When the House adjourned I was dealing with a few of the points raised. Quite a number of hon. members referred sneeringly to, and also made reproaches against, the Department because they alleged that in recent times so little had been done in regard to the development of industries in the Transkei. Even the number of people for whom employment had been provided was ridiculed, and it was said that in recent times only approximately 800 were employed in industry in the Transkei. Now I want to say immediately that this criticism comes from two groups of persons, not only in this House but also outside. The first group of people are those who are being politically obstinate, who really ought to know better and in fact do know better, but the second group consists of people who speak out of ignorance, because they do not know the problems with which we were faced in the Transkei. I want to ask hon. members whether they did not see the Transkei in 1948, and I particularly want to ask the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) that question. What did the Transkei look like in 1948, and what is it like to-day? We have achieved fantastic results there. But I want to mention the name of one person here, and that is Dr. Wischoff. He was the adviser to Mr. Hammerskoeld, and he was in the Transkei in 1947, and a few years ago, just before the accident, he visited it again, and the words he used in public were that the results we had achieved in the Transkei were fantastic. He said that he would say this anywhere, and he said that he had not seen its like in the whole of Africa. But I want to call another witness. There is a person from America—I do not wish to mention his name here—who visits South Africa from time to time, and a year or two ago he told me: You are making one mistake. Why do you not make a film of the conditions as they were, and showing the development which has now taken place, so that future generations may see it? They will simply not be able to believe that it was possible. He said that he came to South Africa every two or three years and that very often he could not believe his own eyes when he saw the development in certain places. I can understand hon. members opposite adopting that attitude, because many of them do not know what the Transkei looked like in 1948. It was this Government which had to create order out of chaos in the Transkei.

Nonsense!

The hon. member says it is nonsense. Who was it who took part in this tremendous campaign against the Government in the Transkei? It was the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes). There was a tremendous campaign to sow suspicion against this Government. Today the Transkei is reasonably well divided up into residential areas, lands and grazing, whereas formerly there was nothing. We had to break down an almost impenetrable wall there. I repeat that this Government created order out of chaos. Just look at the development in the sphere of soil conservation and the improvement of stock which took place there. What a hard struggle we had. What did the soil of the Transkei look like in 1948? At certain places there were raw sores.

Now you are talking nonsense.

The hon. member for Transkeian Territories has been talking nonsense all his life. I have never seen such a lack of responsibility on the part of a member of Parliament as he has revealed just recently. No wonder he is so unpopular in the Transkei. Compare the position as it existed with the lands we have there to-day! Look at the contour walls! Several people have admitted to me that we have achieved wonderful results. And just look how the stock has been improved. So I can also mention other things. Surely one cannot establish industries in a country where there is chaos. One must first remedy the basic things. Just think of the great prejudice which existed on the part of these people in regard to these betterment works. Originally there were a few locations which were prepared to tackle these betterment works—only a few. One could count them on the fingers of one’s hands. It was this Government with its policy which wrought a miracle there, so much so that the majority of the tribes to-day co-operate with us in tackling these betterment works. There are very few places in the Transkei to-day where the people do not co-operate, and even outside the Transkei. I want to mention a place like Glen Grey. In Glen Grey there were the agents of such people as the hon. member for Transkeian Territories who consistently refused to co-operate with us, and look what the position is like now! Now they co-operate, and just look at the improvement! I want to say this: It was a tremendous task to break down the wall of suspicion which existed on the part of the Bantu in general. I really think this was the greatest breakthrough which has ever taken place in South Africa, a breakthrough which has not yet been achieved in any other country in the world. I challenge anybody to deny this. It was this Government with its policy which made this breakthrough. In no country in the whole of Africa is there such co-operation in regard to betterment work and development as we have to-day from the Bantu.

It all started before 1948.

Just think of the poverty which prevailed in the Transkei, and look at the prosperity which exists there to-day. It should not be forgotten that in order to do all these things, the conservation of the soil, the building of roads, afforestation and all those other things, a great deal of employment was provided for the in habitants there. We should not look only at the few factories established there. It is obvious that this cannot be done overnight. But the fact is that we needed those people, and we still need them to-day on an even greater scale in regard to other developments. Hon. members have probably noted that the leader of the National Party in Basutoland remarked that he needed his people in Basutoland, and that he could no longer afford to allow them to go out to work in other places on a large scale because he had to develop Basutoland. He has more brains than some people who propound a different policy. Because one cannot develop a country without labour, and we make use of the people in the Transkei. But the development is of such a nature that one could not praise the hon. member for Transkeian Territories loose from the Transkei with a crowbar. He is becoming quite rich. No wonder that he clings to the Transkei like a nit. But then he is the man who criticizes. I want to say again that the Bantu Investment Corporation did brilliant work there. The Bantu Investment Corporation was established to do certain things. Certain things have been started and others will still come. The promise was made by my predecessor, the present Prime Minister, that for every national group a development corporation would be established, and this morning we passed the first reading of that Bill, and it is obvious that the tempo of development will now increase and then the other possibilities will be created. These are not things which happen overnight, but I again say without fear of contradiction that the results we have achieved in the Transkei in these few years are fantastic and we are all proud of them. It is not only I who say so. Why do the hon. members not ask the Bantu in the Transkei what they think about it? Surely they are the people concerned. Wherever one goes in the Transkei they all say that no other Government has ever before done so much for the Transkei in the economic sphere as this Government has done. It is only the hon. member for Transkeian Territories who denies it. No, this is a very unreasonable allegation to make against the Government. It is not fair to say these things.

Who provides the money for all this development? Could it not have been done by private initiative?

The money is provided by the Government and by the Bantu themselves. I pointed out yesterday that more than R 1,000,000 had already been invested in the Bantu Investment Corporation. But I say that the former development of the Transkei was quite wrong. Agriculture was in the hands of the Bantu, but all the secondary and tertiary industries were in the hands of the Whites. I want to say immediately that the Whites rendered good services there, but that is not the correct development for any nation in the world. Go to any country in the world and you will see that agriculture is the basis, and from it develops the secondary and the tertiary activities, and many more people are employed in the tertiary activities than in the secondary. After the tertiary activities have developed we get the secondary industries. Then the factories, etc., are established. That is the correct development, but that did not take place in the Transkei, and now we are remedying those matters. We could have considered developing certain Bantu towns in the Transkei, but we think that is ridiculous. There are too many towns already. Hence the undertaking given that the zoning of these towns will take place, and that has now been done. In that respect, also, we do much better things for the Bantu. When we talk about the employment of Bantu in the Transkei we must look at the whole field and not at these few factories alone, and we must compare the present position with what it was before 1948. We have every reason to be proud of the economic results we have achieved in the Transkei.

The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) said a few ugly things about which I am very sorry. She said ugly things, which do not behove her. In the first place she created the impression that we devoted all this money just to the Bantu towns and nothing to general development. Why does she do that? She knows better. But what is more, she created the impression that those Bantu towns would only constitute a source of migrant labour. Surely she knows that is not so. She surely knows that the most important object is to develop tertiary activities there. She also knows that many of those people are not farmers, but are workers. In this way we are trying to develop agriculture properly. Of what use is it if they are just part-time farmers? Why does she make the accusation that this is only a source of migrant labour. Surely that is not so. The hon. member is unfair if she tells the world this sort of thing. I will readily admit that many of these people prefer to live in those little towns. Their families are safe there and they go out to work from time to time. But in 90 per cent of cases they prefer their families to remain there and not to go to the cities. I know the hon. member does not believe this.

She said another ugly thing. She said that this Government implements its policy by force. I want to challenge the hon. member to show where that is being done. Surely it is not fair to tell the world that. Is it fair towards South Africa? She knows in her heart that it is not so. I challenge her to say where force is being used to implement this policy. Now the hon. member says that in the Transkei there is Proclamation No. 400. I want to be quite frank, At the time, after consultation with the Territorial Authority, I had Proclamation No. 400 published. Why? I did so because in the first place Mr. Patrick Duncan and his kindred spirits were doing unholy things there. His kindred spirits were people like Mr. Arenstein and Mr. Goldreich. These are her informants. I say they were doing wicked things. Mr. Duncan incited these people on a large scale not to accept those development works, and he had a team working for him which he sent out to do those things. What benefit did he derive from that, except trying to cause chaos? But he went further and encouraged them not to accept the Government’s policy of Bantu authorities. When he did not achieve much success along those lines, he participated in the hatching of plans to commit murders in Pondoland. I accuse him to-day of the fact that his hands are full of blood. (Interjection.]

Order! The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) must now stop making these nonsensical interjections.

We had this phenomenon, that wherever that gentleman slept at night, as regularly as clockwork a murder took place the next day. This proclamation was issued, and within 12 hours Mr. Patrick Duncan had left the Transkei. The tragedy of the matter was that he made the plans but the poor Bantu had to pay the price. That was the deplorable part of the whole matter. Now the hon. member for Houghton blames me. Is that right? She says it proves that we apply our policy by force. But the whole matter is in the hands of the Bantu of the Transkei themselves, and recently it was debated again and people like Rajuli asked that it should be repealed, but the overwhelming majority asked that Proclamation No. 400 should be retained to keep those enemies of the Bantu out of the Transkei. It is very unfair of the hon. member to make such accusations, but just recently she has been taking great pleasure in doing this sort of thing.

The hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman) said that our Bantu homeland policy was a failure. Well, by now we know that this is really the only thing the United Party can say, that everything done by the National Party is a failure. When we had this economic prosperity they said that it took place because the National Party governed so badly. But nobody takes any notice of it any more. If one says a thing is a failure, one must prove it, and secondly, one must state an alternative policy. I listened attentively to the hon. member for Maitland to hear whether he would state his alternative policy, but he did not. I hope he will still do so.

The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) asked a few questions. He asked whether it was the intention to establish a Territorial Authority in Zululand. My reply very definitely is yes, and I hope it will be done within a reasonable time. I cannot say when. We have enough regional authorities in Zululand to-day to be able to establish one to-day still. There are certain reasons why we are holding this matter up. One of the main reasons is the consolidation of those areas, but I may just say that there, too, we are making good progress and enjoy good co-operation. During the past year we succeeded in eliminating quite a few of the small black spots in Natal.

The hon. member asked whether we now had a new policy, viz. that there would be three or five or seven areas. You know, Sir, I cannot understand the United Party. These things have been said in this House right from the beginning. I have already quoted from Hansard what I said many years ago, and before me the present Prime Minister, namely that we have a difficult problem in Natal and we will perhaps have three or more blocks, and that we will have to see how we can consolidate them. But this is no new policy. We have been saying so all these years. I want to repeat that it is possible that there will be a few blocks, but that will make no difference. It is not necessary for every national group’s area to be in one block, as long as there are a few large blocks which can be developed economically. One of the great requirements is economic development, and these small black spots cannot be developed economically. But we hope it will take place as soon as possible. [Interjection.] The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) asked whether the political development was secondary to the economic development. I just want to tell him that the two go hand in hand. One cannot neglect the one in favour of the other. But there are problems in regard to consolidation, and as soon as we have clarity in regard to the matter it will be easy to establish the Territorial Authority. But in the meantime we have the regional authorities, which in practice do just about everything a Territorial Authority can do. There is splendid co-operation and the Bantu are very proud of it. But we devote attention to the political development as well as to the building up of an infrastructure.

The hon. member has asked where the capital of the Territorial Authority would be. It is obvious that under present circumstances Nongoma will be the capital. The hon. member also asked where the regional areas will be on which these three or five or seven main blocks will be built. It is difficult to say at the moment because we are still busy with the process of consolidation, but perhaps we will have clarity within a short time.

The hon. member also asked what the position was in regard to the Dunn community. I must frankly say that two or three years ago I was optimistic and thought that the problem had been solved, but unfortunately we have had the position that the Zulus there adopt a fairly aggressive attitude. Some of them say that they are related to the Dunns. They make this claim: If our old mother was good enough to be your grandmother, then we are good enough to be your brothers. That was the spirit which prevailed. Unfortunately they are very aggressive and we have all come to the conclusion that it would be a mistake to force the position at the moment. There is a council for the Dunns and I am continually in contact with them, and there is a good understanding between us. The hon. member for Zululand really went out of his way to bring certain facts to my notice, for which I thank him. He came from Zululand to bring certain facts to my notice, not with political motives but to help the Dunns, and I appreciate it. We are devoting serious attention to this matter and the Dunns are very law-abiding.

I may just say that the Committee is busy at the moment trying to find the best solution, but in the meantime my officials are dealing with all kinds of projects to see whether we cannot remedy the position. In regard to the sugar quota allotted to them, I may just say that I have given instructions that they should be given whatever is necessary, and I have also ascertained from them that they are very happy in regard to the development which has taken place in regard to this matter. But I repeat that there is splendid co-operation between us, and if there are problems the hon. member for Zululand knows about, I hope he will bring them to my notice again.

The hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) again came along with the old story. He wants to know where the borders are. I want to tell him again that in the Ciskei it is impossible to say at the moment where the borders will be. There, also, a process of consolidation is going on, and the hon. member knows how careful one must be in regard to these matters. One cannot do what the old colonial Government did and just draw a line and say that is the border. We do not believe in that. We are dealing with people, and we have to consider both the Whites and the Bantu. [Interjection.] The hon. member asks whether this will be finalized in ten years’ time, perhaps sooner. [Laughter.] The hon. member also asked whether that development would not have taken place irrespective of the policy of border development. No, it would not have taken place, for many reasons, because the industrialists had a complex that they should concentrate only in the four industrial centres and not leave them. I had the privilege of attending the first meeting of industrialists in regard to this matter. We still remember what the propaganda of the United Party was. They said in the newspapers that these industries would be established in the heart of the dark Tsitsikamma Forest, and in the heart of the Mhlabatini Forest, and so I can mention all these forests. When I laid the map before these industrialists and showed them where it would be, somebody got up and said that they were under the impression that it was somewhere in Dark Africa. They then saw the light, and said that it was a policy of decentralization which they were prepared to accept. The results have been such that to-day industrialists are attracted to those areas. These are nuclei of development, which according to the Tomlinson Commission should be established everywhere, and we have had much success in that respect. Nuclei of development have been created in many places and now the country can develop.

The hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) came along with his usual pessimistic story. He is always pessimistic. He wants to know what will become of King William’s Town. My predecessor gave the assurance that a White corridor would be kept open from East London through King William’s Town and northwards. I can assure him that we will not deviate from that. The hon. member asks how big that corridor will be. The necessary steps will be taken in the course of time to determine it. There is already a White corridor right through. [Interjection.] If this road is deviated just a little it will pass right through a White corridor, but we think that is not even necessary. We think we can make a shift there, to the satisfaction of the Bantu, so that this road may be retained. But just leave the matter to us. I want to ask the hon. member what service he thinks he is rendering King William’s Town by being so pessimistic? If they hear his pessimistic stories, no industrialist will ever settle in King William’s Town. I think King William’s Town will now start development because the people have already discovered that there is no danger. Now the hon. member says there are over a million Bantu children at school and he asks what will happen to them because no employment is being created for them. But surely that is not so. Does the hon. member not know that generally in South Africa there is a shortage of Bantu workers in almost every sphere? We particularly need many more educated Bantu. Why does he say we pay no heed to this matter? Our planning includes particularly the education of the Bantu. Surely it is not right to tell the world such a story. No Government is so irresponsible as not to create opportunities of employment for those people who have been educated in its schools. The hon. member should rather be a little optimistic.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) also raised a few points and he asked how our manpower could develop further in terms of this policy. I want to assure the hon. member that we thoroughly consider the interests of every section in this country, not only in respect of opportunities for employment, but also in respect of the employers who need this labour. We are devoting serious attention to the matter. There is a special section in my Department which devotes attention to it, and we have very few complaints to-day. I just want to say that I was surprised when I recently visited Natal, after the speech made by the hon. member for South Coast, to find that in Natal our labour bureaux had received 26,000 applications from employers who wanted labour, but we just could not find them. The position was so serious, particularly on the sugar plantations in the north, that I was obliged to allow Bantu from Mozambique to enter because great developments are taking place in Natal, not only in the Bantu areas but throughout the whole of Natal. I wish hon. members could see all the things that are happening there, thanks to this Government. If that party had been in power there would have been famine. I want to give hon. members the assurance that we look after the interests of every section of the population. I think I have now dealt with all the main points raised.

In what parts of Natal do those labour bureaux function except in the large cities?

There are many places where they do excellent work. I can mention a list of places, but I must frankly say that we have one difficulty. In many places there are only the officials of the Department of Justice, and it is obvious that these people often do not have the time, and often there is not the staff, to give the attention to these matters which the Bantu Commissioner would have liked to devote to them, but in many places those difficulties are also being eliminated. I can, however, give hon. members the assurance that most of the people going to the labour bureaux are satisfied.

One difficulty we have in debating Bantu policy or any ideological matter with the Government is that none of its members stick to the facts. Everything is theoretical, but their facts are always wrong. In the first sentence the Minister spoke, his facts were wrong. He says it has been the custom in this House, when anybody asks for the half-hour to speak on a Vote, most of that time is spent dealing with the policy of that side of the House. I cannot find where that was done.

The Nationalists did.

Do you know why the Nationalists did it, Sir? It was for the simple reason that they could not attack the policy of the United Party Minister of Native Affairs at the time. (Laughter.) After all, this is the Minister’s Vote and we are here to attack his policy. We have no time to deal with our policy. We have to spend all our time attacking the policy of this Minister.

This Minister has the audacity to get up and say that I took part in spreading suspicion against the Government for developing the Reserves. I challenge him to show where I ever attacked this Government for developing the Reserves. I have always attacked the Government for not doing anything in this connection. But what was his attitude when he was secretary for the Nationalist Party? What was his attitude before the War when the development of the Transkei started? Sir, I said at the beginning of my speech yesterday that there was general ignorance about native administration, and there is general ignorance, not only amongst the public but amongst members on the other side and that ignorance was shown yesterday by the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. G. P. Kotze). He had given certain figures by the Department and he thought that the only betterment schemes which had been brought into being had been started after the Nationalist Party came into power. That only shows how much ignorance there is on that side with regard to this matter. This scheme was started before the War, and in 1938 when this Minister was the secretary of the Nationalist Party he issued a pamphlet attacking the United Party for spending money on the reserves. Yes, the hon. the Minister nods his head. He attacked the United Party for buying better bulls for the Transkei. He now spends his money on buying bad bulls for the Transkei, and he agrees with me that the Department is buying the wrong bulls. He attacked the United Party Government in those days for buying better bulls; and what about the cocks and the fowls? He will remember what he said.

The policy of the United Party Government was to bring everything to them on a platter.

To-day he has the audacity to claim that the only improvements brought about in the reserves were brought about during this Government’s régime. My attack yesterday was that the Minister and the Chief Minister of the Transkei were trying to create the impression that development is only taking place in the Transkei because of the policy of separate development. That was the theme of my attack yesterday. As I say, the hon. the Minister had the audacity to come here with that story again. He would be better advised to keep quiet about what the United Party Government did. His memory is very short. He is supposed to be the great lover of the African; he is the only man who does anything for the African. He is always reproaching us for not having done more in the reserves. We know, however, what he said on 3 June 1947; he attacked the United Party for spending money on education for the Bantu; he said—

And he condemned us for it. What is his attitude to-day? Everything that happened in the past is forgotten now. The Minister and the Prime Minister claim that their policy will be a success when we attack them, as we did yesterday, and when we show that their whole policy is breaking down; that instead of the White areas getting Whiter, they are getting Blacker and Blacker. We are told by the Prime Minister that we must wait until 1978—the Minister says that that is wrong, that we must wait until 1980—and then there will be a turn in the tide and the Bantu will start going back to the reserves. Not one of these Ministers who have predicted these dates can give us any authority for making a statement of that kind. I challenge the Minister to get up now and to tell us how he and the Prime Minister arrive at the years 1978 and 1980. Sir, do you know what it means? It means that they will go on bluffing the people, and we have to wait until 1978 to see whether this policy is going to work or not. We have to wait until 1978 and by that time the country will be so Black that you will not be able to get it White. I say that this is a lot of nonsense.

The hon. the Minister says that he cannot understand why the United Party opposed the Transkeian Constitution Bill, because I now say that there is not much difference between the old General Council and the present Legislative Assembly. Sir, what I was dealing with was the functions of the old General Council; I read out its functions. I said that in practice it amounted to the same thing; that the present Legislative Assembly was allowed the same powers as the General Council had. I said that the old General Council was more democratic than the present Transkeian Government. The Minister says: “How can that possible be so? They had White chairmen under the General Council system and now they have Black chairmen.” Sir, those White chairmen had no vote; they were there in an advisory capacity. Last year when the Transkeian Assembly met, Chief Kaiser Matanzima said the same thing; he said that they no longer had White men in the Assembly, and Chief Victor Poto said to him, “Just look behind you”. What he meant was this: Behind the Chief Minister there is a bay, just as we have here, in which the officials sit. But there the officials sit right behind him, not 20 yards away as they do here. All the officials sit immediately behind him, advising him in the same way. What happened under the General Council system was that the magistrates sat in a circle in front. The only difference is now that they sit at the back. But, Sir, my attack was on the method of election of the Assembly. The General Council was more democratic in this sense that more members were elected by electoral colleges. The Minister cannot pretend that the present Assembly is a democratic body when the elected members are in the minority as against the Chiefs. What is the position? The majority of the elected members do not support the Government. In the election 1,297,000 Africans voted for the Democratic Party and 445,000, only about a third of the number who voted for the Democratic Party, voted for the Independent Party of Chief Kaiser Matanzima. One of the candidates who stood in Tembuland, one of the defeated candidates, got 19,000 votes, as against 41,000 votes, which was the number cast in favour of the elected member who got the lowest number of votes out of the seven candidates in that area. Sir, do you know what happened to that man who got 19,000 votes? He was made chief and put into the Assembly and then he voted for Chief Kaiser Matanzima. Where does democracy come in?

The hon. the Minister wants to know why we voted against the Transkeian Constitution Bill. He says that he is surprised that we did not support it. Has the Minister forgotten the other provisions of the Transkeian Constitution? What about the flag, what about citizenship? We were opposed to these clauses; those are symbols of independence, and the Minister ought to know that our main objection to the policy is the promise of sovereign independence. This Transkeian Constitution Bill was passed as part of the pattern, and then the Minister asked a foolish question like that.

What is wrong with that?

The Chief Whip on the other side says that that is quite right, that that Bill was passed as part of the pattern of separate development.

The hon. the Minister quotes people who say that they are surprised to see what development has taken place in the Transkei. But does the Minister and do hon. members opposite really expect things to stand still for 16 years, the period during which they have been in power? I suppose everybody who goes there to-day is surprised to see that anything has been done by a Government like this. With an inefficient Government like this nobody expects anything to be done and naturally people will be surprised to see that something has been done. The way the Minister talks anybody would think that nothing at all was done in the Transkei before this Government took over. I want to refer to a book published by the Department before the Nationalist Party took over. This book was published by the Department in 1949 and it dealt with the General Council. It is pointed out that they maintain 4,500 miles of road at a cost of practically £60,000 per annum—

[Time limit.]

One really feels very sorry for the hon. members of the Opposition and their leader. One pities them when one sees the chaos among them. One would have thought that the chairman of the United Party Bantu Affairs Group would have stood up and introduced this debate. But what do we find in this debate? The new chairman of the Justice Group has acted as the first speaker for the United Party. When one looks at the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and at his party’s method of action, one realizes that they are probably the most unhappy party one could possibly find. They are deeply unhappy in their souls because they realize that we are developing the Republic of South Africa and that we are doing so without their co-operation. They are deeply unhappy because they see that we are emancipating the Bantu without there being any chaos in the country. They are unhappy because they can see that this Government is making a success of all those measures which they have opposed in this House from time to time. When the Government wanted to settle the Bantu in decent residential areas the United Party opposed that measure tooth and nail. They opposed the Transkei Constitution Bill tooth and nail. They even opposed the introduction of labour bureaux last year tooth and nail. They even went so far as to oppose the 90-day clause. But these are not the greatest disasters that have struck the United Party. The worst disaster to strike the United Party and about which they feel greatly unhappy is the fact that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) joined their party. That is the fact about which hon. members on that side feel most unhappy. That was the worst disaster that could have befallen you.

Order! The hon. member must discuss the Vote.

On a point of order, should the hon. member not address the Chair?

Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer to the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman). She should not cast such longing looks at the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. Everything he touches, spoils.

The hon. member must come back to the Vote.

The Opposition has come forward with this parrot-cry that apartheid has failed. They say: “Just see how the non-Whites are streaming to the cities; the stream to the cities is becoming stronger and stronger.” They say that this is proof that apartheid has failed. But what are the actual facts? Is it true that apartheid has failed just because there are more Bantu in our cities to-day? What was the position before 1948? Before 1948, when the United Party was in power, we found that they had no Native Affairs policy. Their policy was vague and weak and was sufficient to discourage any official from applying any measure. There was confusion among the local authorities, the Provincial Councils and the Department. Nobody knew what to do and they simply continued with their old policy of “let things develop”. But when the National Party came into power after 1948 it formulated a very clear policy, a policy which was clear to all and a policy with an ideal which one could strive for. We find to-day, after 17 years of National Party Government, that we are resolving the chaotic conditions which arose under the United Party Government. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition comes here and says: Just see how the Bantu are streaming to the cities. But those Bantu are coming to the cities under proper control. Does the United Party want us to put an end to the industrial development of the Witwatersrand and the other urban areas? No, they would be the first to resent the fact if we did not encourage this industrial development. The National Party has tackled this tremendous problem step by step. We promised the White inhabitants of this country that we would restrict the number of Bantu coming to the White area. The first step we took was to build decent townships for the Bantu, townships where they could be accommodated properly. We built townships for them so as to keep them away from the Whites. The Mentz Committee was appointed to inquire into the proper settlement of the Bantu in the various urban areas. All the local authorities co-operated with the Central Government in developing these Bantu townships properly and in transporting the Bantu to these townships. These Bantu townships have been planned in such a way that they can provide accommodation for all the Bantu workers needed in the various cities. While we were planning these things in the proper way we were nevertheless continuing to remove the Bantu from the White areas. We continued to make provision for the future, and last year, when we passed a most important measure in this House, when we established labour bureaux for the purpose of being able to have proper control over these Bantu, it was the United Party and the Progressive Party which opposed us. They are the ones who told us that we were establishing large “Bantu labour reservoirs” and the hon. member for Houghton said: “The Government will shuttle them around like cattle.” What have these labour bureaux done for us? With the establishment of these labour bureaux a more efficient system of control has been instituted in that the flow from our rural areas as well as influx to the White areas is taking place according to a fixed pattern. It has been by this means particularly that we have been able to combat the following evil conditions: We have been able to solve the problem of the uneven distribution of labour, the problem of unemployment in the cities and the problem of labour shortages, which we experienced previously, by distributing the available work evenly among the Bantu workers. Because we tackled this labour bureau system on a national basis we were able to canalize all the surplus Bantu to the rural areas; we were able to accelerate the employment of non-Whites and we sayed a large number of man-hours. Where previously the Bantu work-seeker wandered about for years looking for work, the National Party has now eliminated all those problems. We have succeeded in reducing the labour turnover as far as the Bantu are concerned and by this means we have succeeded in increasing the productivity of the Bantu worker. Let us look at 1952. What was the position then? In 1952, only 159,494 Bantu workers were registered with the labour bureaux. What was the position in 1963? More than 1,000,000 Bantu were registered at the labour bureaux in that year. These labour bureaux increased in number from 1953 to 1964 from 135 to 395. I want to state here to-day that the greatest value of the labour bureau system lies in the fact that since 1957 the number of employment registrations has not increased to any great extent. This indicates smaller turnovers and greater stability and contentment on the part of both the Bantu and the employer. [Time limit.]

I do not intend dealing at length with the speech of the hon. member who has just sat down except to point out that he too has his facts all wrong. He thinks that this Government was responsible for stopping the influx of Africans into the urban areas. Of course, they are not. That law was passed by the United Party Government. That is typical of the ignorance of that side of the House. [Interjections.] They did not know this and now they are shouting. The United Party took the first step in this connection. I want to tell this Minister that the Natives are flocking into the urban areas and he knows that. He is not carrying out influx control. They are flocking into the urban areas, and why are they flocking in? Because they are needed here. The Minister does not want to stop them because if he does stop them all development will stop.

Sir, I want to get back to the Minister. The Minister has said in his reply that everybody is doing well in the Transkei; that the Whites are doing well and that I would not leave the Transkei, that I am sitting there like a nut and that they will not be able to remove me with a crow-bar. That is quite right; the Nationalist Party will not remove me with a crow-bar. Just let them try at the next election again. I will not leave my people in the lurch either; I will stay with the White people there as long as they stay there, and I appeal to this Minister and to the Prime Minister not to leave us in the lurch either. They have left us in the lurch.

Sir, what did the hon. the Minister say? To prove that the Government is standing by the Whites, he says that they have bought 13 trading stations in a year. I would like to point out to the Minister that there are over 600 traders.

They do not want to sell.

How can the Minister say a thing like that in this House? Is he unaware of all the advertisements which are appearing in the Transkeian Gazette? Does he know nothing about the activities or rather the inactivity of the adjustment committee? I think the Minister has his facts wrong as far as these 13 trading stations are concerned. I know that at a certain stage in one year they had sold 13, but my information was that six of them were in the Transkei and the others in the Ciskei. However, the Minister may be right. The Minister can give me the districts in which these 13 trading stations were sold. I want to ask the Minister what happened to that poor lady in the Port St. John’s district about whom I spoke to him about two years ago and about whom the Commissioner-General and the liaison committee also spoke to him? She had to close her station, and do you know where she had to flee for protection? She had to flee to Zambia! She found that she was better off there than in the Port St. Johns district. What about that poor woman? She could not sell her trading station; she had to close it. The Minister knows the facts very well. What about some of the trading stations which belong to estates and which have now been closed because the executors cannot sell them? Why was the adjustment committee appointed if everything in the garden was so lovely? Will the Minister explain why there has been all this delay in the submission of the report of the adjustment committee? You will remember that the Heckroodt Commission was appointed in 1962, after a lot of pleading, after the appointment of a liaison committee by the Whites in the Transkei to look after their interests and to meet the Prime Minister, after he was pressed at a Nationalist Party Congress in East London. Then eventually in 1962 he appointed the Heckroodt Commission to advise him what to do about the Whites in the Transkei. They sat in that year and submitted their report but that report was not Tabled in the House as we had been promised it would, and eventually at the end of the Session last year we were advised that an adjustment committee, in terms of the recommendations of the Heckroodt Committee had been appointed. That adjustment committee was appointed in June last year. But what has happened? It has not done anything yet. They have visited a few trading stations, but what are their recommendations? In the meantime those traders have offered their stations for sale. They have no idea on what basis this commission is going to value their stations; they have no idea what recommendations it is going to make to the Minister, and I ask the hon. the Minister now to tell this Committee what has happened about the adjustment committee and when we can expect to get their first recommendations. Have they reported to him at all; is he considering any recommendations made by them? Does he intend buying the trading stations which have been offered for sale? I asked him to give us a statement of policy with regard to the stations which are now being offered for sale.

The hon. the Minister in talking about the zoning committee said that I had advised the people to boycott the committee. I do not know what the date is of the report from which the Minister quoted. I only remember giving one interview about the zoning committee and that was in October when the committee sat at Umtata, which was the last place the Committee visited.

I quoted from the Daily Despatch of October 1964.

What was the heading of the report?

“No cooperation with Transkei zoning committee.”

Yes, I remember giving that interview. I understood the Minister to say that I had advised people to boycott the committee.

Surely “no co-operation” is the same thing as a boycott.

You see, Sir, the Minister’s facts are always wrong. He first said that I had advised people to boycott the committee; now it turns out that I used the words “no cooperation.” Sir, do you know when that interview was given? It was given on the last day on which the zoning committee sat there. Why did the Minister not tell this Committee that I only made that statement then? Why did he not tell this Committee how I came to give that interview? I was asked by Sapa why I had not given evidence before the zoning committee because I was there and I listened to the evidence. I gave my reasons; I said that I was not going to give any evidence before the zoning committee or make any recommendations under hypothetical conditions …

Because you refused to co-operate.

… because I wanted to know on what conditions I was required to co-operate. Nobody knows what is going to happen in the Transkei as far as that zoning committee is concerned. I then referred them to the fact that nobody knew what would happen once an area was zoned black; that we had pressed the Minister in this House to tell us what was going to happen, and you will remember, Sir, that the closure was applied to us on that particular clause of the Transkeian Constitution Bill. We pressed the Minister to tell us what was going to happen once an area was zoned black and we got no reply. All he said was this: “As the Bantu acquire it (i.e. land in a black area) it will automatically pass to the Transkeian Government.” The point I made in my interview was that once Umtata was zoned black, nobody knew who would control it. Nobody knew whether it was going to come under the Transkeian Government or under the Umtata Municipality. The point was pertinent because the Umtata Municipality had recommended that the abbatoir should fall into the black area and I wanted to know who was going to control the abbatoir in those circumstances. There was another point on which I said I wanted clarification, and I wanted it from the Minister, not from the chairman of the zoning committee, and that was this: Once an area was zoned black, was the Government going to buy the properties there, because if the Government did not buy the properties there and Africans were allowed to buy in the area, it would mean that they would be living there alongside the White and Coloured people, depending on the area in which they bought. White and Black people and White and Coloured people do live together in certain areas, but the point is that they are not compelled to do it. But under the plans of this zoning committee, if an area is zoned black and an African buys there and the White man cannot sell his property to anybody else he will be compelled to live in that area and people unsuited to be living together would do so. I said that unless the Minister gave the assurance that the Government would offer to buy all the White properties in areas zoned black, it would mean that residential segregation would disappear and that they would force White and Black to live together, even if they did not want to do so, because the Whites would not be able to dispose of their properties. If the Minister reads that report he will see that that is what I said. It was for those reasons that I was not going to co-operate and give evidence. I said that until I got a statement of policy from the Minister as to what was going to happen I would not co-operate with the zoning committee. The Minister cannot deny that. However, that is not the impression that the Minister gives. I want to know from him what is happening about that zoning committee. The Minister says that he only got their recommendations two days before the Recess. Well, I cannot understand what could have happened to those recommendations on the way from the committee to the Minister because according to Press reports the zoning committee met for the last time in February here in Cape Town and the two Transkeian members went back to the Transkei. [Time limit.]

When he spoke previously the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) said that the United Party did not have the time to put its own policy because there was too much that it had to attack in the National Party policy. The hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. Field) referred in passing yesterday afternoon to the very good things which would happen if the United Party’s race federation plan could be implemented. The United Party has had every opportunity of criticizing the Government’s policy but is there anyone on that side who can give us more information in regard to their federation plan? Can the hon. member for East London (North) give us this information which, in any case, as the Sunday Times has stated, nobody is able to understand? Why are they so quiet about their race federation plan this morning?

The hon. member for Transkeian Territories advanced a strange argument. He said that he did not co-operate with the zoning committee for the Transkei because he did not have a prior policy statement from the hon. the Minister and for that specific reason he refused to give evidence. If he had given evidence before that zoning committee would it not have given him the opportunity to say that he objected to the fact that certain areas were being zoned as White areas or as Bantu areas because it would lead to residential integration if the property of the Whites could not be sold once that area had been declared a Bantu area? This is one of the strangest statements I have ever heard. The difficulty with the hon. member for Transkeian Territories is that he does not want to co-operate; no policy statement of the hon. the Minister would have suited him because it does not fit in with the role which he is playing in the Transkei. To try now to split hairs with the hon. the Minister by saying that he did not boycott the committee, although he did not want to co-operate with it, is so much nonsense. In any case, he did not want to cooperate.

I should like to return to the hon. members for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) and East London (City) (Dr. Moolman). Why do these two hon. members and others always give to understand that it is Government policy, particularly in the Ciskei, to make land purchases on a large scale in order to make more land available to the Bantu, when these two hon. members are aware or, at least, ought to be aware of the fact that the largest purchases made are made in order to clear or consolidate black spots and also to give effect to the policy which those hon. members also advocate, if I have understood them correctly, namely, that there should be a White corridor from East London to the north which will include King William’s Town? Why do those hon. members create the impression that this Government is making over the limited area of White South Africa to the Black man? They do this although they know that land still has to be purchased under the 1936 Act.

Let me give some statistics. The hon. member for King William’s Town repeated a word yesterday which he has already used in a previous speech. When he said: “This Government has taken ground”, I accepted the fact that he meant that this Government had purchased the land, but he gave that word “taken” a completely different meaning. Let me quote the true statistics to him; it is not necessary for him or me to challenge one another across the floor of the House when the precise figures are available. From 1948 to 1965 this Government purchased 14,867 morgen in the Ciskei.

Good heavens!

Yes, this is a great deal of land but does the hon. member know that 66,941 morgen were purchased from 1936 to 1948? Good heavens, is this not a great deal more? A total of 81,808 morgen has been purchased since 1936, of which the United Party purchased 66,941 morgen. This is quite true, Mr. Chairman, but when the National Party Government purchases 14,867 morgen over a period of 17 years as against 66,941 morgen purchased by the United Party Government over a period of 12 years then it is “Good heavens!”

You are giving it away.

Oh, we are giving it away! That is a new argument. What about the land purchased by the United Party at the time? Was that land not also given to the Bantu? The hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) knows nothing about this matter.

Let me proceed with my argument. There are separate released areas in the whole of the Ciskei, and for the sake of those people who are always asking where the boundaries of the Ciskei are, these areas include Alexandria, and Kirkwood and Uitenhage in my constituency. There are separate and released areas throughout that territory, areas which are badly situated, areas which must be cleared; in order to comply with the requirements set also by these hon. members, 72,360 morgen will have to be cleared. But those 72,360 morgen can only be cleared if compensatory land is made available. There are also black spots covering an area of 25,493 morgen. In other words, about 100,000 morgen will have to be cleared in the Ciskei area. If one wants to clear this land one has to make compensatory land available in terms of the 1936 Act. One cannot do otherwise; one also has to do this simply out of propriety and reasonableness. Or is it the policy of the United Party that we should summarily take away the land and declare it to be a White area? Was not clearance work carried out on the land which was purchased at the time by the United Party Government? Have areas not again been made available to Whites? It is simply a political manoeuvre on the part of hon. members opposite to try to make out that this Government is purchasing land on a large scale, land which it is giving away to the Bantu. That is the parrot-cry which we heard just now. To suggest that this land is being given away to the Bantu is just so much nonsense.

An independent State!

I am quite prepared to put the policy of the Government against that of the United Party and to ask them, if this is their objection, what of their race federation policy, the race federation policy in terms of which they wish to give the Bantu representation in this House? Where does their policy come in when they want to give the Bantu ownership rights in the White area? How much of White South Africa will remain if the Bantu have the right to purchase land in the White area? [Time limit.]

When dealing with the speech of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Education, the hon. Minister spoke about the inability of the Department to consolidate areas in Zululand and Natal into large blocks but that, when they were consolidated—there would be five or seven in all—they would receive recognition as parts of a territorial authority with a centre at Ngomo. In that connection I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is correct, as reported, that an instruction has been sent from his Department to the Native Commissioners, particularly in Zululand and Natal, that the question of getting their approval of the Bantu Authorities principle is no longer an issue and that the principle is that of consultation; that they could have meetings with the Bantu concerned on the principle of consultation but that the principle is no longer that of getting the approval of the Bantu. They must consult with but not necessarily obtain the approval of the Bantu. Has the Department, in fact, sent out any such instruction to those Native Commissioners? Is that the policy of the Government in this particular matter? Does the Department propose to go ahead with the establishment of a so-called Zulu Territorial Authority in the absence of the acceptance of that idea by the Bantu concerned?

The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) dealt with one aspect of the matter in asking where the administrative centre in each such consolidated block would be. In regard to consolidation the position is that the acquisition of land for the purpose of consolidation is going to remain within the four corners of the allocation provided for under the 1926 Land Act. Where does the State-owned land in Zululand come into the picture? If my memory serves me correctly a committee was set up three years ago to deal with the question of State-owned land. I think it reported about two years ago. When are we going to know what is in that report? This question raises a point I have raised in this House before and which I am now going to put pertinently to the Minister: If it is correct—I am arguing on the basis that it is—that there is to be only consultation and that the approval of the Bantu in Zululand is not to be obtained for the establishment of a Territorial Authority, what is going to happen to what we have come to call the loyal Bantu? The Minister knows that in the main they are against such establishment; they are utterly against it. The loyal Bantu are in the majority. Where will they stand if the Government is going to force the policy of Bantu Authorities on to the Zulus? Are we going to finish up the same way they have finished up in the Transkei where the Government has to have Proclamation 400 continually in operation because they know what will happen to the whole of their Transkei experiment if they withdraw that Proclamation? Are we to have a similar measure introduced in Zululand to maintain the position there?

I ask again: What of the loyal Bantu? The loyal Bantu has stood by the White man ever since 1906. Indeed, one can say ever since 1877; ever since Mpande was crowned King of the Zulus by the Voortrekkers, the Zulus have remained with us; they have been loyal participators with us in the building up of South Africa. What will happen if the loyal Zulus say: “We do not want Territorial Authorities; we want White magistrates; we want the kind of administration we have come to know and to respect” and which we have come to respect over the last 60 years? Who is going to protect them? The loyal Bantu are getting no consideration whatsoever in the Government’s plans. The Government is only concerned with forcing their plans on the reactionary leaders of political factions which are ready to step in and take the power granted to them under the Government’s Bantu Authorities programme; future political leaders who seek some self-aggrandizement if they get this power from the Government. The answer the Government gets is the answer given by Kaizer Matanzima during the last session in the Transkei: “We recognize no Central Government.” What has the Government done about that? Has the Government reprimanded the First Minister of the Transkei? Did they say: “That is not the way to talk?” If the chiefs of tribes who are not yet under a Territorial Authority like the Transkei were to utter that same sentiment, would the Minister be satisfied with that? Is this to be slogan for all the Bantu chiefs throughout the whole of the Republic? Are they now entitled to say what the Prime Minister of the Transkei has said with impunity, in fact, one might say with the approval of the Government? What does the Prime Minister’s policy amount to when he talks about the independent sovereign states he is creating? He is talking about independent sovereign states that will recognize no Central Government in South Africa. That is precisely the point. The Prime Minister of the Transkei has not been slow in picking that up. We cannot blame Kaizer Matanzima for saying that; he has paraphrased what the Prime Minister has said and what the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development has said. Who is going to rule South Africa? The Government is running away from the principle of the United Party, namely, the maintenance of White leadership over the whole of the Republic and the Bantu are not going to be slow in picking it up. Within the first session of his Legislative Assembly in the Transkei Kaizer Matanzima has picked it up.

As far as the development of Richards Bay is concerned, will the Minister approach the Natal Regional and Town Planning Commission which planned the whole of the Tugela Basin and ask them to draw up a plan for the future development of that area, a plan to cover the harbour area, the town, the railway facilities, areas to be set aside for factories and so forth. If the Minister does not do that there will be haphazard development, but if such a plan is drawn up, we shall know precisely what is to happen and planning can take place before we start uprooting people or before we have to chase people out who have come to settle there because they think there is going to be development around Richards Bay. This harbour is obviously destined to be one of the biggest harbours in the whole of the Republic of South Africa and it is not so far from a foreign border which may or may not remain in the hands of friends. We do not want haphazard removal of people afterwards, people who have drifted in because they think there will be development and want to get in on the ground floor.

I ask the Minister: Will he approach the Natal Regional and Planning Commission to draw up a plan in the same way as a plan was drawn up in the case of the goldfields in the Free State? That plan must cover not only the town itself but all the ancillary services, the industrial areas, the railway line to the north. In that regard there will have to be co-operation with the Minister of Railways. The whole scheme must be planned in consultation with whoever the authorities may be so that a plan can be worked out well in advance before there is any. need to uproot people. Is the Minister willing to take the initiative in asking for such planning? The people who are going to be affected are his people and the Zulus. This development is going to take place in the middle of their area. How he is going to apply his policy of Bantu Authorities there will be the next question we shall ask. Can a Bantu Authorities programme be mapped out now for the whole of that eastern portion of Zululand in view of the development which is taking place? [Time limit.]

I listened very attentively to the speeches by hon. members opposite and came to the conclusion that it was simply a waste of breath to try to tell them what has been done on the road of apartheid. They do not want to know anything; they see nothing for what it is; they admit nothing; apartheid is a failure; nothing is being done in the Transkei; they accept nothing that this Government has already done for the Bantu on the road to self-development. By adopting that attitude and at the same time giving to understand that they are the friends of the Black man in South Africa, one must conclude that the United Party is becoming the worst enemy of Bantu development. Each time a forward step is taken, they try to put a spoke in the wheel.

The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) has given us to understand that all the loyal Zulus, as he calls them, do not want this development. I have not come across them; this has not been my experience. There has always been joy and happiness at the functions that I have attended on the occasion of the establishment of regional authorities. I have not come across Zulus who do not want this development and who do not want this system. The hon. member knows the Zulus; he knows how deeply ingrained in the soul of the Zulu is his respect fox his chief and for his own tribal traditions. The hon. member knows this because he knows the Zulus very well. To contend, as did the hon. member, that the loyal Zulus do not want territorial authorities, is nonsense because this has not been my experience in Natal. Nor do I believe this to be the experience of the Department in Natal because otherwise they would not have proceeded with this policy.

I just want to say this to the United Party: We are making history in South Africa, history which the world will come to respect. There is a change in world opinion in regard to what is taking place here in South Africa. The day will come when the world will take off its hat to South Africa and will thank this Government for giving the world a policy which offers a solution to all those countries saddled with the same problems as we have.

I am sorry the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) is not here because I wanted to ask her whether she is able to speak any of the Bantu languages.

And you?

I think the hon. member knows better than to ask me such a question. I may speak fractured Zulu but the hon. member speaks fractured Afrikaans and fractured English. The hon. member for South Coast and the hon. members for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) and King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) know that one can only understand the Bantu, that one can only handle him, that one can only work with him, that one can only understand his thinking and his views when one understands his language. That is why the hon. member for Houghton makes such stupid statements in this House. She does not understand the Bantu because if she did she would not say these things. If she knew the Bantu language she would be far more careful in her statements and criticisms.

The hon. member for South Coast now objects to what Kaiser Matanzima said. We must accept the fact that we still have to contend with growing pains. There will be many people who say things which are distasteful. We have only just started. They still have to climb the ladder; they have to assume even greater responsibility. How many stupid statements are not made by Whites in South Africa, such as the hon. member for Drakensberg? But she is also still at the bottom of the ladder; she still has to climb that ladder and accept greater responsibility. That is the position. The hon. member says: This is our policy: We do not want to put them on the road to independence; we want White supremacy over the whole of the Republic. I wonder how the hon. member justifies this statement because on two occasions his Leader in Natal has said that he would prefer to have eight Bantu in this Parliament rather than to have eight Bantu homelands. Let us imagine that the United Party were to come into power. Would the United Party undertake to abolish the Transkei, to abolish the Zulu homeland, if there is one, to abolish the other homelands and to allow eight Bantu to take their seats in this Parliament? Do hon. members know where a policy of this nature will lead? Those eight Bantu will have full rights in this Parliament; they will have the same rights as the hon. member for South Coast. They will bring their families and friends into the lobbies; they will bring them into the dining-room and their wives will sit in the gallery for members’ wives. One cannot segregate them here; their wives will sit next to the wife of the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes).

That is a bogey.

It is not a bogey; it is what the hon. member’s leader has said. It follows logically that if we have a Black Member of Parliament he must have the same rights as the hon. member for South Coast. His wife will be allowed to sit in the gallery. The members will play cricket together and Fernwood will have to be thrown open to them. One cannot have eight full-fledged Bantu Members of Parliament and deprive them of the rights which we enjoy. This White supremacy of the United Party over the Republic is simply a sham because if they can obtain White support for their policy, all the things I have sketched will follow logically. We will then have integration with all its repercussions. Hon. members cannot tell the public: This is our plan. No, Mr. Chairman, they have to use a disguise; they have to use the slogan of supremacy over the whole of the Republic. They cannot keep the Bantu in perpetual subjugation. Has history not taught them this? Is present-day history not teaching them this? The Bantu want to develop. The only road which the United Party wants to open to them is the road to the White Parliament and to the White area in South Africa. I repeat, Mr. Chairman, that when one is dealing with matters of this nature one must be honest, honest with the Whites and honest with the Bantu because the greatest mistake that one can make as far as the Bantu are concerned is to promise them something which it is not one’s intention to give them, to promise them something which one is not prepared to give them.

Hon. members opposite say that they have the interests of the Bantu at heart! No, they want to keep the Bantu in perpetual political subjugation. That is what they want to do. They tell the Whites in this country: We want White supremacy in South Africa; we want it over the whole of South Africa; we do not want to fragment South Africa; we do not want to balkanize it.

Yes.

I want to ask the hon. member who has just said “yes”: When did the hon. member for South Coast change his politics in regard to this matter? He made it very clear in 1946 that the Bantu should have a temporary sojourn in the White area and that his place was in the homelands. That was his policy and he stated it emphatically. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to be put off from what I was saying, but I am going to say this to the hon. member for Vryheid (Mr. D. J. Potgieter): My Leader has never said that our policy aims at having eight Bantu sitting in this House, nor has he ever agreed that it will lead to that.

He said that he would rather have eight Bantu in Parliament than eight Bantustans.

He did not even say that, and I suggest to the hon. member that if he wants to know what was said, he can get it over the same tape-recorder that made the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) (Mr. Odell) shut up recently about it, because fortunately, it was recorded and there it is for all to hear. He never said anything of the kind, and these are attempts to twist what he said for political ends.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, I am sorry, I have only got ten minutes. Let us now once and for all be done with this matter. It is wrong, it is completely untrue, the true statement is recorded on a tape and it can be heard, and any further repetition can only be made by a person who knows that it is an untruth.

Where was it recorded?

I will get it for you. The hon. member said that the Bantu respect their own people, their chiefs and so forth, their own tradition, and that he has heard no objection to the establishment of the system of Bantu Authorities in Zululand. I do not know where he has been. Did he not hear of a gathering two years ago at the Commissioner General’s house when the Paramount Chief of the Zulus pleaded for an acceptance of the principle at the gathering of all the chiefs and headmen there, and the counter-motion put by Chief Gatsha Bhutelezi was carried unanimously against Cyprian’s motion? Has he never heard of that? Now the hon. member is deaf as well as dumb. The whole of that gathering unanimously turned down that proposal of the Paramount Chief that there should be an acceptance of the policy. And that has been the trouble with the hon. the Minister, and the country knows it, and that is why he knows the significance of the question I am putting now as to whether he is changing his policy from that of getting the Bantu to accept this system to simply consulting with them. That makes all the difference in the world. And then I talk about loyal Natives, and that is why I am talking about Gatsha Bhutelezi, who has made it abundantly clear over and over again that he does not want to be forced into a position where he has to force the view of the Government upon his unwilling tribesmen, who have indicated repeatedly that they will have nothing to do with it and who has turned it down because he is a man in authority and is a responsible man at that. He has got the Government’s policy on one side forcing him and he knows that the tribesmen on the other hand are absolutely and utterly against it. The hon. member comes here and says that the Bantu respect their tribal headmen, their tribal chiefs and so on. Of course they do. And that was not only the attitude of Gatsha Bhutelezi at that gathering but was the attitude of every chief and headman who was there at that gathering. What were they asked to do, Sir? It is no good the hon. Minister shaking his head. He knows perfectly well what they did. They accepted a resolution from Gatsha that they should go back and consult with the various tribunal councils. That was the resolution that was adopted. The chiefs said that they have no authority whatsoever to accept a suggestion such as this without consulting with their tribal councils. They said that they would go back to their tribes and consult with them and thereafter the matter could be reviewed again when they would know what their tribes think. And since then? If I am rightly informed the Government is now adopting the attitude that they are not going to seek their co-operation, that they are not going to seek their approval.

Absolute nonsense!

It is no good saying that that is absolute nonsense. Has no such instruction been sent out? Is the position then that the hon. the Minister still requires the approval of the tribes before he will establish a Territorial Authority in Zululand?

He must have their co-operation.

No, their approval? The approval of the tribes?

Of course, yes.

I want this to go on the record. It is most important. The Minister is saying: “Yes, we will get the approval of the tribes of Zululand before we establish a Territorial Authority in Zululand”.

Then it will never be established.

Am I right in what I am saying?

Yes. That is the policy.

That is the policy and he is adhering to that policy. Now I am coming back to the matter I was dealing with when the hon. member for Vryheid intervened. I have asked for planning of the whole of that area round Richards Bay, with the development that is taking place there. I want particular attention paid to the whole question of the silting of our rivers on the East Coast, which is part and parcel of that development. We will never be able to establish the factories which require their water from those East Coast rivers, with the continual denudation and the erosion which is taking place in respect of those rivers. The main erosion is taking place in the Bantu areas at the present time. There the hon. member for Vryheid will agree with me. It is the worst kind of country, it is very friable country, and the erosion that is taking place is filling those rivers with sand, they are drying up. You get a drought like this, which is now the worst drought in 40 years in Zululand, and the rivers have stopped running, and the result is that the Bantu tribesmen themselves on some of those rivers come to get water to water their stock, not from water-holes, but from the whole river where they are coming to outside authorities, like the Natal Parks Board, to ask us to provide the water so that they can get water for their stock, for their domestic water supply. Here is a matter of the greatest importance if we are ever to see the development of the Eastern sea-board as it should be. We must preserve those water supplies and steps must be taken immediately in the Native areas where the main trouble is arising, not only in Zululand but all along the coast right down to Port Edward. Every river runs red like blood after a thunderstorm to-day on that coast. The blood of South Africa is being drained into the Indian Ocean, Mr. Chairman, and here in connection with the planning of Richards Bay and that development, I want to ask the hon. Minister whether he is prepared now to institute a proper survey of the drainage area of every river from the Usutu to the Umtamvuna at Port Edward, so that the areas where the rivers drain through the Native areas shall have proper attention with a view to stopping erosion and so that proper care is taken in respect of the rivers flowing down through those areas. Mr. Chairman, it is the last remaining amount of free water that we have got in the whole of the Republic of South Africa, the last remaining area in which there is free water available, and every river of any magnitude at all runs through a scheduled Native area before it reaches the sea, and in that way it is picking up the contamination and the flow is getting less and less as more and more sand is silting up the rivers. I would ask the hon. the Minister whether he will deal with that as part of the approach to the various authorities necessary for the planning of Richards Bay and the area round about there.

When we come to the Bantustan itself in so far as Zululand is concerned, I want to say this to the hon. the Minister: Does he really believe that the pressure of the natural increase in those areas which he is proposing as these blocs, is going to be contained in these blocs? What does he see as the real relationship between the White people in Zululand and the Bantu in these blocs that he is going to establish as the years begin to roll on? What I am concerned with is the following: Is there any degree of permanency in this policy the Government is following? Is it a policy which is going to last for perhaps ten years and which will then completely collapse because of the pressure of population? What we want and the Bantu in those blocs that he is going to stand up to the future growth of population, Black and non-Black—the Coloureds, and Indians and the Whites as well as the Bantu. Will it stand up to the growth of population? Will it hold out a peaceful future for the people who are living alongside— [Time limit.]

The hon. member for South (Coast) (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) has been silent for a few years now in regard to the Bantu policy of the United Party; he has been as silent as the grave since the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) (Mr. Odell) resigned from the party, and he has not replied to questions put to him very pertinently by that hon. member. He has again made a few remarks to-day in reply to the hon. member for Vryheid (Mr. D. J. Potgieter), a few remarks which bring us precisely to where we have always been, a position of confused speech in regard to the Bantu policy of the United Party, confused speech of which one can make neither head nor tail. He stood up here again to-day and hotly denied that his leader or anybody on that side had ever said that in terms of their race federation policy they would allow the Bantu to be represented directly by their own people here, in spite of the fact that I and various other speakers on this side of the House have quoted many pertinent statements not only of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition but of numbers of other speakers, and particularly in regard to what the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) had said when he was still a leading light in their party and when the Sunday Times still had a great deal of respect for him, and before Japie came on the scene. We have made quotations here in which it was pertinently envisaged and in which they even went so far as to say that their race federation policy would be a farce if there was no direct representation of the Bantu here. The hon. member has again denied this and he says that no statement of this nature exists. But it is very interesting that, since yesterday and as has often been the case in the past, they have advanced only one argument and that has been the question of integration. They have given a completely wrong interpretation to this idea, a deliberately wrong interpretation because this interpretation fits in with the policy direction of which they are in favour, and fits in with the idea of integration as they would like it to be understood. They have advanced the argument that numbers, and numbers only, mean that integration must take place. Nobody denies that numbers as such also constitute a danger, and that danger must be overcome. But what happened during their term of office and what has happened under the Government of the National Party? A report was issued at the end of last year by the non-White committee of the United Party City Council of Johannesburg. What did that report reveal? It revealed these facts: That from 1946 to 1951—hon. members know that in 1951 the National Party started applying strictly its policy in regard to influx control throughout the Republic—the number of Bantu in Johannesburg increased by 17.4 per cent. From 1951 to 1960, when this policy had been applied more strictly—and this was over a longer period—the increase was 4.3 per cent. This is in contrast with the 17.4 per cent increase under the policy of the United Party. Two years ago strict measures were taken to control the influx of femal Bantu to the Witwatersrand. What happened in regard to this matter? From 1946 to 1951 the increase in the number of female Bantu on the Witwatersrand was 161 per cent and from 1951 to 1960, the increase was 57.7 per cent. This policy was in actual fact only applied strictly from 1963. This is what came to light in the report drawn up by their own people and submitted by them, a report which I am sure is far more edifying than what is said by hon. members here.

What are you trying to prove?

That hon. member simply will not understand it. Sir, the idea of integration is, after all, a very clear one. It is a word which has a very clear meaning—that when there is a partnership and when there is a cosay in the economy, it is very clear that integration is in progress. If there is a partner, even though that partner may be overseas for some years, his ties with a business or a farin or some other undertaking still remain and he still remains an integral part of that business because he has business ties which bind him to that partnership. But if a non-White or a Bantu is employed on my farm or at any other place and there is conflict between the employer and that non-White employee, and the employer tells him: “I think you had better go because we cannot agree”, all ties are severed immediately. No bond at all remains and there is no integration at all. That is what these hon. members do not want to understand, or else they deliberately interpret it incorrectly because it fits in with their policy to do so. What is their policy? They are heading directly for integration and not only for economic integration; their policy of a common franchise for the Bantu together with the Whites to elect members to this House is integration. Right of ownership in the White area by the Bantu is integration; the removal of all colour bars on the Bantu in order to give them the opportunity to integrate with the Whites economically—which is their policy—is integration. It is a recognized fact that political integration follows upon economic integration and that social integration follows on political integration. That is an accepted process. Why are these hon. members and their party seeking economic integration, why are they aiming at economic integration and why are they aiming at political integration? It is simply because they are going to seek support and assistance on the other side of the colour bar simply because they do not see their way clear and are unable to obtain support for their policies on the White side of the colour bar.

Shame on you!

That is the position. If it were not so, they would not accept the policy of race federation. What is a race federation then? I want for the umpteenth time to ask a very pertinent question and I hope that subsequent speakers will answer this question and a few other questions besides. In connection with the race federation plan of the United Party, which and how many representatives of every Bantu homeland, as we know them to-day, will take their seats here? Will they be Whites or Bantu and how many of each will there be, or how many representatives of each Bantu homeland will there be? There is another question I should like to ask. I shall appreciate it if one of the newly appointed leaders on the United Party side, or their recognized leader, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition himself, will reply to this question.

You know our policy.

No, the hon. member was rejected by his party and by Joe Mervis. He cannot talk. My final question is this: If they give this limited political representation to the Bantu and the Bantu make greater demands of them, are they going to resist those demands by force or are they, as was envisaged by their Peninsula Secretary, simply going to hold a referendum time after time in order to accede more and more to these demands? [Time limit.]

May I ask for the second half-hour?

It has been interesting listening to the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Sadie), because despite the fact that he was inclined to relate his speech to facts when he came to this House, it is clear that he has quickly learned that if the facts do not suit him, you just change the facts and argue accordingly. We have heard him telling us this afternoon, because he does not like admitting that this Government is causing economic integration taking place faster than ever before, that there is no economic integration if Bantu are working in your industries, none whatever! There is only economic integration, he argues, if you allow them to own their own homes in their own locations. Have you ever heard such nonsense from an hon. member? And he tried to get attention away from the unfortunate position in which the Minister and his henchmen find themselves at the moment, by trying to ask me a series of questions on race federation, all of which are contained in a pamphlet which was published 18 months or two years ago, and which I will give him free of charge. He asked me exactly the same questions the hon. the Prime Minister asked in the non-confidence debate, all of which were answered when I stated categorically what the policy of our party was and that as far as we were concerned, we would defend that policy with all the means at our disposal.

By using the Police Force?

Do not be childish! I said all the means at our disposal.

You said “the Police Force”.

I said “all the means at our disposal”. [Interjections.] Why argue with me, you have got to take my word for what I say in this House.

I will read it to you.

If the hon. Deputy Minister can read that to me, then Hansard is wrong. That is all I can say.

Is the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) in order to say to the hon. Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration “that is a lie”?

Did the hon. member say so?

I said it was an untruth. I withdraw the word “lie” and say that it is a gross untruth.

The hon. member must withdraw unreservedly.

I withdraw.

The hon. member, however, has raised something very interesting and that is the rate at which the European areas are becoming blacker and blacker under this Government. That is the matter that I want to raise with the hon. Minister to-day, and I want to raise it very pertinently, because for a long time the Government has been leading the public to believe that this process of White areas getting blacker and blacker is merely a temporary one, because their policy is part of a grand design, the object of which is to reduce the number of Bantu in the White area. And they gave the indication, time and again, that at a certain time, about 1976 or 1978, there was going to be a turning-point, a “keerpunt”. The Bantu in the White areas from then on would be progressively decreased in numbers. It is against this background that I want to discuss this matter with the hon. Minister to-day, because, you see, any scheme of that kind is an extremely ambitious one if it is looked at against the background of the development of South Africa in the last 50 or 60 years. That development has been largely one of rapid economic and mining growth and consequently rapid urbanization throughout South Africa. Look, Sir, at what has happened since 1911. In 1911, only 53 per cent of the Whites were in the urban areas. To-day, 82.6 per cent of the Whites are in the urban areas, according to the 1960 census. Of the Bantu 13 per cent were urbanized in 1911, in 1960, 31.8 per cent. It means that we have moved from the position where in 1911 there were 153,000 more Whites than Bantu in the towns to the position to-day where there are according to the last census of 1960, 889,000 more Blacks than Whites in the urban areas of South Africa. And that process has got to continue, because under this Government’s policy there are going to be no large urban industrial centres inside the reserves for a very, very long time to come. With the result that our White cities to-day will continue therefore to become blacker and blacker, faster than ever before in our history. Do you realize, Sir, what it means, to bring about a “trek” back of the Bantu from the White areas to the so-called Black or reserved areas? Because that is what is going to happen unless this policy is to apply everywhere except in the towns. What changes is that going to require in respect of our labour force? The economic development programme which the Government has just printed requires for the year 1964-5, 32,800 more Whites and 106,800 more non-Whites in employment in the White areas, in this one year. Those are the total non-White labour requirements. Supposing the Malays and the Coloureds supply 25,000. Then it means that 75,000 more Bantu will be required for this one year. What is going to happen if the hon. Minister tries to reverse that flow? Suppose he tried to reverse it this year instead of in 12 years’ time. That means we would progressively have to start doing without two-thirds of our labour force, because the moment he reverses the flow, it means that we cannot take any extra Bantu on in employment. He can replace those who move back, but he cannot take on extra Bantu, and of the 75,000 additional he requires for new jobs, he won’t be able to get any at all if he reverses the flow. What will happen to our industries under such conditions? Take the industrial development programme over the next four years. They estimate that our labour requirements will be 158,000 Whites and 485,000 non-Whites. These numbers are going to be required to have a rate of growth of 5i per cent per annum. At least two-thirds of those are going to be Bantu. Sir, what interests me so much is this: That South Africa will be getting blacker if that economic development programme is put into operation. If we are to believe the hon. the Prime Minister and if we are to believe the hon. Minister here, then eight or nine years after that, suddenly we are going to find that we do not need that number of additional workers. But we are going to continue to have this rate of growth and development. The hon. gentleman thinks that that is going to happen, because he said you will have automation and mechanization. Let us distinguish between mechanization and automation. Mechanization is where the machine does what a gang of men has been doing, but it is minded by men. Automation means that the machine which is doing the job the men were doing, is minded by another machine. The hon. Minister will know that that requires vast sums of capital, and that that can be applied only in the manufacturing industry and not in the service industry, and the greatest demand for extra labour is in the service industries at the present time, and it will continue to be so, as the economic development programme shows. So that to have automation, we will require vast capital, and we are going to find that it can be applied in the manufacturing industry and not in the service industry where there is the biggest demand for additional labour. We are going to find something else, and that is that our markets are too small on the whole to justify any great degree of automation at the present time. We must ask ourselves a further question. Has automation led to less employment in countries where it has been put into operation, or not? My hon. friend says it has led to more production. That is quite right. When you produce more, you need more consumption and our biggest market here is the Bantu market. Unless you develop that market, you will never have automation. The answer is that in the overwhelming majority of the countries of the world in which automation has been applied there has not been a reduction in the amount of labour necessary. The demand has tended to be the same or to grow a little. Therefore how is automation or mechanization going to solve this problem? At our present rate of development envisaged by the economic development programme we cannot get by on White, Coloured and Indian labour alone. We have to have Bantu labour as well, otherwise we are going to sacrifice the rate of development envisaged by the Prime Minister’s Advisory Council. Supposing the hon. the Minister were to be successful and supposing we could get on without that labour, what is going to happen to the 90,000 odd new Bantu looking for new jobs every year because of their population growth? Where is it going to be supplied? For it to be supplied, there must be work, and for work there must be capital formation, so that there will be industries. Look at what is happening. The economic development programme is calculated on the basis that with the gross capital of about R 1,653,000,000 in 1965 the total labour demand will be 140,000. If we are going to find work in the reserves for approximately 90,000 Bantu looking for new jobs, that means a capital formation in those reserves of about R 1,000,000,000 a year. Is that coming from the £500 the Minister found under that Bantu’s “stertriem”? What is interesting is to read what a man like Dr. van Eck says. He took part in the Seminar run by the S.A. Foundation and he expresses his admiration for the hon. the Prime Minister, but he goes on to say this—

He said nothing about capital, but he might have said that as well, because in a previous lecture he deals with the difficulty of getting the White industrialist to invest capital in a Bantu reserve under present conditions and present Government policy. He said—

I think when that question is put we begin to realize how impossible it is for anything of that kind to develop. The Minister still talks about this date of 1978 as being the turning-point. It is a mysterious date. When the Minister was first appointed, he said: “Give me five years and I can show you what I can do.” Well, I agree that he does better than the Ministers of Agriculture, but he has had his five years and what has he done? I continue to wonder why it is that he makes these statements, and why does he advise the Prime Minister, as I believe he does, when he makes statements of this kind? I believe we should pin this thing down now once and for all. Probably the Minister continues to make these statements because he is still under the influence of the work done by the Tomlinson Commission. He knows certain projections were made then as to what would be the labour requirements and the population movements. But he also knows that those projections were made subject to certain conditions laid down by the gentlemen who did the work. I want to suggest to the Minister that those conditions have never been observed by this Government, and while they do not observe those conditions they dare not use this date any more, because it has ceased to have any significance whatever. All the evidence we have at the moment indicates that that date will never arrive, and even under the conditions accepted by the Minister the Bantu in the White areas will go on increasing for all eternity. Let me tell him why. Here is the first projection.

I have a copy of it here and the Minister knows what I am talking about. What is interesting about it is that it was drawn up in 1954 or 1955 and already its forecasts just as to population growth are hopelessly out. They expected a growth in total Bantu population between 1951 and 1961 of from 8,540,000 to 9,930,000. By 1960 the Bantu were already 10,900,000, so it is well over 1,0, 000 out already. The second thing is that the forecast expects an increase in the Bantu population outside the reserves in the period 1951 to 1961 of 42,000. In fact, according to the last census the growth has been 2,380,000 up to 1960. In other words, it is approximately six times greater than was forecast at the time. Why is it that that has happened? It has happened because they laid down three conditions which they attached to their graph and their projection. Those conditions were, firstly, that the development programmes proposed by the Commission would be put into operation in 1956. But we know that the Government did not accept this development programme in its entirety. It turned down some of the fundamental recommendations, and what programmes it did put into operation did not keep pace with the timetable laid down by the Tomlinson Commission: and if that is so they cannot still talk of 1978 or any other date. The second thing is that the relationship between the numbers of Bantu in or out of the reserves remains the same in 1965 as in 1951. There was a small change but not a very great one. Then there was a third condition they laid down, that development be undertaken at a tempo which results in the population in the reserves growing at a steady rate to reach 8,000,000 in 20 years, i.e. by 1976. What is the position?

I have been at pains to try to get the figures of what the population of the reserves was at the last census. Unfortunately it is difficult to work out those figures because the census does not give the number of Bantu in the reserves. It gives the number in the urban areas and the number in the rural areas. As far as one can gather, the number in the urban areas has increased by over 1,000,000 between 1951 and 1961, and as far as one can estimate the number in the rural areas increased by 1,300,0 up to 1960. That just about accounts for the entire natural increase of the Bantu population. But I would like to have the figures from the Minister. My belief is that up to 1961 and even up to the present time the population of the reserves is not increasing. What we are having is an overflow out of the reserves into the White areas, just as was forecast by the Commission.

The Tomlinson Commission also made a projection and the Minister was kind enough to draw my attention to it, in Volume 16, Chapter 47, in a graph set out on page 19. But before it proceeds to make that projection, the Commission says a number of very significant things, and the first is this—

That is exactly what is happening at the moment. They base that projection on the total Bantu population of 9,900,000 by 1961. I have already said that by 1960 that population was 10,900,000, so they were over 1,000,000 out. I believe that mistake was due to wrong counting. I believe it is possible that the census of 1951 was a faulty one and that the one of 1961 was more accurate, but nevertheless there is that big discrepancy. In making its estimate, the Committee responsible for drafting this projection also lay emphasis on difficulties that could arise from the shortage of capital, and they lay emphasis also on the educational revolution which would have to take place among the Bantu people and the development of their skills in the various trades and industries in order for the reserves to be able to carry a population of that kind. But when you look at this projection—and here it is—it provides no evidence whatever for the statement by the Minister that the number of Bantu in the White areas will start decreasing from 1978. I have been going over it with a ruler and taking measurements, and what do I find? That according to this projection there were 4,600,000 in the reserves in 1956 and 4,300,000 outside the reserves. They forecast that by 1966 there would be 6,000,000 in the reserves and 5,000,000 outside. By 1976, which is the turning point, they forecast 8,0,000 in the reserves and 5,500,000 outside. The number outside has increased by 500,000. They forecast that by 1986 the number outside the reserves would go up another 500,000, and by the year 2000 it will have gone up still more.

So that as far as this graph goes it envisages a steady increase in the number of Bantu outside the reserves. But this graph only applies if all the conditions laid down by the Commission are observed by this Government. Nobody knows better than this Minister that they were not accepted by the Government, and nobody knows better than the Minister that the rate of development in the reserves is infinitely slower than asked for or projected by the Commission; and nobody knows better than this Minister that what in fact is happening is that after ten years, ten years after the report and ten years before his turning-point, the Bantu population of the reserves has remained virtually constant and that the increase has been outside the reserves, and that it continues to be outside the reserves. Nobody knows better than this Minister that his Government has accepted the economic development programme providing for a 5i per cent growth per year, and nobody knows better than he and the Deputy Minister of Labour that that means additional employment for approximately 120,000 non-Whites every year, or 600,000 in the next five years, 120,000 odd more than the figure I gave for the first four years. And he knows that if the rate of development goes on and the population increases, the number of Bantu outside the reserves will increase at a faster tempo after that. Sir, I am prepared to argue the value of policies with this Minister any day of the week, but I do think we have to get our facts straight, and there are no facts on which this forecast as to 1978 can be based. I want to say to the Minister in a friendly way today: Let us get rid of his nonsense once and for all now; let us accept that he will try to develop the reserves, and we will help him, because we want to see them developed to carry the maximum Bantu population. He knows I have offered that to him across the floor of the House before, and I also offered it to the late Mr. Strijdom when he was Prime Minister, and what was his reply? “How can we accept your help, because you want to develop it for a different purpose from ours?”

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

When I was interrupted by the lunch interval, I had advanced the hypothesis that the development in the reserves was going on so slowly that there was no possibility of a flow back of Bantu from the White areas into the reserves, and that that meant that the Bantu population in the White areas would continue to increase. It seems to me that that means that there should be a revision of thinking on the Government side, both in respect of the reserves and in respect of the Bantu in the White areas. In respect of the reserves, it seems to me that that change of emphasis, that rethinking, is necessary first of all in the field of agriculture, because while agriculture is continued in those reserves under a system of communal land tenure as at present, progress will of necessity be slow. I know that in the Transkei under the present Constitution land is controlled by the Legislative Assembly, but there are other reserves and areas over which the Minister still has control and in which it would be wise for that problem to be tackled if there is to be proper agricultural advance.

The second matter in regard to which it is clear that there should be rethinking is in respect of the development of industries inside the reserves. I know that attitude of the Minister is that he is prepared to be a trustee for the Bantu population and that he would not like development to take place there with White capital, initiative and skill, which the Bantu might resent at some future time. I want to tell him that we are in a position to-day where in respect of industrial development in those areas he is dropping so far behind and so little is being done that he is not going to get the standard of living which will lead to a satisfied population. This will place us in the position also where he will not develop a market which will maintain a high level of production either from the White areas or inside those reserves. It seems to me he has two alternatives. The one is that there must be Government-controlled industries and Government-assisted industries, or he has to allow White private capital and initiative in with the safeguard, if he wishes, that he has to make it attractive enough to get the White industrialists to help in the development of those areas.

It seems to me an extraordinary situation that when we speak of developing the reserves with private White capital and initiative, then we hear from that side of the House that this is new colonialism, but if the industry is just 25 or 30 miles outside the reserve then it is perfectly in order. That argument does not seem to hold water. The Minister must remember that unless we can keep the rate of development within those reserves at a level higher than anywhere else in Africa, unless we can establish a satisfied population with a high standard of living, he will do nothing else except create a fertile ground for communist agitators. That is something against which we have warned him on many occasions, and that is why we have offered him our assistance in the development of the reserves, industrially and agriculturally. We will not complain about the sort of bulls he buys or if he buys an occasional tractor or anything of that kind. He will get support from this side of the House if that money is properly used for that development, because it is at the moment an area which is falling behind economically compared with the rest of the country, and in a competitive world we cannot risk anything of that kind.

I have said that this calls for re-thinking on the part of the Government. It seems to me that is calls for re-thinking also in regard to the Bantu in our White areas, because if my figures are right, and I believe they are, and if the hypothesis on which I am working is correct, as I believe it is, we are in this position that there will be vastly more Bantu in the White areas and particularly in and around our White industrial areas than was ever envisaged by the Minister and his side of the House. That means that he has to reconsider that situation because despite all his legislation more and more of them will become permanently settled in those areas and more and more of them will become a permanent part of the population, and not just be interchangeable labour units. He will be faced with the ideal conditions for Communism to succeed if you have a vast mass of people like that who are rightless in respect of a Parliament and the bodies which control their everyday lives.

I wonder whether the Minister has not got to consider the question of what he is going to permit those people to do by way of occupation in those areas. I wonder whether he does not have to reconsider the question of home ownership. When I speak of home ownership I mean home ownership for a controlled number of Bantu in their own urban townships. I do not talk this nonsense about their being allowed to buy farms in the White areas and all those other bogy stories that come from the other side of the House. That is politics which we leave to the people down at that end of the House. I want to talk to the Minister about how he is going to have a stable population in those areas, which is law-abiding and not in danger of becoming communist. I believe it means that he will also have to see that they have undisturbed family life. I believe he must take steps which will develop a middle class among the Bantu, who would have something to lose. I know I will have thrown at me the question as to whether I am against migrant labour, and what is my attitude towards migrant labour on the mines, but that has nothing to do with this problem. The problem is that of the Bantu employed in industry whose usefulness is being detrimentally affected by the fact that he is not permanently and happily settled. He is being sent back to the reserves every so often so as to remind him that he is an interchangeable labour unit. He is not developing the efficiency he could by being permanently in the same job and having the stability which is necessary for proper industrial development.

If hon. members opposite want to go on running the mines with migrant labour, I have no objection at all. I have always said that there is room for a certain amount of migrant labour in South Africa. That is unavoidable, but there is developing here, which is the Minister’s problem, and a far greater problem than he ever envisaged, or was ever envisaged by the Tomlinson Commission, a permanent Bantu population settled in those urban areas. For that the Minister does not seem to have any solution at all. That is why I have said so often you have to have them on your side in maintaining law and order, but you have to earn their support and assistance and you can only earn it by ensuring that they are a stable population with an undisturbed family life and home ownership and if they are allowed to develop up to a certain degree in their own areas, so that they have a measure of local self-government. I believe also that they will have to have a limited measure of representation in the Parliament which controls their destinies. The Minister denies them all these things and then expects them to be on his side when there is trouble with agitators and with the communists. I hope he can manage it, but I do not believe he can. I do not think anyone who has had experience of what is happening in other parts of the world, and who has seen how the communists infiltrate and exploit a situation of this kind, can believe that the Minister has an answer. That is why we on this side of the House are so unhappy about what he is doing. That is why we want to see active development of the reserves to relieve the pressure on the White areas, and that is why we want to see the proper recognition of the Bantu permanently settled in the urban areas.

I just want to settle a little argument I had with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition before the lunch adjournment when I interjected and said that according to what he himself had said, if the Leader of the Opposition came into power and applied his race federation policy in terms of which there would be eight White members in this House representing the Bantu he would be prepared to enforce the position with the assistance of the police. I said the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had said it; I did not say he had said it in this House.

Oh!

Hon. members opposite will never prove to me that I said he had said it in this House. I had the newspaper cutting in my hand. According to the Burger the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said it at Caledon. He said the following—

And that is what we say; that was what I said a little earlier on and which I am now repeating. I repeat that he said it and if he did not say it at Caledon he must settle the matter with the Burger which he will then prove to be a liar for the fifth or sixth time this year, because I have cuttings of reports that he had repudiated previous statements made by himself as reported by the Burger. The matter rests between him and the Burger.

I was referring to the hon. member’s speech at Caledon and if he is a gentleman he must accept my word under the Rules of the House.

I did not say that there either.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said a number of other things which I cannot deal with in detail because my time is limited. I hope I shall be given another chance to speak if I cannot say what I want to say in these ten minutes.

I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition a few other things with reference to his speech this afternoon. He had a great deal to say about the tempo of development in the Bantu areas. He said the progress made was not according to the calculations and prophecies made in the Tomlinson Report. But the hon. Leader of the Opposition knows how those calculations are made; they are not based on reality but on the supposition that certain things can happen simultaneously. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition should have listened this morning when the Minister explained how various phases of development had followed one another. A great deal still had to be done in the Transkei and other Bantu areas as far as primary development was concerned. A great deal had still to be done in the agricultural field and it was only after that development had taken place that other development could follow. Surely it is not possible to start with industrialization and that kind of thing before the basic developmental works has been tackled. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows that development such as envisaged in that report depends on the money available; it depends on people; it depends on the number of Whites who can do it, who are prepared to do it, and on the Bantu who have to absorb it; it depends on nature and it depends on the sequence of the phases of development which have to follow one another, as I said a moment ago. I maintain that we who are concerned with the actual development of those areas are entitled to say that phenomenal progress has been made, progress in which one step after the other has been consolidated with one another; it has not been the kind of work done elsewhere in Africa where things were done suddenly but not continued with subsequently.

In this connection the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also said that he was offering, for the umpteenth time, to assist us in this development. On what basis does he offer his assistance? That is very important. In making this offer the hon. the Leader of the Opposition must not make the same mistake which he and his party make in their speeches, particularly when they refer to our policy in the urban areas, in connection with which I should like to say a few words, namely, to base their arguments on mixed premises in that they confuse the concepts of integration and apartheid and then expect us to do certain things according to their principles. That is what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is doing in this case. He ought to know that the House is dealing with a Bill at the moment concerning the establishment of an economic development corporation in the Bantu areas. During that debate he can tell us what assistance they are prepared to offer. There are two ways in which development can take place and he has referred to both. The one method which they want to follow under their policy is to allow White initiative and White capital in the Bantu areas. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows that we differ radically on that point and that we do not want any assistance from him on that basis. But as far as the second method is concerned, namely, the establishment of corporations to encourage development in the Bantu areas, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party have not as yet told us that they are opposed to that. May we take it then that when it comes to State undertakings such as these corporations we can fully depend on the support of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party? We should like to have clarity on that point when we discuss that Bill later in the Session.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition concluded his speech by referring to “home ownership” in the urban areas. He said what he has in mind was nothing as nonsensical as the Bantu being allowed to own farms and things like that. Sir, what is the fumdamental difference, in policy and in principle, between owning a plot with a house on it at Langa and owning a farm in the Hex River Valley? What is the difference in principle? I hope I am interpreting the hon. the Leader of the Opposition correctly. He spoke about home ownership. The Bantu can already own a “home” in the locations. But I take it he meant the “home’* with the plot, in other words, property rights. Was that what he meant?

Yes.

Yes, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition nods his head. I repeat my question: Why, as he has said, should “a controlled number of Bantu” be allowed to own plots and houses in urban Bantu residential areas but not a farm in the Hex River Valley or a sheep farm in the Karoo or a maize farm in the Highveld of the Transvaal? [Interjections.] It is not only farms; there are also industrial sites. Must the Bantu be allowed to own an industrial site in the Epping industrial extension area or at Paarden Eiland? Must they be allowed to own industrial sites in the constituency of Alberton or in my constituency or in the industrial areas of any other city? I know what the reply is in terms of the policy of hon. members opposite. I do not know whether they have the courage to admit it but in terms of their race federation policy, in terms of their policy of economic integration, it is quite right to say that they will allow Bantu to own industrial sites and farms. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) does not disillusion me at all; as I know him he is a person who indulges in the wishful thinking that you can confer a few rights on a “controlled number of Bantu” in the White areas and in that way pacify the broad masses of Bantu. That was precisely what an hon. Senator said in the Other Place this year. He said: “What is wrong with granting some political rights to the Bantu in this Parliament?” Sir, it won’t end there. Nobody has replied better and more effectively to that than the hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman) when he told us yesterday that if the flow of Bantu to the urban areas increased we would not be able to resist the pressure of numbers in their demand for all sorts of rights and facilities and privileges from the State.

Do you agree with that?

Of course, I agree but I want to remind the hon. member of what I said five minutes ago: He is completely confusing the various premises. I say that under our system that danger is not inherent in the flow of Bantu to the cities because they know they are coming here without there being the slightest possibility of their getting those rights. They are coming here under a system which inherently excludes those rights. But it is inherent in the policy of race federation and in the policy of economic and other integration, as propounded by hon. members opposite, that the granting of a few rights will lead to further and further rights. When the hon. member said that he was condemning their own race federation scheme because under their race federation policy, in terms of which they want to grant a few political rights, a little “home ownership”, a little opportunity to develop industrially, a little opportunity to become technicians and a little bit of this and a little bit of that, they are going to cut their own throats because by giving them a little to start with the Bantu are going to demand more and more and their demands will have to be met by virtue of that same pressure of numbers. [Interjections.] The hon. member must restrain himself and get up and speak when I sit down. I hope I shall have an opportunity of replying to him.

The hon. the Deputy Minister has now come forward with an excerpt from the Burger of what I am alleged to have said at Caledon. When he made this allegation when I started speaking I replied, “If Hansard says that, Hansard is not correct”, and there was no mention then of a Press cutting. If I am not mistaken the hon. gentleman said that he had my Hansard there.

That is not true. On a point of order, I appeal to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to accept my word that I made no reference to Hansard at all this morning. I had the Press cutting in my hand the whole time.

Order! The hon. the Leader of the Opposition must accept the hon. the Deputy Minister’s word.

Sir, you have ruled that I must accept the hon. the Deputy Minister’s word which I naturally do. I hope he will now accept my word that that is not a clear and proper reflection of what I said at Caledon. I think it is time we stopped making accusations of this kind. The hon. gentleman knows that I have never denied anything I have said in this House.

He tried to make the point that development in the Reserves was proceeding apace. I never queried that. What I queried was the right of hon. members on that side of the House to say that from a date in 1976 or 1978 —sometimes it is 1980—the development will be such that there will be a reversal of the flow of Bantu from the Reserves into the White areas, back to those Reserves. You see. Sir, they are trying to create a feeling of security amongst their own people but they need not worry about this flow from the Reserves; that in due course what they promise them will happen, and that is that the flow will be from the White areas back to the Reserves and that there will be fewer and fewer Bantu in the White areas. Sir, that is the contention that I am attacking to-day, and what the hon. the Deputy Minister said has no bearing on it at all. It is he and people like him who have been causing the Transvaler to write how disturbed they were at the number of Bantu in the European areas; that they had been promised that by 1978 there would be a reversal of that flow. The Transvaler comments in a leading article: “Nog viertien lange jare”. Sir, they have to realize that it is not “nog viertien lange jare”; it is “inder ewigheid” as far as they are concerned and as far as this Government is concerned, and they must stop trying to mislead the public in this regard. You see. Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister, when he was Minister of Native Affairs at the time and the Tomlinson Commission’s Report was discussed in this House, stated in his White Paper that he would be satisfied if they had reached the stage by the year 2000 when there were as many Bantu inside the Reserves as outside the Reserves. Sir, I do not believe that they are going to achieve that by the year 2000. At their present rate of progress they are not going to achieve it at all and that is what I am complaining about.

The hon. the Deputy Minister has resorted once more to this childish basis of trying to set debating traps. He says that if I stand for a certain development in the Reserves he assumes that I am going to support legislation which I have not seen yet. When will he be his age? Then we had a third point from him. He wants to know what the difference is in principle between allowing a man to own a home and a plot in a Bantu location set aside for him and allowing him to own a farm anywhere else in the White area. The answer is quite simple. We have always in South Africa had certain areas in which only Bantu were allowed to own land and certain areas in which only Europeans were allowed to own land.

It is as simple as that.

It is as simple as that. A Bantu Location is an area where a Bantu is allowed to own land. A White farming area is not an area where he is allowed to own land.

[Inaudible.]

At Umlazi.

Apparently the hon. the Deputy Minister is unaware of the fact that under the old United Party Government there were certain locations where Bantu were allowed to own land. It is since they have taken over that this has not been allowed, and now we are having the ridiculous situation that you have a reserve like Umlazi right inside Durban …

It is not an urban location.

You say it is a reserve. You see, Sir, here we have proof of the ludicrousness of the Government’s policy. You have Umlazi inside Durban which according to the Deputy Minister is a reserve and therefore he dictates who may own land there and on what basis, but where you have an urban location he says it is different. He can apply the same rules if he wishes to do so. Why not? He can apply them and I can apply them. The policy of this Party is that the Bantu will be allowed home ownership and ownership of the plot in an urban location where it is permitted by the Europeans who are in control. I said “a limited number” because we believe that this right should be accorded only to the responsible class of Bantu and not the sort of man who will not be a law-abiding citizen. Sir, the hon. the Deputy Minister says, “How can you distinguish?” How did we distinguish before in the case of exemptions from the pass laws? Why was it that we were able to have some 50,000 Bantu exempted from the pass laws for behaving extremely well? This Government came along and abolished all those exemptions. It is quite easy to distinguish between one type of man and another.

Then we are faced with this old canard again that when a Bantu is working in a White industry he is not economically integrated.

Under our policy he is not integrated.

We find it difficult to argue with hon. members on that side of the House because to them words have not their normal meaning but mean what they want them to mean. Because they cannot explain to their followers why economic integration is taking place under this Government faster than ever before and that it will probably have the same consequences, economic integration, as anywhere else in the world, they now say to their supporters “Even though a man is employed in our industries, even though he is living permanently outside of the Reserves, even though he has a permanent job here and we cannot run our industries without him, he is not economically integrated.” But Sir, if he is allowed to own a plot of land in a Bantu location then he is suddenly economically integrated. Have you ever heard anything more ridiculous? He say that the man may own a house but not a plot. If he owns the house and not the plot then he is not economically integrated. Sir, have you ever heard such nonsense to which these gentlemen opposite have been reduced because they refuse to face up to the realities of their problem.

Let me come back to the hon. the Minister and let us see whether it is not possible for us to reach some basis on which we can see a real, dynamic development of the Reserves to attract a substantial portion of the Bantu population.

Have you ever visited the Reserves?

I have visited several of them, not with the Minister. I would be happy to take him around some time; I will show him some of the things I have seen and perhaps he can then reciprocate. Sir, I hope we can get that sort of development in the Reserves because I feel with the Minister that it is extremely desirable that the Reserves should provide a home and a living and a decent standard for the maximum possible number of Bantu in South Africa. But at the same time I am faced with the fact that he has been failing us so far. I believe that the population of those Reserves has remained virtually static. I believe that the flow is still strongly from the Reserves to the White areas. I believe that the Minister has been faced with a problem that is infinitely greater than Tomlinson foresaw in his report, infinitely greater than the hon. the Minister’s predecessor expected and infinitely greater than the problem he was prepared to deal with at any time when he took: over this portfolio. I want to ask him whether the time has not come for a rethinking; whether the time has not come to realize that this urban population has become a permanent part of this portion of so-called White South Africa and that he has to deal with it accordingly or he is going to be in difficulties in the future and endanger the security of the whole of our White civilization. [Time limit.]

Hon. members opposite can laugh and carry on as much as they like but we shall continue to say what we have been saying all these years and what I said earlier on under the Prime Minister’s Vote, and that is that under our policy the Bantu working in our factories and other businesses in the White areas are not here on a basis of economic integration as hon. members opposite would like them to be. (Laughter.) Yes, I hear the laughter and if some members opposite would wake up I suppose I shall hear them bellow. This is nothing new in terms of our policy; we have always said it. If hon. members opposite would only read the debates which took place ten years ago they would see that we have already argued these points; these are well-known things. Hon. members opposite must understand that in terms of our policy we say the Bantu may be present in the White areas to offer his labour but not for the sake of enjoying all sorts of privileges such as citizenship rights, political rights, social integration etc.; we are adamant on that. And if the number of Bantu increase on this basis under our policy their presence will not constitute a danger to us. Hon. members opposite must realize that. Of course we said we would try to decrease the numbers but hon. members opposite must not try to make us believe, as they do in their arguments, that it is suggested in the Tomlinson report that we should already have been near the .0 stage.

Let us look at what has actually happened. Hon. members should also remember what we said our aim was and not what they are today telling us we said our aim was. Our aim has always been to create order out of the chaos we inherited from the Opposition in 1948 because of the lack of influx control. I shall show you in a moment, Sir, that there was no influx control whatsoever. In the first instance, our object was to curb the flow to the cities and to get it under control; even if it increased it had to be under control. Our object is to curb that stream more and more in the course of time and to develop the Bantu areas etc. at the same time so that the process can be reversed over the years. What has happened? Let us look at certain figures. Hon. members must also remember that the only consideration is not only absolute numbers; the percentage ratio must also be taken into account; that is absolutely necessary.

I maintain that although the actual numbers have increased, the position expressed in per centage, has definitely improved as far as the Whites are concerned and that we have been successful. The rate and tempo of increase in the White urban areas in the whole of South Africa has definitely declined. When we look at the statistics of our most important cities and towns we notice striking proof of that. I have gone into the position in the case of some 20 or 21 cities and large towns in South Africa, on the Witwatersrand and elsewhere. Time does not permit me to give the Committee their names. I have not included the Bantu on the mines because they form an entirely separately and fluctuating group which varies according to whether mines close down or not. I have only taken into account those working in other industries in the urban areas. In all these cities and towns the position has improved considerably when you compare two periods with each other. The first period is that five year period between 1946 and 1951 and the second period, which is almost twice as long, is the nine-year period from 1951 to 1960. According to the statistics of all those towns and cities the growth rate has slowed down over the entire South Africa as a whole and in the most important cities and towns with a few exceptions. Mr. Chairman, what they have achieved at Benoni is worth mentioning because there the growth rate has slowed down by 6.7 per cent during the second period in comparison with the first period. In the case of Boksburg it has slowed down by 4.6 per cent; in the case of Johannesburg by 1.8 per cent; Port Elizabeth 3.6 per cent; Germiston 3.5 per cent; Bloemfontein 3.2 per cent. That took place at a time when those places were at the peak of their industrial development and at a time when the influx control machinery was not even perfectly in operation, when such influx control instruments as the reference book system which was subsequently made compulsory in the case of Bantu women, the registration of service contracts, and so forth, were not even in operation. If we want to draw conclusions from these figures I think we shall be right to conclude, in the first instance, that the influx control machinery we have put in operation have definitely been successful. This conclusion is arrived at, and rightly arrived at, by no less a body than the City Council of Johannesburg which said the following in a certain document dated 8 October 1964—

They go on to say that in respect of that age group which performs labour, namely, the Bantu between the ages of 15 and 44, the same position obtains not only in Johannesburg but also in Cape Town and in Durban, according to the Johannesburg City Council—

They have not only moved there, and hon. members must, therefore, remember, when they notice an increase in the number of Bantu in the urban areas, that not all of those Bantu have moved into the cities. They must realize that the Bantu have increased naturally and that fact shouts out loudly against the charge made by hon. members opposite that we are disrupting the family life of the Bantu in the urban areas. What I have just said is supported by the number of service contracts registered. The number of service contracts registered indicate very clearly that in recent years namely, the second period to which I have just referred, the total number of Bantu in the urban areas has been very favourable, in comparison with the first period; in other words, that the total Bantu population in our urban areas is reasonably and particularly low in relation to the number of registered Bantu workers. I want to give one example so that hon. members can understand what I am getting at. Seven of the 20 or 21 towns and cities of which I have made a study have a Bantu population of something like only 20 for every 10 registered Bantu workers which is a particularly favourable ratio when we consider the fact that a Bantu family unit consists of five to seven persons. You find this favourable figure in the case of numerous places. In fact, only in the case of one of all these cities where I have studied the position is the ratio between registered service contracts and working Bantu 40 and more for every 10. There is another yardstick that can be applied and that is the ratio in industry. In this case there has also been a considerable improvement during the period 1955 to 1963. Whereas there were 193 Bantu workers for every 100 White workers in 1955 there were 168 Bantu workers for every 100 White workers in 1963. That shows that also as far as those employed in industry are concerned there has been an improvement in this sense that the number of Bantu workers as against the number of White workers has decreased although the total number may perhaps have increased. [Time limit.]

Why does the hon. the Deputy Minister evade the most important part of the charge made by my Leader viz. that the prophecy of the Nationalist Party that there would be a decrease in the percentage of Natives after 1978 would not come true? The hon. the Deputy Minister says the numbers are not increasing at the same tempo but which figures does he take? He only takes the figures up to 1960. That tempo increased after 1960 and I challenge him to deny it. In respect of the factories which have experienced this boom so many Bantu have never yet flocked into this country than during the period 1961 to 1964. In the factories the number of non-White workers have increased from 56,000 in 1961 to 150,000 in 1964. In other words, instead of the numbers tending to decrease the number is consistently increasing and at an accelerated tempo. It is difficult to argue with an hon. Minister who does not know the difference between a Black location and a White farm in the Hex River Valley but I shall do my best.

I wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister knows what the Prime Minister of the Transkei said when he spoke in Durban? He said: “You cannot live perpetually in houses you do not own”. That was what he said to his own people, the Bantu, in Durban. He went on to say: “Like your fellowmen in the Transkei we want you to buy land wherever you live”. This is the Prime Minister of the Transkei speaking! Why does the hon. the Deputy Minister not reply to the fundamental figures mentioned by my hon. Leader? One thing is unquestionably true and that is that under the five-year development programme drawn up by the Government an additional 80,000 non-Whites per annum will have to be absorbed by our industries. How can there be a change in the tendency of the Black stream to the White areas? Why is their no reaction to the fact that the Government predicted that there would only be an increase of 42,000 in the Bantu population outside the reserves between 1951 and 1960? Instead of the number having increased by 420,000 it has increased by six times as many—there has been an increase of more than 2,500,000. Why does the Government not reply to that?

This whole story that the stream will be reversed after 1978 is based on the predictions made in the Tomlinson Commission report. What do we find? Which of those predictions have materialized? The entire plan of the Government is based on the development programme set out in the report of the Tomlinson Commission. Sir, let us just look for a moment at some of the predictions made in that report and what has actually happened. I have the English version here—

This report came out in 1955 and we are in 1965; the first ten-year period allowed for the basic development is over. What do they say should have happened after ten years—

At the moment 700,000 Natives should have been settled in cities and in the reserves. Where are those 700,000? I put a question to the hon. the Minister the other day. At the moment there are not even 30,000 in the Native areas in the Transvaal. In 1965 700,000 should have been settled in cities and in the reserves if the Government wanted the stream from the reserves to be reversed in 1978.

Take agriculture. There should have been tremendous agricultural development in the reserves in order to attract some of the Natives back to those areas. Sugar cane should have been planted on an enormous scale. Here it is—

In other words, in 1965 already 60,000 acres should have been under sugar cane in the reserves. I asked the hon. the Minister a question the other day and what was his reply? Instead of 60,000 acres only 12,000 acres have been placed under sugar cane! Only one-fifth of what is necessary if the stream is to be reversed in 1978. What is happening to the basic plan as set out in the Tomlinson Report?

I am sorry the hon. the Minister of Transport is not here otherwise I would have asked him what has happened in this connection. The Tomlinson Commission say in their report and in 1965 180 miles of new railway lines should have been constructed. I asked the hon. the Minister whether any of those railway lines had been constructed, and, if so, how many? What was his reply? Not a single yard had been constructed! But, the hon. the Minister of Railways said, the intention was to construct a line of 6½ miles long between Reunion station to the Umlazi area within something like the next five years. Their whole plan has gone awry; there will not be any reversal of the flow of Natives in 1978, either on a percentage basis or otherwise, as predicted in the report of the Tomlinson Commission because the entire plan has collapsed. In 1965 there should have been loan facilities to the “peasants” to an amount of £3,000,000. Has a Land Bank already been established which has lent so much money to the Bantu farmers in the reserves? This entire policy of the Government’s is a fantasy; it has collapsed, and yet the hon. the Minister is still telling the country about the economic development which will take place in the reserves and that the Natives will return. The economic development there does not keep pace at all with what is necessary in order to absorb those Bantu. The hon. the Minister still says it is keeping pace. But what should have happened, according to the report of the Tomlinson Commission, has not happened. The only development which has taken place has been political development. In that respect they are developing faster and faster on the road to independence. We find that the Prime Minister of the Transkei got up and said that he recognized no Central Government. Does the hon. the Minister know about that?

After some trouble I managed to get hold of a Transkei Hansard and this is what the Prime Minister of the Transkei said—

[Time limit.]

The hon. member has argued very much along the same lines as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has done and that is that the flow of Bantu to the cities cannot be put in reverse gear. Both of them say it is impossible. I shall deal with the question of whether or not that is possible in a moment.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said they would help to develop the homelands so that the natural growth at least could be absorbed. He pointed an accusing finger at the hon. the Minister and said that during the past years the natural growth in the Bantu population throughout the Republic had found their way to the urban areas.

I said nothing about the natural growth.

He said something along those lines; the increase in the population. In any case, I am quarrelling with him about it. He pointed an accusing finger at the Minister because the number of Bantu coming to the cities was increasing. I want to ask him this: What right has he to make that accusation? He is the Leader of a party which is in favour of allowing an unlimited number of Bantu to flock to the urban areas. [Interjections.] We shall see whether that is so. In the first place, they are against influx control … [Interjections.] Very well, they are against certain influx control. But the policy of the United Party, as repeatedly expounded in this House by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn), is that the Bantu should be allowed to sell their labour in the highest market. I ask the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) whether that is their policy or not? How can the Bantu sell his labour in the highest market in South Africa if there is influx control? How can you reconcile the two, Sir? Influx control places a restriction on the Bantu as to where he can sell his labour. Let me ask the hon. member for Pinelands this: Can the Bantu sell his labour in the highest market in terms of their policy? He won’t reply, Mr. Chairman. That is our difficulty with those hon. members. You can only argue with them up to a certain point and when you ask them a question they can easily answer they remain quiet. The hon. member for Yeoville has said it is the policy of his party that the Bantu should be able to sell his labour in the highest market. Yes, he did say it. How can you allow a person to sell his labour in the highest market and apply influx control at the same time, influx control under which you say: You may only sell your labour in this or that market?

Let us go further. Not only are they against any effective influx control but they also want to allow the wives and families of all the Bantu who come to work in the Republic to come to the urban areas. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) had a great deal to say about our disrupting family life; he regarded that as a cardinal sin. In other words, every Bantu labourer in the Republic must be entitled to have his wife and his children with him. And the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants to give property rights to these millions and millions of Bantu, with their wives and children, who sell their labour in the highest market. The wives and children must be here otherwise we shall be disrupting their family life. Mr. Chairman, where will you find better conditions than those under which a black proletariat will be permanently established in the urban areas? They will constitute a labour pool which, according to the admission of the Leader of the Opposition, will not be allowed to own anything more than the little plot on which they live. We shall have millions and millions of Black people within the Republic, in cities like Cape Town, Johannesburg, Pretoria, Vereeniging and Bloemfontein, and the only thing they will be allowed to own will be the piece of land on which they live. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition need not look with contempt to this side of the House when we ask a sensible question: If the Bantu may own that little plot would he be allowed to own an industrial site at Paarden Eiland? Would he be allowed to own a business site here in Adderley Street? When we ask that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says: “That is the type of argument we get from that side of the House!” May I remind the hon. the Leader of the Opposition of this that the only reason why he has not got the honour of sitting on this side of the House is that he lacks the necessary support? He will become further and further removed from this side of the House because we shall be taking more and more of his support away from him.

I shall sit in that front bench!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says he will sit on this side of the House! We are already so many ex-United Party supporters in the National Party that he must also threaten to join!

In other words, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not want to give this Black proletariat anything more than the right to own that little plot. May he own two? They won’t reply, Sir. When the man has saved a little money may he purchase another plot? They will constitute a mass of Black people who will have no other rights than to offer their labour. They will not be allowed to develop. The United Party talks about a middle class. Where will the professional class be; where will the employer class be; where will those things be which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says will combat Communism? Where will you find more fertile soil for Communism than such a Black proletariat who will have no rights whatsoever other than to own a little plot?

What rights are you giving them?

We are not giving them any rights; that is the whole point. We say they must develop in their own homelands; that is why we want influx control. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) has not the faintest idea what all this is about.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition complains because this flow of labour to the urban areas which has been taking place over the past 50 years under Governments which did not in any way subscribe to this basic policy has not put into reverse gear immediately. Mr. Chairman, when a motor-car does 100 miles per hour you cannot immediately put it in reverse gear; you will break it to pieces. You first have to apply your brakes and even that you have to do so gradually otherwise you turn the car over. You have to reduce speed gradually. I am not surprised at the hon. the Leader of the Opposition thinking it is not possible. Everything is impossible as far as they are concerned. They thought Iscor was impossible. When we wanted to establish Sasol they produced the same figures they produced to-day. The hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) ridiculed the whole idea. When the then member for Ladybrand told the hon. member for Yeoville that petrol was obtainable at Kroonstad the hon. member for Yeoville said: “You took the entire supply when you filled your car”. They ridiculed the idea of Sasol just as they are ridiculing this idea to-day. They produced figures to show it was impossible but we have Iscor and we have Sasol to-day. It was also predicted that we would all become bankrupt if we became a republic. The hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) produced the same figures as those produced by the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) to-day to show how our exports would drop, how our preferential rights would drop, how the products would lie and rot at the harbours; how no money would flow into the country, etc. As far as they are concerned nothing has yet been possible. Everything has always been impossible.

Who could have predicted 50 years ago what development would take place in South Africa? Who could have predicted 50 years ago what it would cost South Africa to develop the way it has developed? What would have been the position had the leaders of the Voortrekker and the 1820 Settlers asked: What is it going to cost to develop the country? What sacrifices will we have to make? Had we been of the frame of mind the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is we would all still have been catching harders here in Cape Town and all the Englishmen would have been minding goats near Port Elizabeth; they lack the willpower, Sir; they lack the initiative; they regard everything as impossible. Nothing is impossible to people who have the willpower but nothing is possible to weaklings such as they are.

I do not intend to be distracted by the red herring drawn across the floor of this House by the hon. member who has just sat down except to say that he holds the most extraordinary philosophy that if you do not give people anything at all they are likely to be more satisfied than if you give them only a little. I must say this is an extraordinary philosophy. It bears out what the hon. the Deputy Minister said before him, namely, giving people something little by little only makes them want more. Let me assure the hon. Deputy Minister that by giving people nothing does not mean that they will not want anything. They continue to want and to deprive them of all rights does not mean that they are not going to want any rights at all. This is an absurd delusion which the Nationalist Party suffers from about the African population.

The hon. member for Vereeniging said one other thing to which I want to reply. He said: Who could have predicted 50 years ago what the development was going to be in South Africa? Who indeed. Sir? But I can tell the hon. member this, that had the policies, the restrictive policies, which this Government wishes to impose on the economic development of South Africa, been in force 50 years ago we would never had had the development we have had. Had we had the restrictions on mobility, the restrictions on the utilization of skills, the restrictions on setting up industrial areas and other restrictive pieces of legislation, I can assure the hon. member that the pace of development would have been slowed down considerably. I do not think it is anything for the Government to be proud of that it has slowed down, as they put it, the rate of inflow to the towns. Of course, I am not one of those who looks for that slowing down …

Why not?

Because, to my mind, the future of this country lies in industrialization and not in going back to the land. One would have thought that was something we left behind us in the 1920s, when there was a flow of White people to the towns and when exactly the same arguments were used about urban people being submerged by that flow, about wage rates being depressed and so on. The future in this country lies in rapid industrialization and only in that way will we be able to keep up the standard of living of all our people and continue with the rate of growth. Industrialization is the answer to our problem.

Sending people back to nothing, to unemployment and starvation in the reserves does not solve the problem at all. What we should do is to absorb people in industry in this country as fast as possible.

I want to come to the urban Bantu situation although I should like, at a later stage, to reply to some of the allegations made by the hon. Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. If I said ugly things, the hon. Minister said uglier ones. The hon. Deputy Minister has said that the very fact that there is a natural increase in the urban African population shows that family life is not being affected by Government policy. This is nonsense. Anybody who knows anything about what is going on in the townships to-day knows that urban African life is being most grievously affected by the implementation of the Bantu Urban Areas Act, by the fact that women are not being allowed to stay with their husbands and that families are being broken up. Children are not allowed to rejoin their parents. Children who are sent away to school in the rural areas by parents who either thought the educational facilities were better there or by parents who, because both were working, felt that the children would be subject to bad influences in the city, sent their children away to be brought up in the rural areas by grandparents, and now those children are not allowed to rejoin their parents. Those parents are now finding that those children, having had to take out their registration books in the rural areas where they were educated, are not being allowed to rejoin their parents. Is this helping to keep family life intact, Sir?

I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister how he imagines the African family feels when their children are not allowed to join them? How do the families feel who, because the men lose their jobs, are no longer able to remain as family units because the wives and families are sent back to the reserves? That has happened over and over again. I think it is utter cynicism to talk about building up the family life in South Africa. We have private members’ motions in this House about the sanctity of family life when deliberately, by Government edict and Government action, African family life is in fact being broken up in the towns. I think it is cynicism for the Deputy Minister to say, as he said yesterday, that one of the reasons why he was going to implement this absurd one-servant-one-household law in July of this year, was because he hoped that the Africans would then be able to live some sort of normal life; that their hours of work would be reduced and that they would be able to live better family lives in the urban areas. The hon. Deputy Minister knows perfectly well that it is the intention to put domestic servants into dormitories or hostels; it will be compound labour … [Interjections.] The whole of Alexandra Township is being turned into dormitories or hostels for single men and single women. They are not single, of course; they are married, but according to the hon. Minister, since they do not have domiciliary rights to live here with their families, they are single people and housed as such. So it is not in order to assist the African servants to live decent lives that the hon. the Minister is now going to impose this law. I want to warn him that a chaotic situation can easily develop if. in fact, this law is imposed soon. As it is, the transportation system to and from the townships is chaotic in Johannesburg and if the hundreds and thousands of domestic servants living-in are added to the existing numbers I hate to think what the situation is going to be. The domestic servants will not be getting up at six o’clock to serve their White master’s tea in bed but at 4 o’clock in order to get to work on time. Equally so they will not be able to get home.

You can make your own coffee and if you do not know how to make it I shall teach you.

I know the hon. the Deputy Minister displayed himself in a fancy apron last year doing domestic work. I made the remark then that I did not think the taxpayers were paying him good money to do domestic work which other people could be doing for him. I believe in people doing the work for which they are most suited and if that is what the hon. the Deputy Minister thinks he is most suited for it is all right with me. But I think the time of a Deputy Minister should be more suitably employed.

There are transport difficulties, there is a shortage of housing and a shortage of staff. Every Department in this country is short of administrative staff and now the hon. the Deputy Minister is going to implement this law and put an additional strain on administrative staff, on municipalities and local authorities throughout the length and breadth of South Africa. Every domestic householder will have to get a permit to have more than one servant on his premises. How, does the Minister think, is any Department, with the shortage of staff which exists, going to cope with this additional burden? Does he know what is happening in his colleague’s Department with this mixed entertainment nonsense? Every householder will now have to queue up at the local authority’s office to try to get a permit to maintain the situation which has been working perfectly well for all these years. So let us not have any of this nonsensical talk about it being done for the benefit of the Africans themselves. It is being done for one thing and one thing only. The hon. the Minister was challenged on ideology yesterday by an hon. member and he had to give a “kragdadige” answer, namely, that he was going to implement this law which was passed a couple of years ago.

I have a moment or two left and I want to talk about rural Bantu townships again. The hon. the Minister did not answer me yesterday when I asked him why it is necessary, in the Bantu homelands, to have these restrictive regulations about the ownership and occupation of houses in the Bantu rural townships which are in the homelands, mark you, Sir. The hon. member for Vereeniging has just asked whether the Bantu would be able to own more than one house in the urban township if he had a little bit of money. But, Sir, if he has a little bit of money he is not allowed to own more than one house in the rural township in the homelands, these wonderful areas where every African is to be allowed to develop to his full potentiality! The sky is the limit! He can become a capitalist; he can own several businesses! The regulations, of course, say something quite different. A man may not even take up occupation and ownership in a house in these Bantu rural townships in the homelands unless he has given up all rights to owning property elsewhere in the reserves. [Time limit.]

The hon. member who has just sat down talked about chaotic conditions. I want to say this to her that we on this side of the House were under the impression that, because of the policy she advocated, she was the personification not only of chaotic conditions in South Africa but of something much worse, namely, bloody riots and bloody revolution in this country if the ideas she advocated were put into practice. That is why it is with a sense of gratitude that one thinks she is obviously singing her swan song when she gets up in this House to speak.

Hon. members of the Opposition base their arguments on the Tomlinson Commission report. I want to ask them who appointed that commission because to judge from the way in which they talk one would really think the United Party did so: It was the National Party Government which appointed the Tomlinson Commission. I want to remind hon. members that a Commission, the Native Affairs Economic Commission, sat in 1932 and in its report that commission said the following in respect of the Transkei: “That unless soon remedied, desert conditions will prevail”. The United Party government of the day simply threw up their hands and decided to follow a policy of laissez faire in respect of the development of the Bantu homelands, so much so, that then General Smuts on one occasion, after he had seen that report, threw up his hands and said: “You can just as well try to sweep the ocean back with a broom” as to try to prevent the Bantu from flocking to the White areas from the Bantu homelands. But then the National Party Government, on the strength of a document of faith, the National Party Manifesto of 1947-8, came into power and started to introduce separate development in those areas in which conditions were chaotic as a result of the laissez faire policy of the United Party.

The point I want to make is that hon. members opposite cannot see the wood for the trees because they continually indicate that they definitely do not understand the policy of the National Party Government. The policy of the National Party Government has at least been stated very clearly, namely, that it is not a policy, as hon. members opposite suggest, which is aimed at having Bantu in the Bantu homelands on the one hand and Bantu in the urban areas on the other hand. That is the fundamental mistake hon. members opposite have made continually during the course of this debate. The policy of the National Party Government is not only a Bantu-centred policy, but it is a policy which is Bantu nationally-centred. But it is even much more than that. Not only is it directed at creating Bantu nations but it is directed at developing those Bantu nations and it is wrong, therefore, to say that it is the policy of the Nationalist Party on the one hand to have Bantu in the homelands and Bantu in the urban areas on the other hand. In terms of the policy of the National Party Government the emphasis is placed on the Xhosa nation in South Africa, the Zulu nation in South Africa, the north-Sotho nation, the west-Sotho nation, the south-Sotho nation, the Venda nation and the Sjangaan-Tsonga nation. These include the urban Bantu as well as the Bantu in the Bantu homelands. These nations constitute a reality and not only an idea or an ideal. In reality, both as far as terminology and the practical approach are concerned, they portray the situation in South Africa, namely, not a number of Bantu, as members of the United Party would have us believe, but Bantu nations who are living in South Africa. In respect of this Bantu national development, with the accent on “national development”, it is quite clear that it poses a tremendous challenge, that this national development cannot be brought about overnight, that it is a slow process, a process which will only bear fruit if you work at it continually and make sacrifices in its interests.

What attitude does the United Party adopt towards this Bantu national development? In this respect they adopt the same attitude they adopted towards the Flag of South Africa, towards our National Anthem, towards Iscor, towards the Republic. In respect of all those things they stood aloof, they criticized, they said they were wrong and persistently refused to take part. That is what they are doing today in respect of the most burning question which has ever faced South Africa, namely the national development of the urban Bantu and the Bantu homelands on the platteland, seen together as Bantu nations (Xhosa, Zulu, west-Sotho, south-Sotho …); all together but separately so. However, the United Party is doing much more in this process. They are breaking down, they are destroying, instead of following a policy of developing the Bantu nations. I challenge the United Party Leader to get up in this House and to say that they are set on Bantu national development from the point of view of all the Bantu in South Africa forming separate nations. Instead of doing that the United Party is promoting national disruption in South Africa and the charge we level at the United Party is that, in respect of the White people of South Africa, as well as in respect of this Bantu national development, they are doing such a disservice to this country that time will pass strong judgment on them.

In this regard I want to quote something very interesting in respect of this Bantu national development which this Government is trying to bring about and ask the world outside which has so much to say about the emerging nations whether any country has done more to develop the Bantu than this very National Party Government of South Africa? Which nation in the world is more anti-colonial as far as the Bantu nations are concerned than the South African nation? I want to quote the following—

So I have set up this entirely new ministry, the Ministry of National Culture and Youth, said Nyerere of Tanganyika at the official opening of his Parliament in 1962.

Against the background of that outlook which is also inherent in the national development of the Bantu in South Africa I want the United Party to tell us whether they see their way clear to give shape to the idea expressed in the passage I have just quoted. It is obviously an impossible task and that is also the reason why the United Party blow both hot and cold as far as this important matter is concerned, just as the person did who visited this country and said on his return overseas—

Likewise the United Party is blowing both hot and cold. They are no longer bluffing either the South African nation or the Bantu nations. They will not again succeed in doing that and that being the case it can truthfully be said of the United Party that the same fate will befall them which befell the old lady who accidentally sat down on a hot oven; she burnt herself.

That is why I plead with the South African nation, both English and Afrikaans speaking, to appreciate the realities of the situation as far as the Bantu nations are concerned and to present to the world the great reality of the South African situation as it is, namely, that our policy is not Bantu-centred but that we have Bantu nations in this country and that this Government is trying, as no other nation in the world is trying to stimulate and encourage that national development. [Time limit.]

The hon. member who has just sat down spoke about national development, and made it clear that by this he meant the development of the Zulus, the development of the Xhosas, the development of the Vendas and so forth.

And the Bushmen.

Yes, he could also have mentioned the Bushmen. He says that a nation cannot develop unless its various constituent groups are developed. Who does the hon. member think he is talking to in this House? On that basis he wants the Afrikaners and the English-speaking people to develop separately. Is it not hon. members opposite who have so much to say about the breakthrough which they have made in regard to the English-speaking people? Is it not they who speak of one nation? Even though they speak of one nation of English and Afrikaans-speaking people, does the hon. the hon. member still want to keep the Vendas and the Zulus and the Xhosas separate? Mr. Chairman, this sort of thing is too pathetic for words.

The hon. member who spoke just before he did—the last speaker also said this—said that the Nationalist Party had inherited a chaotic position from the United Party and he said that the Nationalist Party had worked a miracle by appointing the Tomlinson Commission. He said that the United Party policy was a “let things develop” policy, and this was also the theme of the speech of the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee). Is it not true that the Nationalist Party Government also allowed things to take their course? Is it not true that they have not applied the policy which they said they would apply? But, of course, they are so clever. The hon. member for Vereeniging says that there is no integration under the Nationalist Party even though there are hundreds of thousands more Bantu in the White area. It was only integration under the United Party. He alleged that the United Party was opposed to influx control. Where does he get that from? He was a member of the United Party when we were supposed to have been opposed to influx control and when we allowed things to take their course.

That was why I left the United Party.

Now he has another story. What does this amount to? It amounts to this. If one opens the windows in this building …

This room.

The hon. member means this Chamber. The hon. member cannot even talk coherently. I am speaking of a building. If he simply opens the windows he will be able to see whether there is integration in South Africa or not and whether it is not worse under the policy of this Nationalist Party than ever before.

I come now to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. It is a strange thing that the hon. the Deputy Minister always has a few figures available which he uses when it suits him. He contended categorically that there is less integration now, that the influx policy has been reversed and that there are fewer Black people in the White areas than there were prior to 1951.

I said nothing of the kind.

He quoted three places and on these he based his entire theory.

That is distortion.

On a point of order, may the hon. member say that the hon. member for Drakensberg is guilty of distortion?

The hon. the Minister also said it.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that word.

I withdraw it.

The hon. the Deputy Minister said that there has been a definite improvement and that there has been a decrease in the number of Bantu under the influx control policy of the Nationalist Party.

You are very weak to-day, at your weakest.

If that hon. member says that I am weak, I know that I am better than I usually am. The hon. the Deputy Minister spoke about primary development and said that industrial development must come at a later stage, and he said that the United Party was in favour of integration—“To mingle with one another”. Those were the words he used. I want to say quite categorically that the hon. the Minister’s allegation is untrue; it is an allegation which they usually make when they see that they are in trouble. That is an old trick of theirs. Before I leave these two hon. members, I should like to quote an extract from a paper entitled ‘The True Nationalist”. This is what this paper says about Mr. Blaar Coetzee (translation)—

This paper states that Mr. Blaar Coetzee said this on 3 May 1962. The paper goes on to ask whether, according to Mr. Blaar Coetzee, Bantu ideals are the most important calling of the Nationalist Party. It goes on to say (translation)—

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister says that there has been a definite decrease in integration, but what does this paper have to say? It states (translation)—

What paper is that?

The True Nationalist.

Where does it come from?

Find out for yourself.

That is the Smits’ paper.

The paper states (translation)—

Where is the influx control and where is the policy and where is the decrease which the hon. the Deputy Minister mentioned? I should like to put a further question to the hon. the Minister in connection with Natal. He spoke about consolidation in Natal and he said that it was not necessary for a national unit to be in one block. He said that there would be various blocks in Natal. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) then asked him what the centre of the various blocks in Natal would be. and his reply was: “It is difficult to say.” And when the hon. member asked him further where the borders of the Transkei would be …

The Ciskei.

When the hon. member asked him where the borders of the Ciskei would be, he said that they were difficult to define. If it is difficult to define the borders of the Ciskei and to indicate the centres for Natal, what is going to happen? Sir. we in Natal are worried. There is a non-White township not far from where I live, between Newcastle and Utrecht. The hon. the Minister has had a great deal to say about this place. He has told us that we should go and look at the wonderful township that has come into being there. We all know that the hon. the Minister goes into raptures when he talks. [Time limit.]

During the course of this debate the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had something to say about Bantu home ownership, their ownership of property within the White area. In order to draw a conclusion from the attitude adopted by the Opposition recently to the effect that the National Party must be accused of accelerating the process by which White South Africa is becoming Blacker, I should just like to quote from Hansard, Col. 4337 where the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had, inter alia, this to say (translation)—

referring to the Bantu—

We find to-day that a further qualification has been added to this. At the time, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not qualify his statement as he has done in this debate—that it will only be a certain select group of Bantu to whom home ownership rights will be given in terms of their policy. It is very clear that this statement which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has made to-day is not at all in conformity with what he said during a previous debate, as is obvious from what I have quoted from Hansard. I want to point out further that the denial on the part of the Opposition this afternoon that they are in favour of granting the Bantu unlimited home ownership in the White area of South Africa is very far from the truth. I want to quote the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) as reported in the Cape Argus. Among other things he blamed this Government because “there is no outlet to express grievances”. He said this in referring to the Rivonia case. He said that the Rivonia incidents were caused because we gave the Bantu no opportunity at all to air their grievances. He had, among other things, this to say—

He mentioned two things here, home ownership and a place of their own choice. Hon. members of the Opposition have told us this afternoon that they are not opposed to influx control. I am surprised that anyone can still say at this stage that they are actually not opposed to influx control.

What are you talking about now?

It has been stated very clearly here that if the Bantu select a place hon. members opposite were opposed to influx control. It has been stated in this debate that hon. members opposite were to a certain extent opposed to influx control and that they are not against it.

Who said that?

I have quoted as much from a report in the Cape Argus, and the same thing has been said in this debate by various speakers.

Who said it?

I come now to the much criticized question of time, whether it is in 1978 or the year 2000. The position is this: We hope to be successful in our policy to draw most of the Bantu to the Bantu homelands, to their ethnic groups where they can develop and grow as a nation, without placing a damper upon them—and one of the dampers mentioned by the Opposition here was to the effect that they would only allow them to develop to a certain level. The United Party is opposed to the Bantustan policy, and the danger of numbers at any stage, whether in 1965 or in 1978 is inherent in that fact. There are also the political rights and right of ownership which the Bantu have within the White area and the facilities which the Government, in particular the National Party Government, has created for the Bantu in their Bantu homelands. I say this because United Party policy amounts to this, that if numbers in the White area are at that stage a factor in regard to the Bantu, then the race federation plan of the United Party means that those large numbers of Bantu will to a large extent have political rights which will enable them, as hon. members opposite have said, to elect White representatives to this Parliament to represent them. Everyone in South Africa and everyone in the world to-day knows that the Bantu will never be satisfied with eight White representatives in a White Parliament, but furthermore, if one gives them political rights and they are registered on any roll, even though it be a separate Voters’ Roll, it will result in their eventually demanding their own representatives in Provincial Councils as well, and they will also demand representation on city councils. What right does the United Party have to register a Bantu nation on a separate Voters’ Roll, to give it that right, and to begrudge it any other right in any other body? This fact will also weld the Bantu together in their trade unions. What will eventually become of South Africa under the policy of the United Party?

Attacks have been made upon us to-day in regard to the numbers and development of Bantu homelands. Can anyone tell me which hon. member there, from their leader to their most recent backbencher, has made any contribution towards the development of the Bantu homelands in South Africa? If they are opposed to Bantustans, what contribution have they made towards any Bantu area? What the United Party did in this House was to attack us and oppose our legislation when we wanted to remove the Bantu from the locations in the sky, from the White cities. I can mention many other pieces of legislation which they opposed. In reality, therefore, they are striving for integration. Apparently they no longer understand the meaning of the word “integration” but we know that the admixing in flats and in hotels is the start of integration. Bantu right of ownership in the White area is also the start of integration. I want to say here to-day that if there is a party which can be accused of following a policy which will result in total integration and admixing in South Africa, it is the United Party and its policy. I. challenge the United Party to mention anything they have done which has contributed towards refuting what the National Party has always stood for—a White area in South Africa and the Bantu homelands for the Bantu. But if one gives the Bantu property rights and political rights, such a policy must eventually lead not to the fact, as hon. members opposite allege, that South Africa will become White, but to the fact South Africa will in the first stage become piebald, and that eventually the Black man will prevail in Parliament and in all the other legislative bodies, and those bodies will then become Black. And so the accusations which hon. members opposite make against the Government are completely refuted by the facts I have mentioned here. I hope that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will explain to me why in the quotation which I made, he did not add the proviso which he added this afternoon when he spoke about the question of property rights. I told the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that I would take his middle stump to-day, and I think I have it.

We have listened with great interest to a number of speeches to-day and to play upon words and the throwing backwards and forwards of what A said to B and what B said to A, but I think the time has arrived for the Government to realize that we are dealing with people. There are 12,000,000 of them at least. According to the figures given by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, whatever the Government may do within the next 30 years, we will have something like 8,000,000 Bantu outside the Reserves, in the urban areas and on the platteland. Those are incontrovertible facts. For many years we listened to the promise that when the Tomlinson Commission had finished its deliberations, the whole solution would be found and everything would be set right, but as was said by the hon. member for Orange Grove, ten years have gone by now, and we already see what the results will be. I do not blame anyone for that, but it is time that the Government, and the Minister in particular, looked facts squarely in the face, and that he should make up his mind to accept the offer of the Leader of the Opposition to assist to see that this matter of the Bantu in the urban areas is dealt with on a reasonable, constructive and progressive scale. It is no use arguing about this. Words do not help at all. We need some action. I would like to tell the Minister that the figures of the National Housing Commission show that whatever the Minister may say, in the last four or five years, there has been an enormous increase in the number of Bantu in the urban areas, and the number of houses built indicates that their number is growing and will continue to grow.

Do you want them out?

There is no question of wanting anybody out at all. My contention is quite simple. These are people who have a stake in the country and they should have some responsibility. The hon. member for Vereeniging says they will have nothing. Believe it or not, that means that 8,000,000 people will have absolutely nothing and will just be here at the whim and whimsy of the Government, and that is absolutely wrong.

We hear so much about integration. I would draw the attention of hon. members opposite to the remarks by the late General Smuts when he said that the Government was “spoofing” the public. I think they are now “spoofing” themselves.

I think Japie is “spoofing” you.

They are blind to the facts and they persist in running away from things which are happening around us, and which they cannot possibly stop. They cannot reverse the order and they know that very well. Let me refer to this handbook which is being flashed around by the Government side—

And “undisturbed” is a simple English word which simply means “Leave the man alone”—

That is our policy. I should like to say, and everyone who works among the Bantu knows it, that the first cardinal principle and the fundamental thing that every man should have is a piece of land which is his own, and a house upon it which is his own. That is where the old proverb comes from that every man’s home is his castle. Once a man has that, he becomes a citizen and he becomes reliable and responsible. These are facts which are borne out by history. We cannot continue as we are going now. I know a great deal about the Bantu. I have worked with them for many years and I can assure you, Sir, that they resent the attitude of the Nationalists that they shall have nothing for ever and for aye; because that is what was said by speakers on that side to-day. I believe that the time is ripe when we, as the controlling group in this country, the people in authority, the people in government, who can make concessions, must begin to consider the problem objectively if we are going to survive as a group and as a people.

By making concessions?

Of course. That is the only thing you can do. I want to say quite frankly that I have no fear of the Black man, unlike my friends opposite, and all this nonsense about the “swart gevaar” is bringing this country into disrepute. When the hon. members started with the Bantu homelands they thought they had the solution. I believe that no one knows better than the Government that they have no intention of giving these people independence. The whole thing is slowing down to such a degree now that we find attention is focused only on the Transkei. The hon. members for South Coast and Zululand tried to get the Minister to make some statement about Zululand, but they could get no satisfactory answers. We have on the Estimates provision for six Commissioners-General. One of these gentlemen is at Mafeking. That is also to be in one of the Bantu homelands. We who come from that part of the country would like to know where the boundaries of this Tswana homeland are? It does not exist. There are upwards of ten or more Bantu reserves all scattered about the top end of the Cape Province, the Western Transvaal and quite possibly in the Free State. I want to know where the boundaries are. Then we will know where we are, because the Government does not know where it is. There is a complete silence on the part of the Government.

Tell us what you are talking about.

I am talking about the Government and the hon. member can make his own speech in due course. I say that the way the Government is handling the Bantu problem is nothing short of disgraceful. It needs a constructive approach. It is not easy, and that is why you find on the other side speakers hammering at our leader and wanting him to cross the t’s and dot the i’s and to put in the full-stops and the commas. In dealing with this matter we are dealing with a living thing and with people. Times change, and the plan which was laid down originally, the theory, is a thing of rags and tatters, because if Government policy is examined in toto it will be found that it varies from place to place and from province to province as regards the Bantu and the Coloured man. It depends upon to whom they are talking. Therefore I say, that by this time, we ought to realize that all the fancy talk about apartheid and Bantustans and homelands and border industries and all the nonsense that is spoken from time to time, should come to an end. We should get to the roots of the problem and realize that the Bantu is the biggest asset this country has. He is a consumer; he is a customer and you want to chase him out of the Republic. We hear about White South Africa, but I still have to find out where the boundaries of White South Africa are. We ask, but we get no answer. Where is this mythical place? All sorts of weird places were described by the early explorers in Africa. It sounded like a story book, and they were fairy tales, too. The Government does not know where the boundaries are, but they do not have the moral courage to stand up and tell the public that what they set out to do has failed hopelessly and that we still sit with 5,000,000 to 8,000,000 people who will have no rights, no property, and no say in this country of ours.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) is not here. The hon. member spoke about the hostels that are being built in Alexandra for the single Bantu males and females and she said it was unfair of the Government to tear these people away from their families and make them live in single quarters. The hon. member ought to know better. That is not correct. Those hostels are in the first place being built for single men and women, Bantu already in Johannesburg, people who are working in flats, offices and in industry. These are people who are already in Johannesburg and who have gone there of their own free will leaving their families behind. There is no question of their having been forced to leave their families.

I listened attentively to the hon. members of the United Party and after having listened to them I am more than ever convinced that if the United Party has a Bantu policy, most of those hon. members do not understand it themselves. I come to the conclusion that there are members of the United Party who wish to make out that they are so violently opposed to economic integration and that they would even go so far as to accuse the Government, when it imports Bantu labour, of promoting economic integration. I should like to prove that it is the United Party which is deliberately and essentially in favour of the integration of the Bantu. I want to mention a case affecting Johannesburg specifically and which has already become a nuisance to every White inhabitant of Johannesburg. I am speaking about the thousands of Bantu coffee carts which are encountered on the streets of Johannesburg in the White areas. This has become an evil for which the United Party is responsible. These coffee carts are not always carts with wheels in the ordinary sense of the word. In many case they are nothing more than a large box which is set down on the pavement and which contains foodstuffs which are sold by Bantu to Bantu passers-by. There are sometimes 12 to 15 of these carts to a block standing in a row on the pavement. One can imagine what the surrounding area looks like with all the papers and empty cartons and banana skins and so forth which are left lying around, because of this flocking together of the Bantu which takes place in White residential, industrial and business areas. Johannesburg is the only town or city in the Transvaal which is governed on a political basis and it is the United Party which governs this city.

What about Germiston?

The hon. member knows that this is not the case in Germiston. There is no city in the Transvaal controlled by the National Party. The hon. member is merely showing his ignorance. This United Party City Council of Johannesburg is the barometer by means of which I judge the actions of the United Party and the implementation of its policy. I want to emphasize its policy, because from what I have said we are able to judge what its practical effects are. I read in the Press that the United Party usually denies that it is in favour of integration, and hon. members here deny that they are in favour of integration. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has only to-day denied that he said something or other, but I have never heard hon. members of the United Party, including its Leader, saying: This is our policy. They have not told us to-day, nor did they tell us yesterday, what their Bantu policy is. The only hon. member who has given any indication of policy has been the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr.J.D. du P. Basson). That is why I want to return to this question of Johannesburg and to say that it is in Johannesburg, where the United Party rules, where they encourage a policy of integration.

By means of these coffee carts?

Yes. The City Council of Johannesburg has always sought refuge behind the fact that there is no legislation in terms of which they can have these coffee carts removed, but in actual fact Johannesburg has never ever been enthusiastic about the removal of those carts. Those carts appear on the street and it is not necessary for their owners to hold a trading licence. There are two ways in which they can be removed. The first is if they do not comply with certain health requirements and the second is if they offend against the traffic regulations. These are the two ways in which the City Council can remove them, but up to the present they have always refused to do so. Representations were made to them on numerous occasions in this regard but nothing was done. The public then made representations to the police and after the police had taken action and had prosecuted numbers of these Bantu and after there had been a number of court cases, the City Council could do nothing else but take action in terms of these two laws. They had a few of these carts removed, but there are still thousands of them on the streets. There is legislation which provides that the Bantu cannot obtain trading licences in the White areas, and this also holds good for Bantu eating houses. But provision is made for the other races in this connection. There are some of these Bantu eating houses in the White areas in Johannesburg and space and facilities are available for far more of them. Legislation was introduced last year in terms of which the Minister can empower a city council to remove these coffee carts. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether the City Council of Johannesburg has up to the present applied to have those carts removed; secondly, if the reply is in the negative, I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether the Government is satisfied to allow that position to prevail in Johannesburg; and, thirdly, if the City Council is not going to take action to remove those carts, which are actually there illegally because legislation does exist in terms of which they can be removed, whether the hon. the Minister is not going to take action against that United Party City Council to ensure that they obey the laws of the country and carry out the policy of the Government? It is clear to me that where the United Party not only has the privilege of talking but is also in a position to take action, we are able in various spheres—because the question of the coffee carts is only one example I can mention in Johannesburg—to see how the United Party acts and when it shows itself in its true colours. It is not only in this case; there are many more cases in Johannesburg which can be mentioned as examples in this regard. I am just thinking of the people living in the servants’ quarters and the special bus services which have, as it were, been established to transport these Bantu in the late evening and in the early morning from the White areas to the city and from the city to the White areas, where they ought not to be, so that they can sleep there at night and return to the city in the morning, while during the day one will note that there are only two or three Bantu on the bus. But at peak hours there is ample proof of the fact that they are returning from the White residential areas to the city or vice versa. That is how the United Party arranges matters. [Time limit.]

Before dealing with influx control centres in the rural areas of Natal and the shortage of farm labour in the farm areas of Natal, I want to correct a wrong impression that was given here yesterday by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) (Mr. Odell). The hon. member, in one of his now,

I think, quite famous short statements in this House, gave a completely wrong impression when he thanked the hon. the Minister and the Prime Minister for what they had done for the Native villages and for the Bantu in Pietermaritzburg. The Mbal Village was planned and started many years ago by the Pietermaritzburg Corporation. Early on we were not helped by the present Prime Minister. I was one who led a deputation comprising the late hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) (Col. Shearer), and the then Mayor of Pietermaritzburg, to get permission to promulgate the layout of the township, so that we could get on with the work, and the Prime Minister withheld his consent for three years and we were delayed to that extent, so that the present development has cost the city many more tens of thousands of rand than if it had been passed at that stage. That is what Pietermaritzburg has to thank the Prime Minister for and not, as suggested by the hon. member, that he has done something to help Pietermaritzburg to house its Natives.

The second wrong impression the hon. member gives I also want to correct. I want to say that here he was misleading the House, unfortunately, through his ignorance, because in the short time he has represented Pietermaritzburg …

Order! Does the hon. member say he was misleading the House?

I said he was misleading the House through his ignorance. Surely I can say that I am sorry for the hon. member. I tried to help him while he was still on this side of the House. Perhaps somebody on the opposite side is now trying to help him without knowing the facts about Pietermaritzburg. For the information of hon. members, and before any more statements are made by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City), I would suggest that the Chief Whip opposite should tell them to get their facts right. Pietermaritzburg is very proud of this Sobantu village which lies to the east of it. I was on the City Council when we used to have to arrange for deputations to be taken over that village, one from as far as Salisbury, because they wished to have plans of that village to copy, which they did in Rhodesia, because that was a model village for Bantu anywhere in Africa. But this is the village which this Government stopped from developing further. It is still to this day one of the most modem Bantu villages in Africa of which we are intensely proud in Pietermaritzburg. I should like to see the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) get up in the City Hall, which he will have to do if he ever hopes to fight another election, which he appears to be frightened of, and face the public, where he will get a reply from the people in no uncertain manner. They will repudiate him entirely in regard to every statement he has made in this House in the last two years. I wish to correct those statements and the hon. member can read my Hansard. As I said once before, I am prepared to answer him at any time in the City Hall in Pietermaritzburg. I intend to deal with this very matter when I have a report back meeting. [Interjections.]

I now want to deal with the shortage of labour on the farms in Natal. The Deputy Minister, when we had the Bantu Laws Amendment Bill before us last year, told us that he had the blessing of the Agricultural Union to do away with the farm tenant labour in Natal because that would lead to the better use of farm land and that we could be assured that it would work well. Speaking for many farmers in Natal, I said that we had to have that hard core of well trained and satisfied farm labour. Those of us who farm with high quality cattle need that hard core, and I said that we could pick up seasonal labour with difficulty, but that did not matter so much as long as we had our hard core of labour on which we could rely all the year round. The Minister said it was his intention to make us get rid of all our farm tenant labour.

They are squatters.

No, they are not squatters. The hon. member does not know what he is talking about. These are good farm labourers who have been with us for many years and work very hard. They do not pay rent; they work. The Deputy Minister assured me that the influx control centres (labour bureaux) set up in the rural areas would supply us with labour. I want the Deputy Minister to tell us where in Natal, in the rural areas, there is an influx control centre, where they have a single male Bantu ready to go on a farm and who is in a fit condition to enter service. There are none. New Hanover, Greytown, Umvoti, Estcourt, Pietermaritzburg, Ixopo—most of those places have not even got an influx control centre (labour bureau) and where there is one there is no surplus labour available. The new sugar areas for the new big sugar mill which is being built at a cost of R13,500,000 in the middle of Natal where I have a farm and where all my neighbours and I are planting sugar cane, where we have moved all our farm labour because we want to put the greatest possible acreage under cane, there we now find that we cannot even stump some of the land and plant it with cane because we cannot get labour. They have no labour available, and if you go to the Bantu Commissioner he will tell you that all he can do is to give you a permit to go into the Bantu reserves to get your own labour, which is only for one week. And what is happening? You are competing with lorries coming from the industrial areas of Durban.

I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether it is not correct that the industrial people of Durban are being given permits to go and get their own labour because the influx control office in Durban cannot supply them with the labour they need. They are sending lorries up into the Native reserves, a thing which is not allowed under the Bantu Laws Amendment Act. These people are nevertheless getting permits and going out into that area. One of the big timber companies in my area which had a good, well-satisfied, well-fed labour force, which was sufficient for their farms was told by the Bantu Affairs Department: “You have too many married Bantu on this farm; you must get rid of some of them.” They could keep all their Bantu as migratory labour but they could only have so many married quarters and the others had to go, unless they stayed as migratory labourers. The men said that they were not going to stay there without their wives and that they were going to go elsewhere where they would be allowed to have their wives with them. This timber company lost a big proportion of its labour. Today they have empty rondavels on that farm. They went to the influx control office and they did not get a single male Bantu to help them, and then this is supposed to be the Government which is supposed to help the farmer to get labour. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Capt. Henwood) will forgive me if I do not discuss farm labour. One of the main points of attack of the Opposition was the increased number of Bantu in the cities. We now know that in terms of their policy they have no hope that those numbers will be reduced; in fact, we know that they will be quite satisfied if the numbers increase rapidly.

No, we will establish industries in those areas with White capital.

My hon. colleagues quoted figures, which I do not want to repeat because I do not have the time, to show that certain tendencies can be ascertained to indicate that the policy of the Government will in fact succeed in so far as influx control and labour regulations are concerned. Sir, what is most significant in this debate is that the urban representatives, and particularly the Johannesburg members of the United Party who know that these figures are correct and that these are facts, did not participate in this debate. But while we admit that there is an increased number of Bantu in the cities, I want to point out that in terms of the policy of this Government those Bantu are in the cities and will remain there but will merely enjoy a privilege there, whereas in terms of the policy of the United Party they will remain there in terms of rights they enjoy there. I do not want to go into details now, but I should like to mention a few of those rights.

One of the standpoints of the Opposition is that the urban Bantu must be recognized as a separate entity; that there should be influx control for one large area such as, e.g., the Witwatersrand, and that the Bantu should be able to go from place to place in that area as they like, irrespective of whether there is housing for them or not. We also know that it is their policy to give them property rights, not as stated in the policy which the hon. member for Karoo (Mr. Eden) has just quoted, but as appears when the United Party fights an election against the progressives. I have before me an election manifesto of one of the United Party candidates when he fought the progressives in Johannesburg. There he clearly stated what the policy of the United Party is—

That is not the qualified property right referred to by the hon. member for Karoo.

What are you quoting from?

From the election manifesto of this United Party candidate. However much they deny that in the beginning there will be only White representatives for the Bantu in this Parliament, we know that eventually Bantu representatives will sit here. Let me again quote from this manifesto—

I repeat that the Bantu in the cities, in terms of the policy of the Government, enjoy privileges there …

Who said that?

Time does not allow me to quote further from this manifesto. I repeat that the Bantu who are in the cities enjoy privileges there in terms of the Nationalist Government policy, but the Bantu who will be there in terms of the policy of the United Party will enjoy rights there, and that is the reason why the electorate rejects the Opposition time and again.

But I really rose to deal with two other matters. In the first place I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the implementation of the provisions of the Natives (Urban Areas) Amendment Act of 1955, which is generally known as the Locations-in-the-Sky Act, by the city councils in our urban areas is such that the contribution which can be made in this way towards the implementation of our policy is what it should be. Secondly, I want to ask the Minister what progress has been made in regard to the closing of municipal compounds within the White municipal area of a city like Johannesburg, for example, municipal compounds of which there were still as many as 20 in 1961.

In regard to the first matter, the questions of the locations in the sky, I just want to remind the House that in terms of this Act local authorities have the right to license Bantu who do essential work to stay in the urban buildings in which they work. Sir, to anyone who is aware of the problem of locations in the sky and who keeps his eyes open, it must be clear that in an area like Cape Town—let us take the Sea Point area as an example, wih its large blocks of flats—everything cannot be in order. Just recently particularly we have read many letters in the Press by people complaining that the Bantu and the Coloureds swamp places like Sea Point and other areas. I ask myself whether these correspondents realize that these alleged trespassers about whom they complain are the people—they and their friends—who legally or illegally sleep in the blocks of flats in Sea Point? Have they ever asked themselves where the bus-loads of Bantu and Coloureds come from which early every morning travel from that area towards the city, in view of the fact that there are no residential areas for Bantu or Coloureds in Sea Point? I have every reason, based on my observations stretching over a few years while I was here in the Cape, for believing that everything is not in order in Cape Town in regard to the implementation of this Act, and more particularly in the Sea Point area. I should like to learn from the Minister whether that is also his impression and what the position is in other cities.

As far as Johannesburg is concerned, I stand on firm ground. The Minister said in 1962 that he was negotiating with the Johannesburg City Council to get an amended basis on which this accommodation could be licensed. We later learned that the City Council of Johannesburg was prepared to apply a different basis to new buildings but not to existing buildings. In the meantime three years have elapsed and I think it is time for us to ask that an account be given—I ask that because I have in mind a specific example I wish to mention. In one of the rich suburbs of Johannesburg, Killarney, a block of flats was completed in 1964, to which the City Council of Johannesburg, in accordance with its own standpoint, can apply this amended formula, and in fact it does so, but how does it do it? For the 61 luxury flats in that block, accommodation for two Bantu men and 13 Bantu women was licensed. That seems quite satisfactory, but what did the City Council do further? Because the formula provides for the so-called “hard cases”, apart from the 15 Bantu, they licensed no fewer than 34 Bantu out of so-called humanitarian considerations. In other words, a building licensed for 15 Bantu already has 49 at the moment, and it is a brand new building which was completed last year. I am not talking now about an old-age home, all the inhabitants of which need to be cared for; I am talking about the rich people of Johannesburg. I say that if that is the pattern there must be something wrong with the application of the Act. [Time limit.]

The facts and figures which the hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Van der Spuy) gave about the surprisingly large and extra number of Natives in flats, afford very clear evidence, I think, that the facts and figures that Government members use in trying to establish that there has been a reduction in the number of Natives in the so-called White areas, are highly fallacious. There are thousands and thousands of Natives who are quite illegally in the so-called White areas and who never allow themselves to be picked up in any census. I do not believe that those figures are anywhere near correct and, consequently, all the arguments advanced by the hon. the Deputy Minister and the figures quoted by him are highly suspect.

You cannot refute them.

But, quite apart from that, the hon. the Deputy Minister argued this matter on the basis of percentages in an attempt to show that the rate of growth of the Native population in the White areas was not as fast as before. Even assuming that that is correct, which I do not concede, the fact remains that the absolute number is going up and up. I ask the hon. the Minister himself to dispute that fact, and to concede that this date 1978 has no validity whatsoever; and to tell us what new attitude his Government is adopting so that one can have some small semblance of confidence that they will be able to cope with the position at all. Hon. members opposite, in arguing this matter, keep on forgetting that there are at the present time approximately 9,000,000 Natives in the so-called White areas, and only 3,000,000 in the reserves, whilst the White population is only 3,000,000. Those are the facts to-day; and there are many Native families amongst those 9,000,000. I do not doubt for a single moment that there are far more Native families than White families, and therefore the number will go up and up quite apart from any so-called control of inflow into the towns. That is the point that hon. members opposite must bear in mind; let them put that in their pipe and smoke it.

Sir, I want to come back to something interesting that has been made clear in this debate again to-day. The hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) has pointed out how hon. members opposite have changed their policy completely. He quoted the speech of the hon. the Prime Minister himself when he was Minister of Native Affairs in 1951, and when he said that there would be no question of “lappe gebiede” being tom out and becoming independent states. We all know that there was that change, and many organs of this Government admit that it is a radical, revolutionary change. But I want to ask the hon. the Minister now to tell me which of the policies declaimed in this House to-day and yesterday is the one that he is going to follow. Because we have had two quite contradictory policies advocated by the Government in this House to-day and yesterday. And I want to say that outside this House Nationalist Party members advocate a third policy which I shall mention.

Name them.

The first policy is that followed by the hon. the Prime Minister and his great lieutenant, the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman).

Not great.

Well, the hon. membei for Heilbron is his first lieutenant. The hon. member, speaking in this debate, said: “Dit maak nie saak of daar 50. 5,000 of 5,000,000 Naturelle in die Blanke gebied is nie.” That, if the theory of their policy is accepted, then it makes no difference. Sir, that is his policy, and that basically is the line to which the Prime Minister took his party a couple of years ago when they were asleep. The Prime Minister has again said recently that the essential thing is political separation, though the other is important. In South Africa, where we have such a difficult situation, obviously only the essential things can be looked at, and since that policy comes from the hon. member for Heilbron, who is the chairman of the Bantu affairs group, and who would give that doctrine absolutely pure, it is perfectly clear that that is the one policy.

Against that we have men like the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) and the hon. member for Randfontein (Dr. Mulder), who pleaded a different policy here. They are still sticking to 1978. They admit that there has been an inflow; but in a magical way it is all going to disappear. That is an entirely contradictory policy to the first; that is the old policy that was proclaimed by the Paul Sauer Commission; that is the policy that was snatched from under them by the Prime Minister when he had his vision. Those people are pleading for political separation. I suppose you can say that the logical conclusion of that is to go to partition which, of course, the Prime Minister said in Durban was “verspot”.

Sir, we have had two absolutely contradictory policies proclaimed in this House today and yesterday. The one says that physical separation is quite irrelevant, and the other says that it is vital, and that we must make sacrifices to achieve it. That, of course, was the sort of plea that people like the Burger were putting up when they had an exchange of articles with Trouw in December 1963. They said that the sort of question that we go to bed with at night and get up with in the morning is whether there will be massive development of the reserves which will suck these people back into the reserves. Those are the two policies that we have had from hon. members opposite in this debate.

But then, of course, there is a third policy of the Nationalist Party which does not get proclaimed in this House, but is proclaimed outside very widely, and it has some significant followers. That, of course, is the old policy of Mr. Strijdom, the policy of “heer-skappy oor die hele Suid-Afrika”. Those were the banners that they used to display in the Johannesburg City Hall. If I remember rightly, the hon. the Minister of Transport was chairman at a meeting at which I was present in Johannesburg where this was done. I honestly believe that the bulk of the Nationalist Party supporters to-day still support this policy. I was interested to see in last Sunday’s Sunday Chronicle that there is a section that says that it is going to put up about 45 candidates to get back to this true policy.

I am glad to see the silence which greets this remark of mine, because I believe that it indicates a measure of agreement and a measure of appreciation that this policy is very widely followed by (their supporters.

Those were the good old days.

I therefore ask the hon. the Minister whether he is prepared to tell us which of the three policies they are following. I appreciate, of course, that the hon. the Prime Minister is trying to sit on two stools; he is trying to bridge the gulf to bring these policies together. I want to see how the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development will fare in this circus act of sitting on two chairs. Sir, there are the obvious clashes that we have here in this House, and I think it is time we got clarity from hon. members opposite on these points.

I must say that what I have witnessed here to-day is one of the most wonderful political spectacles that I have ever witnessed in my life. The National Party is being attacked here because South Africa is becoming blacker and blacker, and the Party which attacks it is the very Party whose policy it is to make South Africa blacker and blacker. After all, the only Party which has done anything so far to stop this process is the National Party.

Where?

Let me remind hon. members of what happened from 1939 to 1947.

Nothing worse than now.

I think that was probably before the hon. member was born, otherwise he would never say such a thing. Sir, the sluice-gates were simply opened wide and the Bantu flocked into the urban areas from east and west and there was no work for them here; there was no housing for them. Sir, I have often referred here to Cook’s Bush in the Cape Peninsula. I wonder whether that hon. member ever saw it. It was such a mess that it is something that I will never forget as long as I live.

It took you 17 years to clear up these conditions and we only had two years after the war.

It would have taken any other Government 50 years. We know what the position was in Johannesburg and Durban and other cities. Sir, here I want to mention the classic example of United Party policy and that is Cato Manor in Durban. I wonder how many hon. members on that side saw the conditions there. It was the finest example of United Party policy. Do you know, Sir, what happened there? The City Council of Durban eventually approached me and said, “We are hoisting the white flag; we want you to take over.” Those are the conditions that prevailed in those days. It was the Nationalist Party Government which put a stop to this; it was the National Party Government which cleared up these conditions and eventually restored order. And believe it or not, the very party which created those conditions comes here to-day and levels the reproach at the Nationalist Party Government that the Government is responsible for the fact that South Africa is becoming blacker and blacker, when in point of fact the cornerstone of the policy of the United Party is to make South Africa blacker and blacker. When they were in power they drew the Bantu into the urban areas and they are going to do so again in the future; they make no secret of it. Sir, have you ever known anything like this to happen in any Parliament in the whole of the world? One cannot help feeling that this is purely a subterfuge on the part of those hon. members, that it is some sort of psychological phenomenon. But I go further. I never thought that in my lifetime I would ever hear such nice things said about the Tomlinson Report as I did here to-day. I think if we go on talking a little while longer hon. members on that side will come along with the statement that they appointed the Tomlinson Commission.

We would have appointed different members.

Hon. members opposite are already on the way towards saying that they instituted the Transkeian Government; it will not be long before they will say it Let me remind hon. members opposite of the sneering references which they made not only in this House but throughout the country with regard to the report of the Tomlinson Commission. Let me remind them how they grossly humiliated the Tomlinson Commission. But I go further. It was proposed by! the Tomlinson Commission that £104,000,000 be spent over a period of ten years on the development of the Bantu areas. Do hon. members apposite remember the great hullabaloo that they raised here about it?

Yes, it was not enough.

And when they found that they could make no impression upon the public, they pushed up the amount; some of them mentioned the amount of £500,000,000. The hon. member for Yeo ville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) eventually arrived at £3,000,000,000 and then the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) came along and crowned it all by telling the public at a meetnig that it was more than £10,000,000,000! That was the sort of thing that we had to put up with from that side of the House and to-day they come along and they embrace the Tomlinson Commission. The fact of the matter is that the majority of them have no idea what is contained in the report of the Tomlinson Commission. Sir, the same party which lifted influx control and opened the sluice-gates so that these people could flock into the urban areas now come along and proudly say, “We are the people who introduced influx control, not the National Party.” Sir, there was some form of influx control, but what sort of control was it? Just think how often it was necessary for us to tighten up this Act, and we had to do so in the face of bitter opposition from hon. members on the other side, and yet to-day they come along and say, “We are the people who stand for influx control.” As the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) pointed out yesterday evening, there was a bitter fight here over the establishment of the Transkeian Parliament, and to-day we have the phenomenon here that an hon. member of the Opposition actually stands up here and says, “After all, there is not such a great difference between the old Bunga and the present Parliament” Sir, why is all this suspicion sown; why do they sow all these seeds of bittemess? Why do hon. members opposite go out of their way, as we have heard in this House, to humiliate people? Sir, the United Party has been saying in season and out of season recently that the National Party changes its policy time and again, when in point of fact there has never been a party in this country which has changed its colour policy as often as the United Party has done. I challenge hon. members opposite to show that there has ever been another party in South Africa which has changed its colour policy as frequently as the United Party has.

You have also changed your colour policy.

Our policy is still precisely the same policy that we published in 1948; as far as principles are concerned, there has been no departure from it. Sir, the United Party now come along and level the reproach at us that we are not making sufficiently rapid progress with the development of the Bantu areas, but in the platteland they raise all sorts of objections, especially just before elections, about the large sums of money that we are spending on the “kaffirs”.

Who has objected to it?

I am sorry that the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) is not here, but she is not the only one; there is also the hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren), and I could mention quite a number of others. That is what they say in the platteland: “Look what the Nationalist Party is spending on the kaffirs.” That is the sort of language that they use in the rural areas. The same party which did absolutely nothing to develop the Bantu areas, the same party whose provincial leader said at a congress of their’s some time ago that not another square inch of additional land was to be bought for the Bantu, now come along with the reproach that we are not developing the Bantu areas rapidly enough.

Additional land for Bantustans.

Sir, that promise was made to the Bantu in the 1936 legislation; that legislation contains the word of honour of the White man. After all, this is not something that political parties can use to suit their own purposes. Nobody has the right to make the White man’s word of honour suspect.

We witnessed another scene here to-day which reminded one of the proverb about the drowning person clutching at every straw. That was the impression that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition gave me. He showed here to-day that politically he was a drowning person clutching at every little straw. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to a graph drawn up by the Tomlinson Commission, a graph showing what the trend was likely to be in the future with regard to the numbers of Bantu in the White areas and in the Bantu areas. He says that what is happening in South Africa at the present time is entirely different from the position reflected in that graph, and that that proves that the Government’s policy in this connection is a failure. Surely, Mr. Chairman, that argument is illogical. In the first place, I want to say that all my predecessors and I, myself, and every Nationalist have consistently said that, because of the development in this country, the numbers of Bantu in the White areas will continue to increase.

No.

Yes, we have always said so. The Prime Minister, too, has always said so. We said that the numbers would continue to increase, but that, with the development of the Bantu areas, the flow back to those areas would start in 1978. Perhaps here I should clear up one point which is not perfectly clear. The question has been raised here as to how we arrived at 1978. When we were considering the report of the Tomlinson Commission, we made certain estimates. A few experts came to the conclusion that, at the rate of development indicated in the Tomlinson Report, we could expect the flow back to the Bantu areas to start in about 25 years’ time; that was in 1953 and, if you add 25, you arrive at 1978.

Who were those experts?

Professor Sadie, Professor Olivier, Professor Fourie and others. These people are experts in this sphere. It was felt that if this plan was tackled at that rate, there was a possibility that the flow back to the Bantu areas might start in 1978. It is not just an arbitrary date. We examined the position subsequently, and we then included this graph in the report.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that the present trend is not at all in accordance with what is shown in this graph, and that that proves that the policy of the Nationalist Party is a failure. But what were the conditions like in 1953? They were entirely different from the present situation, and nobody realized that better than we who wer* members of the Tomlinson Commission. In laying down that proposition, we argued that it could only hold water if certain conditions were complied with. Those conditions were stated (perfectly clearly; we said that if this, that and the other happened, then so and so would happen. We realized that we were dealing here with people; we realized that we were dealing with circumstances which might try from moment to moment. We realized that if a war broke out the whole of this graph would go by the board. That was why we made it subject to certain conditions. That is how every scientist worthy of the name sets about things. But how could the commission foresee that we would have this tremendous economic growth within such a short period after the report?

The Prime Minister says that he planned it this way.

Wait a moment; it was not planned by the Tomlinson Commission. Hon. members on the other side prophesied that, by this time, South Africa would be bankrupt. How would that graph have looked if we had drawn it up on the basis of what they prophesied? We realized full well that we were dealing with a changing situation in the world, a changing situation which affected South Africa; that we were dealing with people and with certain factors, and that is why certain conditions were laid down. According to this graph, if this, that or the other thing happened, then this, that or the other would be the trend of events. What right has the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, now that the trend of events indicated in this graph has not fully materialized, to say that on the basis of that graph we must admit that the policy of the Nationalist Party has failed? Everybody with some slight scientific knowledge will admit that the trend of events, after the publication of (that graph, was such that it no longer complied with the requirements that were originally laid down in the graph. We have created conditions now which are much better.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition made another blunder. He says that, according to this developmental programme, at least 80,000 Bantu will be needed every year. Where will they be needed? In the White areas only? That is the impression which the Leader of the Opposition created. He created the impression that those 80,000 would be settled in the White areas. Surely that is not correct. This developmental programme covers the entire economic plan; it is not the programme for the White areas only; there are also the border areas. I admit that the industries in the border areas are in (the White areas, but the important thing is that the Bantu who work there are settled in their own areas.

Can we agree that that development is based on private initiative, and that it has no bearing on development within the reserves?

Quite correct, but then we must also agree that the border industries are developed by private initiative and that all the Bantu employed in the border industries are settled in the Bantu areas.

No, all the Bantu in the border industries are employed in White industries in a White area.

But they are living in a Bantu area. [Laughter.] Sir, that is typical United Party logic! These Bantu are now suddenly integrated because they are employed by Whites, although they live in their own area! No, that type of logic will carry no weight with any scientist. Let us be perfectly clear on this point: These border industries have been established with the object of putting a stop to this large-scale influx of Bantu, together with their families, into the White areas, and we have had very great success in this regard.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has also made the accusation that the rate of development of the Bantu areas is far too slow. He says that he has visited those areas and that he has seen what is being done there. As against that, I want to give the Committee the impression of economists of repute who say the opposite. These economists say that they are surprised to see what success has been achieved in developing the Bantu areas. I admit that the United Party Government also tried to develop those areas, but, as I have frequently said in this House, what happened in those days was that the work was done by a small group of White hirelings whilst the Bantu sat there looking on. To-day the position is just the opposite.

Now the Whites are looking on!

Our basic approach is to let them do this work under the supervision of White technicians. That is the difference, and that is the reason why we are having success. Here I want to mention the name of Professor Houghton of Grahamstown. Professor Houghton has a very thorough knowledge of the conditions in the Ciskei in particular. He made a very thorough study of the Ciskei, and he is very favourably impressed with the wonderful progress that we have made in this Bantu area. He said in one of his lectures: “Apart from China, and apart from Russia, there is no country in the whole world which has tackled such a project on such a scale with as much success as that achieved by South Africa in the past few years.”

With as much success?

Go and ask him; he is an economist. I might just say that Professor Houghton is not a Nationalist, but he is an honest person.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has outlined his method of development here for the umpteenth time. He wants to develop the Bantu areas with private initiative and private capital. We are opposed to that. We have often argued this matter here. We are opposed to it because we do not want to have the reproach levelled at us that we are exploiting the Bantu areas—that is what is happening to-day in the economic sphere in the majority of the African States—because the profits would then go into the pockets of private entrepreneurs. Sir, I have often challenged hon. members opposite to show me which people would be prepared to do what the Tomlinson Commission recommended, and that is to establish an industry; to run it for, say, 15 years, and then simply to hand it over to the Bantu. Nobody has done it up to the present moment. In the States of Africa this method is regarded as one which is designed to exploit the Bantu areas. That's is why we are opposed to it. I wish hon. members opposite would visit Swaziland and see for themselves what feeling there is against the British Government because of this very same method.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) bitterly reproached the Government on the ground that we were allegedly destroying the family life of the Bantu. Sir, I just want to say a few words in that regard. I submit without any fear of contradiction that there has never been a Government in South Africa which has done as much as this Government to place the family life of the Bantu on a sound footing. I challenge hon. members opposite to deny that. Look at the conditions that prevailed in Johannessburg, Cape Town and other centres in the days when the United Party was in power. I, myself, did some research at the time, and I found that 80 per cent of the Bantu women in the urban areas were not married. Many of them had up to eight children, and not one of those children knew who his father was. Why was that the position? Because there was no housing for them. Is there any single factor which does more to destroy family life or to build up family life Chan proper housing? The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said some very unpleasant things here. I know that he obtained his information from the Black Sash. I also understand that the Black Sash has presented him with a sash. Why does he not wear it when he makes this type of speech?

Sir, show me any country in the whole of Africa where the family life of the Bantu has been placed on such a sound footing as in the Republic of South Africa. Go and see what the position is in Ghana! To-day there is hardly such a thing as marriage in Ghana. Go and see what the position is in Dar-es-Salaam. Go and look what these people who have fled from South Africa are doing there. There is no longer such a thing as marriage. Mr. Chairman, I could go on mentioning one country after another, and yet in this country where we have done so much to build up family life and to restore family life we find that bitter reproaches are levelled at us by our own people, by people who ought to know better. I do not regard that as just and fair. I quite honestly admit that the position is still not what it ought to be but we are making very rapid progress in rectifying this position.

Another matter with regard to which we are being reproached is the migratory labour system. Sir, I wonder whether hon. members are aware of the Bantu’s psychological approach to this issue. In the old days the position was that the husbands simply went away from their wives at certain times. This is a psychological phenomenon, that we find amongst the Bantu. Sir, these are certain things which hon. members on the other side fail to take into account. We often find that the Bantu himself is anxious to work as a migratory labourer. If we were to do what hon. members on the other side propose, and that is to allow every Bantu who comes here to work to bring along his wife and children, what would South Africa look like then? Moreover, would we then succeed in building up the Bantu areas? It would simply be impossible.

Reference has been made here to Umlazi, but many hon. members who refer to Umlazi do not realize that Umlazi is a Bantu homeland. Sir, we have a further problem to contend with in connection with the development of the Bantu areas, and that is the large scale on which suspicion is sown by the United Party and its Press. That is why I said in Bloemfontein on one occasion that if the English-language Press would leave me alone for five years, I would produce a different South Africa. Suspicion is thrown on every single thing that we set out to do. Let me give an example. A few years ago I made a speech in Zululand where I said, amongst other things, that we were going to start building cities and that within a comparatively short time some of these cities would be just as big as Durban. That statement of mine was referred to sneeringly in the English-language Press at the time. To-day, however, reports are being published under banner headlines in these newspapers to the effect that we are going to establish towns in Natal which are going to be bigger than Durban; now they are boasting even more than I did. Why must they always first sow suspicion? Surely that is being dishonest. Now that these towns have come into being they admit that I was right. I should not be surprised, Sir, if we are told by the United Party one of these days that they are the people who built those towns.

I want to come back for a moment to the hon. member for Transkeian Territories. The hon. member has again come along with the old reproach in connection with the Whites in the Transkei. After the establishment of the Transkeian Government I was asked to give my attention to this matter.

Before that.

How could I give my attention to it before that? Surely that is nonsense. How could I intervene in a matter in regard to which no decision had yet been taken? The hon. member ought to know that administratively I could not do so either; he is not so stupid. He is trying now to resort to the clever tricks of an attorney. Administratively I could only give my attention to this matter after the passing of that legislation. I have already mentioned numbers of places that we have cleared up; we have made very rapid progress. Unfortunately I could not trace the name which the hon. member mentioned. It is possible that what he says happened did happen, but what I did was to refer this matter immediately to the Bantu Investment Corporation. Sir, I have been asked why I did not immediately appoint the Adjustment Committee. I did not do so because we were busy disposing of quite a number of these things. I just want to add that there were some people who had refused to accept these offers; they thought that the offers were too low. We were still arguing about it. We then appointed the Adjustment Committee. The hon. member wants to know what the Adjustment Committee has accomplished so far. He says that it has done nothing yet and that the way in which the Government is treating the Whites in the Transkei is scandalous. Sir, I think the way in which he is treating his constituents is scandalous.

Let my constituents speak for themselves.

The hon. member said that we would never get him out of the Transkei, but he is now beginning to become afraid. Any man who makes that type of speech has reason to become afraid. It is a sign of fear; he is like the man who starts whistling when he approaches the cemetery. I just want to tell the hon. member what this Adjustment Committee has already done. They have already paid two visits to the Transkei during this short period; 37 properties have been offered to them during this period; 17 of those properties have already been valued, and hon. members must not forget it takes time to make these valuations; it takes time to check the books. Included amongst those people, there are quite a few widows, and there are four people of advanced years. I hope that these cases will be disposed of in the near future, but, as the hon. member knows, there are certain administrative tasks etc. which first have to be completed. We have to act in a responsible way; we cannot simply pay the price for which the person concerned asks. I am quite convinced, however, that we will be able to help these people. This committee is actively engaged in dealing with this matter. Is it right on the part of the hon. member to create this sort of impression? I do not think it is fair. If that committee did not do its work, the hon. member would be entitled to criticize them, but let him at least first make sure of his facts. No wonder people query everything he says! One should first make sure of one’s facts.

Give us the names of those 13.

I will let the hon. member have the names.

The hon. member came back again to the question of the zoning committee and queried my statement that I only received the report on 7 April. Sir, would I tell a lie in this connection? That committee left Cape Town after discussing certain matters of principle with me; they did not sign their report here. They first went back again; there were many things that had to be re-typed and they signed their report there. I only received it on 7 April and that is the gospel truth. Surely it is not a nice thing on the part of the hon. member to suggest that I am not speaking the whole truth.

Why did the hon. the Minister not see to it that he was given the report earlier?

The hon. members knows how commissions work and he knows that one treats commissions with courtesy. After all, I cannot treat them in the way in which the hon. member treats me.

The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) stood up here and made a number of wild allegations. He says that the chiefs gathered at the office of the Commissioner-General and that they unanimously voted down a motion moved by Paramount Chief Cyprian and adopted another motion in its place. Mr. Chairman, that is not the position. No motion was moved by Paramount Chief Cyprian. They gathered there and discussed the question of Bantu Authorities and whether a Territorial Authority should be established. Buthelezi then stood up and moved another motion, and I might just say that that motion was inspired by some of the hon. member’s loyal friends; the chiefs had been canvassed previously, but I have no quarrel with that. Buthelezi then stood up and said that they had received no instructions from the people to take a decision with regard to the establishment of a Territorial Authority.

That is what I said.

But you said that Cyprian had moved another motion.

Yes.

That is not correct. Cyprian did not move a motion. The hon. member must accept my word for it. That is not the task of a Paramount Chief, and the Paramount Chief of the Zulus is very meticulous in observing the rules, perhaps much more so than many of our Whites. But Buthelezi moved a motion and the other chiefs then adopted the motion to the effect that they must first consult their people, which is quite correct. But here once again we have this phenomenon, as far hon. members on the other side are concerned, that whilst they would be quite prepared in this House to describe what happened in this case as a democratic act, the very next moment they turn round and say that the system of chiefs is not a democratic system; that it is an autocratic system. That is the sort of game that the United Party plays. What the hon. member over there said was not correct.

Then the hon. member wants to know from me whether we sent out a circular letter in which instructions were given that the Bantu were no longer to be consulted but that they simply had to accept the system of Bantu Authorities. I must say that if such a circular was sent out, then it was done in conflict with my instructions. I did not authorize such a circular letter. I also saw a report in the newspapers to the effect that a certain official had published a statement to this effect and I then called for a report in this connection. What happened was that in certain places the system of Bantu authorities had been misrepresented and certain tribes were under the impression that we were coming along with an entirely new system which was designed really to eliminiate their traditional councils. We had one case where the officials had discussions with the members of a certain tribe; they talked to certain people who said that they were members of the tribal authority. These people then said that they first wanted to consult their traditional council. We then found out that the traditional council consisted of entirely different people. The Bantu were under the impression that they had to elect two councils, one council to co-operate with the Government and the other council being their own traditional council. It was in this regard that we saw a number of the chiefs, and that we sent out a circular letter in which we pointed out that there was no difference between the Bantu Authorities and these traditional councils. The traditional council is the Bantu Authority. All we are doing is to recognize the traditional council as the Bantu Authority, and that is our policy. There is no such thing that they first have to pass an additional resolution to the effect that their traditional council will now be the Bantu Authority. The traditional council is the Bantu Authority, and we recognize that traditional council. That is the procedure that we have been following throughout South Africa. That was the decision that we took in Pretoria, and that we conveyed to our officials, particularly in Natal, because there was a misunderstanding in the minds of certain people, particularly in the minds of the Zulus, with regard to this matter. Under no circumstances would I allow a Bantu Authority to be forced upon any tribe. After all, if we did force it upon them, how could we co-operate with them? If they have no confidence in it, then there can be no cooperation between us. It would be very dishonest on my part to do so. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that I am going into this matter very thoroughly to see what is behind this report which the official concerned published in the Press. He did not do so with the permission of the Department. Circular letters are regarded as confidential and I, myself, was shocked that an official of my Department had said that he had received such a circular letter. As I, have said, I am going into this matter.

The hon. member also said that I knew that the Zulus were opposed to the Bantu Authorities system. Buit surely that is not correct. On what ground does the hon. member make that statement? Already there are more than 100 tribal authorities amongst the Zulus, and they have a large number of regional authorities. And look how well we are co-operating; look at the developmental work that has already been done! We saw again during the recent drought that where tribes had accepted the developmental work and where the regional authorities had co-operated with us, they suffered practically no damage, so much so that this same Buthelezi came to us and said: “Come and help us too; we will pay for it.” That is what happened in Natal. I admit that there are still tribes which have no tribal authorities, but this matter is receiving the necessary attention. We know that the Zulu is conservative by nature; one has to be very tactful with him; he will not allow things to be forced upon him.

Then the hon. member wants to know whether we also want to apply Proclamation No. 400 to Zululand. Sir, that is a very unreasonable question. He knows in his heart of hearts that we did not apply Proclamation No. 400 in the Transkei with a view to promoting Bantu Authorities. It was done, as I have pointed out this morning, because of Patrick Duncan and his kindred spirit; it had nothing to do with the question of Bantu Authorities, which had long ago been voluntarily accepted in the Transkei. Why does the hon. member seek to create this impression? After all, he is an adult and a responsible person. He said that we were not looking after the loyal Bantu; that we were pushing them aside. But, Sir, is it not the chiefs with their councils who constitute the conservative element amongst the Bantu? After all, they are the people who take steps against the agitators. That is why we are protecting them, of course.

The hon. member touched upon another important matter here, and that is the planning at Richards Bay. As far as this important matter is concerned, he did say a few sensible things. This is a matter, of course, which rests largely with the Minister of Railways. For my own part, I promise him that I will make the necessary contacts immediately. As far as we are concerned, I think we should also cooperate with the provinces to plan this area properly. We believe in planning, and it will be of no avail if we plan incorrectly with the result that it becomes necessary to move people again in the near future.

The hon. member also expressed his concern with regard to the erosion that is taking place in these areas. Sir, I want to tell the hon. member that we have already achieved fine results in this connection. That has already been admitted by various bodies. There are numerous tribes who are co-operating with us and whose conservation works are classic examples of the conservation of catchment areas. Here I want to mention the case at Bergville in particular. The hon. member knows that this is a very sensitive area. There we have one of the tribes who are co-operating with us, and we have built up and conserved this area in such a way that it has aroused the admiration of every expert who knew what this area was like before and who sees what it looks like to-day. Last year the chairman of the Farmers’ Union stood up there and said: “I want to say here to-day that the work done here by the Department of Bantu Administration is a model, and it also serves as an example to farmers in the neighbourhood; here the farmers can come and learn how things ought to be done.” When the chairman of a Fanners’ Association makes that sort of statement, we can accept that they really appreciate the good work that is being done there. We are giving this matter our attention therefore.

The hon. member wants to know whether those areas will be able to carry the natural increase in the population. That is a difficult question to answer, of course, but what many people overlook is the fact that most of those areas are still undeveloped. With proper consolidation and proper development, these areas, as we were told by experts who sat on the Tomlinson Commission, will be able to carry the whole of the Bantu population for at least the next 50 years. With full-scale development, they will be able to carry a much bigger population. If these areas were developed on the lines on which many countries in the Middle East and certain countries in Europe, countries such as Belgium, for example, have been developed, then the possibilities there would be very great. Sir, I am one of those who definitely adopt the attitude that we need the Bantu, and that millions of them will still come here to work in the White areas. We will continue to make use of Bantu labour and, to a very large extent, they will supplement our own labour force in our economy.

The hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) said that we were not giving effect to the recommendations contained in the Tomlinson report, and he then went on to say that the Tomlinson Commission had suggested that a certain number of morgen be placed under sugar cane, and that we had not yet done so. But we must be realistic. These things can only be done as and when circumstances permit. Hon. members must not forget that there was a time when the price of sugar was so low that we were advised by everybody that no further sugar quotas should be allocated.

At that time there could be no further development therefore. Now that the price of sugar has risen, we are developing fairly rapidly. The same thing applies to the other facets of development which have been referred to here. It cannot be said on this ground alone, therefore, that we are not giving effect to the plans recommended in the Tomlinson report.

The hon. member for Houghton wants to know why regulations have also been introduced now in /the towns situated in the Bantu areas. It is absolutely essential that control be exercised there. In the first place this is based on an ethnic foundation. As far as possible the Zulus will be settled in Umlazi and other places amongst their own people; the Tswanas mainly in Pretoria, and other ethnic groups at various other places. This is something which means a very great deal to them. It was my privilege just recently to receive a visit from a number of Tswanas, who came from Kimberley to thank me for the fact that we were fulfilling our word of honour in maintaining these Bantu towns on an ethnic basis. We cannot depart from this policy therefore. There are certain people in Pretoria and elsewhere who reproached me bitterly because I refused to allow all the various Bantu ethnic groups to be settled there, but if we did allow it we would be destroying one of the cornerstones of our policy, the policy of ethnic grouping, and we would be destroying the confidence of every ethnic group in the policy of the National Party. It is for that reason that I cannot abandon this important principle. There must be regulations. There is a flow of Bantu to those areas, and we would like to see that people who have no housing yet are first provided with housing. That is why we cannot allow a person who already has one or two good houses in another area to acquire a further house in a new township simply for the sake of making a good investment. We must first see to it that these people who have no housing are each provided with a house. But in addition to that, regulations are also necessary because the Bantu have asked us please to keep the Progressive Party out of their towns. Regulations to that end will also be framed therefore. They do not want the Progressive Party in these towns.

The hon. member for Drakensberg (Mr. S. M. van Niekerk) referred to the question of boundaries. I have already replied to that. The hon. member for Mayfair (Mr. De Jager) talked about the coffee carts. The hon. the Deputy Minister is fully acquainted with the position in that regard and I leave it to him to reply to the hon. member. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Captain Henwood) made a bitter attack upon the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) (Mr. Odell). He said that the National Party had done nothing in Pietermaritzburg and had simply thwarted development. Sir, that is not correct. They wanted to convert Mbabi Township into a location and the Bantu wanted to have nothing to do with it. The co-operation which was subsequently given to us by the Pietermaritzburg City Council, thanks to the lead given by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) (Mr. Odell), has now made it possible for Imbali to be converted into a fine Bantu town, for which the Bantu are grateful to us. Sir, I wish you could have seen the looks of gratitude on their faces when I turned over the first sod there. This place is going to develop into a fine Bantu township. No wonder industrialists feel attracted to it immediately. The hon. member proudly referred to another location near to the city, but it is situated entirely wrongly; it is not such a wonderful township. I went through it myself. The hon. member says that it is the finest place in the whole of Africa, but I wonder which parts of Africa he has visited. No, the fact of the matter is that sooner or later this location will have to go—I think sooner rather than later —and I know that we will have the co-operation of the City Council. But the City Council of Pietermaritzburg, perhaps under the influence of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District), never wanted to co-operate with us in the past. They wanted to have Cato Manors only, until one fine day when the City Council approached me and said that this state of affairs could no longer continue and that we must help them. The entire planning of Pietermaritzburg is engaging our attention at the present time and there is very fine cooperation between the City Council and my Department. The whole area is being planned, and here I want to convey a special word of thanks to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) for the role that he played in creating more order in Pietermaritzburg and in converting Imbali into the model town that it ought to be. Sir, Pietermaritzburg is one of the jewels of Natal but the old Cato Manor policy was ruining it. No wonder industrialists were hesitant to go there. To-day, however, the industrialist are beginning to take an interest and I am convinced that what we are doing in the present time will make an even greater jewel of Pietermaritzburg than it has been in the past. I hope that the hon. member will also co-operate in this regard instead of making sneering remarks.

The hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) again came with the old refrain that we had frequently changed our policy and that the numbers of Blacks in the White area were increasing, when in point of fact his own party’s policy is designed to bring more Blacks into the White area. Sir, I want to conclude by saying this: The accusation is often made against us that our policy is one of injustice towards the Bantu, and one of the things referred to in this connection is this Act that we are going to apply as from the 1st July, in terms of which only one servant will be permitted to sleep in the backyard. I was motivated in this connection by two considerations, amongst other things. The first is that many of our Bantu servants are not given the opportunity to participate in the community life of their own people. They have to give up all their time to their employers, who want everything to be as comfortable as possible for them, and many of whom begrudge their servants the time to make social contacts with their own people. And do you know who these people are? They are mostly people like the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman), people who have such a great deal to say about the rights of the Bantu. I have been told by some of her servants that she is very hard on them, and that has also been my experience in connection with the majority of these people who have so much to say about the Bantu.

Do you listen to the stories of servants?

Oh yes, I listen to everybody who has anything to tell me; I have to keep my ears open; we must take notice of those things. I can say that most of my own people do not make themselves guilty of this sort of thing. But I was motivated by a second important consideration. Hon. members will be surprised if they go and look at these servants’ rooms to see the filthy hovels in which many of these people are accommodated. I think it is scandalous. [Interjection.] This happens mostly in Johannesburg and in some of the most select areas. [Interjection.] I think I should also go and have a look at the home of the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel.) When a man talks the way he does, then he must be guilty. [Laughter.] This step is being taken in the interests of the health and the happiness of the Bantu. Sir, it has been said here that we are afraid of the Bantu. No, we are not afraid of the Bantu. We grew up with them. But just as we demand a future for ourselves, so we want to create a future for the Bantu. That is why these things are necessary. It is for these reasons that we are applying this policy. It will require many sacrifices, but I want to conclude by saying that l am convinced in my heart of hearts that the policy of separate development of the Nationalist Party is gaining general support in South Africa. Some time ago a few foreign Bantu paid a visit to this country, and I just want to quote what one of them, a person who is not always favourably disposed towards South Africa, wrote to a friend of his. I got hold of a copy of this letter. This is an educated person who has travelled through the whole of Africa and the whole world, but he says that the country which made the greatest impression upon him was South Africa. Another very nice thing that he says is that of all the countries that he has visited there is no country where he received as much courtesy and friendliness from the White man as he did in South Africa. Sir, that is something which stands to the credit of South Africa. But this was not a case of cheap flattery. But there is another nice thing that he said finally and that is that the benefits of science have been brought to people in every part of Africa but that there is no country in which the benefits of science have been brought to the people on such a large scale as it has been done by the White man in South Africa, with this difference, however, that in all the other territories in Africa, the advent of science has resulted in the Bantu losing their souls but that that has not happened to the Bantu in South Africa.

The hon. the Minister could not resist the temptation to talk a little politics. He said that it was the policy of the United Party to make South Africa even blacker. But is it not we who say we want to retain White leadership over the whole of South Africa? Was it not we who advocated an immigration policy to make South Africa whiter, and is it not we who want to pay family allowances to encourage our people to keep South Africa whiter? Was it not the Minister and his party who were forced to say that they would keep White South Africa white, but that they would abandon their authority over the rest of the country? How can the hon. member make such a statement?

Then he went further and said that we had referred sneeringly to the Tomlinson Report. We spoke sneeringly about the White Paper which was issued, and we were justified in doing so, because the hon. the Minister was not able to apply it. We warned him at the time that he would not be able to apply it; that he could not keep up the tempo, and we were correct. Then the hon. member said that we were not in favour of influx control. Sir, should he say something like that? He knows very well that it is we who put that legislation on the Statute Book. He knows of the difficulties with which we had to cope. He says it took him 17 years to remedy matters. Then why should he complain if we could not remedy it within three years after the war? I concede that he did much for housing, but he should not tell the story here that we were not in favour of influx control.

Then the hon. gentleman makes a further allegation. He says the policy of the National Party in regard to Bantu affairs has remained unaltered since 1948. Sir, just think of what Dr. Tomlinson recommended in regard to the relations between the developed reserves and White South Africa, and just think of that letter Dr. Malan wrote to that Canadian clergyman who asked him what that relationship would be, and how he spoke about a terrible relationship, and how they referred in the Tomlinson Report to the provinces of the Central Government; and remember what Mr. Strijdom said about domination and supremacy. But now we hear about sovereign independence, and still the hon. member says there has been no change in their policy. Then he reproaches us for not having been willing as a party to purchase more land for the Bantu in terms of the 1936 Act. He knows very well that what our congress decided was that we would stand by the 1936 Act, and that we were prepared to buy any land promised in terms of that Act, but that we were not prepared to hand it over to a Bantustan which would become sovereignly independent. Who violated the policy? The Minister and his party. It is they who violated that promise. Circumstances have changed completely.

But now we come to the statements I made and which the hon. member again tried to controvert. I said, firstly, that a projection or prediction had been made by certain professors, based on certain conditions, that by the year 1978 or 1976 there would be increasingly fewer Bantu in the White areas, and that they would begin flowing back to the reserves. I pointed out that the Minister and his Government had not fulfilled those conditions, and I asked him how, that being the position, he could still say that the turning point would come and that there would be a swing in the opposite direction by 1978. I received no reply to that. The Minister spoke about the possibility of wars breaking out and the difficulty in making predictions. I agree with him. But I am going to make a prediction now, and that is that he will never make that stream flow in the opposite direction.

Your predictions are always wrong.

This one is going to be correct, because the hon. the Minister cannot bring a vestige of proof as to why we should accept that date. We reminded the hon. gentleman that a prediction was made by the Tomlinson Commission itself, and according to that prediction the number of Bantu in the White area would still increase by the year 2000 and even thereafter.

He did not read that part of the report.

Did he not sign the report?

I pointed out how, according to this graph, the numbers would still increase. There is no chance of a turning point in 1976. On what is this statement based that there will be a turning point in the year 1976?

1978.

Yes, 1978. The hon. the Minister reproached me for having blamed him because the Reserves are not being developed fast enough, and he mentioned the names of people who said that surprising development had taken place there. What I said, and say again, is that this development is not taking place at the tempo recommended by the Tomlinson Commission itself. Nor is it taking place at the tempo expected by the professors who made the first projection, and in view of the fact that the development is not taking place at that tempo the Minister has no right to talk about 1976 or 1978 because the conditions in terms of which that prediction was made were not fulfilled by the Minister and his Government.

Then the hon. the Minister referred to the 80,000 Natives for whom work must be provided every year, and he said that I did not take into consideration what would happen in the border industries. Sir, what has happened in regard to the border industries? According to the Tomlinson Report, Dr. Tomlinson expected that in the first ten years opportunities for employment in border industries would have to be provided every year for 30,000 Bantu. How much employment was provided in the first ten years after that report was published? I understand that altogether employment was provided for 10,000. I claimed that there were many more to-day as the result of changing the borders of the reserves, and then he spoke about places like Umlazi in Durban and things of that nature, but hitherto approximately 10,000 new jobs have been provided. In other words, in ten years the Government has done the work which Tomlinson expected them to do in four months, and not only in the first four months but every four months of those ten years. How can they claim, and how can they tell the people and expect the public to believe it, that by the year 1978 there will be a turning point and that the stream will then flow back to the reserves? Sir, it is nothing else but propaganda; they have no scientific proof for it, and anybody who still alleges it after this debate to-day runs the risk of being accused of making propaganda, because there is not a vestige of proof that this will happen.

I want to reply to a few questions put by the hon. members, but before doing so I want to warn the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that he should not boast so much about the influx control applied in their time, years ago. There was such a thing as influx control; we admit that. There may also have been a good Act, but there was a very bad Government to apply it; that is the unfortunate part of it. I just want to give one example of the sort of influx control they had in their time, and that is the case of Pretoria, which is a very good example. In 1946, in Pretoria, in terms of the machinery then existing for influx control, 10,000 to 11,000 permits per month were granted to Bantu to go and seek work in that area, and the permits were granted by the Bantu Affairs Commissioner, i.e. by the Department and the Government, whereas more than 9,000 of those people could not be placed in employment. In other words, they did not provide employment for even a tenth of the Bantu to whom they issued permits. Is that influx control? There was no balance at all between the demand and the supply of workers. In other words, every single Bantu who wanted to go to the city was given a permit to seek work. In addition it should be remembered that there was no such thing as a system of labour bureaux; in other words, there was no organized assistance given by the Deparment or by the local authority to find work for those people. The hon. member should rather admit that what influx control there was was very ineffectual, and they should be grateful for the fact that under our regime, after 1948, great improvements were made.

I should like to say a few things to the hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Van der Spuy) in regard to compounds and locations in the sky and the formula in Johannesburg. It is true that some time ago we suggested to Johannesburg that they should improve the formula in regard to locations in the sky. It seems to me that the Johannesburg City Council is inclined to introduce it, but they have delayed matters. Unfortunately the hostels required for the Bantu in the places in which they are to be removed from the blocks of flats are not available yet, but pressure is being applied to the Johannesburg City Council periodically if necessary. I am glad that criticism has been voiced here in the House, and I hope that the Johannesburg City Council will be able to apply the new formula sooner. In regard to compounds, there are several in Johannesburg which have recently been closed, during the last few years, and the numbers of Bantu in the others have been considerably reduced. It is unfortunately true that we cannot close all compounds because some of them house essential workers who should be easily accessible in order to perform the necessary municipal services. But the process of improving the previous position is continuing. In this regard there is still a very delicate problem in regard to the compounds at Waterval, but in that regard also I hope that we will soon have good news in regard to the clearing up of that compound.

Then the hon. member referred to the position in a place like Cape Town in regard to locations in the sky. He is quite correct. I have almost always lived in Sea Point during the sessions of Parliament and I have caused surveys to be made of a number of flats in Sea Point, and I also inquired from the City Council of Cape Town what the position was because, as hon. members know, the power was delegated to them by the Minister to control these locations in the sky. They do not have a very efficient formula, but the Cape Town City Council has a modus operandi. I think that method can be improved, but I want to say that the position in regard to non-Whites living on the premises in flat buildings is made very difficult by the presence of Coloureds who also live there. I was given figures in regard to eight or ten blocks of flats where our own officials made surveys, and it appears that many Coloureds live there as servants in their separate quarters than Bantu. There is of course no control over Coloureds who live in there, whereas there is control over the Bantu.

The hon. member for Peitermaritzburg (District) (Captain Henwood) repeated his speech of last year in connection with farm labour in the Pietermaritzburg district and in Natal in general. The hon. member made a very great mistake in talking about influx control centres which he says we promised to set up under last year’s Bill in the various distracts in order to help the farmers to get labour. There is no such thing in that Bill. We discussed it at length last year. [Interjections.] I wrote down the hon. member’s exact words.

He meant labour bureau.

Yes, I will assist the hon. member if the hon. member will just give me an opportunity; I think I can do it better than that hon. member can. The position of the farmers in any district in South Africa is that they must go to the district labour bureaux …

They do not operate.

No, they are in operation. In the Natal districts there is a district labour bureau in every office where there is a Bantu Affairs Commissioner, and where there is no Bantu Affairs Commissioner, it is in the office of the local magistrate who acts as Bantu Affairs Commissioner.

Will the hon. the Minister tell me whether in the magisterial districts which I mentioned they had a panel of one male Bantu available in the last six months. That is my challenge. I can tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that I went myself and there was not one available.

I will reply to that point in a moment. Let us first get clarity on this expression used by the hon. member. Perhaps he confused the idea of district labour bureaux with the idea of aid centres, which we did discuss last year.

No.

Well, if he did not confuse the two, then the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) was wrong. The aid centre is an optional thing which may be introduced especially in towns and cities where they are necessary, but there is a district labour bureau in the office of every Bantu Affairs Commissioner. The hon. member wants to know from me why there is not a panel of unemployed Bantu available for farmers to get their labour. But, Sir, if there are no unemployed Bantu how on earth can we create a panel?

But you told us that we must get rid of our labour tenants on the farms and that you would give us labour.

I said last year and I repeat that the labour tenant system must be transformed into a permanent labour system; that the farmers must change the labour tenant system into a system or ordinary labourers who are employed over the whole year. That is what I said; I did not say that farmers must do away with the labour tenant system and then be without labour.

The hon. member also referred to lorries coming in from the city of Durban to take away farm labourers. I do not know whether that is correct, but that was how he put it. The point I want to make is that if farm labourers are being drawn away from that area and if they go to Durban, then there must be reasons for that. The hon. member must appreciate that those lorries which come from Durban, as he said, do not simply come there without authority; they come there with permits to recruit labour there and if they recruit labour there in competition with the farmers then there must be a very good reason for it. The hon. member should go into the various possibilities and see what the reasons are. There is the question of wages and many other things that come into the picture. The labour bureaux cannot force a Bantu to go to a certain farmer’s farm to take up employment. It cannot be allowed under the law; it is impossible. If the farmers do go to our Department and call in their advice and assistance, the departmental officials will always be at their disposal, but if there are no Bantu available to work on these farms we cannot make them. The hon. the Minister has already referred to the request of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) in connection with Sobantu, the urban Bantu township near Peitermaritzburg. The position is that there is still a loan on that Bantu township but I am glad that the hon. member has raised the point because I think he is absolutely correct. It is in line with our policy that that Bantu residential area should in due course be transferred to Imbali which will be a proper Bantu town in the Bantu homeland area. We shall have to take practical problems into consideration. It may not happen shortly but I think it is a very good proposition to be considered and which should also be carried into effect.

*The hon. member for Mayfair raised the question of the coffee carts in Johannesburg. I can only say that, as he himself admitted, the number of these carts has been appreciably reduced. That is exclusively due to the fact that the police took very effective steps, using every possible means available to them. The Johannesburg City Council is now in the position, in terms of the Act passed last year, to ask the Minister to delegate powers to it in order o control that position in the whole of the urban area, because in the north-eastern areas, in the direction of Alexandra and also in the direction of the hon. member’s constituency, Mayfair, and in the direction of Langlaagte there are still places where these coffee carts which ought not to be there are encountered. The Department, however, informs me that the Johannesburg City Council has made a move in regard to the matter during the last few weeks. The fact that they have made a move shows that there is life and we will do everything in our power to stimulate that life so that they will energetically perform their duties in that respect. [Time limit.]

If one thing has become clear from this debate, Sir, it is that the Government is doing its best at this stage to run away from the basic philosophy on which its policy is based. I think if there is one thing the Government dare not deny it is the fact that their policy was originally formulated on the basis that the number of Bantu in so-called White South Africa must decrease at all costs. Where the hon. the Deputy Minister told us this afternoon how much poorer the United Party of the day exercised influx control than this Government, he was actually overlooking the crux of the matter. He cannot compare the two systems of influx control but he must ask himself to what extent his influx control has succeeded in giving effect to his policy. And the reply to that, Sir, is “nil”.

Nonsense!

Throughout this debate the Government has tried to run away from the very essence of the matter, namely, that if their policy is to succeed the number of Bantu must decrease. The first difficulty arose with this date of 1978. I think it was the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) who said we should not judge at this stage whether the policy had succeeded or not but that we should wait till 1978 before we decided. Must the people wait till then to see whether the Government has made a success or a failure of the whole matter? Surely that is no way to argue. Hon. members opposite may say they cannot prove that it has succeeded and that I cannot prove that it has not succeeded but what kind of a policy is it if you have to wait for 25 years before you can tell whether it is going to succeed? As the facts confront us today they unquestionably indicate that the National Party Government is not able to put a stop to the flow of Bantu.

Secondly their philosophy unquestionably indicates that numbers form the very basis of their policy; the numbers must decrease. Surely it is ridiculous to say that whether it is 5,000 or 5,000,000 makes no difference as long as the policy is right.

I am sorry the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) is not here. He was the member who said that after years of administrative preparatory work the Nationalist Party Government had now reached a stage where their policy could be tested against numbers; the number of Black people who were returning, the number of White people who were here and the ration between the two. He also said that in 1962. Now that we are applying this yardstick the Government runs away. They are afraid of the facts. Not one hon. member on that side of the House has got up this afternoon and tried to refute the arguments advanced by my Leader. When he told them that their entire case was based on an absurdity, that the date 1978 presupposed compliance with certain conditions which the Government could not comply with and did not want to comply with, what was their reply? I must admit that I always enjoy listening to the hon. the Minister but he did not deal with one of the arguments advanced by this side of the House. I enjoyed his story; I admire his ability of dramatizing the most simple little fact but the hon. the Minister did not deal with one cardinal point raised by my hon. Leader. Sir, can one argue in a vacuum? It is not only a question of not sending the Bantu back; it is a question of unless the Government does so its policy cannot succeed. And in that case the hon. the Minister is gambling with the future of the White man in South Africa. The Government tell us this is the policy whereby they want to keep the White man white. We are saying to the Government that this policy is not working. Really, Mr. Chairman, I have always believed that the Nationalist Party Government was a government which could look at the world through spectacles of realism. They have proved during this debate that they are as scared of the facts of South Africa as the Devil of holy water. They consistently avoid those facts.

The hon. the Deputy Minister advanced the interesting argument this morning that I had revealed the weakness of the United Party. He said we were not concerned about numbers, that the Government was not concerned about numbers either, but that it was a question of how you regarded the matter. If you looked at the Bantu through certain spectacles they did not constitute a danger. If you put on the spectacles of the Nationalist Party, if you approached the matter the way they did, it was not necessary for you to do anything; let the Bantu come because they did not constitute a danger. But look at the position through United Party spectacles and you are immediately in difficulty. The hon. the Deputy Minister says the Bantu come here but that they do not enjoy any rights; that it is a privilege to come here. But when the Bantu come here under United Party policy it is a right they have to come which they are exercising! Under their policy it is a privilege; under our policy it is a right! Surely that is to try to charm a problem away. How can the Government say they are solving a problem when they say to 10,000,000 or 12,000,000 people: “We say you must do this”? They are not telling the Bantu to do what they, the Bantu, want to do. The hon. the Deputy Minister loses sight of the fact that the Bantu may say: “The way I see the position is that the fact that I supply labour here entitled me to certain rights”. What will the hon. Minister say to that? The hon. the Deputy Minister says, that as far as the Nationalist Party are concerned, they will always be able to keep the Bantu in check, that they can deny him all rights, even in the White areas, but that the moment the United Party comes into power the Bantu will demand every right and take them if the White man refuses to give them to him.

The hon. member for Ventersdorp asked me how I dared condemn the policy of the Nationalist Party at this stage; he said I should allow them 15 years’ time.

I said nothing of the sort.

We should wait till 1978 before we condemn their policy. That was how it was reported in the Press; I do not want to misquote the hon. member. He said judgment should be given 14 years hence; we must tell them then whether the policy has failed; then we shall see whether the Bantu were returning. In view of the fact that the Nationalist Party have all these years made the public believe that they were the party who wanted to and could save the White man, I never thought we would live to see the day in this hon. House when only a few members opposite would take part in the debate, when the hon. the Minister would treat us to a dramatic presentation and when the other hon. members opposite would run away from the basic facts of their own policy. I would never have dreamt that, Sir.

We did not.

The attempt made by that hon. member this afternoon was a feeble attempt; he made a poor attempt to attack our policy. He dare not say anything about his own policy; only a few hon. members opposite dare say anything about their own policy because when they open their mouths they fall into a trap. They dare not talk about their own policy because they do not know what it is. They must not ask us what our policy is; they do not know what their own policy is. That is their difficulty. Those hon. members have to be very careful when the hon. the Prime Minister is not here, when the hon. the Minister and the Deputy Minister are not here. Only a few of them speak then; the rest remain as silent as the grave. They are afraid of this policy of theirs.

You are talking nonsense.

The hon. member says I am talking nonsense. We shall get another opportunity on Monday and then he must get up. The fact of the matter is this, Sir: Hon. members opposite are afraid to state their case in this House but outside this House everyone states the policy of the Nationalist Party as he wants to. They make use of all three of their policies to which the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) has referred.

Business interrupted to report progress.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.