that time onwards, so that by the end of the century we could again have the position we had at the time of the Tomlinson Report in 1955. That is the concept. We are getting the co-operation of the town councils. We have taken the necessary measures and the Government has succeeded in stemming the influx. I should have liked to have seen the figures if the United Party had been in power and these restrictive factors had not been present. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Randfontein (Dr. Mulder) has been telling us how the National Party arrives at the date 1978, what the graph is like and how less and less labour will be required. I wonder whether the hon. member has read Dr. Holford’s report. He says—and this has been proved in many countries—that the greater the degree of automation the more manual labour one requires. I should like the hon. member to tell me how they can say that after 1978, when this country has been intensively industrialized, less and less labour will be required. Our experience will be the same as that of America and Germany and other industrialized countries, and I cannot see how less labour will be required but I shall leave it at that.

The hon. member for Randfontein also says that we have made certain charges against the National Party.

Ossewabrandwag!

I wish we could make the charge against them that they were faithful Ossewabrandwag members. That hon. member does not know what he is talking about. The hon. member for Randfontein then goes on to tell us what the National Party’s policy has been since they came into power. I shall tell him what their policy was. This was their policy: On 1 May 1951 Dr. Verwoerd, as Minister of Native Affairs in Dr. Malan’s Government, said the following (translation)—

That was the policy of the party in 1951.

What are you quoting from?

I am quoting from the Burger of 3 June 1964. [Interjections.]

Order! Will the hon. members please give the hon. member a chance to deliver his speech.

I have been quoting from the leader in the Burger, but I can also quote it from Hansard if hon. members have not read it. I want to continue. Apart from the changes in policy of which this Government has so often been guilty, I should like to come back to the Ciskei-Transkei complex and I should like the Minister to tell us once and for all where is the western boundary of the Ciskei. Is it the Fish River or the Keiskamma River? The hon. member for Randfontein says that in the course of history the Whites and the Bantu moved to and fro and that eventually the Fish River came to be the boundary between them.

Yes, 100 years ago.

Now I ask, where is the western boundary of the Ciskei? Where is the northern boundary? Is it Fort Beaufort or is it Adelaide? Does it extend as far as Queenstown, or as far as Bulhoek? And where is the eastern boundary of the Ciskei?

Right there in that little ravine.

Is it Durban, King William’s Town, or further to the north. Where is it? How large is the corridor between the Ciskei and the Transkei? When I come to that, I shall not underrate the work done in connection with the border industries. I read in the latest report that the total estimated direct additional investment in industry in the border areas since 1960 amounts to more than R 100,000,000, that is, R65,000,000 plus the investments made without assistance from the authorities, and that 42,000 people, of whom 33,000 are Bantu are involved in this. This is by no means a negligible enterprise, but I want to ask the Minister this: Could there not have been equal development, and could we not have had decentralization of industry without calling it border industries?

Your only quarrel then is with the name.

But I come back to the Ciskei-Transkei complex, and here the report tells us—and we were told the same thing by the Minister of Economic Affairs in reply to a question put to him recently—that four new factories had been established there since 1960 —I refer to the Ciskei-Transkei complex—and that in the case of 12 others extensions had been undertaken or were in the process of being undertaken; that two new undertakings were being established; that two more factories would be built in the near future and that a further two factories were being considered. But where are they? With the exception of two of which we know, they are all situated in East London, 35 miles from the Transkei. I do not know how far this is from the Ciskei, since we do not know where the boundary is; nobody knows. In all fairness, I must ask the Minister whether he expects industrialists to risk investing their capital in the border areas if they do not know where the boundary is and if they do not even know whether the corridor is 35 or five or 10 miles wide? But we have an idea that the Minister and the Government are not prepared to say where the boundaries are. They do not want certainty. They do not want to crystallize the position so that we will know where we stand, and we can guess the reason. Because as soon as this is done—and it is not impossible to do so—what will happen? Then Kaiser Matanzima will know where the boundaries of his territory are and he will start shouting even more loudly. As he said last week, if they do not have enough land, they can always ask mother for some more, and mother will give it to them. And then we shall have what we have always predicted: As soon as there is clarity about the boundaries of those territories and other territories, they will press for total independence. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to draw attention to the tremendous developments that have taken place in Natal during the past 18 years. Durban Harbour has now grown into the largest port in the whole of Africa. It handles more cargo than any other, and I think it qualifies now to be called the Grand Harbour of South Africa. [Interjections.]

Order! Who said “Shut up”?

I said so, but I withdraw it.

More and more industries have crammed into Durban and this has resulted in a large increase in the employment of Bantu. The facts are that in 1946 there were 74,500 Bantu males employed in industry in Durban. By 1965 this figure had gone up to 136,0. This represents Bantu males employed, and not females or the waifs and strays. Owing to the lack of positive action by the local authority and also the lack of suitable land, by 1956 under 5,000 houses had been built in the three Bantu locations Lamont, Chesterville and Umlazi. One can realize what difficulties the Bantu Administration had to face up to. It was at this time that the infiltration into Cato Manor began, and by 1959 there were over 100,000 Bantu living in shacks and in the most terrible conditions. Friction between the Bantu and the Indians soon developed and this resulted in the 1959 riots. The Durban Council had to take over the Cato Manor area as an emergency camp and had to establish hospitals and health services to prevent the spread of disease. The position, however, deteriorated, with lawlessness and frustration mounting, and this reached a crisis when eight White policemen were murdered. It was at this stage that our Prime Minister, who was then Minister of Bantu Affairs, took matters in hand. The Durban City Council, in co-operation with the Government and acting as its agent, developed Qua Mashu.

On a point of order, may I ask whether an hon. member is entitled to read his speech?

It is difficult to know whether the hon. Member for Durban (Point) is a U.P. a P.P. a U.P.P.P. or a P.P.U.P. I think he is a P.P. To-day there are some 12,000 houses completed and occupied, and also a hostel, with some 11,000 beds I am sure this is an achievement we can be proud of. Further development is taking place on a grand scale. The Department of Bantu Administration, together with the Durban City Council, acting as its agent, are developing a township of over 21,000 houses at Umlazi to accommodate the Bantu workers in Durban. So far over 7,000 houses have been completed and over 1,100 temporary wooden hutments are occupied. Sir, this means that the festering sore of Cato Manor has gone forever. All the illegal squatters have been removed. Over 6,000 houses have been demolished and 6,500 families have been moved into new accommodation at Kwa Mashu and over 4,000 at Umlazi. I believe, Sir, that we are now reaping the benefits of the planning started by our Prime Minister and carried on by our present Minister, his Deputy and his very able staff. One realizes that this is but a small part of the whole task, the clearing of festering hotspots of crime, with all its discontent, lawlessness and mounting frustration, and this has been achieved with the minimum of unpleasantness.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to refer to the Mbali Township near Pietermaritzburg. It is gratifying to note that much progress has been made here. This area covers some 1,500 morgen. The Pietermaritzburg City Council acting as agents for and in co-operation with Bantu Affairs, has undertaken this task. Roads have been completed and many houses are now ready for occupation. A total of over 1,400 houses are under construction, a primary school and over 400 cottage-type hostels which will house almost 7,000 single Bantu men. When this is completed Mbali can then be incorporated in the Bantu homelands area, including Edendale, Willow Fountain and Politique. Sir, this brings me to the old Bantu village to the east of Pietermaritzburg known as Sobantu Village. I hope that the hon. the Minister will as soon as is practicable transfer all the Bantu from Sobantu Village to Mbali Township, when it has been completed, and I say this because the facilities at Mbali are very much better than anything that the Bantu had at Sobantu. Take the hospital, for instance, at the adjoining Edendale. This is one of the most up-to-date and modern hospitals in the Republic, and it is for Bantu alone. Schools and all facilities will be available for the Bantu in their own area. This will then release Sobantu area for other purposes. One realizes, Sir, that the challenge is ever before us. We cannot sit still. More and better facilities have to be created for our Bantu. By comparison with other States in Africa, our Bantu are living in almost luxury. No wonder hundreds of thousands of foreign Bantu are endeavouring to get into the Republic. I feel, Sir, that 1965 will go down in our history as a year in which the tide turned. There is a new spirit of understanding between White and Black. Separate development is the keystone. We can each develop naturally and to the maximum of our ability, each in our own area, with mutual respect. With this Government in power, once again South Africa can face the future as in the past with confidence and a determination to win through to a better South Africa for us all—White, Black, Coloured and Indian.

I do not want to be diverted from the main theme that I wanted to develop by speeches made by hon. members opposite, but I must reply to one or two members who spoke before me. I want to say to the hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) that when I say that the Government maintains its position by force I mean exactly that, and if the hon. member does not believe me he should go down to the Bantu Commissioner’s Courts occasionally and see the streams of Africans who have been arrested.

Are you protecting criminals who appear before the courts?

Sir, let the hon. member restrain himself and at least allow me to finish my sentence. I am not talking about criminals in the ordinary sense of that word; I am talking about people who are arrested because they do not agree with the Government’s policy of restricting their movements.

That is nonsense; quote one instance.

The hon. member has never heard of pass arrests; he has never heard that thousands of people, hundreds of thousands of people are arrested every year simply because as citizens of this country they are attempting to move around and to exercise their normal rights as citizens. If he did not agree that South African Africans are entitled to any rights as a result of economic integration …

It is time you got out of this House.

Order! The hon. member cannot tell other hon. members that it is time they disappeared from this House; that they have no right to be in this House.

Thank you. Sir. At least hon. members opposite also admit that there are certain rights which emanate from ordinary citizenship, rights which do not flow from economic integration but simply from citizenship of the country. I think they will agree that this is the great essential difference between the Italian migratory workers who go and work in Switzerland and the South Africans who come from the reserves to work in the rest of the Republic. They are still South African citizens. There is only one Bantustan that even begins to have pretensions and that is the Transkei. There are not even the beginnings of any Bantustans, any self-governing territory, any properly organized area other than the Transkei. I am referring here to an article which appeared in the New York Times, a wonderful advertisement which was placed by this Government in America. It talks about the Transkei pattern for self-determination. This appeared in the New York Times on 31 March 1965 so one is entitled to believe that this reflects the existing position in South Africa. It says—

Then it tells us that the goal of this self-determination is for every one of the distinct nations living in South Africa. Sir, one is entitled to assume that since this was published on 31 March 1965 that we already have all these independent, self-governing areas where the citizens of those areas are already exercising their rights. That, of course, is nonsense. There is only one such area, the Transkei, that even begins to have some pretensions towards being self-determining, and that is a pretension. Let us come back again to this idea of governing by force. Sir, what is proclamation 400 in the Transkei? It was imposed on the Transkei by this Government, and I will come back to that proclamation later.

They want it.

I suggest that in a territory which allegedly enjoys all the wonderful advantages of full civil rights in their own homeland, Proclamation 400 has no place. Let us not bluff ourselves that the system as it is imposed on this country is accepted freely and willingly by the non-White inhabitants of South Africa. It is not accepted by them. They do not have their own political organizations, their trade union rights, or any of the other democratic channels through which they could express their displeasure. I say therefore that people are bluffing themselves when they think that this is accepted by the non-Whites.

I want to come back to this whole question of 1978. I must say I wish I possessed the same sort of unclouded crystal ball that the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) apparently has. He does not need to know any reasons. He gazes into the crystal ball and 1978 is the date when Africans are going to start reversing the trend from the rural areas to the urban areas and go back again to the Reserves. I can only tell the hon. member that this idea that 1978 would be the date was first mooted in 1955. We are more than half-way to 1978 now and the trend is not back to the rural areas, the trend is still towards the urban areas, and that is the position for a very good reason. It is because South Africa is developing. It is true that there are more people to-day in “White” South Africa than ever before, and whether they are there on a migratory basis or not, these people are there, so the trend has not been reversed. Sir, the hon. member for Randfontein (Dr. Mulder) was proud of the fact that the three municipal areas in his own constituency had determined that they were going to take fewer Africans, and this, he said proudly, despite the fact that the West Rand is an area of dying, declining mines Sir, if in five years the hon. member stands in the constituency of Randfontein and there is vast unemployment as a result of the implementation of this policy, I wonder whether he will find that his constituents are going to agree with him and be quite as pleased about this matter as he is now. The hon. member’s knowledge of history differs from mine. We must have read different history books, because he gave us a long historical analysis of the situation in South Africa and he came to the conclusion that the only reason why there were Africans in the so-called White Republic was because they had come of their own free will. Sir, there were a few other reasons why they came, and the hon. member should look a little deeper into his history. The one very important reason, of course, is the demand for that labour. Not only do the Africans want to come and live and work here but the Whites in South Africa require their labour and indeed go so far as to recruit them and to offer them every enticement, and if that does not work, then of course taxes are imposed, and that is another compelling force. The hon. member should look at his history and see what happened in Natal. The only really successful experiment in separate development was way back in the days of Shepstone when enough land was set aside for the Zulus and the sugar farmers could not get the Zulus to come out to work. They tried taxes and it did not work either. The Zulus did not come of their own free will because they had enough land to live on. It is economic necessity that drives them out, just as it is economic necessity that drags them in to White industries. I might say that in Zululand when this did not succeed even when taxes were imposed, the next thing that White South Africa had to do was to import Indians because they could not get the Zulus to go out to work, so let us not talk about this free movement of labour …

You should know the Shepstone history better.

As if the Africans came clamouring to work in the urban areas! And, Sir, Chinese were also imported for that same reason. They were repatriated. The Africans could not be sent back because South Africa is their land and now they have been in the urban areas for two or three generations.

I want to talk for a few moments about these rural towns. I wonder if the hon. the Minister can explain to me why it is that in these Bantu rural towns which, after all, I presume are in the reserves, in the homelands, such extraordinary regulations are being applied to Africans living there; why it is that first of all they have to be declared “fit and proper” people before they are allowed to occupy a site in one of these rural townships in their own homeland, and why it is that they have to renounce all residential rights elsewhere. I think the hon. the Minister will agree that that is the position because there has been a proclamation published in the Government Gazette to this effect and I will give him the reference if he wants it. Will he tell me why these regulations apply to them in their own homelands, in the Bantu rural townships? Why cannot a man have his wife and family living with him unless he has renounced his residential rights elsewhere? The wife and family may only come for longer than 30 days provided permission is obtained, if accommodation is available and only if the man has renounced his residential rights elsewhere. Hon. members opposite have been telling us that in their own homelands the Africans will enjoy full rights and that in the White areas the White man enjoys full rights. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) told us that thousands of people were being arrested because they do not agree with the Government’s policy. I am afraid her whole spirit is so polluted with sickly, sentimental liberalism that she is not even aware of the fact that she is telling gross untruths.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

If I have said anything wrong I withdraw it: I do not know what you are referring to, Sir.

The hon. member accused the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) of telling gross untruths.

I said that she did not even know she was doing so, but I am prepared to withdraw it. Nevertheless, the fact remains that these are not the true facts, as the general public has come to realize.

Arising out of what the hon. member said, I should like to bring to your notice a report that I read in the Argus of 27 April—a report which contains much the same sort of facts as the so-called facts which are sent abroad and which are designed to mislead the outside world. In this report we read in large print—

The report goes on to say how bad the conditions are, and then the reporter says the following, inter alia—

It is really scandalous that this type of report is sent abroad—reports that give a distorted picture of what is happening in South Africa. I have tried to ascertain what the true position is, and I find that there is no such thing as starvation there. I have been assured that there is not a single case of starvation. There may be cases of malnutrition among children; we do not dispute that, but cases of malnutrition occur even among the well-to-do Whites in our country. What is the true position? This report says: “There is no one to help”. The fact of the matter is that the Department of Bantu Administration and Development has the situation in the drought-stricken areas well under control. The fact is that assistance is rendered in various ways. I should first like to mention that the Department provides employment by accelerating the rate of development of works that have already been started. In this way employment is provided for additional people. The second method used by the Department is to initiate special works in order to provide employment for people, including Bantu women, who may be unable to compete on the ordinary market. A third method used by the Department is to supply food free of charge to the aged, to the handicapped, to cripples and to children in need of food. It is interesting to see what the Government is doing under this head. Firstly, as I have said, the rate of completion of works which have already been started is accelerated, and, secondly, new works are started. We find that considerable numbers of people have been employed to work on roads, on the building of smaller dams, and when we compare the relevant figures we notice that whereas only 18,000 Bantu men were employed on these works in 1962, their numbers grew to 43,000 in September 1964. At the moment more than 32,000, almost 33,000 Bantu, are employed on these special works. They are also employed on the eradication of weeds, which is a very essential service and which contributes to development in their areas. They clear land in order to cultivate their fields. They open up new roads; they make firebreaks to protect their plantations. They clear bush so that new fields can be tilled. In addition, the Department meets the Bantu farmers halfway by supplying grazing for their stock, by helping them to move their cattle to other areas where there is grazing on trust farms, thus saying their stock from extinction. Where stock is suitable for slaughter, they are assisted by means of auctions and through the provision of transport. The Trust also buys stud stock where there is danger of cattle dying out. The Trust buys up livestock and transfers it to other areas where there is grazing; the livestock is then kept there so that these people can buy it back from the Trust later on when it has rained. In this way, the Trust sees to it that this stock does not perish, and it will be clear to everybody that this is a very useful scheme. As I have said, food is supplied free of charge. The food normally supplied is soup powder and mealie-meal, but codliver-oil and powdered milk are also supplied where needed, and in some cases the hungry are supplied with surplus oranges. In order to ensure that this scheme functions properly, the Department has placed the responsibility for this work upon the shoulders of an official at Head Office. This official takes charge of the organization and ensures that every possible endeavour is made and that steps are taken to ensure that there will be no unnecessary suffering. Most of these services are provided under the supervision of the Bantu Authorities, with the assistance of the Bantu Commissioners, and this scheme functions well in every respect. The Department of Health also takes a hand and renders assistance where necessary. But in spite of the fact that all these services are rendered to the needy we find that there are people, including a few church leaders and certain corporations, who send all kinds of reports abroad; they even try to collect money there and to create the impression that we are dealing here with Bantu who are dying of starvation, when in point of fact there is really no starvation at all. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) (Mr. Odell) gave us some interesting figures this afternoon. He told us that there were 74,000 odd Bantu in Durban and that the number has now increased to well over 100,000. Sir, there we have the best evidence that we have had in this Committee to support the statement made by this side that under this Government the country is getting blacker and blacker. Sir, it reminds me of this day when this hon. Minister took office and said: “Give me five years. I realize that the White area will get blacker and blacker but after that period it will start to get whiter and whiter.” I recall the very apt remark which was made at the time by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) when he said that the hon. Minister would then start to unscramble the egg. Sir, do not let us deny the fact that this country is getting blacker and blacker and that the Government is doing nothing about it.

And you welcome it.

I welcome it and the Government is carrying it out. They are carrying it out while they are preaching apartheid. They deny that there is economic integration. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) tells us that the Government is building literally thousands of houses for the Bantu in the urban areas. Is that not economic integration.

Sir, I leave it at that. I want to refer to a remark made by the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes); it is quite revealing. He told us that new industries in the Transkei over a period of 16 years had only absorbed 841 Bantu.

He twisted the whole thing.

Sir, if that is all the Government has been able to do in 16 years then I ask you how we intend to absorb those Natives in the Transkei. This is at the time when the Forest Department of the Transkei are trying to engage labour—they cannot get it—at 50 cents a day. Will the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) tell me how we are going to divert these Natives from the European areas back to the Transkei when they are earning anything from R1 to R2 a day in the European areas while all they are offered in the Transkei is 50 cents a day? He is only trying to draw a red herring across the trail. The hon. the Minister must realize that he has to absorb more Natives in the Transkei and in the Bantu areas than he is doing to-day. I want to give him some idea of what he has to put up with in the future. There are at present 1,563,705 Bantu children being educated in the Transkei and the Republic of whom 1,505,866 are in primary schools. There are already 51,180 in the secondary schools. I can give the hon. the Minister the figures right up to university.

It does not stop there.

Of course it does not stop there. What is the hon. the Minister doing to develop those Bantustans in which he hopes these people will be absorbed? What is he doing to ensure that they will be able to fill posts commensurate with their standard of education? How is he going to do it? If in 16 years he could absorb only 841 Blacks in all the industries which have been established since this Government took over, how does he propose to overcome those difficulties? Sir, I want to warn him. I think he knows the Native fairly well and he knows full well that in years gone by the Native looked upon education as something great and when he had the least bit of education he thought he could be excluded from manual labour. There has been no change in that respect, and if the hon. the Minister cannot absorb at least a portion of those people in positions commensurate with the standard of their education, does he realize the embarrassment to those Natives; does he realize that he is preparing one of the greatest fields for the breeding of Communism in the Transkei?

I regard that as one of the most dangerous items we have to face to-day. The Minister may not agree with me; perhaps he does not know. But rumour has it, and I am justified in repeating it across the floor of this House, that cells are being formed in the Transkei; communist cells. Where do they get their instructions from? From people who are getting into the Transkei somehow or other. Those people are going to create a problem for the hon. the Minister that will be very difficult for the country to overcome.

There is one other point I want the hon. the Minister to clear up. I shall deal very briefly with it. In the Transkeian Hansard we are told by Chief Kaiser Matanzima that—

According to the Daily Despatch of yesterday the Chief Minister had this to say—

I want to ask the hon. the Minister what right the Chief Minister of the Transkei has to make that statement unless some undertaking has been given to him that some land will be given to him and that it will be given to him when he asks for it? It is a very moot point, Sir. We know what Chief Matanzima has done in the past. He has made these claims for certain land. He is still making claims for certain land. The Minister tells us there is certain land that he is going to consolidate with the Ciskeian reserve. I want to ask the hon. the Minister in all sincerity to give us an assurance that there is nothing between this Government and the Transkeian Government that can be any basis for Mr. Kaiser Matanzima to say “I am coming to my mother body to ask for more land when I become congested in the Transkei”.

I want to come to those points that we have not yet settled between us. What is the position in regard to the request made to us by the Minister’s Department for land? I have a map here which I want to show to the hon. the Minister. I want to show this Committee the state of affairs which exists. This black line represents the area for which the hon. the Minister has asked. He has taken the whole of this area. It is less than 10,000 acres according to the hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo).

What do you mean by “taken”? Has that land been bought?

Yes, it has been bought and if my hon. friend wants any proof of it I shall give it to him at any time. I used the word “taken” which means released or bought.

How much?

The better part of 100,000 acres has been released or bought or both.

How many acres have been bought?

As a member of the Natives Affairs Commission I think the hon. member should be able to tell me more about it than I can tell him. The hon. the Minister has given us the assurance that he will have a corridor. That seems to be almost impossible. If he talks in terms of corridors it is imperative for him not to take that land. I want to assure the hon. the Minister that that land represents the whole of the catchment area on which the very development of East London depends and the whole area there. So much so that King William’s Town is building a new conservation dam and so is East London. If that land becomes Native reserve where will the water come from which will be required for the development the Minister has in mind? [Time limit.]

At the beginning of his speech the hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) said, “The country is becoming Blacker and Blacker”. What moral support has the Opposition given the Government in the past to try to make the White part of South Africa Whiter? Even the Government’s idea of border industries is being opposed all along.

The Opposition is continually levelling the accusation against the Government that the White towns and cities are becoming Blacker. That allegation has become so hackneyed that we have already become used to it. I want to repudiate that allegation, because although the number of Bantu in the urban areas may be increasing, the percentage increase is declining. The percentage increase is definitely declining gradually. The main reason for the increase in the number of Bantu in the urban areas is the natural growth in their number. The second reason for the increase is the influx of Bantu from outside. We think that the various towns and cities are trying to apply influx control as effectively as possible, but there are important factors which still stimulate the influx of Bantu. The first of these factors is the tremendous industrial expansion, as a result of which there is a constant demand for Bantu labourers. The second is that Bantu women come to join their menfolk in the cities. Incidentally, the most important instrument in applying influx control, in so far as both Bantu men and Bantu women are concerned, is the reference book. In this connection I just want to say that before 1963 it was not compulsory for Bantu women to have reference books. It has become compulsory since, and there has already been a great improvement in this connection. The third reason for the influx of Bantu into the White urban areas is the fact that this influx takes place without their being registered at labour bureaux. That, Sir, is a contravention of the law on the part of both the employer and the employee. The fourth important reason for the increase of the Bantu in the cities is the influx of Bantu as a result of the demand for domestic servants. And it is particularly in regard to domestic servants that I want to express a few thoughts.

By doing their work themselves, the Whites in the urban areas can themselves contribute a great deal towards arresting or reducing this influx. We have recently read a great deal in the Press, particularly in the Afrikaans language Press, about labour self-sufficiency on the part of the Whites in the urban areas. In Pretoria, for example, a society, the Society for Labour Self-sufficiency among Whites, has been established. The sole object of this society is to encourage Whites to do their work themselves. We must commend this society for this self-imposed task. This society has publicized its work by means of conferences and propaganda, and I must admit that in Pretoria, in particular, this idea has subtly caught on amongst the Whites, to such an extent that many Whites are either managing without servants or employing servants on a part-time basis only. In addition to the ideal set by the society mentioned, and linking up with it, the slogan has been taken up in various parts of Pretoria that the capital city should be kept White at night. I hope that slogan will be taken up in other cities as well.

The households of too many of our Whites still rest on the unsteady legs of non-Whites. In Pretoria, fortunately, a definite change is noticeable in this connection. In 1962 as many as 38.5 per cent of the owners or tenants of premises no longer had permanent domestic servants. In suburbs such as Rietfontein and Villieria, which fall partly in my constituency, 60 per cent of the owners or tenants of premises are managing without permanent Bantu servants. There has recently been a further improvement in the general position in Pretoria. According to the latest statistics there are no Bantu employed on more than 40 per cent of the premises. As compared with other cities the position in Pretoria is a good one, although it is still not very bright. The percentage of Bantu still sleeping in on the premises in a number of large cities is as follows: Johannesburg, 95 per cent; Pietermaritzburg, 90y per cent; Germiston, 76 per cent; and Pretoria, 63 per cent. These figures indicate how the position has improved in the capital city.

I am also glad to learn that, as far as the new urban area of Sterrewag is concerned, the City Council of Pretoria has, in this connection, set an example worth following. Apparently the arrangement there will be that it will not be permitted to build servants’ quarters on to houses. In other words, in that township people who want to keep servants will have to employ them on a basis which will enable them to return to the Bantu townships for the night.

In conclusion I should like to put the following question to the hon. the Minister: In 1963 we had a very long debate on the amendment of the Urban Areas Consolidation Act of 1945. In that connection the House of Assembly decided that only one Bantu would be allowed for every stand in White urban areas. Now I should like to inquire of the Minister when the relevant section of the Act will be applied effectively. When will the regulation be issued to limit owners of stands in White areas to having only one Bantu living in on the premises?

I have a question on the Question Paper in regard to that.

Personally I should like to see no Bantu sleeping in on the premises in White cities and towns, but since the House of Assembly has decided by way of legislation that one Bantu is allowed per stand, I shall be glad if the hon. the Minister will reply to this question of mine.

I want to begin with the last question asked by the hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Dr. Otto) in connection with Bantu servants who sleep in and the legislation passed by this House in 1963 in that regard which, as he correctly says, has not yet been put into operation. In fact, that is not the only section which still has to be put into operation. I think it is essential for us to inform the public and local authorities timeously on that point, and I think this is a suitable opportunity to do so.

Quite a lot has of course to be done all over the country by local authorities to make the necessary preparations, i.e. only the regulatory preparations. There are a few hundred local authorities in the country, only some of whom have regulations, and not even suitable regulations, in terms of which they could handle the licensing of premises for the ordinary servants who sleep in. Therefore there first had to be consultations with the local authorities and other bodies. Regulations then had to be drawn up to serve as a guide, and then those regulations had to be adapted by them to their own local conditions. That was a lengthy process which has fortunately now almost come to an end. That is why the hon. the Minister recently approved that this particular section of the Act would come into operation on 1 July 1965 if no further stumbling-blocks appeared. What would the position be then? I think it is necessary for us carefully to explain the position in order to give information generally, because it affects many people throughout the country. All householders right throughout the country are affected by it, whether they have servants or not, because one does not know whether they will perhaps have servants in the future.

I want to remind hon. members of what I said at the time we passed this legislation in this House. I said that it was a measure which was definitely designed also for the sake of the positive value it had for the Bantu concerned. Hon. members who often have much to say about the social connections of the Bantu, good housing for the Bantu, the family ties of the Bantu, recreational facilities for them, etc., will surely agree with me when I say that that legislation is par excellence intended to promote those aspects in favour of the Bantu and as far as possible, while the Bantu works in the White residential or industrial areas, to enable him to spend his leisure among his own people in his own residential area. That is the important positive result of it. The Bantu will undoubtedly benefit, if this measure is implemented, from a minimum, as opposed to the possibility of a maximum which exists at present, of servants sleeping on the premises of Whites in the White townships being allowed. It will result in the Bantu being able to live among their own people and being able to enjoy all forms of recreation in their own residential areas together with their own people. It will limit the concentration of Bantu in the White residential areas, which in certain places gives rise to friction and unpleasantness which one would like to avoid.

Certain implications will flow from this for the White employer as well as for the Bantu employee. I want to mention those implications briefly. There is the question of accommodation in the urban Bantu residential area. The local authorities were given timeous warning in that respect so that they could make the necessary arrangements. There is the question of transportation costs. We recognized and admitted this right from the beginning. We recognized that transport would have to be provided and that costs would have to be incurred in that connection. There will be transportation costs in taking those Bantu from the White areas to the urban Bantu residential areas who do not live on the premises of the Whites.

There is the question of the hours of work. The White employer will have to accept that the hours of work will have to be changed. Why is it necessary for a Bantu servant to be in the White employer’s house from 6.30 a.m. until 9.30 p.m.? That can be arranged in such a way that both parties are satisfied. If the Act comes into operation, as we hope it will from 1 July, the position will therefore be that at the most one Bantu working on those premises will automatically be able to sleep in approved living quarters on that site. All additional Bantu will have to be licensed to sleep there. The householder or the employer will be responsible for obtaining that licence.

There are, of course, places where not even a single Bantu will be allowed, and where he will also require a licence, and that is where the urban Bantu residential areas are close by. The Act makes the necessary provision for that. I want to point out that in the implementation of this measure local authorities must set to work gradually and on the basis of its being a transition period. Hon. members who approach matters in connection with Bantu administration calmly and objectively will know that we have always said, in regard to the application of our policy and the remedying of the things we inherited from the past, that this process of remedying matters must take place gradually and that we do not want to be responsible for any abrupt irritation or abrupt inconvenience. Therefore an appeal was made, as is now being done again, to local authorities to handle this matter with wise discretion, i.e. that where there is justification for granting a licence they should exercise their discretion wisely. There may be cases where that is justified. But at the same time I want to warn local authorities that where I talk about their using their discretion wisely, they must at the same time make sure that they are not too lenient and allow too many Bantu to sleep on the premises where they are employed. There must be strictness in addition to discretion.

I think I have now covered the whole position in regard to the sleeping in on premises.

I just want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the Act will also be applied to Johannesburg and Pretoria.

It will apply to the whole of South Africa, including Johannesburg and also the premises of the hon. member.

And your own premises in Pretoria too?

Mine too. The hon. member may, when the time comes, question me as to the position on my premises and I will answer him frankly.

Seeing that I still have a few moments left, I should like to deal with some of the ideas which were expressed. If I understand the hon. member for Maitland correctly, he asked what the position was in regard to the workers Mr. Cyril Lord brought from Britain, and whether they are integrated there or not. That is a very stupid question. Of course they are integrated as White workers. What is the hon. member’s problem? Those workers are integrated in that factory just like any other White workers. Every opportunity is open to them for making progress in that industry on an equal footing with all the other White workers. That was a stupid parallel to draw between the Whites and the Bantu. [Time limit.]

The hon. the Deputy Minister has made a statement in regard to the application of legislation passed in 1963 in respect of domestic servants in most of the White areas. I just want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that we did not doubt his sentiments when he said that he was also considering the Bantu and that he wanted them to be able to return to their own areas and to work certain hours only. But I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister in advance that I am prepared to bet him a hat or two that he will not succeed in applying this particular section. That is why he is leaving it to the local authorities to give a decision. That is why he is already asking them to be careful as regards the way in which they apply it.

Why do people employ domestic servants? Just to help them to keep their homes in order and to look after the children? No. It has become an important economic factor today for the simple reason that so many housewives have to work along with their menfolk. If this section were applied, how would it help us to solve the problem of the manpower shortage in South Africa? I want to leave the hon. the Deputy Minister not only to this Committee, but also to the housewives of South Africa, to see whether he is going to succeed in applying that legislation.

I have again listened to a debate to-day which becomes more unrealistic to me every year in the sense that we are discussing a problem in regard to the Bantu while, when it comes to a definition of certain concepts, the National Party places an interpretation upon those concepts which is completely different from the interpretation that we place upon them. They believe that the Bantu in our White areas are not integrated in our economy, irrespective of where they are employed. In other words, they do not regard the Bantu as an important factor in building up the country. Then it should be the policy of the Government to remove those people; then it should be their policy to say that they want to manage without those people. I do not want to quote this side of the House, but the hon. the Deputy Minister himself. According to the Burger of 8 August 1964 he said in Pretoria (translation).—

That is what the hon. the Deputy Minister said last year. In 1959 the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development made a statement that Bantu labour was a danger in our cities. We have been told ever since 1955, and before that time too, that the Bantu are a danger in the White areas, but up to now this Government has not yet succeeded in reducing the number of Bantu in the White areas by as much as one since they originally warned us of the danger. The hon. member for Randfontein (Dr. Mulder) said that the percentage had decreased, but even in a place such as Pretoria, which used to be so-called White city, the Bantu are in the majority to-day. Hon. members on the other side say that they do not accept the presence of the Bantu, but they are following a policy under which the Bantu in our White areas are increasing. All that we on this side of the House are asking the members on that side is that we should get to a stage in our debate where we accept the facts of the South African situation, and then we can begin to argue. Then we can begin to argue as to what is the best solution, what we can do with the Bantu in our peri-urban areas and what we can do with the Bantu in our rural areas. But the hon. members on the other side close their eyes and say, “Those people do not exist.”

You only have to accept apartheid.

I want to mention another example: They told us that it was their policy to remove the Bantu from the Western Province. It was said that steps were being taken to remove these Bantu. But they have not yet succeeded in doing so. These Bantu are increasing in number every year. I have no quarrel with that. I accept it. It is correct that it is happening. But if the Government is serious, it must reverse its policy. I have before me a clipping from the Burger of 22 October of last year, in which the following is stated (translation).—

That was after they had begun to remove these people. They were still complaining about a shortage of labour. And this was a report of a farmers’ association meeting held at Philadelphia. At that meeting Mr. De Villiers, the Chairman of the Durbanville Farmers’ Association, said—

The Prime Minister was interviewed because they had a shortage of labour. They were in difficulties, and immediately after they had seen the Prime Minister, the chief architect of the removal of the Bantu from the White areas, they were in a position to say that contracts were being entered into and that the Bantu labourers were coming back to the Western Province. How can one understand that? He continued—

Then he concluded by saying—

[Time limit.]

I want to try to reply very briefly to a few of the matters which have been raised here. In the first place I want to say that I came here this afternoon with great expectations. I really hoped that for the first time in many years we would perhaps get a new line from the United Party in setting out its policy. I hoped that they would make use of this opportunity at least to come forward with something positive. Surely it is always customary, when a speaker asks for the privilege of the half-hour, to devote the greatest portion of the half-hour to a statement of the positive side of his party’s policy, but so far not a single word has been said with regard to that policy. Sir, a few things have been said here to which I just want to reply.

We do not change our policy every year. It is not necessary to do that.

Sir, if I had to start mentioning how many times the United Party has changed its policy it would take up the whole of my time. They had sixpenny policies and ninepenny policies, but I want to go no further because my time is valuable. The Nationalist Party published its policy in 1948, and it is the only party which has not deviated one iota from its policy.

What about the cock?

What about the bull?

I want to deal for a moment with the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) who made a few allegations here. In the first place I was surprised to hear him say that there was practically no difference between the old Bunga system and the present policy. As a matter of fact, he goes so far as to say that the old Bunga system was really much more democratic than the present policy. The hon. member opened his speech with a very fine thought; he said that we had pointed out that there was a lack of knowledge with regard to this great problem in South Africa. I sat back expecting to gain a little knowledge from him, but, Sir, if I had been an inspector and had to give my verdict after his speech, he would have failed hopelessly. I want to mention a few examples. The hon. member says that the old Bunga system was more democratic than the present system.

Yes.

Just imagine! Under that old system a number of senior departmental officials sat in the Bunga.

But they had no vote.

That is true, but they completely dominated the proceedings in the Bunga.

Who elected the members?

In practice these officials were members of the Bunga and they continually sent notes to members telling them how things were to be done. Nobody can deny it. After all, I often attended those meetings. I did not see the hon. member there.

I was not a member.

No, our system to-day is entirely different; there can be no comparison. To-day we have a system where the chairman is a Bantu and all the other members who sit there and take part in the discussions are Bantu. We had this phenomenon there that the representatives of certain newspapers wanted to offer advice and they sent around notes. [Interjection.] I am not talking now about the old Bunga; I am talking now about the new Parliament. What happened? They were simply kicked out. But not one of the officials intervened. Here we have a Parliament therefore which is much more democratic, as everybody who makes even a cursory study of the position will admit.

But I want to point out another blunder that the hon. member committed. He says that the Prime Minister abolished the old Bunga. Surely that is not correct. It was the representatives of the old Bunga who asked, by an overwhelming majority, that the Bantu authorities system be introduced in the Transkei.

What promises were made to them?

Listen to that! No promises were made to them. It was their own free decision. Is it right then to say that the Prime Minister abolished it? Surely that is not correct. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories also referred here to the old Natives’ Representative Council. Yes, there he is correct; the Prime Minister did abolish it, but the hon. member does not tell the House that the members of that council had gone so far as to challenge General Smuts and had grossly humiliated Mr. Hofmeyr; that they had put forward the demand that all legislation which discriminated between White and non-White in the whole of South Africa must be done away with. It had degenerated into nothing but a communist group and no Government worthy of the name would have allowed this state of affairs to continue. That is the reason why the Prime Minister abolished it.

The hon. member once again made the allegation, which he has made here before, that we are not looking after the interests of the Whites in the Transkei. On a previous occasion he said that we were leaving them in the lurch and that none of their businesses had been bought. Unfortunately my time expired in the non-confidence debate, otherwise I would have given the House all the facts on that occasion. The fact of the matter is that we bought out no fewer than 13 White businesses in the Transkei from the time the new Constitution came into operation until the date of the appointment of the Adjustment Committee. That was in the Transkei. I say that 13 businesses were bought out by the Government, by the Bantu Investment Corporation. Those businesses were put into the hands of Bantu and the former White owners went away perfectly satisfied. The hon. member says, however, that nothing was done. There were certain tracts of land which the White owners were very anxious to sell, and during that same period we purchased 8,659 morgen from Whites. The hon. member makes the allegation that we are doing nothing for those Whites. Surely that is not correct. We are doing everything we can in that connection. The hon. member now comes along with a new accusation. He says that we have done nothing so far in connection with the report of the Zoning Committee. But, after all, it is no easy task to dispose of that report. The report was only handed over to me the other day. It was handed over to me two days before the Easter recess. The hon. member shakes his head. Surely I would not lie about it.

How does it come about that Matanzima was able to make a statement before that as to how the area would be zoned?

That is no argument. Whatever he says, that is his affair. I say that that report was handed to me two days before the recess and the hon. member must accept my word for it. Unfortunately I had to go on a very important tour two days later and I was unable therefore to give any attention to the report. It is receiving my attention at the present time. Sir, is it fair on the part of the hon. member to make accusations of that kind? But I want to go further. Do you know what happened? When this Committee started its work there, the hon. member made an appeal—and he was the only person in the whole of the Transkei to do so—to the Whites and the Bantu of the Transkei to boycott this Committee.

Disgraceful!

Here I have the report of the newspaper which espouses his cause, the Daily Despatch, and this is what it says—

And believe it or not, Mr. Chairman, here the same Gray Hughes comes along and levels the reproach at me that no decision has been given as yet with regard to that report! Have you ever heard the like of it! It will surprise you, Sir, to learn that not a single White person in the whole of the Transkei and not a single Bantu in the whole of the Transkei paid any attention to Mr. Gray Hughes! Everybody co-operated heartily in all the towns which the Committee visited. A very fine spirit indeed prevailed there. That is a fact to which everybody can testify. There was a very fine spirit on the part of the Whites and on the part of the Bantu. I might just say here that the report of the Committee was practically unanimous. I will be in a position to give my decision in that regard in the near future, but you will appreciate that these things take time. After all, I cannot act irresponsible and make up my mind without a proper study of every angle of the matter. That is part of my duty. But is it right for the hon. member to level this reproach at me after he made an appeal to the people there to boycott that Committee? I say fortunately nobody paid any attention to him. But the hon. member comes here with another allegation; he says that the Bantu Investment Corporation is a total failure. Sir, can you imagine a responsible person making such a statement? Has the hon. member gone into this matter at all to ascertain what the Bantu Investment Corporation has done already? Let me mention just a few figures here. This Corporation was established in 1959 and I still recall the sneering remarks which were made at that time by hon. members on the other side. Since its establishment the Corporation has already granted loans amounting to R 1,500,000—409 business loans for the establishment of almost 40 service industries, 15 small manufacturing industries and 350 businesses.

How many people are being employed there?

The hon. member only thinks of “employed”. These people are the masters in their own shops; they do not have Mr. Arenstein there! But I will come to that hon. member in a moment. In addition to this, 105 housing loans have been granted in the Transkei. Loans have been granted for the establishment of a further 80 businesses, the premises for which are in the course of construction in Bantu towns which have been established. Have hon. members any idea what this already means to the Bantu? We cannot give every Bantu a shop overnight on a large scale. We act in a responsible way. But just think what these shops, which are spread over the whole country to-day, mean to the Bantu. But in addition to that we must not overlook the tremendous amount of attention that is given to the aftercare of these people, to teach them to make a success of their businesses. The Corporation purchased a number of businesses and trained Bantu in those businesses. Those Bantu were trained so well that it has already been possible to hand over something like 12 of those businesses to the Bantu and they are making a great success of them. One shop after another is passing into the hands of the Bantu. Sir, is this not an achievement of which we can be very proud? Because one of our aims was that Bantu capital should be mobilized. Mr. Chairman, I still recall how hon. members on the other side ridiculed this thing. I mentioned the case here of one old Bantu who walked around with almost R 1,000 in his loin-skin. I said that that was not the right place to keep his money. Hon. members on the other side ridiculed this, but that old Bantu became wiser; to-day that R1,000 of his is invested with the Bantu Investment Corporation. What hon. members opposite do not realize is that we are dealing here with an educational process. During this short period the Bantu have invested more than R 1,000,000 in the sayings branch of the Bantu Investment Corporation. Is that not a great achievement? Instead of standing up and saying that so far the Bantu Investment Corporation has been a brilliant success, bearing in mind the results it has produced, hon. members on the other side come along and belittle this Corporation. Sir, I do not think that is fair on the part of the hon. member for Transkeian Territories. He is one of the people who should really be grateful for the fact that the Bantu Investment Corporation has produced these results. I admit that there is still a huge task ahead of the Bantu Investment Corporation because its work covers the whole country, but hon. members must not forget that we are dealing here with a field which has been lying fallow in every respect throughout the generations; it was only recently that we started to plough this field, and the results so far are" very encouraging.

The hon. member for Transkeian Territories alleges that we have once again changed our policy. Sir, the hon. member can examine every principle of our policy, as applied in the Transkei, or anywhere else, and he will find that we have not deviated one iota from the principles of our policy. Why does the hon. member make that sort of statement? I am very sorry that the hon. member for Transkeian Territories time and again drags across the floor of this House statements made by the Chief Minister of the Transkei. I do not think that is good policy. I think that in that respect we should be very careful. I know that he gets his information from the Daily Despatch but, after all, by this time we know the Daily Despatch. We should always first make sure of the precise words used by the Chief Minister before we quote them in this House. I want to make an appeal to hon. members to be very careful in this connection.

What were his precise words?

The hon. member for Transkeian Territories is rendering no service to the Transkei. He is constantly sowing suspicion. There are very few people who have done more than the hon. member to create distrust, particularly in the minds of investors, as far as the Transkei is concerned.

Is it not his duty to warn?

It is his duty to sound a warning note where it is necessary to do so, but he must not make unfair allegations here.

I want to deal for a moment with the hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. Field). The hon. member also made a very wise speech! He says that our border industry policy is a complete failure. According to hon. members on the other side everything is a failure. The Bantu Investment Corporation is a failure, the policy of border area development is a failure and everything else is a failure. Sir, if there is one thing which is a very great success it is this policy of border area development. We have reports in that regard. Has there ever been a period in the history of South Africa when we have had as much decentralization of industry as we have to-day? Hon. members must not forget that this is a process of decentralization. We stated perfectly clearly at the time that we wanted to establish growth points all over the country. We would naturally have had more industries already and our duty is to create points of growth wherever we can for the development of the country. That is one of the primary aims of this policy of border industry development. Hon. members on the other side say that we have not succeeded in doing this.

Sir, I just want to tell the hon. member for East London (North) that East London, but for this border area development, would today still have been a dead town. The hon. member cannot deny it. East London was making no headway at all; there was no development until we came along with this policy of border area development. Mr. Chairman, I fought a bitter struggle against some of these people in East London. In spite of that struggle, however, we have put all our plans into effect. Since we have started with this border area development, East London is beginning to develop into a new town. The hon. member must not only look at the one factory, the Cyril Lord factory. He should go and talk to the other industrialists in East London, and then he will realize that new vistas have opened for them. Some of them have decided to expand their factories; some of them want to double and treble their production. I had discussions recently with quite a few industrialists in East. London. The tell me that as a result of this policy East London now has a future and that they are able to expand. Instead of being grateful, the hon. member says that this is a hopeless failure. No, Mr. Chairman, when such a statement is made by an East London member of Parliament it only shows that his knowledge of East London is a hopeless failure. I would advise the hon. member to go back to East London and to acquaint himself with the facts there.

The hon. member went further and eventually landed in the Western Cape. He said that the labour position in the Western Cape was chaotic. Sir, he is the last person who can talk about this. The fact of the matter is that where labour is needed it is provided, but proper control is exercised. Hon. members opposite say that no Bantu are being sent back to the Bantu areas. How can they make such a statement? After all, the hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) complains that we are sending back too many Bantu. There were quite a few municipalities in the Western Cape who said that they each wanted to lay out a Bantu location but that the Bantu had disappeared from this area to such an extent that they decided that three or four of them would jointly establish a Bantu location for their labourers. Sir, what right have hon. members opposite to make this sort of statement when they cannot prove it? After all, one does not expect this sort of thing in a responsible Chamber such as this.

Business interrupted to report progress.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.